One document matched: draft-oki-pce-pcep-xro-00.txt
Network Working Group E. Oki
Internet Draft NTT
Category: Standards Track A. Farrel
Expires: June 2007 Old Dog Consulting
January 2007
Extensions to the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol
(PCEP) for Route Exclusions
draft-oki-pce-pcep-xro-00.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.
Abstract
The Path Computation Element (PCE) provides functions of path
computation in support of traffic engineering in Multi-Protocol
Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) networks.
When a Path Computation Client (PCC) requests a PCE for a route, it
may be useful for the PCC to specify as constraints to the path
computation abstract nodes, resources, and Shared Risk Link Groups
(SRLGs) that are to be explicitly excluded from routes. Such
constraints are termed route exclusions.
The PCE Communication Protocol (PCEP) is designed as a communication
protocol between PCCs and PCEs. This document presents PCEP
extensions for route exclusions.
Oki and Farrel Expires July 2007 [Page 1]
Extensions to PCEP for Route Exclusions January 2007
Conventions used in this document
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in
this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119
[RFC2119].
Table of Contents
1. Introduction...................................................2
2. Protocol Procedures and Extensions.............................3
2.1. Exclude Route Object (XRO)..................................4
2.2.1. Processing Rules..........................................7
2.2. Explicit Route Exclusion....................................8
2.2.1. Processing Rules...........................................9
3. IANA Considerations...........................................10
3.1. PCEP Objects...............................................10
3.2. Error Object Field Values..................................10
4. Manageability considerations..................................10
5. Security Considerations.......................................11
6. References....................................................11
6.1. Normative Reference........................................11
6.2. Informative Reference......................................11
7. AuthorsEAddresses............................................11
1. Introduction
The Path Computation Element (PCE) defined in [RFC4655] is an entity
that is capable of computing a network path or route based on a
network graph, and applying computational constraints. A Path
Computation Client (PCC) may make requests to a PCE for paths to be
computed.
When a PCC requests a PCE for a route, it may be useful for the PCC
to specify abstract nodes, resources, and Shared Risk Link Groups
(SRLGs) that are to be explicitly excluded from the route.
For example, disjoint paths for inter-domain LSPs may be computed by
cooperation between PCEs, each of which computes segments of the
paths across one domain. In order to achieve path computation for a
secondary (backup) path, a PCE may act as a PCC to request another
PCE for a route that must be a node/link/SRLG disjoint from the
primary (working) path. Another example is where a network operator
wants path to avoid specified nodes for administrative reasons
perhaps because the specified nodes will be out-of-services in near
future.
Oki and Farrel Expires July 2007 [Page 2]
Extensions to PCEP for Route Exclusions January 2007
[RFC4657] specifies generic requirements for a communication
protocol between PCCs and PCEs. Generic constraints described in
[RFC4657] include route exclusions for links, nodes, and SRLGs. That
is, the requirement for support of route exclusions within the PCC-
PCE communication protocol is already established.
The PCE communication protocol (PCEP) is designed as a communication
protocol between PCCs and PCEs and is defined in [PCEP]. This
document presents PCEP extensions to satisfy the requirements for
route exclusions as described in Sections 5.1.4 and 5.1.16 of
[RFC4657].
Note that MPLS-TE and GMPLS signaling extensions for communicating
route exclusions between network nodes for specific Label Switched
Paths (LSPs) are described in [XRO]. Route exclusions may be
specified during provisioning requests for specific LSPs using the
mplsTunnelHopInclude object of MPLS-TE-STD-MIB defined in [RFC3812].
2. Protocol Procedures and Extensions
This section describes the procedures adopted by a PCE handling a
request for path computation with route exclusions received from a
PCC, and defines how those exclusions are encoded.
There are two types of route exclusion described in [XRO].
1. Exclusion of certain abstract nodes or resources on the whole
path. This set of abstract nodes is referred to as the Exclude
Route List.
2. Exclusion of certain abstract nodes or resources between a
specific pair of abstract nodes present in an explicit path. Such
specific exclusions are referred to as an Explicit Route
Exclusion.
This document defines protocol extensions to allow a PCC to specify
both types of route exclusions to a PCE on a path computation
request.
A new PCEP object is defined as the Exclude Route Object (XRO) to
convey the Exclude Route List. The existing Include Route Object
(IRO) in PCEP [PCEP] is modified by introducing a new IRO subobject,
the Explicit Exclusion Route Subobject (EXRS), to convey Explicit
Route Exclusions.
Oki and Farrel Expires July 2007 [Page 3]
Extensions to PCEP for Route Exclusions January 2007
2.1. Exclude Route Object (XRO)
The XRO is OPTIONAL and MAY be carried within PCReq and PCRep
messages.
When present in a PCReq message, the XRO provides a list of network
resources that the PCE is requested to exclude from the path that it
computes. Flags associated with each list member instruct the PCE as
to whether the network resources must be excluded from the computed
path or whether the PCE should make best efforts to exclude the
resources from the computed path.
