One document matched: draft-ietf-pce-brpc-07.txt
Differences from draft-ietf-pce-brpc-06.txt
Networking Working Group JP. Vasseur, Ed.
Internet-Draft Cisco Systems, Inc
Intended status: Standards Track R. Zhang
Expires: August 11, 2008 BT Infonet
N. Bitar
Verizon
JL. Le Roux
France Telecom
February 8, 2008
A Backward Recursive PCE-based Computation (BRPC) procedure to compute
shortest inter-domain Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths
draft-ietf-pce-brpc-07.txt
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on August 11, 2008.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
Abstract
The ability to compute shortest constrained Traffic Engineering Label
Switched Paths (TE LSPs) in Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and
Vasseur, et al. Expires August 11, 2008 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-pce-brpc-07.txt February 2008
Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) networks across multiple domains (where a
domain is referred to as a collection of network elements within a
common sphere of address management or path computational
responsibility such as IGP areas and Autonomous Systems) has been
identified as a key requirement. This document specifies a procedure
relying on the use of multiple Path Computation Elements (PCEs) in
order to compute such inter-domain shortest constrained paths along a
determined sequence of domains, using a backward recursive path
computation technique while preserving confidentiality across
domains, which is sometimes required when domains are managed by
different Service Providers.
Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
Vasseur, et al. Expires August 11, 2008 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-pce-brpc-07.txt February 2008
Table of Contents
1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. General assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. BRPC Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. Domain path selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2. Mode of Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. PCEP Protocol Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. VSPT Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. Inter-AS TE Links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8. Usage in conjunction with per-domain path computation . . . . 10
9. BRPC procedure completion failure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
10. Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
10.1. Diverse end-to-end path computation . . . . . . . . . . . 11
10.2. Path optimality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
11. Reoptimization of an inter-domain TE LSP . . . . . . . . . . . 12
12. Path Computation failure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
13. Metric normalization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
14. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
14.1. Control of Function and Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
14.2. Information and Data Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
14.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
14.4. Verifying Correct Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
14.5. Requirements on Other Protocols and Functional
Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
14.6. Impact on Network Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
14.7. Path computation chain monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
15. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
15.1. New flag of the RP object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
15.2. new Error-Type and Error-Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
15.3. New flag of the NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
16. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
17. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
18. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
18.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
18.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Appendix A. Proposed Status and Discussion [To Be Removed
Upon Publication] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 19
Vasseur, et al. Expires August 11, 2008 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-pce-brpc-07.txt February 2008
1. Terminology
ABR: routers used to connect two IGP areas (areas in OSPF or levels
in IS-IS).
ASBR: routers used to connect together ASes of the same or different
Service Provider(s) via one or more Inter-AS links.
Boundary Node (BN): a boundary node is either an ABR in the context
of inter-area Traffic Engineering or an ASBR in the context of
inter-AS Traffic Engineering.
Entry BN of domain(n): a BN connecting domain(n-1) to domain(n) along
a determined sequence of domains.
Exit BN of domain(n): a BN connecting domain(n) to domain(n+1) along
a determined sequence of domains.
Inter-AS TE LSP: A TE LSP that crosses an AS boundary.
Inter-area TE LSP: A TE LSP that crosses an IGP area boundary.
LSR: Label Switching Router.
LSP: Label Switched Path.
PCC: Path Computation Client. Any client application requesting a
path computation to be performed by the Path Computation Element.
PCE (Path Computation Element): an entity (component, application or
network node) that is capable of computing a network path or route
based on a network graph and applying computational constraints.
PCE(i) is a PCE with the scope of domain(i).
TED: Traffic Engineering Database.
VSPT: Virtual Shortest Path Tree.
The notion of contiguous, stitched and nested TE LSPs is defined in
[RFC4726] and will not be repeated here.
2. Introduction
The requirements for inter-area and inter-AS MPLS Traffic Engineering
have been developed by the Traffic Engineering Working Group (TE WG)
and have been stated in [RFC4105] and [RFC4216], respectively.
Vasseur, et al. Expires August 11, 2008 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-pce-brpc-07.txt February 2008
The framework for inter-domain MPLS Traffic Engineering has been
provided in [RFC4726].
