| draft-dhody-pce-stateful-pce-auto-bandwidth-06.txt | rfc8733.txt | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PCE Working Group D. Dhody | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) D. Dhody, Ed. | |||
| Internet-Draft U. Palle | Request for Comments: 8733 Huawei Technologies | |||
| Intended status: Standards Track Huawei Technologies | Category: Standards Track R. Gandhi, Ed. | |||
| Expires: March 31, 2016 R. Singh | ISSN: 2070-1721 Cisco Systems, Inc. | |||
| Juniper Networks | U. Palle | |||
| R. Gandhi | R. Singh | |||
| Cisco Systems, Inc. | Individual Contributor | |||
| L. Fang | L. Fang | |||
| Microsoft | Expedia Group, Inc. | |||
| September 29, 2015 | February 2020 | |||
| PCEP Extensions for MPLS-TE LSP Automatic Bandwidth Adjustment with | Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for | |||
| MPLS-TE Label Switched Path (LSP) Auto-Bandwidth Adjustment with | ||||
| Stateful PCE | Stateful PCE | |||
| draft-dhody-pce-stateful-pce-auto-bandwidth-06 | ||||
| Abstract | Abstract | |||
| The Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) provides | The Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) provides | |||
| mechanisms for Path Computation Elements (PCEs) to perform path | mechanisms for Path Computation Elements (PCEs) to perform path | |||
| computations in response to Path Computation Clients (PCCs) requests. | computations in response to Path Computation Client (PCC) requests. | |||
| The stateful PCE extensions allow stateful control of Multi-Protocol | Stateful PCE extensions allow stateful control of MPLS-TE Label | |||
| Label Switching (MPLS) Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths (TE | Switched Paths (LSPs) using PCEP. | |||
| LSPs) via PCEP. | ||||
| This document describes automatic bandwidth adjustment of such LSPs | ||||
| when employing an Active Stateful PCE. In one of the models | ||||
| described, PCC computes the bandwidth to be adjusted and informs the | ||||
| PCE whereas in the second model, PCC reports the real-time bandwidth | ||||
| usage to a PCE and the PCE computes the adjustment bandwidth. | ||||
| This document also describes automatic bandwidth adjustment for | The auto-bandwidth feature allows automatic and dynamic adjustment of | |||
| stateful PCE-initiated LSPs. | the TE LSP bandwidth reservation based on the volume of traffic | |||
| flowing through the LSP. This document describes PCEP extensions for | ||||
| auto-bandwidth adjustment when employing an active stateful PCE for | ||||
| both PCE-initiated and PCC-initiated LSPs. | ||||
| Status of This Memo | Status of This Memo | |||
| This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the | This is an Internet Standards Track document. | |||
| provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. | ||||
| Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering | This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force | |||
| Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute | (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has | |||
| working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- | received public review and has been approved for publication by the | |||
| Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. | Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on | |||
| Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841. | ||||
| Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months | Information about the current status of this document, any errata, | |||
| and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any | and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at | |||
| time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference | https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8733. | |||
| material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." | ||||
| Copyright Notice | Copyright Notice | |||
| Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the | Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the | |||
| document authors. All rights reserved. | document authors. All rights reserved. | |||
| This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal | This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal | |||
| Provisions Relating to IETF Documents | Provisions Relating to IETF Documents | |||
| (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of | (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of | |||
| publication of this document. Please review these documents | publication of this document. Please review these documents | |||
| carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect | carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect | |||
| to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must | to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must | |||
| include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of | include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of | |||
| the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as | the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as | |||
| described in the Simplified BSD License. | described in the Simplified BSD License. | |||
| Table of Contents | Table of Contents | |||
| 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 | 1. Introduction | |||
| 2. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 | 2. Conventions Used in This Document | |||
| 2.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 | 2.1. Requirements Language | |||
| 2.2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 | 2.2. Abbreviations | |||
| 3. Requirements for PCEP Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 | 2.3. Terminology | |||
| 4. Architectural Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 | 3. Requirements for PCEP Extensions | |||
| 4.1. Auto-Bandwidth Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 | 4. Architectural Overview | |||
| 4.2. Theory of Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 | 4.1. Auto-Bandwidth Overview | |||
| 4.3. Scaling Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 | 4.2. Auto-Bandwidth Theory of Operation | |||
| 5. Extensions to the PCEP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 | 4.3. Scaling Considerations | |||
| 5.1. AUTO-BANDWIDTH-ATTRIBUTE TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 | 5. PCEP Extensions | |||
| 5.1.1. Sample-Interval sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 | 5.1. Capability Advertisement | |||
| 5.1.2. Adjustment-Interval sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 | 5.1.1. AUTO-BANDWIDTH-CAPABILITY TLV | |||
| 5.1.3. Adjustment Threshold . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 | 5.2. AUTO-BANDWIDTH-ATTRIBUTES TLV | |||
| 5.1.3.1. Adjustment-Threshold sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . 14 | 5.2.1. Sample-Interval Sub-TLV | |||
| 5.1.3.2. Adjustment-Threshold-Percentage sub-TLV . . . . . 14 | 5.2.2. Adjustment-Intervals | |||
| 5.1.4. Minimum and Maximum Bandwidth Values . . . . . . . . . 15 | 5.2.2.1. Adjustment-Interval Sub-TLV | |||
| 5.1.4.1. Minimum-Bandwidth sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 | 5.2.2.2. Down-Adjustment-Interval Sub-TLV | |||
| 5.1.4.2. Maximum-Bandwidth sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 | 5.2.3. Adjustment-Thresholds | |||
| 5.1.5. Overflow and Underflow Condition . . . . . . . . . . . 16 | 5.2.3.1. Adjustment-Threshold Sub-TLV | |||
| 5.1.5.1. Overflow-Threshold sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 | 5.2.3.2. Adjustment-Threshold-Percentage Sub-TLV | |||
| 5.1.5.2. Overflow-Threshold-Percentage sub-TLV . . . . . . 17 | 5.2.3.3. Down-Adjustment-Threshold Sub-TLV | |||
| 5.1.5.3. Underflow-Threshold sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . 17 | 5.2.3.4. Down-Adjustment-Threshold-Percentage Sub-TLV | |||
| 5.1.5.4. Underflow-Threshold-Percentage sub-TLV . . . . . . 18 | 5.2.4. Minimum and Maximum-Bandwidth Values | |||
| 5.2. BANDWIDTH-USAGE-ATTRIBUTE TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 | 5.2.4.1. Minimum-Bandwidth Sub-TLV | |||
| 5.2.1. Bandwidth-Usage-Report-Interval sub-TLV . . . . . . . 20 | 5.2.4.2. Maximum-Bandwidth Sub-TLV | |||
| 5.2.2. Bandwidth-Usage-Report-Threshold sub-TLV . . . . . . . 20 | 5.2.5. Overflow and Underflow Conditions | |||
| 5.2.3. Bandwidth-Usage-Report-Threshold-Percentage sub-TLV . 21 | 5.2.5.1. Overflow-Threshold Sub-TLV | |||
| 5.2.4. Bandwidth-Usage-Report-Flow-Threshold sub-TLV . . . . 21 | 5.2.5.2. Overflow-Threshold-Percentage Sub-TLV | |||
| 5.2.5. Bandwidth-Usage-Report-Flow-Threshold-Percent | 5.2.5.3. Underflow-Threshold Sub-TLV | |||
| sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 | 5.2.5.4. Underflow-Threshold-Percentage Sub-TLV | |||
| 5.3. BANDWIDTH Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 | 5.3. BANDWIDTH Object | |||
| 5.3.1. Auto-Bandwidth Adjusted Bandwidth . . . . . . . . . . 23 | 5.4. The PCInitiate Message | |||
| 5.3.2. Bandwidth-Usage Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 | 5.5. The PCUpd Message | |||
| 5.4. The PCRpt Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 | 5.6. The PCRpt Message | |||
| 5.5. The PCInitiate Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 | 5.7. The PCNtf Message | |||
| 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 | 6. Manageability Considerations | |||
| 7. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 | 6.1. Control of Function and Policy | |||
| 7.1. Control of Function and Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 | 6.2. Information and Data Models | |||
| 7.2. Information and Data Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 | 6.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring | |||
| 7.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 | 6.4. Verifying Correct Operations | |||
| 7.4. Verify Correct Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 | 6.5. Requirements for Other Protocols | |||
| 7.5. Requirements On Other Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 | 6.6. Impact on Network Operations | |||
| 7.6. Impact On Network Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 | 7. Security Considerations | |||
| 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 | 8. IANA Considerations | |||
| 8.1. PCEP TLV Type Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 | 8.1. PCEP TLV Type Indicators | |||
| 8.2. AUTO-BANDWIDTH-ATTRIBUTE Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 | 8.2. AUTO-BANDWIDTH-CAPABILITY TLV Flag Field | |||
| 8.3. BANDWIDTH-USAGE-ATTRIBUTE Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 | 8.3. AUTO-BANDWIDTH-ATTRIBUTES Sub-TLV | |||
| 8.4. BANDWIDTH Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 | 8.4. Error Object | |||
| 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 | 8.5. Notification Object | |||
| 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 | 9. References | |||
| 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 | 9.1. Normative References | |||
| Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 | 9.2. Informative References | |||
| Contributors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 | Acknowledgments | |||
| Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 | Contributors | |||
| Authors' Addresses | ||||
| 1. Introduction | 1. Introduction | |||
| [RFC5440] describes the Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) as a | [RFC5440] describes the Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) as a | |||
| communication mechanism between a Path Computation Client (PCC) and a | communication mechanism between a Path Computation Client (PCC) and a | |||
| Path Control Element (PCE), or between PCE and PCE, that enables | Path Computation Element (PCE), or between a PCE and a PCE, that | |||
| computation of Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Traffic | enables computation of MPLS-TE Label Switched Paths (LSPs). | |||
| Engineering Label Switched Paths (TE LSPs). | ||||
| [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] specifies extensions to PCEP to enable | [RFC8231] specifies extensions to PCEP to enable stateful control of | |||
| stateful control of MPLS TE LSPs. It describes two mode of | MPLS-TE LSPs. It describes two modes of operation: passive stateful | |||
| operations - Passive Stateful PCE and Active Stateful PCE. In this | PCE and active stateful PCE. Further, [RFC8281] describes the setup, | |||
| document, the focus is on Active Stateful PCE where LSPs are | maintenance, and teardown of PCE-initiated LSPs for the stateful PCE | |||
| configured at the PCC and control over them is delegated to the PCE. | model. In this document, the focus is on the active stateful PCE, | |||
| Further [I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp] describes the setup, | where the LSPs are controlled by the PCE. | |||
| maintenance and teardown of PCE-initiated LSPs under the stateful PCE | ||||
| model. | ||||
| Over time, based on the varying traffic pattern, an LSP established | Over time, based on the varying traffic pattern, an LSP established | |||
| with certain bandwidth may require to adjust the bandwidth, reserved | with a certain bandwidth may require adjustment of the bandwidth | |||
| in the network automatically. Ingress Label Switch Router (LSR) | reserved in the network dynamically. The head-end Label Switching | |||
| collects the traffic rate at each sample interval to determine the | Router (LSR) monitors the actual bandwidth demand of the established | |||
| bandwidth demand of the LSP. This bandwidth information is then used | LSP and periodically computes new bandwidth. The head-end LSR | |||
| to adjust the LSP bandwidth periodically. This feature is commonly | automatically adjusts the bandwidth reservation of the LSP based on | |||
| referred to as Auto-Bandwidth. | the computed bandwidth. This feature, when available in the head-end | |||
| LSR implementation, is commonly referred to as auto-bandwidth. The | ||||
| auto-bandwidth feature is described in detail in Section 4 of this | ||||
| document. | ||||
| Enabling Auto-Bandwidth feature on an LSP results in the LSP | In the model considered in this document, the PCC (head-end of the | |||
| automatically adjusting its bandwidth reservation based on the actual | LSP) collects the traffic rate samples flowing through the LSP and | |||
| traffic flowing through the LSP. The initial LSP bandwidth can be | calculates the new Adjusted Bandwidth. The PCC reports the | |||
| set to an arbitrary value (including zero), in practice, it can be | calculated bandwidth to be adjusted to the PCE. This is similar to | |||
| operator expected value based on design and planning. Once the LSP | the passive stateful PCE model: while the passive stateful PCE uses a | |||
| is set-up, the LSP monitors the traffic flow and adjusts its | path request/reply mechanism, the active stateful PCE uses a report/ | |||
| bandwidth every adjustment-interval period. The bandwidth adjustment | update mechanism. With a PCE-initiated LSP, the PCC is requested | |||
| uses the make-before-break signaling method so that there is no | during the LSP initiation to monitor and calculate the new Adjusted | |||
| interruption to the traffic flow. The Auto-Bandwidth is described in | Bandwidth. [RFC8051] describes the use case for auto-bandwidth | |||
| detail in Section 4.1. [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce-app] describes the | adjustment for passive and active stateful PCEs. | |||
| use-case for Auto-Bandwidth adjustment for passive and active | ||||
| stateful PCE. | ||||
| In this document, following deployment models are considered for | Another approach would be to send the measured values themselves to | |||
| employing Auto-Bandwidth feature with active stateful PCE. | the PCE, which is considered out of scope for this document. | |||
| o Deployment model 1: PCC to decide adjusted bandwidth: | This document defines the PCEP extensions needed to support an auto- | |||
| bandwidth feature in an active stateful PCE model where the LSP | ||||
| bandwidth to be adjusted is calculated on the PCC (head-end of the | ||||
| LSP). The use of PCE to calculate the bandwidth to be adjusted is | ||||
| out of scope of this document. | ||||