The XRO MAY be used on PCRep message with the NO-PATH object to
indicate the set of elements of the original XRO that prevented the
PCE from finding a path. The XRO MAY also be used on a PCRep message
for a successful path computation when the PCE wishes to provide a
set of exclusions to be signaled during LSP setup.
XRO Object-Class is to be assigned by IANA (recommended value=17)
XRO Object-Type is to be assigned by IANA (recommended value=1)
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
// (Subobjects) //
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: XRO body format
Subobjects. The XRO is up made of one or more subobject(s). An XRO
with no subobjects MUST not be sent and SHOULD be ignored on receipt.
In the following subobject definitions a set of fields have
consistent meaning as follows:
X
The X-bit indicates whether the exclusion is mandatory or
desired. 0 indicates that the resource specified MUST be
excluded from the path computed by the PCE 1 indicates that the
resource specified SHOULD be excluded from the path computed by
the PCE, but MAY be included subject to PCE policy and the
absence of a viable path that meets the other other constraints
and excludes the resource.
Oki and Farrel Expires July 2007 [Page 4]
Extensions to PCEP for Route Exclusions January 2007
Type
The type of the subobject. The following subobject types are
defined.
Type Subobject
-------------+-------------------------------
1 IPv4 prefix
2 IPv6 prefix
3 Unnumbered Interface ID
4 Autonomous system number
5 SRLG
Length
The length of the subobject including the Type and Length
fields.
Prefix Length
Where present, this field can be used to indicate a set of
addresses matching a prefix. If the subobject indicates a
single address, the prefix length MUST be set to the full
length of the address.
Attribute
The Attribute field indicates how the exclusion subobject is to
be interpreted.
0 Interface
The subobject is to be interpreted as an interface or set of
interfaces. All interfaces identified by the subobject are to
be excluded from the computed path according to the setting
of the X-bit. This value is valid only for subobject types 1,
2, and 3.
1 Node
The subobject is to be interpreted as a node or set of nodes.
All nodes identified by the subobject are to be excluded from
the computed path according to the setting of the X-bit. This
value is valid only for subobject types 1, 2, 3, and 4.
2 SRLG
The subobject identifies an SRLG explicitly or indicates all
of the SRLGs associated with the resource or resources
identified by the subobject. Resources that share any SRLG
with those identified are to be excluded from the computed
path according to the setting of the X-bit. This value is
valid for all subobjects.
Reserved
Reserved fields MUST be transmitted as zero and SHOULD be
ignored on receipt.
Oki and Farrel Expires July 2007 [Page 5]
Extensions to PCEP for Route Exclusions January 2007
The subobjects are encoded as follows:
IPv4 prefix Subobject
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|X| Type = 1 | Length | IPv4 address (4 bytes) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv4 address (continued) | Prefix Length | Attribute |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
IPv6 prefix Subobject
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|X| Type = 2 | Length | IPv6 address (16 bytes) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv6 address (continued) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv6 address (continued) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv6 address (continued) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv6 address (continued) | Prefix Length | Attribute |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Unnumbered Interface ID Subobject
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|X| Type = 3 | Length | Reserved | Attribute |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| TE Router ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Interface ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The TE Router ID and Interface ID fields are as defined in
[RFC3477].
Oki and Farrel Expires July 2007 [Page 6]
Extensions to PCEP for Route Exclusions January 2007
Autonomous System Number Subobject
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|X| Type = 4 | Length | Reserved | Attribute |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Optional AS Number High Octets| 2-Octet AS Number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
If a two-octet AS number is used, the optional AS Number High
Octets MUST be set to zero.
SRLG Subobject
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|X| Type = 5 | Length | SRLG Id (4 bytes) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| SRLG Id (continued) | Reserved | Attribute |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The Attribute SHOULD be set to two (2) and SHOULD be ignored on
receipt.
2.2.1. Processing Rules
A PCC builds an XRO to encode all of the resources that it wishes
the PCE to exclude from the path that it is requested to compute.
For each exclusion, the PCC clears the X-bit to indicate that the
PCE is required to exclude the resources, or sets the X-bit to
indicate that the PCC simply desires that the resources are excluded.
For each exclusion, the PCC also sets the Attribute field to
indicate how the PCE should interpret the contents of the exclusion
subobject.
When a PCE receives a PCReq message it looks for an XRO to see if
exclusions are required. If the PCE finds more than one XRO it MUST
use the first one in the message and MUST ignore subsequent
instances.
If the PCE does not recognize the XRO it MUST return a PCErr message
with Error-Type "Unknown Object" as described in [PCEP].
If the PCE is unwilling on unable to process the XRO it MUST return
a PCErr message with the Error-Type "Not supported object" and
follow the relevant procedures described in [PCEP].