[I-D.ietf-ccamp-inter-domain-pd-path-comp] defines a technique for
establishing inter-domain (G)MPLS TE LSP whereby the path is computed
during the signalling process on a per-domain basis by the entry
boundary node of each domain (each node in charge of computing a
section of an inter-domain TE LSP path is always along the path of
such TE LSP). Such path computation technique fulfills some of the
requirements stated in [RFC4105] and [RFC4216] but not all of them.
In particular, it cannot guarantee to find an optimal (shortest)
inter-domain constrained path. Furthermore, it cannot be efficiently
used to compute a set of inter-domain diversely routed TE LSPs.
The PCE architecture is defined in [RFC4655]. The aim of this
document is to describe a PCE-based path computation procedure to
compute optimal inter-domain constrained (G)MPLS TE LSPs.
Qualifying a path as optimal requires some clarification. Indeed, a
globally optimal TE LSP placement usually refers to a set of TE LSPs
whose placements optimize the network resources with regards to a
specified objective function (e.g., a placement that reduces the
maximum or average network load while satisfying the TE LSP
constraints). In this document, an optimal inter-domain constrained
TE LSP is defined as the shortest path satisfying the set of required
constraints that would be obtained in the absence of multiple domains
(in other words, in a totally flat IGP network between the source and
destination of the TE LSP).
3. General assumptions
In the rest of this document, we make the following set of
assumptions common to inter-area and inter-AS MPLS TE:
- Each IGP area or Autonomous System (AS) is assumed to be Traffic
Engineering enabled (i.e. running OSPF-TE or ISIS-TE and RSVP-TE).
- No topology or resource information is distributed between domains
(as mandated per [RFC4105] and [RFC4216]), which is critical to
preserve IGP/BGP scalability and confidentiality.
- While certain constraints like bandwidth can be used across
different domains, other TE constraints like resource affinity,
color, metric, etc. as listed in [RFC2702] could be translated at
domain boundaries. If required, it is assumed that, at the domain
boundary nodes, there will exist some sort of local mapping based on
policy agreement, in order to translate such constraints across
Vasseur, et al. Expires August 11, 2008 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-pce-brpc-07.txt February 2008
domain boundaries during the inter-PCE communication process.
- Each AS can be made of several IGP areas. The path computation
procedure described in this document applies to the case of a single
AS made of multiple IGP areas, multiple ASes made of a single IGP
area or any combination of the above. For the sake of simplicity,
each AS will be considered to be made of a single area in this
document. The case of an Inter-AS TE LSP spanning multiple ASes
where some of those ASes are themselves made of multiple IGP areas
can be easily derived from this case by applying the BRPC procedure
described in this document, recursively.
- The domain path (set of domains traversed to reach the destination
domain) is either administratively pre-determined or discovered by
some means that are outside of the scope of this document.
4. BRPC Procedure
The BRPC procedure is a Multiple-PCE path computation technique as
described in [RFC4655]. A possible model consists of hosting the PCE
function on boundary nodes (e.g., ABR or ASBR) but this is not
mandated by the BRPC procedure.
The BRPC procedure does not make any assumption with regards to the
nature of the inter-domain TE LSP that could be contiguous, nested or
stitched.
Furthermore, no assumption is made on the actual path computation
algorithm in use by a PCE (e.g., it can be any variant of CSPF or an
algorithm based on linear-programming to solve multi-constraints
optimization problems).
4.1. Domain path selection
The PCE-based BRPC procedure applies to the computation of an optimal
constrained inter-domain TE LSP. The sequence of domains to be
traversed can either be determined a priori or during the path
computation procedure. The BRPC procedure guarantees to compute the
optimal path across a specific sequence of traversed domains (which
constitutes an additional constraint). In the case of an arbitrary
set of meshed domains, the BRPC procedure can be used to compute the
optimal path across each domain set in order to get the optimal
constrained path between the source and the destination of the TE
LSP. The BRPC procedure can also be used across a subset of all
domain sequences, and the best path among these sequences can then be
selected.