| * In this model, the PCC (head-end of the LSP) monitors and | 2. Conventions Used in This Document | |||
| calculates the new adjusted bandwidth. The PCC reports the | ||||
| calculated bandwidth to be adjusted to the PCE. | ||||
| * This approach would be similar to passive stateful PCE model, | 2.1. Requirements Language | |||
| while the passive stateful PCE uses path request/reply | ||||
| mechanism, the active stateful PCE uses report/update mechanism | ||||
| to adjust the LSP bandwidth. | ||||
| * For PCE-initiated LSP, the PCC is requested during the LSP | The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", | |||
| initiation to monitor and calculate the new adjusted bandwidth. | "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and | |||
| "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in | ||||
| BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all | ||||
| capitals, as shown here. | ||||
| o Deployment model 2: PCE to decide adjusted bandwidth: | 2.2. Abbreviations | |||
| * In this model, the PCE calculates the new adjusted bandwidth | PCC: Path Computation Client | |||
| for the LSP. | ||||
| * Active stateful PCE can use information such as historical | PCE: Path Computation Element | |||
| trending data, application-specific information about expected | ||||
| demands and central policy information along with real-time | ||||
| bandwidth usage to make smarter bandwidth adjustment to the | ||||
| delegated LSPs. Since the LSP has delegated control to the | ||||
| PCE, it is inherently suited that it should be the stateful PCE | ||||
| that decides the bandwidth adjustments. | ||||
| * For PCE-initiated LSP, the PCC is requested during initiation, | PCEP: Path Computation Element Communication Protocol | |||
| to monitor and report the real-time bandwidth usage. | ||||
| * This model does not exclude use of any other mechanism employed | TE: Traffic Engineering | |||
| by stateful PCE to learn real-time bandwidth usage information. | ||||
| But at the same time, using the same protocol (PCEP in this | ||||
| case) for updating and reporting the adjustment parameters as | ||||
| well as to learn real-time bandwidth usage is operationally | ||||
| beneficial. | ||||
| This document defines extensions needed to support Auto-Bandwidth | LSP: Label Switched Path | |||
| feature on the LSPs in a active stateful PCE model using PCEP. | ||||
| 2. Conventions Used in This Document | 2.3. Terminology | |||
| 2.1. Requirements Language | The reader is assumed to be familiar with the terminology defined in | |||
| [RFC5440], [RFC8231], and [RFC8281]. | ||||
| The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", | In this document, the PCC is considered to be the head-end LSR of the | |||
| "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this | LSP. Other types of PCCs are not in scope. | |||
| document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. | ||||
| 2.2. Terminology | The following auto-bandwidth terminology is defined in this document. | |||
| The following terminology is used in this document. | Maximum Average Bandwidth (MaxAvgBw): The maximum average bandwidth | |||
| represents the current 'measured' traffic bandwidth demand of the | ||||
| LSP during a time interval. This is the maximum value of the | ||||
| traffic bandwidth rate samples (Bandwidth-Samples) in a given time | ||||
| interval. | ||||
| Active Stateful PCE: PCE that uses tunnel state information learned | Adjusted Bandwidth: This is the auto-bandwidth 'computed' bandwidth | |||
| from PCCs to optimize path computations. Additionally, it | that is used to adjust the bandwidth reservation of the LSP. | |||
| actively updates tunnel parameters in those PCCs that delegated | ||||
| control over their tunnels to the PCE. | ||||
| Delegation: An operation to grant a PCE temporary rights to modify a | Sample-Interval: The periodic time interval at which the measured | |||
| subset of tunnel parameters on one or more PCC's tunnels. Tunnels | traffic rate of the LSP is collected as a Bandwidth-Sample. | |||
| are delegated from a PCC to a PCE. | ||||
| PCC: Path Computation Client. Any client application requesting a | Bandwidth-Sample: The Bandwidth-Sample of the measured traffic rate | |||
| path computation to be performed by a Path Computation Element. | of the LSP collected at every Sample-Interval. | |||
| PCE: Path Computation Element. An entity (component, application, | Maximum-Bandwidth: The Maximum-Bandwidth that can be reserved for | |||
| or network node) that is capable of computing a network path or | the LSP. | |||
| route based on a network graph and applying computational | ||||
| constraints. | ||||
| TE LSP: Traffic Engineering Label Switched Path. | Minimum-Bandwidth: The Minimum-Bandwidth that can be reserved for | |||
| the LSP. | ||||
| Note the Auto-Bandwidth feature specific terms defined in Section | Up-Adjustment-Interval: The periodic time interval at which the | |||
| 4.1. | bandwidth adjustment should be made using the MaxAvgBw when | |||
| MaxAvgBw is greater than the current bandwidth reservation of the | ||||
| LSP. | ||||
| 3. Requirements for PCEP Extensions | Down-Adjustment-Interval: The periodic time interval at which the | |||
| bandwidth adjustment should be made using the MaxAvgBw when | ||||
| MaxAvgBw is less than the current bandwidth reservation of the | ||||
| LSP. | ||||
| As discussed in Section 1, there are two deployment models considered | Up-Adjustment-Threshold: This parameter is used to decide when the | |||
| in this document for automatic bandwidth adjustments in case of | LSP bandwidth should be adjusted. If the percentage or absolute | |||
| active stateful PCE. In the model 1, where PCC decides the adjusted | difference between the current MaxAvgBw and the current bandwidth | |||
| bandwidth, PCC reports the new adjusted bandwidth and an active | reservation is greater than or equal to the threshold value, the | |||
| stateful PCE updates the bandwidth of a delegated LSP via existing | LSP bandwidth is adjusted (upsized) to the current bandwidth | |||
| mechanisms defined in [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce]. PCEP extensions | demand (Adjusted Bandwidth) at the Up-Adjustment-Interval expiry. | |||
| required for both models are summarized in the following table. | ||||
| +-------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Down-Adjustment-Threshold: This parameter is used to decide when the | |||
| | Model 1: PCC decides adjusted BW | | LSP bandwidth should be adjusted. If the percentage or absolute | |||
| +---------------------------------+---------------------------------+ | difference between the current bandwidth reservation and the | |||
| | PCC Initiated | PCE Initiated | | current MaxAvgBw is greater than or equal to the threshold value, | |||
| +---------------------------------+---------------------------------+ | the LSP bandwidth is adjusted (downsized) to the current bandwidth | |||
| | | | | demand (Adjusted Bandwidth) at the Down-Adjustment-Interval | |||
| | PCC monitors the traffic | At the time of initiation, | | expiry. | |||
| | and reports the calculated | PCE request PCC to monitor | | ||||
| | bandwidth to be adjusted | the traffic and report the | | ||||
| | to the PCE. | calculated bandwidth to be | | ||||
| | | adjusted to the PCE. | | ||||
| | | | | ||||
| | No new extensions are needed. | Extension is needed for PCE | | ||||
| | | to pass on the adjustment | | ||||
| | | parameters at the time of | | ||||
| | | Initiation. | | ||||
| | | | | ||||
| | Optionally AUTO-BANDWIDTH- | Refer the AUTO-BANDWIDTH- | | ||||
| | ATTRIBUTE TLV can be used | ATTRIBUTE TLV (and sub-TLVs | | ||||
| | to identify the LSP with | e.g. Adjustment-Interval, | | ||||
| | Auto-Bandwidth Feature | Minimum-Bandwidth) in | | ||||
| | enabled. | Section 5.1. | | ||||
| | | | | ||||
| +---------------------------------+---------------------------------+ | ||||
| +-------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Overflow-Count: This parameter is used to decide when the LSP | |||
| | Model 2: PCC reports bandwidth-usage, PCE decides adjusted BW | | bandwidth should be adjusted when there is a sudden increase in | |||
| +---------------------------------+---------------------------------+ | traffic demand. This value indicates how many times, | |||
| | PCC Initiated | PCE Initiated | | consecutively, that the percentage or absolute difference between | |||
| +---------------------------------+---------------------------------+ | the current MaxAvgBw and the current bandwidth reservation of the | |||
| | | | | LSP needs to be greater than or equal to the Overflow-Threshold | |||
| | PCC monitors bandwidth usage | At the time of initiation, | | value in order to meet the overflow condition. | |||
| | and reports the real-time | PCE request PCC to monitor | | ||||
| | bandwidth usage to the PCE. | the traffic and reports the | | ||||
| | It is PCE that decides the | real-time bandwidth usage to | | ||||
| | calculated bandwidth to be | the PCE. It is PCE that decides| | ||||
| | adjusted and updates the | the calculated bandwidth to | | ||||
| | LSP accordingly. | be adjusted and updates the | | ||||
| | | LSP accordingly. | | ||||
| | | | | ||||
| | Extension is needed for | Extension is needed for PCE | | ||||
| | PCC to pass on the | to pass on the real-time | | ||||
| | adjustment parameters at | bandwidth usage reporting | | ||||
| | the time of delegation to | parameters at the time of | | ||||
| | PCE. | Initiation. | | ||||
| | | | | ||||
| | Refer the AUTO-BANDWIDTH- | Refer the BANDWIDTH-USAGE- | | ||||
| | ATTRIBUTE TLV (and sub- | ATTRIBUTE TLV (and sub-TLVs | | ||||
| | TLVs e.g. Adjustment- | e.g. Bandwidth-Usage-Report- | | ||||
| | Threshold) in Section 5.1. | Interval, Bandwidth-Usage- | | ||||
| | | Report-Threshold) in Section | | ||||
| | | 5.2. | | ||||
| | | | | ||||
| | Further extension to | Further extension to report | | ||||
| | report the bandwidth-usage | the bandwidth-usage to | | ||||
| | to PCE are also | PCE are also needed (Refer | | ||||
| | needed (Refer Bandwidth- | Bandwidth-Usage type in | | ||||
| | Usage type in Section | Section 5.3.2). | | ||||
| | 5.3.2). | | | ||||
| | | | | ||||
| +---------------------------------+---------------------------------+ | ||||
| Table 1: Auto-Bandwidth PCEP extensions | Overflow-Threshold: This parameter is used to decide when the LSP | |||
| bandwidth should be adjusted when there is a sudden increase in | ||||
| traffic demand. If the percentage or absolute difference between | ||||
| the current MaxAvgBw and the current bandwidth reservation of the | ||||
| LSP is greater than or equal to the threshold value, the overflow | ||||
| condition is said to be met. The LSP bandwidth is adjusted to the | ||||
| current bandwidth demand, bypassing the Up-Adjustment-Interval if | ||||
| the overflow condition is met consecutively for the Overflow- | ||||
| Count. The Overflow-Threshold needs to be greater than or equal | ||||
| to the Up-Adjustment-Threshold. | ||||
| Further Auto-Bandwidth deployment considerations are summarized | Underflow-Count: This parameter is used to decide when the LSP | |||
| below: | bandwidth should be adjusted when there is a sudden decrease in | |||
| traffic demand. This value indicates how many times, | ||||
| consecutively, that the percentage or absolute difference between | ||||
| the current MaxAvgBw and the current bandwidth reservation of the | ||||
| LSP needs to be greater than or equal to the Underflow-Threshold | ||||
| value in order to meet the underflow condition. | ||||
| o It is required to identify and inform the PCEP peer, the LSP that | Underflow-Threshold: This parameter is used to decide when the LSP | |||
| are enabled with Auto-Bandwidth feature. Not all LSPs in some | bandwidth should be adjusted when there is a sudden decrease in | |||
| deployments would like their bandwidth to be dependent on the | traffic demand. If the percentage or absolute difference between | |||
| real-time bandwidth usage but be constant as set by the operator. | the current MaxAvgBw and the current bandwidth reservation of the | |||
| LSP is greater than or equal to the threshold value, the underflow | ||||
| condition is said to be met. The LSP bandwidth is adjusted to the | ||||
| current bandwidth demand, bypassing the Down-Adjustment-Interval | ||||
| if the underflow condition is met consecutively for the Underflow- | ||||
| Count. The Underflow-Threshold needs to be greater than or equal | ||||
| to the Down-Adjustment-Threshold. | ||||
| o It is also required to identify and inform the PCEP peer the model | Minimum-Threshold: When percentage-based thresholds are in use, they | |||
| of operation i.e. if PCC decides the adjusted bandwidth, or PCC | are accompanied by this Minimum-Threshold, which is used to ensure | |||
| reports the real-time bandwidth usage instead and the PCE decides | that the magnitude of deviation of the calculated LSP bandwidth to | |||
| the adjusted bandwidth. | be adjusted from the current bandwidth reservations exceeds a | |||
| specific non-percentage-based criterion (represented as an | ||||
| absolute bandwidth value) before any adjustments are made. This | ||||
| serves to suppress unnecessary auto-bandwidth adjustments and | ||||
| resignaling of the LSP at low bandwidth values. | ||||
| * Note that PCEP extension for reporting real-time bandwidth | 3. Requirements for PCEP Extensions | |||
| usage, as specified in this document, is one of the ways for a | ||||
| PCE to learn this information. But at the same time a stateful | ||||
| PCE may choose to learn this information from other means like | ||||
| management, performance tools, which are beyond the scope of | ||||
| this document. | ||||
| o Further for the LSP with Auto-Bandwidth feature enabled, an | The PCEP extensions required for auto-bandwidth are summarized in the | |||
| operator should be able to specify the adjustment parameters (i.e. | following table as well as in Figure 1. | |||
| configuration knobs) to control this feature (e.g. minimum/ | +-------------------------+--------------------------------------+ | |||
| maximum bandwidth range) and PCEP peer should be informed. | | PCC Initiated | PCE Initiated | | |||
| +=========================+======================================+ | ||||
| | PCC monitors the | At the time of initiation, the PCE | | ||||
| | traffic and reports the | requests that the PCC monitor the | | ||||
| | calculated bandwidth to | traffic and report the calculated | | ||||
| | be adjusted to the PCE. | bandwidth to be adjusted to the PCE. | | ||||
| +-------------------------+--------------------------------------+ | ||||
| | Extension is needed for | Extension is needed for the PCE to | | ||||
| | the PCC to pass on the | pass on the adjustment parameters at | | ||||
| | adjustment parameters | the time of LSP initiation. | | ||||
| | at the time of LSP | | | ||||
| | delegation. | | | ||||
| +-------------------------+--------------------------------------+ | ||||
| Table 1: Requirements for Auto-Bandwidth PCEP Extensions | ||||
| ---------- | ||||
| | | | ||||
| | PCE | | ||||
| | | | ||||
| ---------- | ||||
| | ^ | ||||
| AUTO-BANDWIDTH CAPABILITY | | AUTO-BANDWIDTH CAPABILITY | ||||
| | | | ||||
| AUTO-BANDWIDTH ATTRIBUTES | | AUTO-BANDWIDTH ATTRIBUTES | ||||
| | | (For Delegated LSPs) | ||||
| | | | ||||
| | | REQUESTED BANDWIDTH | ||||
| v | | ||||
| ---------- | ||||
| | | | ||||
| | PCC | | ||||
| | | | ||||
| ---------- | ||||
| Figure 1: Overview of Auto-Bandwidth PCEP Extensions | ||||
| A PCEP speaker supporting this document must have a mechanism to | ||||
| advertise the auto-bandwidth adjustment capability for both PCC- | ||||
| initiated and PCE-initiated LSPs. | ||||
| Auto-bandwidth deployment considerations for PCEP extensions are | ||||
| summarized below: | ||||
| * It is necessary to identify and inform the PCC which LSPs have | ||||
| enabled the auto-bandwidth feature. Not all LSPs in some | ||||
| deployments would like their bandwidth to be dependent on real- | ||||
| time bandwidth usage; for some LSPs, leaving the bandwidth | ||||
| constant as set by the operator is preferred. | ||||
| * In addition, an operator should be able to specify the auto- | ||||
| bandwidth adjustment parameters (i.e., configuration knobs) to | ||||
| control this feature (e.g., Minimum/Maximum-Bandwidth range). The | ||||
| PCC should be informed about these adjustment parameters. | ||||
| 4. Architectural Overview | 4. Architectural Overview | |||
| 4.1. Auto-Bandwidth Overview | 4.1. Auto-Bandwidth Overview | |||
| Auto-Bandwidth feature allows an LSP to automatically and dynamically | The auto-bandwidth feature allows automatic and dynamic adjustment of | |||
| adjust its reserved bandwidth over time, i.e. without network | the reserved bandwidth of an LSP over time (i.e., without network | |||
| operator intervention. The bandwidth adjustment uses the | operator intervention) to accommodate the varying traffic demand of | |||
| make-before-break signaling method so that there is no interruption | the LSP. If the traffic flowing through the LSP is lower than the | |||
| to the traffic flow. | configured or current reserved bandwidth of the LSP, the extra | |||
| bandwidth is being reserved needlessly and is being wasted. | ||||
| The new bandwidth reservation is determined by sampling the actual | ||||
| traffic flowing through the LSP. If the traffic flowing through the | ||||
| LSP is lower than the configured or current bandwidth of the LSP, the | ||||
| extra bandwidth is being reserved needlessly and being wasted. | ||||
| Conversely, if the actual traffic flowing through the LSP is higher | Conversely, if the actual traffic flowing through the LSP is higher | |||
| than the configured or current bandwidth of the LSP, it can | than the configured or current reserved bandwidth of the LSP, it can | |||
| potentially cause congestion or packet loss in the network. With | potentially cause congestion or packet loss in the network. The | |||
| Auto-Bandwidth feature, the LSP bandwidth can be set to some | initial LSP bandwidth can be set to an arbitrary value (including | |||
| arbitrary value (including zero) during initial setup time, and it | zero). In practice, it can be set to an expected value based on | |||
| will be periodically adjusted over time based on the actual bandwidth | design and planning. The head-end LSR monitors the actual traffic | |||
| requirement. | flowing through the LSP and uses that information to adjust the | |||
| bandwidth reservation of the LSP in the network. | ||||
| Note the following definitions of the Auto-Bandwidth terms: | Bandwidth adjustment must not cause disruption to the traffic flow | |||
| carried by the LSP. One way to achieve this is to use the make- | ||||
| before-break signaling method [RFC3209]. | ||||
| Maximum Average Bandwidth (MaxAvgBw): The maximum average bandwidth | 4.2. Auto-Bandwidth Theory of Operation | |||
| represents the current traffic bandwidth demand during a time | ||||
| interval. This is the maximum value of the averaged traffic | ||||
| bandwidth rate in a given adjustment-interval. | ||||
| Adjusted Bandwidth: This is the Auto-Bandwidth computed bandwidth | This section describes the auto-bandwidth feature in a general way. | |||
| that needs to be adjusted for the LSP. | When the auto-bandwidth feature is enabled, the measured traffic rate | |||
| is periodically sampled at each Sample-Interval by the PCC when the | ||||
| PCC is the head-end node of the LSP. The Sample-Interval can be | ||||
| configured by an operator, with a default value of 5 minutes. A very | ||||
| low Sample-Interval could have some undesirable interactions with | ||||
| transport protocols (see Section 6.6). | ||||
| Sample-Interval: The periodic time interval at which the traffic | The traffic rate samples are accumulated over the Adjustment-Interval | |||
| rate is collected as a sample. | period (in the Up or Down direction). The period can be configured | |||
| by an operator, with a default value of 24 hours. The PCC in charge | ||||
| of calculating the bandwidth to be adjusted can decide to adjust the | ||||
| bandwidth of the LSP to the highest traffic rate sample (MaxAvgBw) | ||||
| amongst the set of Bandwidth-Samples collected over the Adjustment- | ||||
| Interval period (in the Up or Down direction) depending on the | ||||
| operator policy. | ||||
| Bandwidth-Sample (BwSample): The bandwidth sample collected at every | Note that the highest traffic rate sample could be higher or lower | |||
| sample interval to measure the traffic rate. | than the current LSP bandwidth. The LSP is adjusted (upsized) to the | |||
| current bandwidth demand (MaxAvgBW) only if the difference between | ||||
| the current bandwidth demand (MaxAvgBw) and the current bandwidth | ||||
| reservation is greater than or equal to the Adjustment-Threshold. | ||||
| The Adjustment-Threshold could be an absolute value or a percentage. | ||||
| The threshold can be configured by an operator, with a default value | ||||
| of 5 percent. Similarly, if the difference between the current | ||||
| bandwidth reservation and the current bandwidth demand (MaxAvgBw) is | ||||
| greater than or equal to the Down-Adjustment-Threshold (percentage or | ||||
| absolute value), the LSP bandwidth is adjusted (downsized) to the | ||||
| current bandwidth demand (MaxAvgBw). Some LSPs are less eventful, | ||||
| while other LSPs may encounter a lot of changes in the traffic | ||||
| pattern. The thresholds and intervals for bandwidth adjustment are | ||||
| configured based on the traffic pattern of the LSP. | ||||
| Adjustment-Interval: The periodic time interval at which the | In order to avoid frequent resignaling, an operator may set a longer | |||
| bandwidth adjustment should be made using the MaxAvgBw. | Adjustment-Interval value (Up and/or Down). However, a longer | |||
| Adjustment-Interval can result in the undesirable effect of masking | ||||
| sudden changes in the traffic demands of an LSP. To avoid this, the | ||||
| auto-bandwidth feature may force the Adjustment-Interval to | ||||
| prematurely expire and adjust the LSP bandwidth to accommodate the | ||||
| sudden bursts of increase in traffic demand as an overflow condition | ||||
| or decrease in traffic demand as an underflow condition. An operator | ||||
| needs to configure appropriate values for the Overflow-Threshold and/ | ||||
| or Underflow-Threshold parameters, and they do not have default | ||||
| values defined in this document. | ||||
| Maximum-Bandwidth: The maximum bandwidth that can be reserved for | All thresholds in this document could be represented in both absolute | |||
| the LSP. | value and percentage and could be used together. This is provided to | |||
| accommodate cases where the LSP bandwidth reservation may become very | ||||
| large or very small over time. For example, an operator may use the | ||||
| percentage threshold to handle small to large bandwidth values and | ||||
| absolute values to handle very large bandwidth values. The auto- | ||||
| bandwidth adjustment is made when either one of the two thresholds, | ||||
| the absolute or percentage, is crossed. | ||||
| Minimum-Bandwidth: The minimum bandwidth that can be reserved for | When using the (adjustment/overflow/underflow) percentage thresholds, | |||
| the LSP. | if the LSP bandwidth changes rapidly at very low values, it may | |||
| trigger frequent auto-bandwidth adjustments due to the crossing of | ||||
| the percentage thresholds. This can lead to unnecessary resignaling | ||||
| of the LSPs in the network. This is suppressed by setting the | ||||
| Minimum-Threshold parameters along with the percentage thresholds. | ||||
| The auto-bandwidth adjustment is only made if the LSP bandwidth | ||||
| crosses both the percentage threshold and the Minimum-Threshold | ||||
| parameters. | ||||
| Adjustment-Threshold: This value is used to decide when the | 4.3. Scaling Considerations | |||
| bandwidth should be adjusted. If the percentage or absolute | ||||
| difference between the current MaxAvgBw and the current bandwidth | ||||
| reservation is greater than or equal to the threshold value, the | ||||
| LSP bandwidth is adjusted to the current bandwidth demand | ||||
| (Adjusted Bandwidth) at the adjustment-interval expiry. | ||||
| Overflow-Count: This value is used to decide when the bandwidth | It should be noted that any bandwidth change requires resignaling of | |||
| should be adjusted when there is a sudden increase in traffic | an LSP, which can further trigger preemption of lower-priority LSPs | |||
| demand. This value indicates how many times consecutively, the | in the network. When deployed under scale, this can lead to a | |||
| percentage or absolute difference between the current MaxAvgBw and | signaling churn in the network. The auto-bandwidth application | |||
| the current bandwidth reservation is greater than or equal to the | algorithm is thus advised to take this into consideration before | |||
| Overflow-Threshold value. | adjusting the LSP bandwidth. Operators are advised to set the values | |||
| of various auto-bandwidth adjustment parameters appropriate for the | ||||
| deployed LSP scale. | ||||
| Overflow-Threshold: This value is used to decide when the bandwidth | If a PCE gets overwhelmed, it can notify the PCC to temporarily | |||
| should be adjusted when there is a sudden increase in traffic | suspend the reporting of the new LSP bandwidth to be adjusted. | |||
| demand. If the percentage or absolute difference between the | Similarly, if a PCC gets overwhelmed due to signaling churn, it can | |||
| current MaxAvgBw and the current bandwidth reservation is greater | notify the PCE to temporarily suspend new LSP setup requests. See | |||
| than or equal to the threshold value, the overflow-condition is | Section 5.7 of this document. | |||
| set to be met. The LSP bandwidth is adjusted to the current | ||||
| bandwidth demand bypassing the adjustment-interval if the | ||||
| overflow-condition is met consecutively for the Overflow-Count. | ||||
| Underflow-Count: This value is used to decide when the bandwidth | 5. PCEP Extensions | |||
| should be adjusted when there is a sudden decrease in traffic | ||||
| demand. This value indicates how many times consecutively, the | ||||
| percentage or absolute difference between the current MaxAvgBw and | ||||
| the current bandwidth reservation is greater than or equal to the | ||||
| Underflow-Threshold value. | ||||
| Underflow-Threshold: This value is used to decide when the bandwidth | 5.1. Capability Advertisement | |||
| should be adjusted when there is a sudden decrease in traffic | ||||
| demand. If the percentage or absolute difference between the | ||||
| current MaxAvgBw and the current bandwidth reservation is greater | ||||
| than or equal to the threshold value, the underflow-condition is | ||||
| set to be met. The LSP bandwidth is adjusted to the current | ||||
| bandwidth demand bypassing the adjustment-interval if the | ||||
| underflow-condition is met consecutively for the Underflow-Count. | ||||
| Report-Interval: This value indicates the periodic interval when the | During the PCEP initialization phase, PCEP speakers (PCE or PCC) | |||
| collected real-time bandwidth-usage samples (BwSample) should be | advertise their support of the auto-bandwidth adjustment feature. A | |||
| reported to the stateful PCE via the PCRpt message. | PCEP speaker includes the AUTO-BANDWIDTH-CAPABILITY TLV in the OPEN | |||
| object to advertise its support for PCEP auto-bandwidth extensions. | ||||
| The presence of the AUTO-BANDWIDTH-CAPABILITY TLV in the OPEN object | ||||
| indicates that the auto-bandwidth feature is supported as described | ||||
| in this document. | ||||
| Report-Threshold: This value is used to decide if the real-time | * The PCEP protocol extensions for auto-bandwidth adjustments MUST | |||
| bandwidth-usage samples collected should be reported. Only if the | NOT be used if one or both PCEP speakers have not included the | |||
| percentage or the absolute difference between at least one of the | AUTO-BANDWIDTH-CAPABILITY TLV in their respective OPEN message. | |||
| bandwidth samples collected and the current bandwidth reservation | ||||
| is greater than or equal to the threshold value, the bandwidth | ||||
| samples collected during the Report-Interval are reported | ||||
| otherwise the bandwidth sample(s) are skipped. | ||||
| Report-Flow-Threshold: This value is used to decide when the real- | * A PCEP speaker that does not recognize the extensions defined in | |||
| time traffic bandwidth samples should be reported immediately when | this document would simply ignore the TLVs as per [RFC5440]. | |||
| there is a sudden change in traffic demand. If the percentage or | ||||
| absolute difference between the current bandwidth sample and the | ||||
| current bandwidth reservation is greater than or equal to the | ||||
| flow-threshold value, all the bandwidth samples collected so far | ||||
| are reported to the PCE immediately. | ||||
| 4.2. Theory of Operation | * If a PCEP speaker supports the extensions defined in this document | |||
| but did not advertise this capability, then upon receipt of AUTO- | ||||
| BANDWIDTH-ATTRIBUTES TLV in the LSP Attributes (LSPA) object, it | ||||
| SHOULD generate a PCErr with Error-Type 19 (Invalid Operation) and | ||||
| Error-value 14 (Auto-Bandwidth capability was not advertised) and | ||||
| ignore the AUTO-BANDWIDTH-ATTRIBUTES TLV. | ||||
| The traffic rate is periodically sampled at each sample-interval | 5.1.1. AUTO-BANDWIDTH-CAPABILITY TLV | |||
| (which can be configured by the user and the default value as 5 | ||||
| minutes) by the head-end node of the LSP. The sampled traffic rates | ||||
| are accumulated over the adjustment-interval period (which can be | ||||
| configured by the user and the default value as 24 hours). The PCEP | ||||
| peer which is in-charge of calculating the bandwidth to be adjusted, | ||||
| will adjust the bandwidth of the LSP to the highest sampled traffic | ||||
| rate (MaxAvgBw) amongst the set of bandwidth samples collected over | ||||
| the adjustment-interval. | ||||
| Note that the highest sampled traffic rate could be higher or lower | The AUTO-BANDWIDTH-CAPABILITY TLV is an optional TLV for use in the | |||
| than the current LSP bandwidth. Only if the difference between the | OPEN Object for auto-bandwidth adjustment via PCEP capability | |||
| current bandwidth demand (MaxAvgBw) and the current bandwidth | advertisement. Its format is shown in the following figure: | |||
| reservation is greater than or equal to the Adjustment-Threshold | ||||
| (percentage or absolute value), the LSP bandwidth is adjusted to the | ||||
| current bandwidth demand (MaxAvgBw). Some LSPs are less eventful | ||||
| while other LSPs may encounter a lot of changes in the traffic | ||||
| pattern. PCE sets the intervals for reporting and adjustment based | ||||
| on the traffic pattern of the LSP. | ||||
| In order to avoid frequent re-signaling, an operator may set a longer | 0 1 2 3 | |||
| adjustment-interval value. However, longer adjustment-interval can | 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 | |||
| result in an undesirable effect of masking sudden changes in traffic | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |||
| demands of an LSP. To avoid this, the Auto-Bandwidth feature may | | Type=36 | Length=4 | | |||
| pre-maturely expire the adjustment-interval and adjust the LSP | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |||
| bandwidth to accommodate the sudden bursts of increase in traffic | | Flag | | |||
| demand as an overflow condition or decrease in traffic demand as an | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |||
| underflow condition. | ||||
| In case of Deployment model 2, the PCC reports the real-time | Figure 2: AUTO-BANDWIDTH-CAPABILITY TLV Format | |||
| bandwidth-usage information and the PCE decides the adjusted | ||||
| bandwidth. Multiple bandwidth samples are collected every report- | ||||
| interval, and reported together to the PCE. To avoid reporting minor | ||||
| changes in real-time bandwidth-usage, report-threshold is used, to | ||||
| suppress the sending of the collected samples during the report- | ||||
| interval. The collected samples are reported if at least one sample | ||||
| crosses the Report-Threshold (percentage or absolute value). In | ||||
| order to accommodate sudden changes in the bandwidth usage, report- | ||||