Vasseur, et al. Expires August 11, 2008 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-pce-brpc-07.txt February 2008
4.2. Mode of Operation
Definition of VSPT(i)
In each domain i:
* There is a set of X-en(i) entry BNs noted BN-en(k,i) where BN-
en(k,i) is the kth entry BN of domain(i).
* There is a set of X-ex(i) exit BNs noted BN-ex(k,i) where BN-
ex(k,i) is the kth exit BN of domain(i).
VSPT(i): MP2P (MultiPoint To Point) tree returned by PCE(i) to
PCE(i-1):
Root (TE LSP destination)
/ I \
BN-en(1,i) BN-en(2,i) ... BN-en((j), i).
Where [X-en(i)] is the number of entry BN in domain i
and j<= [X-en(i)]
Figure 1 - MP2P Tree
Each link of tree VSPT(i) represents the shortest constrained path
between BN-en(j,i) (identified by its TE Router-ID) and the TE LSP
destination that satisfies the set of required constraints for the TE
LSP (bandwidth, affinities, ...). These are path segments to reach
the TE LSP destination from BN-en(j,i).
Note that PCE(i) only considers the entry BNs that provide
connectivity from domain(i-1). That is, the set BN-en(k,i-1) is only
made of those BNs that provide connectivity from domain (i-1) to
domain(i). Furthermore, some BNs may be excluded according to policy
constraints (either due to local policy or policies signaled in the
path computation request).
Step 1: the PCC needs to first determine the PCE capable of serving
its path computation request (this can be done thanks to local
configuration or via IGP discovery (see [RFC5088] and [RFC5089])).
The path computation request is then relayed until reaching a PCE(n)
such that the TE LSP destination resides in the domain(n). At each
step of the process, the next PCE can either be statically configured
or dynamically discovered via IGP/BGP extensions. If no next PCE can
be found or the next hop PCE of choice is unavailable, the procedure
stops and a path computation error is returned (see Section 9). If
Vasseur, et al. Expires August 11, 2008 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-pce-brpc-07.txt February 2008
multiple PCEs are discovered, the PCE may select a subset of these
PCEs based on some local policies or heuristics. The PCE selection
process is outside of the scope of this document. Note also that a
sequence of PCEs might be enforced by policy on the PCC and this
constraint can be carried in the PCEP path computation request (as
defined in [I-D.ietf-pce-monitoring]).
Step 2: PCE(n) computes VSPT(n) made of the list of shortest
constrained path(s) between every BN-en(j,n) and the TE LSP
destination using a suitable path computation algorithm (e.g. CSPF)
and returns the computed VSPT(n) to PCE(n-1).
Step i:
- For i=n-1 to 2: PCE(i) concatenates the topology of domain(i)
(using its TED) with the received VSPT(i+1).
In the case of Inter-AS TE LSP computation, this requires to also add
the inter-AS TE links connecting the domain(i) to the domain(i+1).
Then PCE(i) computes VSPT(i) (MP2P (Multi-Point to Point) tree made
of the shortest constrained paths between each BN-en(j,i) and the TE
LSP destination).
End
Finally PCE(1) computes the end-to-end shortest constrained path from
the source to the destination and returns the corresponding path to
the requesting PCC in the form of a PCRep message as defined in
[I-D.ietf-pce-pcep].
Each branch of the VSPT tree (path) may be returned in the form of an
explicit path (in which case all the hops along the path segment are
listed) or a loose path (in which case only the BR is specified) so
as to preserve confidentiality along with the respective cost. In
the later case, various techniques can be used in order to retrieve
the computed explicit paths on a per domain basis during the
signaling process thanks to the use of path keys as described in
[I-D.ietf-pce-path-key].
BRPC guarantees to find the optimal (shortest) constrained inter-
domain TE LSP according to a set of defined domains to be traversed.
Note that other variants of the BRPC procedure relying on the same
principles are also possible.
Note also that in case of ECMP paths, more than one path could be
returned to the requesting LSR.