| flow-threshold is employed by pre-maturely expiry of the report- | ||||
| interval to report the unreported bandwidth samples collected so far. | ||||
| All thresholds in this document could be represented in both absolute | The TLV Type is 36, and it has a fixed Length of 4 octets. | |||
| value and percentage, and could be used together. | ||||
| 4.3. Scaling Considerations | The value comprises a single field: Flag (32 bits). No flags are | |||
| defined for this TLV in this document. | ||||
| There are potential scaling concerns for the model where PCC (ingress | Unassigned bits are considered reserved. They MUST be set to 0 on | |||
| LSR) reports real-time bandwidth-usage information to the stateful | transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt. | |||
| PCE for a large number of LSPs. It is recommended to combine | ||||
| multiple bandwidth samples (BwSamples) using larger report-interval | ||||
| and report them together to the PCE, thus reducing the number of | ||||
| PCRpt messages. Further Report-Threshold can be use to skip | ||||
| reporting the bandwidth samples for small changes in the bandwidth. | ||||
| The processing cost of monitoring a large number of LSPs at the PCC | Advertisement of the AUTO-BANDWIDTH-CAPABILITY TLV implies support of | |||
| and handling bandwidth change requests at PCE should be taken into | auto-bandwidth adjustment, as well as the objects, TLVs, and | |||
| consideration. Note that, this will be implementation dependent. | procedures defined in this document. | |||
| 5. Extensions to the PCEP | 5.2. AUTO-BANDWIDTH-ATTRIBUTES TLV | |||
| 5.1. AUTO-BANDWIDTH-ATTRIBUTE TLV | The AUTO-BANDWIDTH-ATTRIBUTES TLV provides the 'configurable knobs' | |||
| of the feature, and it can be included as an optional TLV in the LSPA | ||||
| object (as described in [RFC5440]). | ||||
| The AUTO-BANDWIDTH-ATTRIBUTE TLV can be included as an optional TLV | For a PCE-initiated LSP [RFC8281], this TLV is included in the LSPA | |||
| in the LSPA Object (as described in [RFC5440]). Whenever the LSP | object with the PCInitiate message. For the PCC-initiated delegated | |||
| with Auto-Bandwidth feature enabled is delegated, | LSPs, this TLV is carried in the Path Computation State Report | |||
| AUTO-BANDWIDTH-ATTRIBUTE TLV is carried in PCRpt message in LSPA | (PCRpt) message in the LSPA object. This TLV is also carried in the | |||
| Object. The TLV provides PCE with the 'configurable knobs' of this | LSPA object with the Path Computation Update Request (PCUpd) message | |||
| feature. In case of PCE-Initiated LSP | to direct the PCC (LSP head-end) to make updates to auto-bandwidth | |||
| ([I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp]) with Auto-Bandwidth feature | attributes such as Adjustment-Interval. | |||
| enabled, this TLV is included in LSPA Object with PCInitiate message. | ||||
| The format of the AUTO-BANDWIDTH-ATTRIBUTE TLV is shown in the | The TLV is encoded in all PCEP messages for the LSP while the auto- | |||
| bandwidth adjustment feature is enabled. The absence of the TLV | ||||
| indicates the PCEP speaker wishes to disable the feature. This TLV | ||||
| includes multiple AUTO-BANDWIDTH-ATTRIBUTES sub-TLVs. The AUTO- | ||||
| BANDWIDTH-ATTRIBUTES sub-TLVs are included if there is a change since | ||||
| the last information sent in the PCEP message. The default values | ||||
| for missing sub-TLVs apply for the first PCEP message for the LSP. | ||||
| The format of the AUTO-BANDWIDTH-ATTRIBUTES TLV is shown in the | ||||
| following figure: | following figure: | |||
| 0 1 2 3 | 0 1 2 3 | |||
| 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 | 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=[TBD1] | Length | | | Type=37 | Length | | |||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |||
| | | | | | | |||
| // sub-TLVs // | // sub-TLVs // | |||
| | | | | | | |||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |||
| AUTO-BANDWIDTH-ATTRIBUTE TLV format | Figure 3: AUTO-BANDWIDTH-ATTRIBUTES TLV Format | |||
| Type: TBD1 | ||||
| Length: Variable | ||||
| Value: This comprises one or more sub-TLVs. | ||||
| Following sub-TLVs are defined in this document: | Type: 37 | |||
| Type Len Name | Length: The Length field defines the length of the value portion in | |||
| ------------------------------------------------------------------- | bytes as per [RFC5440]. | |||
| 1 4 Sample-Interval sub-TLV | ||||
| 2 4 Adjustment-Interval sub-TLV | ||||
| 3 4 Adjustment-Threshold sub-TLV | ||||
| 4 4 Adjustment-Threshold-Percentage sub-TLV | ||||
| 5 4 Minimum-Bandwidth sub-TLV | ||||
| 6 4 Maximum-Bandwidth sub-TLV | ||||
| 7 8 Overflow-Threshold sub-TLV | ||||
| 8 4 Overflow-Threshold-Percentage sub-TLV | ||||
| 9 8 Underflow-Threshold sub-TLV | ||||
| 10 4 Underflow-Threshold-Percentage sub-TLV | ||||
| Future specification can define additional sub-TLVs. | Value: This comprises one or more sub-TLVs. | |||
| The presence of AUTO-BANDWIDTH-ATTRIBUTE TLV in LSPA Object means | The following sub-TLVs are defined in this document: | |||
| that the automatic bandwidth adjustment feature is enabled. All | ||||
| sub-TLVs are optional and any unrecognized sub-TLV MUST be silently | ||||
| ignored. If a sub-TLV of same type appears more than once, only the | ||||
| first occurrence is processed and all others MUST be ignored. | ||||
| The AUTO-BANDWIDTH-ATTRIBUTE TLV can also be carried in PCUpd message | +------+-----+--------------------------------------+ | |||
| in LSPA Object in order to make updates to auto-bandwidth attributes | | Type | Len | Name | | |||
| such as Adjustment-Interval. | +======+=====+======================================+ | |||
| | 1 | 4 | Sample-Interval | | ||||
| +------+-----+--------------------------------------+ | ||||
| | 2 | 4 | Adjustment-Interval | | ||||
| +------+-----+--------------------------------------+ | ||||
| | 3 | 4 | Down-Adjustment-Interval | | ||||
| +------+-----+--------------------------------------+ | ||||
| | 4 | 4 | Adjustment-Threshold | | ||||
| +------+-----+--------------------------------------+ | ||||
| | 5 | 8 | Adjustment-Threshold-Percentage | | ||||
| +------+-----+--------------------------------------+ | ||||
| | 6 | 4 | Down-Adjustment-Threshold | | ||||
| +------+-----+--------------------------------------+ | ||||
| | 7 | 8 | Down-Adjustment-Threshold-Percentage | | ||||
| +------+-----+--------------------------------------+ | ||||
| | 8 | 4 | Minimum-Bandwidth | | ||||
| +------+-----+--------------------------------------+ | ||||
| | 9 | 4 | Maximum-Bandwidth | | ||||
| +------+-----+--------------------------------------+ | ||||
| | 10 | 8 | Overflow-Threshold | | ||||
| +------+-----+--------------------------------------+ | ||||
| | 11 | 8 | Overflow-Threshold-Percentage | | ||||
| +------+-----+--------------------------------------+ | ||||
| | 12 | 8 | Underflow-Threshold | | ||||
| +------+-----+--------------------------------------+ | ||||
| | 13 | 8 | Underflow-Threshold-Percentage | | ||||
| +------+-----+--------------------------------------+ | ||||
| If sub-TLVs are not present, the default values based on the local | Table 2: Sub-TLV Types of the AUTO-BANDWIDTH- | |||
| policy are assumed. | ATTRIBUTES TLV | |||
| The sub-TLVs are encoded to inform the PCEP peer the various sampling | Future specifications can define additional sub-TLVs. | |||
| and adjustment parameters, and serves the following purpose - | ||||
| o For PCE-Initiated LSPs, inform the PCC of the various sampling and | The sub-TLVs are encoded to inform the PCEP peer of the various | |||
| adjustment parameters. | sampling and adjustment parameters. In the case of a missing sub- | |||
| TLV, as per the local policy, either the default value (as specified | ||||
| in this document) or some other operator-configured value is used. | ||||
| o For PCC-Initiated LSPs in the Deployment Model 2 (where PCE | All sub-TLVs are optional, and any unrecognized sub-TLV MUST be | |||
| decides the adjusted bandwidth), inform the PCE of the various | ignored. If a sub-TLV of the same type appears more than once, only | |||
| sampling and adjustment parameters. | the first occurrence is processed, and all others MUST be ignored. | |||
| The following sub-sections describe the sub-TLVs which are currently | The following subsections describe the sub-TLVs that are currently | |||
| defined to be carried within the AUTO-BANDWIDTH-ATTRIBUTE TLV. | defined as being carried within the AUTO-BANDWIDTH-ATTRIBUTES TLV. | |||
| 5.1.1. Sample-Interval sub-TLV | 5.2.1. Sample-Interval Sub-TLV | |||
| The Sample-Interval sub-TLV specifies a time interval in seconds at | The Sample-Interval sub-TLV specifies a time interval in seconds in | |||
| which traffic samples are collected at the PCC. | which traffic samples are collected at the PCC. | |||
| The Type is 1, Length is 4, and the value comprises of 4-octet time | ||||
| interval, the valid range is from 1 to 604800, in seconds. The | ||||
| default value is 300 seconds. | ||||
| 0 1 2 3 | 0 1 2 3 | |||
| 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 | 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=1 | Length=4 | | | Type=1 | Length=4 | | |||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |||
| | Sample-Interval | | | Sample-Interval | | |||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |||
| Sample-Interval sub-TLV format | Figure 4: Sample-Interval Sub-TLV Format | |||
| 5.1.2. Adjustment-Interval sub-TLV | The Type is 1, the Length is 4 octets, and the value comprises the | |||
| following: | ||||
| The Adjustment-Interval sub-TLV specifies a time interval in seconds | Sample-Interval: The 4-octet time interval for the Bandwidth-Sample | |||
| at which bandwidth adjustment should be made. | collection. The valid range is from 1 to 604800 (7 days), in | |||
| seconds. The default value is 300 seconds. Due care needs to be | ||||
| taken in a case with a very low Sample-Interval, as it can have | ||||
| some undesirable interactions with transport protocols (see | ||||
| Section 6.6). The Sample-Interval parameter MUST NOT be greater | ||||
| than the (down) Adjustment-Interval. In the case in which an | ||||
| invalid value is present, the sub-TLV MUST be ignored and the | ||||
| previous value will be maintained. | ||||
| The Type is 2, Length is 4, and the value comprises of 4-octet time | 5.2.2. Adjustment-Intervals | |||
| interval, the valid range is from 1 to 604800, in seconds. The | ||||
| default value is 300 seconds. | The sub-TLVs in this section are encoded to inform the PCEP peer of | |||
| the Adjustment-Interval parameters. The Adjustment-Interval sub-TLV | ||||
| specifies the time interval for both upward (Up-Adjustment-Interval) | ||||
| and downward (Down-Adjustment-Interval) trends. An implementation | ||||
| MAY require that a different Adjustment-Interval value be set when | ||||
| the bandwidth usage trend is moving downwards from the one used when | ||||
| it is moving upwards. In that case, the operator could use the Down- | ||||
| Adjustment-Interval sub-TLV, which overrides the Adjustment-Interval | ||||
| value for Down-Adjustment-Interval. | ||||
| 5.2.2.1. Adjustment-Interval Sub-TLV | ||||
| The Adjustment-Interval sub-TLV specifies a time interval in seconds | ||||
| in which a bandwidth adjustment should be made in an upward or | ||||
| downward direction. This sub-TLV specifies the value for Up- | ||||
| Adjustment-Interval and Down-Adjustment-Interval when they are the | ||||
| same and when the Down-Adjustment-Interval sub-TLV is not included. | ||||
| 0 1 2 3 | 0 1 2 3 | |||
| 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 | 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=2 | Length=4 | | | Type=2 | Length=4 | | |||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |||
| | Adjustment-Interval | | | Adjustment-Interval | | |||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |||
| Adjustment-Interval sub-TLV format | Figure 5: Adjustment-Interval Sub-TLV Format | |||
| 5.1.3. Adjustment Threshold | The Type is 2, the Length is 4 octets, and the value comprises the | |||
| following: | ||||
| The sub-TLVs in this section are encoded to inform the PCEP peer the | Adjustment-Interval: The 4-octet time interval for bandwidth | |||
| adjustment threshold parameters. An implementation MAY include both | adjustments. The valid range is from 1 to 604800 (7 days), in | |||
| sub-TLVs for the absolute value and the percentage, in which case the | seconds. The default value is 86400 seconds (1 day). The | |||
| bandwidth is adjusted when either of the adjustment threshold | Adjustment-Interval parameter MUST NOT be less than the Sample- | |||
| conditions are met. | Interval; otherwise, the sub-TLV MUST be ignored, and the previous | |||
| value will be maintained. | ||||
| 5.1.3.1. Adjustment-Threshold sub-TLV | 5.2.2.2. Down-Adjustment-Interval Sub-TLV | |||
| The Adjustment-Threshold sub-TLV is used to decide when the LSP | The Down-Adjustment-Interval sub-TLV specifies a time interval in | |||
| bandwidth should be adjusted. | seconds in which a bandwidth adjustment should be made when MaxAvgBw | |||
| is less than the current bandwidth reservation of the LSP. This | ||||
| parameter overrides the Adjustment-Interval for the downward trend. | ||||
| This sub-TLV is used only when there is a need for different | ||||
| Adjustment-Intervals in the upward and downward directions. | ||||
| 0 1 2 3 | 0 1 2 3 | |||
| 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 | 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=3 | Length=4 | | | Type=3 | Length=4 | | |||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |||
| | Adjustment Threshold | | | Down-Adjustment-Interval | | |||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |||
| Adjustment-Threshold sub-TLV format | Figure 6: Down-Adjustment-Interval Sub-TLV Format | |||
| The Type is 3, Length is 4, and the value comprises of - | The Type is 3, the Length is 4 octets, and the value comprises the | |||
| following: | ||||
| o Adjustment Threshold: The absolute Adjustment-Threshold bandwidth | Down-Adjustment-Interval: The 4-octet time interval for downward | |||
| value, encoded in IEEE floating point format (see | bandwidth adjustments. The valid range is from 1 to 604800 (7 | |||
| [IEEE.754.1985]), expressed in bytes per second. Refer to Section | days), in seconds. The default value equals the Adjustment- | |||
| 3.1.2 of [RFC3471] for a table of commonly used values. | Interval. The Down-Adjustment-Interval parameter MUST NOT be less | |||
| than the Sample-Interval; otherwise, the sub-TLV MUST be ignored | ||||
| and the previous value will be maintained. | ||||
| If the difference between the current MaxAvgBw and the current | 5.2.3. Adjustment-Thresholds | |||
| bandwidth reservation is greater than or equal to the threshold | ||||
| value, the LSP bandwidth is adjusted to the current bandwidth | ||||
| demand. | ||||
| 5.1.3.2. Adjustment-Threshold-Percentage sub-TLV | The sub-TLVs in this section are encoded to inform the PCEP peer of | |||
| the Adjustment-Threshold parameters. An implementation MAY include | ||||
| both sub-TLVs for the absolute value and the percentage, in which | ||||
| case the bandwidth is adjusted when either of the Adjustment- | ||||
| Threshold conditions are met. The Adjustment-Threshold sub-TLV | ||||
| specifies the threshold for both upward (Up-Adjustment-Threshold) and | ||||
| downward (Down-Adjustment-Threshold) trends. If the operator would | ||||
| like to use a different Adjustment-Threshold during the downward | ||||
| trend, the Down-Adjustment-Threshold sub-TLV is included. Similarly, | ||||
| the Adjustment-Threshold-Percentage sub-TLV specifies the threshold | ||||
| percentage for both upward and downward trends. If the operator | ||||
| would like to use a different Adjustment-Threshold percentage during | ||||
| the downward trend, the Down-Adjustment-Threshold-Percentage sub-TLV | ||||
| is included. It is worth noting that regardless of how the | ||||
| thresholds are set, the adjustment will not be made until at least | ||||
| one Sample-Interval has passed simply because no sample will be made | ||||
| on which to base a comparison with a threshold. | ||||
| The Adjustment-Threshold-Percentage sub-TLV is used to decide when | 5.2.3.1. Adjustment-Threshold Sub-TLV | |||