Vasseur, et al. Expires August 11, 2008 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-pce-brpc-07.txt February 2008
5. PCEP Protocol Extensions
The BRPC procedure requires the specification of a new flag of the RP
object carried within the PCReq message (defined in
[I-D.ietf-pce-pcep]) to specify that the shortest paths satisfying
the constraints from the destination to the set of entry boundary
nodes are requested (such set of paths forms the downstream VSPT as
specified in Section 4.2).
The following new flag of the RP object is defined:
VSPT Flag
Bit Number Name Flag
7 VSPT
When set, the VSPT Flag indicates that the PCC requests the
computation of an inter-domain TE LSP using the BRPC procedure
defined in this document.
Because path segment(s) computed by a downstream PCE in the context
of the BRPC procedure MUST be provided along with their respective
path cost(s), the C flag of the METRIC object carried within the
PCReq message MUST be set. It is the choice of the requester to
appropriately set the O bit of the RP object.
6. VSPT Encoding
The VSPT is returned within a PCRep message. The encoding consists
of a non-ordered lists of EROs where each ERO represents a path
segment from an ABR to the destination specified in the END-POINT
object of the corresponding PCReq message.
Example:
<---- area 1 ----><---- area 0 -----><------ area 2 ------>
ABR1-A-B-+
| |
ABR2-----D
| |
ABR3--C--+
Figure 2 - An Example of VPST Encoding Using a Set of EROs
In the simple example shown in figure 2, if we make the assumption
that a constrained path exists between each ABR and the destination
D, the VSPT computed by a PCE serving area 2 consists of the
Vasseur, et al. Expires August 11, 2008 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-pce-brpc-07.txt February 2008
following non-ordered set of EROs:
o ERO1: ABR1(TE Router ID)-A(Interface IP address)-B(Interface IP
address)-D(TE Router ID)
o ERO2: ABR2(TE Router ID)-D(TE Router ID)
o ERO3: ABR3(TE Router ID)-C(interface IP adress)-D(TE Router ID)
The PCERep message, PCRep message, PCEP END-POINT and ERO objects are
defined in [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep]
7. Inter-AS TE Links
In the case of Inter-AS TE LSP path computation, the BRPC procedure
requires the knowledge of the traffic engineering attributes of the
Inter-AS TE links: the process by which the PCE acquires this
information is out of the scope of the BRPC procedure, which is
compliant with the PCE architecture defined in [RFC4655].
That said, a straightforward solution consists of allowing the ASBRs
to flood the TE information related to the inter-ASBR link(s)
although no IGP TE is enabled over those links (there is no IGP
adjacency over the inter-ASBR links). This allows the PCE of a
domain to get entire TE visibility up to the set of entry ASBRs in
the downstream domain (see the IGP extensions defined in
[I-D.ietf-ccamp-isis-interas-te-extension] and
[I-D.ietf-ccamp-ospf-interas-te-extension]).
8. Usage in conjunction with per-domain path computation
The BRPC procedure may be used to compute path segments in
conjunction with other path computation techniques (such as the per-
domain path computation technique defined in
[I-D.ietf-ccamp-inter-domain-pd-path-comp]) to compute the end-to-end
path. In this case end-to-end path optimality can no longer be
guaranteed.
9. BRPC procedure completion failure
If the BRPC procedure cannot be completed because a PCE along the
domain path does not support the procedure, a PCErr message MUST be
returned to the upstream PCE with a Error-Type "BRPC procedure
completion failure". The PCErr message MUST be relayed to the
requesting PCC.
Vasseur, et al. Expires August 11, 2008 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-pce-brpc-07.txt February 2008
PCEP-ERROR objects are used to report a PCEP protocol error and are
characterized by an Error-Type which specifies the type of error and
an Error-value that provides additional information about the error
type. Both the Error-Type and the Error-Value are managed by IANA.
A new Error-Type is defined that relates to the BRPC procedure.
Error-type Meaning
13 BRPC procedure completion failure
Error-value
1: BRPC procedure not supported by one or more PCEs
along the domain path
10. Applicability
As discussed in Section 3, the requirements for inter-area and
inter-AS MPLS Traffic Engineering have been developed by the Traffic
Engineering Working Group (TE WG) and have been stated in [RFC4105]
and [RFC4216], respectively. Among the set of requirements, both
documents indicate the need for some solution providing the ability
to compute an optimal (shortest) constrained inter-domain TE LSP and
to compute a set of diverse inter-domain TE LSPs.
10.1. Diverse end-to-end path computation
PCEP (see [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep]) allows a PCC to request the
computation of a set of diverse TE LSPs thanks to the SVEC object by
setting the flags L, N or S to request link, node or SRLG diversity
respectively. Such request MUST be taken into account by each PCE
along the path computation chain during the VSPT computation. In the
context of the BRPC procedure, a set of diversely routed TE LSP
between two LSRs can be computed since the paths segment(s) of the
VSPT are simultaneously computed by a given PCE. The BRPC procedure
allows for the computation of diverse paths under various objective
functions (such as minimizing the sum of the costs of the N diverse
paths, etc).
By constrast, with a 2-step approach consisting of computing the
first path followed by the computation of the second path after
having removed the set of network elements traversed by the first
path (if that does not violate confidentiality preservation), one
cannot guarantee that a solution will be found even if such solution
exists. Furthermore, even if a solution is found, it may not be the
most optimal one with respect to an objective function such as
minimizing the sum of the paths costs, bounding the path delays of
both paths and so on. Finally, it must be noted that such a 2-step
path computation approach is usually less efficient in term of
signalling delays since it requires two serialized TE LSP set up.
Vasseur, et al. Expires August 11, 2008 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-pce-brpc-07.txt February 2008
10.2. Path optimality
BRPC guarantees that the optimal (shortest) constrained inter-domain
path will always be found subject to policy constraints. When
combined with other local path computation techniques (e.g. in the
case of stitched/nested TE LSP) and in the case where a domain has
more than one BR-en or more than one BR-ex, optimality after some
network change within the domain can only be guaranteed by re-
executing the BRPC procedure.
11. Reoptimization of an inter-domain TE LSP
The ability to reoptimize an existing inter-domain TE LSP path has
been explicitly listed as a requirement in [RFC4105] and [RFC4216].
In the case of a TE LSP reoptimization request, the reoptimization
procedure defined in [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep] applies where the path in
use (if available on the head-end) is provided as part of the path
computation request in order for the PCEs involved in the
reoptimization request to avoid double bandwidth accounting.
12. Path Computation failure
If a PCE requires to relay a path computation request according to
the BRPC procedure defined in this document to a downstream PCE and
no such PCE is available, the PCE MUST send a negative path
computation reply to the requester using a PCReq message as specified
in [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep] that contains a NO-PATH object. In such case,
the NO-PATH object MUST carry a NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV (defined in
[I-D.ietf-pce-pcep]) with the newly defined bit named "BRPC Path
Computation chain unavailable" set.
Bit number Name Flag
4 BRPC Path computation chain unavailable
13. Metric normalization
In the case of inter-area TE, the same IGP/TE metric scheme is
usually adopted for all the IGP areas (e.g., based on the link-speed,
propagation delay or some other combination of link attributes).
Hence, the proposed set of mechanisms always computes the shortest
path across multiple areas obeying the required set of constraints
with respect to a specified objective function. Conversely, in the
case of Inter-AS TE, in order for this path computation to be
meaningful, a metric normalization between ASes may be required. One
solution to avoid IGP metric modification would be for the Service
Vasseur, et al. Expires August 11, 2008 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-pce-brpc-07.txt February 2008
Providers to agree on a TE metric normalization scheme and use the TE
metric for TE LSP path computation (in that case, this must be
requested in the PCEP Path computation request) thanks to the METRIC
object (defined in [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep]).
14. Manageability Considerations
This section follows the guidance of
[I-D.ietf-pce-manageability-requirements].
14.1. Control of Function and Policy
The only configurable item is the support of the BRPC procedure on a
PCE. The support of the BRPC procedure by the PCE MAY be controlled
by a policy module governing the conditions under which a PCE should
participate to the BRPC procedure (origin of the requests, number of
requests per second, ...). If the BRPC is not supported/allowed on a
PCE, it MUST send a PCErr message as specified in Section 9.
14.2. Information and Data Models
A BRPC MIB module will be specified in a separate document.