| the LSP bandwidth should be adjusted. | ||||
| The Adjustment-Threshold sub-TLV is used to decide when the LSP | ||||
| bandwidth should be adjusted in an upward or downward direction. | ||||
| This sub-TLV specifies the absolute value for Up-Adjustment-Threshold | ||||
| and Down-Adjustment-Threshold when they are the same and when the | ||||
| Down-Adjustment-Threshold sub-TLV is not included. | ||||
| 0 1 2 3 | 0 1 2 3 | |||
| 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 | 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=4 | Length=4 | | | Type=4 | Length=4 | | |||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |||
| | Reserved | Percentage | | | Adjustment-Threshold | | |||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |||
| Adjustment-Threshold-Percentage sub-TLV format | Figure 7: Adjustment-Threshold Sub-TLV Format | |||
| The Type is 4, Length is 4, and the value comprises of - | The Type is 4, the Length is 4 octets, and the value comprises the | |||
| o Reserved: SHOULD be set to zero on transmission and MUST be | following: | |||
| ignored on receipt. | ||||
| o Percentage: The Adjustment-Threshold value, encoded in percentage | Adjustment-Threshold: The absolute Adjustment-Threshold bandwidth | |||
| (an integer from 0 to 100). If the percentage difference between | difference value, encoded in IEEE floating point format (see | |||
| the current MaxAvgBw and the current bandwidth reservation is | [IEEE.754.1985]) and expressed in bytes per second. The default | |||
| greater than or equal to the threshold percentage, the LSP | Adjustment-Threshold value is not set. Refer to Section 3.1.2 of | |||
| bandwidth is adjusted to the current bandwidth demand. | [RFC3471] for a table of commonly used values. | |||
| 5.1.4. Minimum and Maximum Bandwidth Values | If the modulus of difference between the current MaxAvgBw and the | |||
| current bandwidth reservation is greater than or equal to the | ||||
| threshold value, the LSP bandwidth is adjusted to the current | ||||
| bandwidth demand (MaxAvgBw). | ||||
| 5.1.4.1. Minimum-Bandwidth sub-TLV | In the case in which an invalid value is present, the sub-TLV MUST be | |||
| ignored and the previous value will be maintained. | ||||
| The Minimum-Bandwidth sub-TLV specify the minimum bandwidth allowed | 5.2.3.2. Adjustment-Threshold-Percentage Sub-TLV | |||
| for the LSP, and is expressed in bytes per second. The LSP bandwidth | ||||
| cannot be adjusted below the minimum bandwidth value. | ||||
| The Type is 5, Length is 4, and the value comprises of 4-octet | The Adjustment-Threshold-Percentage sub-TLV is used to decide when | |||
| bandwidth value encoded in IEEE floating point format (see | the LSP bandwidth should be adjusted in an upward or downward | |||
| [IEEE.754.1985]), expressed in bytes per second. Refer to Section | direction. This sub-TLV specifies the percentage value for Up- | |||
| 3.1.2 of [RFC3471] for a table of commonly used values. | Adjustment-Threshold and Down-Adjustment-Threshold when they are the | |||
| same and when the Down-Adjustment-Threshold-Percentage sub-TLV is not | ||||
| included. | ||||
| 0 1 2 3 | 0 1 2 3 | |||
| 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 | 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=5 | Length=4 | | | Type=5 | Length=8 | | |||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |||
| | Minimum-Bandwidth | | | Reserved | Percentage | | |||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | ||||
| | Minimum-Threshold | | ||||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |||
| Minimum-Bandwidth sub-TLV format | Figure 8: Adjustment-Threshold-Percentage Sub-TLV Format | |||
| 5.1.4.2. Maximum-Bandwidth sub-TLV | The Type is 5, the Length is 8 octets, and the value comprises the | |||
| following: | ||||
| The Maximum-Bandwidth sub-TLV specify the maximum bandwidth allowed | Reserved: MUST be set to zero on transmission and MUST be ignored on | |||
| for the LSP, and is expressed in bytes per second. The LSP bandwidth | receipt. | |||
| cannot be adjusted above the maximum bandwidth value. | ||||
| The Type is 6, Length is 4, and the value comprises of 4-octet | Percentage: The Adjustment-Threshold value (7 bits), encoded in a | |||
| bandwidth value encoded in IEEE floating point format (see | percentage (an integer from 1 to 100). The value 0 is considered | |||
| [IEEE.754.1985]), expressed in bytes per second. Refer to Section | to be invalid. The default value is 5 percent. | |||
| 3.1.2 of [RFC3471] for a table of commonly used values. | ||||
| Minimum-Threshold: The absolute Minimum-Threshold bandwidth value, | ||||
| encoded in IEEE floating point format (see [IEEE.754.1985]) and | ||||
| expressed in bytes per second. The increase or decrease of the | ||||
| LSP bandwidth MUST be at or above the Minimum-Threshold before the | ||||
| bandwidth adjustment is made. The default value is 0. | ||||
| If the percentage absolute difference between the current MaxAvgBw | ||||
| and the current bandwidth reservation is greater than or equal to the | ||||
| threshold percentage and the difference in the bandwidth is at or | ||||
| above the Minimum-Threshold, the LSP bandwidth is adjusted to the | ||||
| current bandwidth demand (MaxAvgBw). | ||||
| In the case in which an invalid value is present, the sub-TLV MUST be | ||||
| ignored and the previous value will be maintained. | ||||
| 5.2.3.3. Down-Adjustment-Threshold Sub-TLV | ||||
| The Down-Adjustment-Threshold sub-TLV is used to decide when the LSP | ||||
| bandwidth should be adjusted when MaxAvgBw is less than the current | ||||
| bandwidth reservation. This parameter overrides the Adjustment- | ||||
| Threshold for the downward trend. This sub-TLV is used only when | ||||
| there is a need for a different threshold in the upward and downward | ||||
| directions. | ||||
| 0 1 2 3 | 0 1 2 3 | |||
| 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 | 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=6 | Length=4 | | | Type=6 | Length=4 | | |||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |||
| | Maximum-Bandwidth | | | Down-Adjustment-Threshold | | |||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |||
| Maximum-Bandwidth sub-TLV format | Figure 9: Down-Adjustment-Threshold Sub-TLV Format | |||
| 5.1.5. Overflow and Underflow Condition | The Type is 6, the Length is 4 octets, and the value comprises the | |||
| following: | ||||
| The sub-TLVs in this section are encoded to inform the PCEP peer the | Down-Adjustment-Threshold: The absolute Down-Adjustment-Threshold | |||
| overflow and underflow threshold parameters. An implementation MAY | bandwidth value, encoded in IEEE floating point format (see | |||
| include sub-TLVs for the absolute value and the percentage for the | [IEEE.754.1985]) and expressed in bytes per second. The default | |||
| threshold, in which case the bandwidth is immediately adjusted when | value equals the Adjustment-Threshold. Refer to Section 3.1.2 of | |||
| either of the adjustment threshold conditions are met consecutively | [RFC3471] for a table of commonly used values. | |||
| for the given count. | ||||
| 5.1.5.1. Overflow-Threshold sub-TLV | If the difference between the current bandwidth reservation and the | |||
| current MaxAvgBw is greater than or equal to the threshold value, the | ||||
| LSP bandwidth is adjusted to the current bandwidth demand (MaxAvgBw). | ||||
| The Overflow-Threshold sub-TLV is used to decide if the bandwidth | In the case in which an invalid value is present, the sub-TLV MUST be | |||
| should be adjusted immediately. | ignored and the previous value will be maintained. | |||
| 5.2.3.4. Down-Adjustment-Threshold-Percentage Sub-TLV | ||||
| The Down-Adjustment-Threshold-Percentage sub-TLV is used to decide | ||||
| when the LSP bandwidth should be adjusted when MaxAvgBw is less than | ||||
| the current bandwidth reservation. This parameter overrides the | ||||
| Adjustment-Threshold-Percentage for the downward trend. This sub-TLV | ||||
| is used only when there is a need for a different threshold | ||||
| percentage in the upward and downward directions. | ||||
| 0 1 2 3 | 0 1 2 3 | |||
| 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 | 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=7 | Length=8 | | | Type=7 | Length=8 | | |||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |||
| | Reserved | Count | | | Reserved | Percentage | | |||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |||
| | Overflow Threshold | | | Minimum-Threshold | | |||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |||
| Overflow-Threshold sub-TLV format | Figure 10: Down-Adjustment-Threshold-Percentage Sub-TLV Format | |||
| The Type is 7, Length is 4, and the value comprises of - | The Type is 7, the Length is 8 octets, and the value comprises the | |||
| following: | ||||
| o Reserved: SHOULD be set to zero on transmission and MUST be | Reserved: MUST be set to zero on transmission and MUST be ignored on | |||
| ignored on receipt. | receipt. | |||
| o Count: The Overflow-Count value, encoded in integer. The value 0 | Percentage: The Down-Adjustment-Threshold value (7 bits), encoded in | |||
| is considered to be invalid. The number of consecutive samples | a percentage (an integer from 1 to 100). The value 0 is | |||
| for which the overflow condition MUST be met for the LSP bandwidth | considered to be invalid. The default value equals the | |||
| to be immediately adjusted to the current bandwidth demand, | Adjustment-Threshold-Percentage. | |||
| bypassing the adjustment-interval. | ||||
| o Overflow Threshold: The absolute Overflow-Threshold bandwidth | Minimum-Threshold: The absolute Minimum-Threshold bandwidth value, | |||
| value, encoded in IEEE floating point format (see | encoded in IEEE floating point format (see [IEEE.754.1985]) and | |||
| [IEEE.754.1985]), expressed in bytes per second. Refer to Section | expressed in bytes per second. The decrease of the LSP bandwidth | |||
| 3.1.2 of [RFC3471] for a table of commonly used values. If the | MUST be at or above the Minimum-Threshold before the bandwidth | |||
| increase of the current MaxAvgBw from the current bandwidth | adjustment is made. The default value equals the Minimum- | |||
| reservation is greater than or equal to the threshold value, the | Threshold for the Adjustment-Threshold-Percentage. | |||
| overflow condition is met. | ||||
| 5.1.5.2. Overflow-Threshold-Percentage sub-TLV | If the percentage difference between the current bandwidth | |||
| reservation and the current MaxAvgBw is greater than or equal to the | ||||
| threshold percentage and the difference in the bandwidth is at or | ||||
| above the Minimum-Threshold, the LSP bandwidth is adjusted to the | ||||
| current bandwidth demand (MaxAvgBw). | ||||
| The Overflow-Threshold-Percentage sub-TLV is used to decide if the | In the case in which an invalid value is present, the sub-TLV MUST be | |||
| bandwidth should be adjusted immediately. | ignored and the previous value will be maintained. | |||
| 5.2.4. Minimum and Maximum-Bandwidth Values | ||||
| 5.2.4.1. Minimum-Bandwidth Sub-TLV | ||||
| The Minimum-Bandwidth sub-TLV specifies the Minimum-Bandwidth allowed | ||||
| for the LSP and is expressed in bytes per second. The LSP bandwidth | ||||
| cannot be adjusted below the Minimum-Bandwidth value. | ||||
| 0 1 2 3 | 0 1 2 3 | |||
| 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 | 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=8 | Length=4 | | | Type=8 | Length=4 | | |||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |||
| | Percentage | Reserved | Count | | | Minimum-Bandwidth | | |||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |||
| Overflow-Threshold-Percentage sub-TLV format | Figure 11: Minimum-Bandwidth Sub-TLV Format | |||
| The Type is 8, Length is 4, and the value comprises of - | ||||
| o Percentage: The Overflow-Threshold value, encoded in percentage | The Type is 8, the Length is 4 octets, and the value comprises the | |||
| (an integer from 0 to 100). If the percentage increase of the | following: | |||
| current MaxAvgBw from the current bandwidth reservation is greater | ||||
| than or equal to the threshold percentage, the overflow condition | ||||
| is met. | ||||
| o Reserved: SHOULD be set to zero on transmission and MUST be | Minimum-Bandwidth: The 4-octet bandwidth value encoded in IEEE | |||
| ignored on receipt. | floating point format (see [IEEE.754.1985]) and expressed in bytes | |||
| per second. The default Minimum-Bandwidth value is set to 0. | ||||
| Refer to Section 3.1.2 of [RFC3471] for a table of commonly used | ||||
| values. | ||||
| o Count: The Overflow-Count value, encoded in integer. The value 0 | In the case in which an invalid value is present, the sub-TLV MUST be | |||
| is considered to be invalid. The number of consecutive samples | ignored and the previous value will be maintained. | |||
| for which the overflow condition MUST be met for the LSP bandwidth | ||||
| to be immediately adjusted to the current bandwidth demand, | ||||
| bypassing the adjustment-interval. | ||||
| 5.1.5.3. Underflow-Threshold sub-TLV | 5.2.4.2. Maximum-Bandwidth Sub-TLV | |||
| The Underflow-Threshold sub-TLV is used to decide if the bandwidth | The Maximum-Bandwidth sub-TLV specifies the Maximum-Bandwidth allowed | |||
| should be adjusted immediately. | for the LSP and is expressed in bytes per second. The LSP bandwidth | |||
| cannot be adjusted above the Maximum-Bandwidth value. | ||||
| 0 1 2 3 | 0 1 2 3 | |||
| 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 | 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=9 | Length=8 | | | Type=9 | Length=4 | | |||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | ||||
| | Reserved | Count | | ||||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |||
| | Underflow Threshold | | | Maximum-Bandwidth | | |||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |||
| Underflow-Threshold sub-TLV format | Figure 12: Maximum-Bandwidth Sub-TLV Format | |||
| The Type is 9, Length is 8, and the value comprises of - | The Type is 9, the Length is 4 octets, and the value comprises the | |||
| following: | ||||
| o Reserved: SHOULD be set to zero on transmission and MUST be | Maximum-Bandwidth: The 4-octet bandwidth value encoded in IEEE | |||
| ignored on receipt. | floating point format (see [IEEE.754.1985]) and expressed in bytes | |||
| per second. The default Maximum-Bandwidth value is not set. | ||||
| Refer to Section 3.1.2 of [RFC3471] for a table of commonly used | ||||
| values. | ||||
| o Count: The Underflow-Count value, encoded in integer. The value 0 | In the case in which an invalid value is present, the sub-TLV MUST be | |||
| is considered to be invalid. The number of consecutive samples | ignored and the previous value will be maintained. | |||
| for which the underflow condition MUST be met for the LSP | ||||
| bandwidth to be immediately adjusted to the current bandwidth | ||||
| demand, bypassing the adjustment-interval. | ||||
| o Underflow Threshold: The absolute Underflow-Threshold bandwidth | 5.2.5. Overflow and Underflow Conditions | |||
| value, encoded in IEEE floating point format (see | ||||
| [IEEE.754.1985]), expressed in bytes per second. Refer to Section | ||||
| 3.1.2 of [RFC3471] for a table of commonly used values. If the | ||||
| decrease of the current MaxAvgBw from the current bandwidth | ||||
| reservation is greater than or equal to the threshold value, the | ||||
| underflow condition is met. | ||||
| 5.1.5.4. Underflow-Threshold-Percentage sub-TLV | The sub-TLVs in this section are encoded to inform the PCEP peer of | |||
| the overflow and underflow threshold parameters. An implementation | ||||
| MAY include sub-TLVs for an absolute value and/or a percentage for | ||||
| the threshold, in which case the bandwidth is immediately adjusted | ||||
| when either of the threshold conditions is met consecutively for the | ||||
| given count (as long as the difference in the bandwidth is at or | ||||
| above the Minimum-Threshold). By default, the threshold values for | ||||
| overflow and underflow conditions are not set. | ||||
| The Underflow-Threshold-Percentage sub-TLV is used to decide if the | 5.2.5.1. Overflow-Threshold Sub-TLV | |||