14.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring
The BRPC procedure is a Multiple-PCE path computation technique and
as such a set of PCEs are involved in the path computation chain. If
the path computation chain is not operational either because at least
one PCE does not support the BRPC procedure or because one of the
PCEs that must be involved in the path computation chain is not
available, procedures are defined to report such failures in
Section 9 and Section 12 respectively. Furthermore, a built-in
diagnostic tool to check the availability and performances of a PCE
chain is defined in [I-D.ietf-pce-monitoring].
14.4. Verifying Correct Operation
Verifying the correct operation of BRPC can be done by looking at the
TEDs related to the various domains traversed by a TE LSP at the time
the BRPC procedure was invoked and verify that the path computed by
the BRPC procedure is the expected optimal inter-domain constrained
path (the path that would be obtained in the absence of multiple
domains).
Vasseur, et al. Expires August 11, 2008 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-pce-brpc-07.txt February 2008
14.5. Requirements on Other Protocols and Functional Components
The BRPC procedure does not put any new requirements on other
protocol. That said, since the BRPC procedure relies on the PCEP
protocol, there is a dependency between BRPC and PCEP; consequently
the BRPC procedure inherently makes use of the management functions
developed for PCEP.
14.6. Impact on Network Operation
The BRPC procedure does not have any significant impact on network
operation: indeed, BRPC is a Multiple-PCE path computation scheme as
defined in [RFC4655] and does not differ from any other path
computation request.
14.7. Path computation chain monitoring
[I-D.ietf-pce-monitoring] specifies a set of mechanisms that can be
used to gather PCE state metrics. Because BRPC is a Multiple-PCE
path computation techniques, such mechanism could be advantageously
used in the context of the BRPC procedure to check the liveness of
the path computation chain, locate a faulty component, monitor the
overall performance and so on.
15. IANA Considerations
15.1. New flag of the RP object
A new flag of the RP object (specified in [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep]) is
defined in this document.
VSPT Flag
Bit Number Name Flag Reference
7 VSPT This document
15.2. new Error-Type and Error-Value
A new Error-Type is defined in this document (Error-Type and Error-
value to be assigned by IANA).
Vasseur, et al. Expires August 11, 2008 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-pce-brpc-07.txt February 2008
Error-type Meaning Reference
13 BRPC procedure completion failure This document
Error-value
1: BRPC procedure not supported by
one a PCE along the domain path
15.3. New flag of the NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV
A new flag of the NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV defined in [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep])
is specified in this document.
Bit number Meaning Reference
4 BRPC Path computation This document
chain unavailable
16. Security Considerations
The BRPC procedure relies on the use of the PCEP protocol and as such
is subjected to the potential attacks listed in section 11 of
[I-D.ietf-pce-pcep]. In addition to the security mechanisms
described in [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep] with regards to spoofing, snooping,
falsification and Denial of Service, an implementation MAY support a
policy module governing the conditions under which a PCE should
participate to the BRPC procedure.
The BRPC procedure does not increase the information exchanged
between ASes and preserves topology confidentiality, in compliance
with [RFC4105] and [RFC4216].
17. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Arthi Ayyangar, Dimitri
Papadimitriou, Siva Sivabalan and Meral Shirazipour for their useful
comments. A special thank to Adrian Farrel for his useful comments
and suggestions.
18. References
18.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-pce-pcep]
Ayyangar, A., Oki, E., Atlas, A., Dolganow, A., Ikejiri,
Y., Kumaki, K., Vasseur, J., and J. Roux, "Path
Computation Element (PCE) communication Protocol (PCEP)",
Vasseur, et al. Expires August 11, 2008 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-pce-brpc-07.txt February 2008
draft-ietf-pce-pcep-09 (work in progress), November 2007.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J., and J. Ash, "A Path Computation
Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655, August 2006.
18.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-ccamp-inter-domain-pd-path-comp]
Vasseur, J., Ayyangar, A., and R. Zhang, "A Per-domain
path computation method for establishing Inter-domain
Traffic Engineering (TE) Label Switched Paths (LSPs)",
draft-ietf-ccamp-inter-domain-pd-path-comp-06 (work in
progress), November 2007.