| bandwidth should be adjusted immediately. | ||||
| The Overflow-Threshold sub-TLV is used to decide if the LSP bandwidth | ||||
| should be adjusted immediately. | ||||
| 0 1 2 3 | 0 1 2 3 | |||
| 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 | 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=10 | Length=4 | | | Type=10 | Length=8 | | |||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |||
| | Percentage | Reserved | Count | | | Reserved | Count | | |||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | ||||
| | Overflow-Threshold | | ||||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |||
| Underflow-Threshold-Percentage sub-TLV format | Figure 13: Overflow-Threshold Sub-TLV Format | |||
| The Type is 10, Length is 4, and the value comprises of - | The Type is 10, the Length is 8 octets, and the value comprises the | |||
| following: | ||||
| o Percentage: The Underflow-Threshold value, encoded in percentage | Reserved: MUST be set to zero on transmission and MUST be ignored on | |||
| (an integer from 0 to 100). If the percentage decrease of the | receipt. | |||
| current MaxAvgBw from the current bandwidth reservation is greater | ||||
| than or equal to the threshold percentage, the underflow condition | ||||
| is met. | ||||
| o Reserved: SHOULD be set to zero on transmission and MUST be | Count: The Overflow-Count value (5 bits), encoded in an integer. | |||
| ignored on receipt. | The value 0 is considered to be invalid. The number of | |||
| consecutive samples for which the overflow condition MUST be met | ||||
| for the LSP bandwidth is to be immediately adjusted to the current | ||||
| bandwidth demand, bypassing the (up) Adjustment-Interval. | ||||
| o Count: The Underflow-Count value, encoded in integer. The value 0 | Overflow-Threshold: The absolute Overflow-Threshold bandwidth value, | |||
| is considered to be invalid. The number of consecutive samples | encoded in IEEE floating point format (see [IEEE.754.1985]) and | |||
| for which the underflow condition MUST be met for the LSP | expressed in bytes per second. Refer to Section 3.1.2 of | |||
| bandwidth to be immediately adjusted to the current bandwidth | [RFC3471] for a table of commonly used values. If the difference | |||
| demand, bypassing the adjustment-interval. | between the current MaxAvgBw and the current bandwidth reservation | |||
| is greater than or equal to the threshold value, the overflow | ||||
| condition is met. | ||||
| 5.2. BANDWIDTH-USAGE-ATTRIBUTE TLV | In the case in which an invalid value is present, the sub-TLV MUST be | |||
| ignored and the previous value will be maintained. | ||||
| The BANDWIDTH-USAGE-ATTRIBUTE TLV can be included as an optional TLV | 5.2.5.2. Overflow-Threshold-Percentage Sub-TLV | |||
| in the LSPA Object (as described in [RFC5440]). Whenever the LSP | ||||
| Bandwidth Usage needs to be reported to the PCE, the BANDWIDTH-USAGE- | ||||
| ATTRIBUTE TLV is carried in PCRpt message in LSPA Object. The TLV | ||||
| provides PCE with the 'configurable knobs' of this feature. In case | ||||
| of PCE-Initiated LSP ([I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp]), this TLV is | ||||
| included in the LSPA Object with PCInitiate message. | ||||
| The format of the BANDWIDTH-USAGE-ATTRIBUTE TLV is shown in the | The Overflow-Threshold-Percentage sub-TLV is used to decide if the | |||
| following figure: | LSP bandwidth should be adjusted immediately. | |||
| 0 1 2 3 | 0 1 2 3 | |||
| 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 | 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=[TBD2] | Length | | | Type=11 | Length=8 | | |||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |||
| | | | | Percentage | Reserved | Count | | |||
| // sub-TLVs // | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |||
| | | | | Minimum-Threshold | | |||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |||
| BANDWIDTH-USAGE-ATTRIBUTE TLV format | Figure 14: Overflow-Threshold-Percentage Sub-TLV Format | |||
| Type: TBD2 | ||||
| Length: Variable | ||||
| Value: This comprises one or more sub-TLVs. | ||||
| Following sub-TLVs are defined in this document: | ||||
| Type Len Name | ||||
| ------------------------------------------------------------------- | ||||
| 1 4 Bandwidth-Usage-Report-Interval sub-TLV | ||||
| 2 4 Bandwidth-Usage-Report-Threshold sub-TLV | ||||
| 3 4 Bandwidth-Usage-Report-Threshold-Percentage sub-TLV | ||||
| 4 4 Bandwidth-Usage-Report-Flow-Threshold sub-TLV | ||||
| 5 4 Bandwidth-Usage-Report-Flow-Threshold-Percentage sub-TLV | ||||
| Future specification can define additional sub-TLVs. | The Type is 11, the Length is 8 octets, and the value comprises the | |||
| following: | ||||
| The presence of BANDWIDTH-USAGE-ATTRIBUTE TLV in LSPA Object means | Percentage: The Overflow-Threshold value (7 bits), encoded in a | |||
| that the bandwidth usage reporting to PCE is enabled. All sub-TLVs | percentage (an integer from 1 to 100). The value 0 is considered | |||
| are optional and any unrecognized sub-TLV MUST be silently ignored. | to be invalid. If the percentage increase of the current MaxAvgBw | |||
| If a sub-TLV of same type appears more than once, only the first | from the current bandwidth reservation is greater than or equal to | |||
| occurrence is processed and all others MUST be ignored. | the threshold percentage, the overflow condition is met. | |||
| The BANDWIDTH-USAGE-ATTRIBUTE TLV can also be carried in PCUpd | Reserved: MUST be set to zero on transmission and MUST be ignored on | |||
| message in LSPA Object in order to make updates to the attributes | receipt. | |||
| such as Bandwidth-Usage-Report-Interval. | ||||
| If sub-TLVs are not present, the default values based on the local | Count: The Overflow-Count value (5 bits), encoded in an integer. | |||
| policy are assumed. | The value 0 is considered to be invalid. The number of | |||
| consecutive samples for which the overflow condition MUST be met | ||||
| for the LSP bandwidth is to be immediately adjusted to the current | ||||
| bandwidth demand, bypassing the (up) Adjustment-Interval. | ||||
| The following sub-sections describe the sub-TLVs which are currently | Minimum-Threshold: The absolute Minimum-Threshold bandwidth value, | |||
| defined to be carried within the BANDWIDTH-USAGE-ATTRIBUTE TLV. | encoded in IEEE floating point format (see [IEEE.754.1985]) and | |||
| expressed in bytes per second. The increase of the LSP bandwidth | ||||
| MUST be at or above the Minimum-Threshold before the bandwidth | ||||
| adjustment is made. | ||||
| 5.2.1. Bandwidth-Usage-Report-Interval sub-TLV | In the case in which an invalid value is present, the sub-TLV MUST be | |||
| ignored and the previous value will be maintained. | ||||
| The Bandwidth-Usage-Report-Interval sub-TLV specifies a time interval | 5.2.5.3. Underflow-Threshold Sub-TLV | |||
| in seconds in which collected bandwidth samples should be reported to | ||||
| PCE. | ||||
| The Type is 1, Length is 4, and the value comprises of 4-octet time | The Underflow-Threshold sub-TLV is used to decide if the LSP | |||
| interval, the valid range is from 1 to 604800, in seconds. Default | bandwidth should be adjusted immediately. | |||
| value is 3600 seconds. | ||||
| 0 1 2 3 | 0 1 2 3 | |||
| 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 | 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=1 | Length=4 | | | Type=12 | Length=8 | | |||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |||
| | Bandwidth-Usage-Report-Interval | | | Reserved | Count | | |||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | ||||
| | Underflow-Threshold | | ||||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |||
| Bandwidth-Usage-Report-Interval sub-TLV format | Figure 15: Underflow-Threshold Sub-TLV Format | |||
| 5.2.2. Bandwidth-Usage-Report-Threshold sub-TLV | ||||
| The Bandwidth-Usage-Report-Threshold sub-TLV is used to decide when | The Type is 12, the Length is 8 octets, and the value comprises the | |||
| the bandwidth samples collected so far should be reported | following: | |||
| immediately, bypassing the report-interval. | ||||
| 0 1 2 3 | Reserved: MUST be set to zero on transmission and MUST be ignored on | |||
| 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 | receipt. | |||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | ||||
| | Type=2 | Length=4 | | ||||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | ||||
| | Bandwidth-Usage-Report Threshold | | ||||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | ||||
| Bandwidth-Usage-Report-Threshold sub-TLV format | Count: The Underflow-Count value (5 bits), encoded in an integer. | |||
| The value 0 is considered to be invalid. The number of | ||||
| consecutive samples for which the underflow condition MUST be met | ||||
| for the LSP bandwidth is to be immediately adjusted to the current | ||||
| bandwidth demand, bypassing the Down-Adjustment-Interval. | ||||
| The Type is 2, Length is 4, and the value comprises of - | Underflow-Threshold: The absolute Underflow-Threshold bandwidth | |||
| value, encoded in IEEE floating point format (see [IEEE.754.1985]) | ||||
| and expressed in bytes per second. Refer to Section 3.1.2 of | ||||
| [RFC3471] for a table of commonly used values. If the difference | ||||
| between the current MaxAvgBw and the current bandwidth reservation | ||||
| is greater than or equal to the threshold value, the underflow | ||||
| condition is met. | ||||
| o Threshold: The absolute threshold bandwidth value, encoded in IEEE | In the case in which an invalid value is present, the sub-TLV MUST be | |||
| floating point format (see [IEEE.754.1985]), expressed in bytes | ignored and the previous value will be maintained. | |||
| per second. Refer to Section 3.1.2 of [RFC3471] for a table of | ||||
| commonly used values. If the increase or the decrease of at least | ||||
| one of the bandwidth samples (BwSamples) collected so far compared | ||||
| to the current bandwidth reservation is greater than or equal to | ||||
| the threshold value, the bandwidth samples collected so far are | ||||
| reported. | ||||
| 5.2.3. Bandwidth-Usage-Report-Threshold-Percentage sub-TLV | 5.2.5.4. Underflow-Threshold-Percentage Sub-TLV | |||
| The Bandwidth-Usage-Report-Threshold-Percentage sub-TLV is used to | The Underflow-Threshold-Percentage sub-TLV is used to decide if the | |||
| decide when the bandwidth samples collected so far should be reported | LSP bandwidth should be adjusted immediately. | |||
| immediately, bypassing the report-interval. | ||||
| 0 1 2 3 | 0 1 2 3 | |||
| 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 | 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=3 | Length=4 | | | Type=13 | Length=8 | | |||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |||
| | Reserved | Percentage | | | Percentage | Reserved | Count | | |||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | ||||
| | Minimum-Threshold | | ||||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |||
| Bandwidth-Usage-Report-Threshold-Percentage sub-TLV format | Figure 16: Underflow-Threshold-Percentage Sub-TLV Format | |||
| The Type is 3, Length is 4, and the value comprises of - | The Type is 13, the Length is 8 octets, and the value comprises the | |||
| following: | ||||
| o Reserved: SHOULD be set to zero on transmission and MUST be | Percentage: The Underflow-Threshold value (7 bits), encoded in | |||
| ignored on receipt. | percentage (an integer from 1 to 100). The value 0 is considered | |||
| to be invalid. If the percentage decrease of the current MaxAvgBw | ||||
| from the current bandwidth reservation is greater than or equal to | ||||
| the threshold percentage, the underflow condition is met. | ||||
| o Percentage: The threshold value, encoded in percentage (an integer | Reserved: MUST be set to zero on transmission and MUST be ignored on | |||
| from 0 to 100). If the percentage increase or the decrease of at | receipt. | |||
| least one of the bandwidth sample (BwSample) compared to the | ||||
| current bandwidth reservation is greater than or equal to the | ||||
| threshold percentage, the bandwidth samples collected so far are | ||||
| reported. | ||||
| 5.2.4. Bandwidth-Usage-Report-Flow-Threshold sub-TLV | Count: The Underflow-Count value (5 bits), encoded in an integer. | |||
| The value 0 is considered to be invalid. The number of | ||||
| consecutive samples for which the underflow condition MUST be met | ||||
| for the LSP bandwidth is to be immediately adjusted to the current | ||||
| bandwidth demand, bypassing the Down-Adjustment-Interval. | ||||
| The Bandwidth-Usage-Report-Flow-Threshold sub-TLV is used to decide | Minimum-Threshold: The absolute Minimum-Threshold bandwidth value, | |||
| when the bandwidth samples collected should be reported immediately, | encoded in IEEE floating point format (see [IEEE.754.1985]) and | |||
| bypassing the report-interval. | expressed in bytes per second. The decrease of the LSP bandwidth | |||
| MUST be at or above the Minimum-Threshold before the bandwidth | ||||
| adjustment is made. | ||||
| 0 1 2 3 | In the case in which an invalid value is present, the sub-TLV MUST be | |||
| 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 | ignored and the previous value will be maintained. | |||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | ||||
| | Type=4 | Length=4 | | ||||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | ||||
| | Bandwidth-Usage-Report-Flow Threshold | | ||||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | ||||
| Bandwidth-Usage-Report-Flow-Threshold sub-TLV format | 5.3. BANDWIDTH Object | |||
| The Type is 4, Length is 4, and the value comprises of - | As per [RFC5440], the BANDWIDTH object (Object-Class value 5) is | |||
| defined with two Object-Type values as follows: | ||||
| o Threshold: The absolute flow threshold bandwidth value, encoded in | Requested Bandwidth: The BANDWIDTH Object-Type value is 1. | |||
| IEEE floating point format (see [IEEE.754.1985]), expressed in | ||||
| bytes per second. Refer to Section 3.1.2 of [RFC3471] for a table | ||||
| of commonly used values. If the increase or the decrease of the | ||||
| current bandwidth sample (BwSample) compared to the current | ||||
| bandwidth reservation is greater than or equal to the flow | ||||
| threshold value, all the bandwidth samples collected so far are | ||||
| reported immediately, bypassing the report-interval. | ||||
| 5.2.5. Bandwidth-Usage-Report-Flow-Threshold-Percent sub-TLV | Reoptimization Bandwidth: The bandwidth of an existing TE LSP for | |||
| which a reoptimization is requested. The BANDWIDTH Object-Type | ||||
| value is 2. | ||||
| The Bandwidth-Usage-Report-Flow-Threshold-Percent sub-TLV is used to | The PCC reports the calculated bandwidth to be adjusted (MaxAvgBw) to | |||
| decide when the bandwidth samples collected should be reported | the stateful PCE using the existing 'Requested Bandwidth' with the | |||
| immediately, bypassing the report-interval. | BANDWIDTH Object-Type as 1. The reporting of the 'reoptimization | |||
| bandwidth' with BANDWIDTH Object-Type as 2 is not required as the | ||||
| stateful PCE is aware of the existing LSP bandwidth. | ||||
| 0 1 2 3 | 5.4. The PCInitiate 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 | ||||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | ||||
| | Type=5 | Length=4 | | ||||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | ||||
| | Reserved | Percentage | | ||||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | ||||
| Bandwidth-Usage-Report-Flow-Threshold-Percentage sub-TLV format | A PCInitiate message is a PCEP message sent by a PCE to a PCC to | |||
| trigger LSP instantiation or deletion [RFC8281]. | ||||
| The Type is 5, Length is 4, and the value comprises of - | For the PCE-initiated LSP with the auto-bandwidth feature enabled, | |||
| AUTO-BANDWIDTH-ATTRIBUTES TLV MUST be included in the LSPA object | ||||
| with the PCInitiate message. | ||||
| o Reserved: SHOULD be set to zero on transmission and MUST be | The Routing Backus-Naur Form (RBNF) definition of the PCInitiate | |||
| ignored on receipt. | message [RFC8281] is unchanged by this document. | |||
| o Percentage: The flow threshold value, encoded in percentage (an | 5.5. The PCUpd Message | |||
| integer from 0 to 100). If the percentage increase or the | ||||
| decrease of the current bandwidth sample (BwSample) compared to | ||||
| the current bandwidth reservation is greater than or equal to the | ||||
| threshold percentage, all the bandwidth samples collected so far | ||||
| are reported immediately, bypassing the report-interval. | ||||
| 5.3. BANDWIDTH Object | A PCUpd message is a PCEP message sent by a PCE to a PCC to update | |||
| the LSP parameters [RFC8231]. | ||||
| 5.3.1. Auto-Bandwidth Adjusted Bandwidth | For PCE-initiated LSPs with the auto-bandwidth feature enabled, the | |||
| AUTO-BANDWIDTH-ATTRIBUTES TLV MUST be included in the LSPA object | ||||
| with the PCUpd message. The PCE can send this TLV to direct the PCC | ||||
| to change the auto-bandwidth parameters. | ||||
| As per [RFC5440], the BANDWIDTH object is defined with two | The RBNF definition of the PCUpd message [RFC8231] is unchanged by | |||
| Object-Type values as following: | this document. | |||
| o Requested Bandwidth: BANDWIDTH Object-Type value is 1. | 5.6. The PCRpt Message | |||
| o Re-optimization Bandwidth: Bandwidth of an existing TE LSP for | The PCRpt message [RFC8231] is a PCEP message sent by a PCC to a PCE | |||
| which a re-optimization is requested. BANDWIDTH Object-Type value | to report the status of one or more LSPs. | |||
| is 2. | ||||
| In the first model, where PCC calculates the adjusted bandwidth, PCC | For PCE-initiated LSPs [RFC8281], the PCC creates the LSP using the | |||
| only reports the calculated bandwidth to be adjusted (MaxAvgBw) to | attributes communicated by the PCE and the local values for the | |||
| the PCE. This is done via the existing 'Requested Bandwidth with | unspecified parameters. After the successful instantiation of the | |||
| BANDWIDTH Object-Type as 1. | LSP, the PCC automatically delegates the LSP to the PCE and generates | |||
| a PCRpt message to provide the status report for the LSP. | ||||
| 5.3.2. Bandwidth-Usage Report | For both PCE-initiated and PCC-initiated LSPs, when the LSP is | |||
| delegated to a PCE for the very first time as well as after the | ||||
| successful delegation, the BANDWIDTH object of type 1 is used to | ||||
| specify the requested bandwidth in the PCRpt message. | ||||
| A new BANDWIDTH object-type is defined to report the real-time | The RBNF definition of the PCRpt message [RFC8231] is unchanged by | |||
| bandwidth usage of a TE LSP. | this document. | |||
| The Object-type is [TBD3], the object length is variable with | 5.7. The PCNtf Message | |||
| multiples of 4 bytes. The payload format is as follows: | ||||
| 0 1 2 3 | As per [RFC5440], the PCEP Notification message (PCNtf) can be sent | |||
| 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 | by a PCEP speaker to notify its peer of a specific event. | |||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | ||||
| | BwSample1 | | ||||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | ||||
| | ... | | ||||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | ||||
| | BwSampleN | | ||||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | ||||
| Bandwidth-Usage format | A PCEP speaker (PCE or PCC) SHOULD notify its PCEP peer (PCC or PCE) | |||
| when it is in an overwhelmed state due to the auto-bandwidth feature. | ||||
| An implementation needs to make an attempt to send this notification | ||||
| (when overwhelmed by auto-bandwidth adjustments) unless sending this | ||||
| notification would only serve to increase the load further. Note | ||||
| that when the notification is not received, the PCEP speaker would | ||||
| continue to request bandwidth adjustments even when they cannot be | ||||
| handled in a timely fashion. | ||||
| o BwSample: The actual bandwidth usage, (the BwSample collected at | Upon receipt of an auto-bandwidth overwhelm notification, the peer | |||
| the end of each sample-interval) encoded in IEEE floating point | SHOULD NOT send any PCEP messages related to auto-bandwidth | |||
| format (see [IEEE.754.1985]), expressed in bytes per second. | adjustment. If a PCEP message related to auto-bandwidth adjustment | |||
| is received while in an overwhelmed state, it MUST be ignored. | ||||
| The Bandwidth-Usage object-type is used in the second deployment | * When a PCEP speaker is overwhelmed, it SHOULD notify its peer by | |||
| model where PCC reports the TE LSP bandwidth usage and the PCE | sending a PCNtf message with Notification-type = 5 (Auto-Bandwidth | |||
| decides the Auto-Bandwidth adjusted bandwidth. | Overwhelm State) and Notification-value = 1 (Entering Auto- | |||
| Bandwidth Overwhelm State). Optionally, an OVERLOADED-DURATION | ||||
| TLV [RFC5440] MAY be included to specify the time period during | ||||
| which no further PCEP messages related to auto-bandwidth | ||||
| adjustment should be sent. | ||||
| The Bandwidth-Usage object-type can also be used for TE LSPs without | * When the PCEP speaker is no longer in the overwhelm state and is | |||
| enabling the Auto-Bandwidth feature, to learn the actual bandwidth | available to process the auto-bandwidth adjustments, it SHOULD | |||
| usage of the LSPs for other applications at the stateful PCE, details | notify its peers by sending a PCNtf message with Notification-type | |||
| of which are beyond the scope of this document. | = 5 (Auto-Bandwidth Overwhelm State) and Notification-value = 2 | |||
| (Clearing Auto-Bandwidth Overwhelm State). A PCEP speaker SHOULD | ||||
| send such notification to all peers if a Notification message | ||||
| (Notification-type = 5, Notification-value = 1) was sent earlier. | ||||
| This message is not sent if an OVERLOADED-DURATION TLV was | ||||
| included and the PCEP speakers wishes for the peer to wait for the | ||||
| expiration of that period of time before receiving further PCEP | ||||
| messages related to auto-bandwidth adjustment. | ||||
| 5.4. The PCRpt Message | When the auto-bandwidth feature is deployed, a PCE can send this | |||
| notification to a PCC when it reports frequent auto-bandwidth | ||||
| adjustments. If a PCC is overwhelmed with resignaling, it can also | ||||
| notify the PCE to not adjust the LSP bandwidth while in the overwhelm | ||||
| state. | ||||
| When LSP is delegated to a PCE for the very first time, BANDWIDTH | Some dampening notification procedure (as per [RFC5440]) to avoid | |||
| object of type 1 is used to specify the requested bandwidth in the | oscillations of the overwhelm state is RECOMMENDED. On receipt of an | |||
| PCRpt message. | auto-bandwidth overwhelm notification from the PCE, a PCC should | |||
| consider the impact on the entire network. Moving the delegations of | ||||
| auto-bandwidth-enabled LSPs to another PCE could cause further | ||||
| overloading. | ||||
| When the LSP is enabled with the Auto-Bandwidth feature, and | 6. Manageability Considerations | |||
| BANDWIDTH-USAGE-ATTRIBUTE TLV is not present (Deployment model 1), | ||||
| PCC SHOULD include the BANDWIDTH object of type 1 to specify the | ||||
| calculated bandwidth to be adjusted to the PCE in the PCRpt message. | ||||
| When the LSP is enabled with the Auto-Bandwidth feature, and | 6.1. Control of Function and Policy | |||
| BANDWIDTH-USAGE-ATTRIBUTE TLV is present (Deployment model 2), PCC | ||||
| SHOULD include the BANDWIDTH object of type [TBD] to report the | ||||
| real-time bandwidth-usage to the PCE in the PCRpt message. | ||||
| The definition of the PCRpt message (see [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce]) | The auto-bandwidth feature SHOULD be controlled on a per-LSP basis | |||
| is unchanged by this document. | (at the PCC (head-end of the LSP) or PCE), and the values for auto- | |||
| bandwidth parameters, e.g., Sample-Interval, Adjustment-Interval (up/ | ||||
| down), Minimum-Bandwidth, Maximum-Bandwidth, and Adjustment-Threshold | ||||
| (up/down), SHOULD be configurable by an operator. | ||||
| 5.5. The PCInitiate Message | The Maximum-Bandwidth (and Minimum-Bandwidth) should be set to an | |||
| acceptable limit to avoid having an impact on the rest of the MPLS-TE | ||||
| domain. | ||||
| For PCE-initiated LSP [I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp] with Auto- | The operator should make sure that the Overflow-Threshold is greater | |||
| Bandwidth feature enabled, AUTO-BANDWIDTH-ATTRIBUTE TLV MUST be | than or at least equal to the Up-Adjustment-Threshold. And | |||
| included in LSPA object with the PCInitiate message. The rest of the | similarly, it is important to ensure that the Underflow-Threshold is | |||
| processing remains unchanged. | greater than or at least equal to the Down-Adjustment-Threshold. | |||
| 6. Security Considerations | 6.2. Information and Data Models | |||
| This document defines a new BANDWIDTH type, AUTO-BANDWIDTH-ATTRIBUTE | A MIB module for gathering operational information about the PCEP is | |||
| TLV and BANDWIDTH-USAGE_ATTRIBUTE TLV which do not add any new | defined in [RFC7420]. Additionally, the YANG module defined in | |||
| security concerns beyond those discussed in [RFC5440] and | [PCE-PCEP-YANG] provides both configuration of PCEP as well as | |||
| [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce]. | operational management. These could be enhanced to provide controls | |||
| and indicators for support of the auto-bandwidth feature. Support | ||||
| for various configuration knobs as well as counters of messages sent/ | ||||
| received containing the TLVs defined in this document could be added. | ||||
| Some deployments may find the reporting of the real-time bandwidth- | 6.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring | |||
| usage information as extra sensitive and thus should employ suitable | ||||
| PCEP security mechanisms like TCP-AO or [I-D.ietf-pce-pceps]. | ||||
| 7. Manageability Considerations | The mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new liveness | |||
| detection and monitoring requirements in addition to those already | ||||
| listed in [RFC5440]. | ||||
| 7.1. Control of Function and Policy | 6.4. Verifying Correct Operations | |||
| The Auto-Bandwidth feature MUST BE controlled per tunnel (at ingress | The mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new | |||
| (PCC) or PCE), the values for parameters like sample-interval, | operation verification requirements in addition to those already | |||
| adjustment-interval, minimum-bandwidth, maximum-bandwidth, | listed in [RFC5440]. | |||
| adjustment-threshold, report-interval, report-threshold SHOULD be | ||||
| configurable by an operator. | ||||
| 7.2. Information and Data Models | In the case in which an invalid value is present, the sub-TLV would | |||
| get ignored and the previous value will be maintained. In such a | ||||
| case, the implementation SHOULD log the event. | ||||
| [RFC7420] describes the PCEP MIB, there are no new MIB Objects | 6.5. Requirements for Other Protocols | |||
| defined in this document. | ||||
| 7.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring | The mechanisms defined in this document do not add any new | |||
| requirements for other protocols. | ||||
| Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new liveness | 6.6. Impact on Network Operations | |||
| detection and monitoring requirements in addition to those already | ||||
| listed in [RFC5440]. | ||||
| 7.4. Verify Correct Operations | In order to avoid any unacceptable impact on network operations, an | |||
| implementation SHOULD allow a limit to be placed on the number of | ||||
| LSPs that can be enabled with the auto-bandwidth feature. For each | ||||
| LSP enabled with the auto-bandwidth feature, there is an extra load | ||||
| on the PCC, as it needs to monitor the traffic and report the | ||||
| calculated bandwidth to be adjusted to the PCE. The PCE further | ||||
| recomputes paths based on the requested bandwidth and updates the | ||||
| path to the PCC, which, in turn, triggers the resignaling of the | ||||
| path. All these steps add extra load and churn in the network; thus, | ||||
| the operator needs to take due care while enabling these features on | ||||
| a number of LSPs. | ||||
| Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new operation | An implementation MAY allow a limit to be placed on the rate of auto- | |||
| verification requirements in addition to those already listed in | bandwidth-related messages sent by a PCEP speaker and received by a | |||
| [RFC5440]. | peer. An implementation SHOULD also allow notifications to be sent | |||
| when a PCEP speaker is overwhelmed or when the rate of messages | ||||
| reaches a threshold. | ||||
| 7.5. Requirements On Other Protocols | Due care is required by the operator if a Sample-Interval value | |||
| significantly smaller than the default (5 minutes) is used, as small | ||||
| Sample-Interval values, e.g., 1 minute or less, could cause | ||||
| undesirable interactions with transport protocols. These undesirable | ||||
| interactions result from providing insufficient time for transport | ||||
| protocol reactions to a prior bandwidth adjustment to settle down | ||||
| before Bandwidth-Samples are taken for the next bandwidth adjustment. | ||||
| Mechanisms defined in this document do not add any new requirements | 7. Security Considerations | |||
| on other protocols. | ||||
| 7.6. Impact On Network Operations | This document defines AUTO-BANDWIDTH-CAPABILITY TLV and AUTO- | |||
| BANDWIDTH-ATTRIBUTES sub-TLVs, which do not add any substantial new | ||||
| security concerns beyond those already discussed in [RFC8231] and | ||||
| [RFC8281] for stateful PCE operations. As per [RFC8231], it is | ||||
| RECOMMENDED that these PCEP extensions only be activated on | ||||
| authenticated and encrypted sessions across PCEs and PCCs belonging | ||||
| to the same administrative authority, using Transport Layer Security | ||||
| (TLS) [RFC8253], as per the recommendations and best current | ||||
| practices in BCP 195 [RFC7525] (unless explicitly set aside in | ||||
| [RFC8253]). | ||||
| Mechanisms defined in this document do not have any impact on network | Incorrect auto-bandwidth parameters in the AUTO-BANDWIDTH-ATTRIBUTES | |||
| operations in addition to those already listed in [RFC5440]. | sub-TLVs could have an adverse effect on the LSP as well as on the | |||
| network. | ||||
| 8. IANA Considerations | 8. IANA Considerations | |||
| 8.1. PCEP TLV Type Indicators | 8.1. PCEP TLV Type Indicators | |||
| This document defines the following new PCEP TLVs; IANA is requested | This document defines the following new PCEP TLVs; IANA has made the | |||
| to make the following allocations from this registry. | following allocations from the "PCEP TLV Type Indicators" subregistry | |||
| http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#pcep-tlv-type- | of the "Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry as | |||
| indicators | follows: | |||
| Value Name Reference | +-------+---------------------------+-----------+ | |||
| TBD1 AUTO-BANDWIDTH-ATTRIBUTE [This I.D.] | | Value | Description | Reference | | |||
| TBD2 BANDWIDTH-USAGE-ATTRIBUTE [This I.D.] | +=======+===========================+===========+ | |||
| | 36 | AUTO-BANDWIDTH-CAPABILITY | [RFC8733] | | ||||
| +-------+---------------------------+-----------+ | ||||
| | 37 | AUTO-BANDWIDTH-ATTRIBUTES | [RFC8733] | | ||||
| +-------+---------------------------+-----------+ | ||||
| 8.2. AUTO-BANDWIDTH-ATTRIBUTE Sub-TLV | Table 3: PCEP TLV Type Indicators | |||
| This document specifies the AUTO-BANDWIDTH-ATTRIBUTE Sub-TLVs. IANA | 8.2. AUTO-BANDWIDTH-CAPABILITY TLV Flag Field | |||
| is requested to create an "AUTO-BANDWIDTH-ATTRIBUTE Sub-TLV Types" | ||||
| sub- registry in the "PCEP TLV Type Indicators" for the sub-TLVs | ||||
| carried in the AUTO-BANDWIDTH-ATTRIBUTE TLV. This document defines | ||||
| the following types: | ||||
| Type Name Reference | IANA has created a subregistry to manage the Flag field of the AUTO- | |||
| -------------------------------------------------------------- | BANDWIDTH-CAPABILITY TLV within the "Path Computation Element | |||
| 0 Reserved [This I.D.] | Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry. | |||
| 1 Sample-Interval sub-TLV [This I.D.] | ||||
| 2 Adjustment-Interval sub-TLV [This I.D.] | ||||
| 3 Adjustment-Threshold sub-TLV [This I.D.] | ||||