[I-D.ietf-ccamp-inter-domain-rsvp-te]
Ayyangar, A., "Inter domain Multiprotocol Label Switching
(MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering -
RSVP-TE extensions",
draft-ietf-ccamp-inter-domain-rsvp-te-07 (work in
progress), September 2007.
[I-D.ietf-ccamp-isis-interas-te-extension]
Chen, M. and R. Zhang, "ISIS Extensions in Support of
Inter-AS Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and
Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering",
draft-ietf-ccamp-isis-interas-te-extension-00 (work in
progress), February 2008.
[I-D.ietf-ccamp-ospf-interas-te-extension]
Chen, M., Zhang, R., and X. Duan, "OSPF Extensions in
Support of Inter-AS Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS)
and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering",
draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-interas-te-extension-02 (work in
progress), November 2007.
[I-D.ietf-pce-manageability-requirements]
Farrel, A., "Inclusion of Manageability Sections in PCE
Working Group Drafts",
draft-ietf-pce-manageability-requirements-02 (work in
progress), August 2007.
[I-D.ietf-pce-monitoring]
Vasseur, J., Roux, J., and Y. Ikejiri, "A set of
monitoring tools for Path Computation Element based
Architecture", draft-ietf-pce-monitoring-01 (work in
Vasseur, et al. Expires August 11, 2008 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-pce-brpc-07.txt February 2008
progress), February 2008.
[I-D.ietf-pce-path-key]
Bradford, R., "Preserving Topology Confidentiality in
Inter-Domain Path Computation Using a Key-Based
Mechanism", draft-ietf-pce-path-key-01 (work in progress),
September 2007.
[RFC2702] Awduche, D., Malcolm, J., Agogbua, J., O'Dell, M., and J.
McManus, "Requirements for Traffic Engineering Over MPLS",
RFC 2702, September 1999.
[RFC4105] Le Roux, J., Vasseur, J., and J. Boyle, "Requirements for
Inter-Area MPLS Traffic Engineering", RFC 4105, June 2005.
[RFC4216] Zhang, R. and J. Vasseur, "MPLS Inter-Autonomous System
(AS) Traffic Engineering (TE) Requirements", RFC 4216,
November 2005.
[RFC4726] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J., and A. Ayyangar, "A Framework for
Inter-Domain Multiprotocol Label Switching Traffic
Engineering", RFC 4726, November 2006.
[RFC5088] Le Roux, JL., Vasseur, JP., Ikejiri, Y., and R. Zhang,
"OSPF Protocol Extensions for Path Computation Element
(PCE) Discovery", RFC 5088, January 2008.
[RFC5089] Le Roux, JL., Vasseur, JP., Ikejiri, Y., and R. Zhang,
"IS-IS Protocol Extensions for Path Computation Element
(PCE) Discovery", RFC 5089, January 2008.
Appendix A. Proposed Status and Discussion [To Be Removed Upon
Publication]
This Internet-Draft is being submitted for eventual publication as an
RFC with a proposed status of Standard. Discussion of this proposal
should take place on the following mailing list: pce@ietf.org.
Vasseur, et al. Expires August 11, 2008 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-pce-brpc-07.txt February 2008
Authors' Addresses
JP Vasseur (editor)
Cisco Systems, Inc
1414 Massachusetts Avenue
Boxborough, MA 01719
USA
Email: jpv@cisco.com
Raymond Zhang
BT Infonet
2160 E. Grand Ave.
El Segundo, CA 90025
USA
Email: raymond_zhang@bt.infonet.com
Nabil Bitar
Verizon
40 Sylvan Road
Waltham, MA 02145
USA
Email: nabil.bitar@verizon.com
JL Le Roux
France Telecom
2, Avenue Pierre-Marzin
Lannion, 22307
FRANCE
Email: jeanlouis.leroux@orange-ft.com
Vasseur, et al. Expires August 11, 2008 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-pce-brpc-07.txt February 2008
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
Administrative Support Activity (IASA).
Vasseur, et al. Expires August 11, 2008 [Page 19]
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-24 01:40:53 |