| 4 Adjustment-Threshold-Percentage sub-TLV [This I.D.] | ||||
| 5 Minimum-Bandwidth sub-TLV [This I.D.] | ||||
| 6 Maximum-Bandwidth sub-TLV [This I.D.] | ||||
| 7 Overflow-Threshold sub-TLV [This I.D.] | ||||
| 8 Overflow-Threshold-Percentage sub-TLV [This I.D.] | ||||
| 9 Underflow-Threshold sub-TLV [This I.D.] | ||||
| 10 Underflow-Threshold-Percentage sub-TLV [This I.D.] | ||||
| 11- Unassigned [This I.D.] | ||||
| 65535 | ||||
| 8.3. BANDWIDTH-USAGE-ATTRIBUTE Sub-TLV | New bit numbers are to be assigned by Standards Action [RFC8126]. | |||
| Each bit should be tracked with the following qualities: | ||||
| This document specifies the BANDWIDTH-USAGE-ATTRIBUTE Sub-TLVs. IANA | * Bit number (counting from bit 0 as the most significant bit) | |||
| is requested to create an "BANDWIDTH-USAGE-ATTRIBUTE Sub-TLV Types" | ||||
| sub-registry in the "PCEP TLV Type Indicators" for the sub-TLVs | ||||
| carried in the BANDWIDTH-USAGE-ATTRIBUTE TLV. This document defines | ||||
| the following types: | ||||
| Type Name Reference | * Capability description | |||
| -------------------------------------------------------------- | ||||
| 0 Reserved [This I.D.] | ||||
| 1 Bandwidth-Usage-Report-Interval sub-TLV [This I.D.] | ||||
| 2 Bandwidth-Usage-Report-Threshold sub-TLV [This I.D.] | ||||
| 3 Bandwidth-Usage-Report-Threshold-Percentage [This I.D.] | ||||
| sub-TLV | ||||
| 4 Bandwidth-Usage-Report-Flow-Threshold [This I.D.] | ||||
| sub-TLV | ||||
| 5 Bandwidth-Usage-Report-Flow-Threshold [This I.D.] | ||||
| -Percentage sub-TLV | ||||
| 6- Unassigned [This I.D.] | ||||
| 65535 | ||||
| 8.4. BANDWIDTH Object | * Defining RFC | |||
| This document defines new object type for the BANDWIDTH object; IANA | The initial contents of the subregistry are empty, with all bits | |||
| is requested to make the following allocations from this registry. | marked unassigned. | |||
| http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#pcep-objects | ||||
| Object-Class Value Name Reference | 8.3. AUTO-BANDWIDTH-ATTRIBUTES Sub-TLV | |||
| 5 BANDWIDTH [This I.D.] | ||||
| Object-Type | This document specifies the AUTO-BANDWIDTH-ATTRIBUTES sub-TLVs. IANA | |||
| TBD3: Bandwidth-Usage Report | has created an "AUTO-BANDWIDTH-ATTRIBUTES Sub-TLV Types" subregistry | |||
| within the "Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" | ||||
| registry to manage the type indicator space for sub-TLVs of the AUTO- | ||||
| BANDWIDTH-ATTRIBUTES TLV. The valid range of values in the registry | ||||
| is 0-65535. IANA has initialized the registry with the following | ||||
| values. All other values in the registry should be marked as | ||||
| "Unassigned". | ||||
| IANA has set the Registration Procedure for this registry to read as | ||||
| follows: | ||||
| +-------------+------------------------+ | ||||
| | Range | Registration Procedure | | ||||
| +=============+========================+ | ||||
| | 0-65503 | IETF Review | | ||||
| +-------------+------------------------+ | ||||
| | 65504-65535 | Experimental Use | | ||||
| +-------------+------------------------+ | ||||
| Table 4: Registration Procedure for | ||||
| the "AUTO-BANDWIDTH-ATTRIBUTES Sub- | ||||
| TLV" Registry | ||||
| This document defines the following types: | ||||
| +----------+--------------------------------------+-----------+ | ||||
| | Type | Name | Reference | | ||||
| +==========+======================================+===========+ | ||||
| | 0 | Reserved | [RFC8733] | | ||||
| +----------+--------------------------------------+-----------+ | ||||
| | 1 | Sample-Interval | [RFC8733] | | ||||
| +----------+--------------------------------------+-----------+ | ||||
| | 2 | Adjustment-Interval | [RFC8733] | | ||||
| +----------+--------------------------------------+-----------+ | ||||
| | 3 | Down-Adjustment-Interval | [RFC8733] | | ||||
| +----------+--------------------------------------+-----------+ | ||||
| | 4 | Adjustment-Threshold | [RFC8733] | | ||||
| +----------+--------------------------------------+-----------+ | ||||
| | 5 | Adjustment-Threshold-Percentage | [RFC8733] | | ||||
| +----------+--------------------------------------+-----------+ | ||||
| | 6 | Down-Adjustment-Threshold | [RFC8733] | | ||||
| +----------+--------------------------------------+-----------+ | ||||
| | 7 | Down-Adjustment-Threshold-Percentage | [RFC8733] | | ||||
| +----------+--------------------------------------+-----------+ | ||||
| | 8 | Minimum-Bandwidth | [RFC8733] | | ||||
| +----------+--------------------------------------+-----------+ | ||||
| | 9 | Maximum-Bandwidth | [RFC8733] | | ||||
| +----------+--------------------------------------+-----------+ | ||||
| | 10 | Overflow-Threshold | [RFC8733] | | ||||
| +----------+--------------------------------------+-----------+ | ||||
| | 11 | Overflow-Threshold-Percentage | [RFC8733] | | ||||
| +----------+--------------------------------------+-----------+ | ||||
| | 12 | Underflow-Threshold | [RFC8733] | | ||||
| +----------+--------------------------------------+-----------+ | ||||
| | 13 | Underflow-Threshold-Percentage | [RFC8733] | | ||||
| +----------+--------------------------------------+-----------+ | ||||
| | 14-65503 | Unassigned | [RFC8733] | | ||||
| +----------+--------------------------------------+-----------+ | ||||
| Table 5: Initial Contents of the "AUTO-BANDWIDTH-ATTRIBUTES | ||||
| Sub-TLV" Registry | ||||
| 8.4. Error Object | ||||
| This document defines a new Error-value for PCErr message of Error- | ||||
| Type 19 (Invalid Operation) [RFC8231]. IANA has allocated a new | ||||
| Error-value within the "PCEP-ERROR Object Error Types and Values" | ||||
| subregistry of the "Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" | ||||
| registry as follows: | ||||
| +------------+-----------+--------------------+-----------+ | ||||
| | Error-Type | Meaning | Error-value | Reference | | ||||
| +============+===========+====================+===========+ | ||||
| | 19 | Invalid | 14: Auto-Bandwidth | [RFC8733] | | ||||
| | | Operation | capability was not | | | ||||
| | | | advertised | | | ||||
| +------------+-----------+--------------------+-----------+ | ||||
| Table 6: Addition to the "PCEP-ERROR Object Error Types | ||||
| and Values" Registry | ||||
| 8.5. Notification Object | ||||
| IANA has allocated a new Notification-type and Notification-values | ||||
| within the "Notification Object" subregistry of the "Path Computation | ||||
| Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry as follows: | ||||
| +-------------------+----------------+--------------------+---------+ | ||||
| | Notification-type | Name | Notification-value |Reference| | ||||
| +===================+================+====================+=========+ | ||||
| | 5 | Auto-Bandwidth | 0: Unassigned |[RFC8733]| | ||||
| | |Overwhelm State | | | | ||||
| +-------------------+----------------+--------------------+---------+ | ||||
| | | | 1: Entering Auto- |[RFC8733]| | ||||
| | | |Bandwidth Overwhelm | | | ||||
| | | | State | | | ||||
| +-------------------+----------------+--------------------+---------+ | ||||
| | | | 2: Clearing Auto- |[RFC8733]| | ||||
| | | |Bandwidth Overwhelm | | | ||||
| | | | State | | | ||||
| +-------------------+----------------+--------------------+---------+ | ||||
| Table 7: Additions to the "Notification Object" Registry | ||||
| 9. References | 9. References | |||
| 9.1. Normative References | 9.1. Normative References | |||
| [IEEE.754.1985] | ||||
| IEEE, "Standard for Binary Floating-Point Arithmetic", | ||||
| DOI 10.1109/IEEESTD.1985.82928, IEEE Standard 754, October | ||||
| 1985, <https://doi.org/10.1109/IEEESTD.1985.82928>. | ||||
| [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate | [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate | |||
| Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. | Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, | |||
| DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, | ||||
| <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. | ||||
| [RFC5440] Vasseur, JP. and JL. Le Roux, "Path Computation Element | [RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation | |||
| (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440, March | Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440, | |||
| 2009. | DOI 10.17487/RFC5440, March 2009, | |||
| <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5440>. | ||||
| [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] | [RFC7525] Sheffer, Y., Holz, R., and P. Saint-Andre, | |||
| Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Medved, J., and R. Varga, | "Recommendations for Secure Use of Transport Layer | |||
| "PCEP Extensions for Stateful PCE", | Security (TLS) and Datagram Transport Layer Security | |||
| draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-11 (work in progress), | (DTLS)", BCP 195, RFC 7525, DOI 10.17487/RFC7525, May | |||
| April 2015. | 2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7525>. | |||
| [I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp] | [RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for | |||
| Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Sivabalan, S., and R. Varga, | Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, | |||
| "PCEP Extensions for PCE-initiated LSP Setup in a | RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017, | |||
| Stateful PCE Model", draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp-04 | <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>. | |||
| (work in progress), April 2015. | ||||
| [IEEE.754.1985] | [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC | |||
| Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, | 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, | |||
| "Standard for Binary Floating-Point Arithmetic", | May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>. | |||
| IEEE Standard 754, August 1985. | ||||
| [RFC8231] Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Medved, J., and R. Varga, "Path | ||||
| Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) | ||||
| Extensions for Stateful PCE", RFC 8231, | ||||
| DOI 10.17487/RFC8231, September 2017, | ||||
| <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8231>. | ||||
| [RFC8253] Lopez, D., Gonzalez de Dios, O., Wu, Q., and D. Dhody, | ||||
| "PCEPS: Usage of TLS to Provide a Secure Transport for the | ||||
| Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)", | ||||
| RFC 8253, DOI 10.17487/RFC8253, October 2017, | ||||
| <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8253>. | ||||
| [RFC8281] Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Sivabalan, S., and R. Varga, "Path | ||||
| Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) | ||||
| Extensions for PCE-Initiated LSP Setup in a Stateful PCE | ||||
| Model", RFC 8281, DOI 10.17487/RFC8281, December 2017, | ||||
| <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8281>. | ||||
| 9.2. Informative References | 9.2. Informative References | |||
| [RFC3471] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching | [PCE-PCEP-YANG] | |||
| (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC 3471, | Dhody, D., Hardwick, J., Beeram, V., and J. Tantsura, "A | |||
| January 2003. | YANG Data Model for Path Computation Element | |||
| Communications Protocol (PCEP)", Work in Progress, | ||||
| Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-pce-pcep-yang-13, 31 October | ||||
| 2019, | ||||
| <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-yang-13>. | ||||
| [RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V., | ||||
| and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP | ||||
| Tunnels", RFC 3209, DOI 10.17487/RFC3209, December 2001, | ||||
| <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3209>. | ||||
| [RFC3471] Berger, L., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label | ||||
| Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", | ||||
| RFC 3471, DOI 10.17487/RFC3471, January 2003, | ||||
| <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3471>. | ||||
| [RFC7420] Koushik, A., Stephan, E., Zhao, Q., King, D., and J. | [RFC7420] Koushik, A., Stephan, E., Zhao, Q., King, D., and J. | |||
| Hardwick, "Path Computation Element Communication Protocol | Hardwick, "Path Computation Element Communication Protocol | |||
| (PCEP) Management Information Base (MIB) Module", RFC | (PCEP) Management Information Base (MIB) Module", | |||
| 7420, December 2014. | RFC 7420, DOI 10.17487/RFC7420, December 2014, | |||
| <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7420>. | ||||
| [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce-app] | ||||
| Zhang, X. and I. Minei, "Applicability of a Stateful Path | ||||
| Computation Element (PCE)", | ||||
| draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-app-04 (work in progress), | ||||
| April 2015. | ||||
| [I-D.ietf-pce-pceps] | [RFC8051] Zhang, X., Ed. and I. Minei, Ed., "Applicability of a | |||
| Lopez, D., Dios, O., Wu, W., and D. Dhody, "Secure | Stateful Path Computation Element (PCE)", RFC 8051, | |||
| Transport for PCEP", draft-ietf-pce-pceps-04 (work | DOI 10.17487/RFC8051, January 2017, | |||
| in progress), May 2015. | <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8051>. | |||
| Acknowledgments | Acknowledgments | |||
| Authors would like to thank Venugopal Reddy, Reeja Paul, Sandeep | The authors would like to thank Robert Varga, Venugopal Reddy, Reeja | |||
| Boina and Avantika for their useful comments and suggestions. | Paul, Sandeep Boina, Avantika, JP Vasseur, Himanshu Shah, Jonathan | |||
| Hardwick, and Adrian Farrel for their useful comments and | ||||
| suggestions. | ||||
| Contributors' Addresses | Thanks to Daniel Franke, Joe Clarke, David Black, and Erik Kline for | |||
| the directorate reviews. | ||||
| Thanks to Mirja Kühlewind, Barry Leiba, Benjamin Kaduk, and Roman | ||||
| Danyliw for the IESG review. | ||||
| Contributors | ||||
| He Zekun | He Zekun | |||
| Tencent Holdings Ltd, | Tencent Holdings Ltd. | |||
| Shenzhen P.R.China | Shenzhen | |||
| China | ||||
| Email: kinghe@tencent.com | Email: kinghe@tencent.com | |||
| Xian Zhang | Xian Zhang | |||
| Huawei Technologies | Huawei Technologies | |||
| Research Area F3-1B, | Research Area F3-1B | |||
| Huawei Industrial Base, | Huawei Industrial Base, | |||
| Shenzhen, 518129 | Shenzhen | |||
| 518129 | ||||
| China | China | |||
| Phone: +86-755-28972645 | Phone: +86-755-28972645 | |||
| Email: zhang.xian@huawei.com | Email: zhang.xian@huawei.com | |||
| Young Lee | Young Lee | |||
| Huawei Technologies | Samsung | |||
| 1700 Alma Drive, Suite 100 | ||||
| Plano, TX 75075 | ||||
| USA | ||||
| Phone: +1 972 509 5599 x2240 | Email: younglee.tx@gmail.com | |||
| Fax: +1 469 229 5397 | ||||
| EMail: leeyoung@huawei.com | ||||
| Authors' Addresses | Authors' Addresses | |||
| Dhruv Dhody | Dhruv Dhody (editor) | |||
| Huawei Technologies | Huawei Technologies | |||
| Divyashree Techno Park, Whitefield | Divyashree Techno Park, Whitefield | |||
| Bangalore, Karnataka 560037 | Bangalore 560066 | |||
| Karnataka | ||||
| India | India | |||
| EMail: dhruv.ietf@gmail.com | Email: dhruv.ietf@gmail.com | |||
| Udayasree Palle | Rakesh Gandhi (editor) | |||
| Huawei Technologies | Cisco Systems, Inc. | |||
| Divyashree Techno Park, Whitefield | Canada | |||
| Bangalore, Karnataka 560037 | ||||
| India | ||||
| EMail: udayasree.palle@huawei.com | Email: rgandhi@cisco.com | |||
| Ravi Singh | Udayasree Palle | |||
| Juniper Networks | Individual Contributor | |||
| 1194 N. Mathilda Ave. | ||||
| Sunnyvale, CA 94089 | ||||
| USA | ||||
| EMail: ravis@juniper.net | Email: udayasreereddy@gmail.com | |||
| Rakesh Gandhi | Ravi Singh | |||
| Cisco Systems, Inc. | Individual Contributor | |||
| EMail: rgandhi@cisco.com | Email: ravi.singh.ietf@gmail.com | |||
| Luyuan Fang | Luyuan Fang | |||
| Microsoft | Expedia Group, Inc. | |||
| 15590 NE 31st St | United States of America | |||
| Redmond, WA 98052 | ||||
| USA | ||||
| EMail: lufang@microsoft.com | Email: luyuanf@gmail.com | |||
| End of changes. 282 change blocks. | ||||
| 955 lines changed or deleted | 1208 lines changed or added | |||
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.45. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/ | ||||