Oki and Farrel Expires July 2007 [Page 7]
Extensions to PCEP for Route Exclusions January 2007
If the PCE processes the XRO and attempts to compute a path, it MUST
adhere to the requested exclusions as expressed in the XRO. That is,
the returned path MUST NOT include any resources encoded with the X-
bit clear, and SHOULD NOT include any with the X-bit set unless
alternate paths that match the other constraints expressed in the
PCReq are unavailable.
When a PCE returns a path in a PCRep it MAY also supply an XRO. In
this case, the PCC SHOULD apply the contents using the same rules as
in [XRO] and SHOULD signal the an RSVP-TE XRO to indicate the
exclusions that downstream LSRs should apply. This may be
particularly useful in per-domain path computation scenarios. [Note
that this does not match the behavior for an explicit path where an
IRO is used to force inclusions and an ERO is used to report a
computed path. We could consider using a separate object to report
the XRO that should be signaled.]
In the event that no suitable path can be computed and the PCE
returns a PCRep message containing a NO-PATH object, the PCE MAY
also include an XRO that lists one or more subobjects from the
original XRO that have contributed to the PCE's inability to select
a path.
2.2. Explicit Route Exclusion
Explicit Route Exclusion defines network elements that must not or
should not be used on the path between two abstract nodes or
resources explicitly indicated in the Include Route Object (IRO)
[PCEP]. This information is encoded by defining a new subobject for
the IRO .
The new IRO subobject, the Explicit Exclusion Route Subobject (EXRS),
has type defined by IANA (see Section 3.). The EXRS contains one or
more subobjects in its own right. An EXRS MUST NOT be sent with no
subobjects, and if received with no subobjects MUST be ignored.
The format of the EXRS is as follows:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|L| Type | Length | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
// One or more EXRS subobjects //
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Oki and Farrel Expires July 2007 [Page 8]
Extensions to PCEP for Route Exclusions January 2007
L
MUST be set to zero on transmission and MUST be ignored on
receipt.
Reserved
MUST be set to zero on transmission and MUST be ignored on
receipt.
The EXRS subobject may carry any of the subobjects defined for
inclusion in the XRO by this document or by future documents. The
meanings of the fields of the XRO subobjects are unchanged when the
subobjects are included in an EXRS, except that scope of the
exclusion is limited to the single hop between the previous and
subsequent elements in the IRO.
2.2.1. Processing Rules
A PCC that supplies a partial explicit route to a PCE in an IRO MAY
also specify explicit exclusions by including one or more EXRSes in
the IRO.
If a PCE parses an IRO in a received PCReq message and encounters an
EXRS and does not recognize the subobject it MUST respond with a
PCErr message using the Error-Type "Unrecognized IRO subobject" and
set the Error-Value to the subobject type code of the EXRS (see
Section 3).
If a PCE parses an IRO and encounters an EXRS that it recognizes,
but detects an EXRS subobject that it does not recognize it MUST act
according to the setting of the X-bit in the subobject. If the X-bit
is clear, the PCE MUST respond with a PCErr with Error-Type
"Unrecognized EXRS subobject" and set the Error-Value to the EXRS
subobject type code (see Section 3). If the X-bit is set, the PCE
MAY respond with a PCErr as already stated or MAY ignore the EXRS
subobject: this choice is a local policy decision.
If a PCE parses an IRO and encounters an EXRS subobject that it
recognizes, it MUST act according to the requirements expressed in
the subobject. That is, if the X-bit is clear, the PCE MUST NOT
produce a path that includes any resource identified by the EXRS
subobject in the path between the previous abstract node in the IRO
and the next abstract node in the IRO. If the X-bit is set, the PCE
SHOULD NOT produce a path that includes any resource identified by
the EXRS subobject in the path between the previous abstract node in
the IRO and the next abstract node in the IRO unless it is not
possible to construct a path that avoids that resource while still
complying with the other constraints expressed in the PCReq message.
A successful path computation reported in a PCRep message MUST
include an ERO to specify the path that has been computed. That ERO
Oki and Farrel Expires July 2007 [Page 9]
Extensions to PCEP for Route Exclusions January 2007
MAY contain specific route exclusions using the EXRS as specified in
[XRO].
If the path computation fails and a PCErr is returned with a NO-PATH
object, the PCE MAY include an IRO to report the hops that could not
be complied with, and that IRO MAY include EXRSes.
3. IANA Considerations
3.1. PCEP Objects
The "PCEP Parameters" registry contains a subregistry "PCEP Objects".
IANA is requested to make the following allocations from this
registry.
Object Name Object Name
Class Type
17 XRO 1 Route exclusion
3.2. Error Object Field Values.
The "PCEP Parameters" registry contains a subregistry "PCEP Errors".
IANA is requested to make the following allocations from this
registry.
Values in this section are recommended and to be confirmed by IANA.
Error Meaning and Error-Values
Type
11 Unrecognized IRO subobject
Note that this Error-Type has been omitted from [PCEP] where it is
required. It is expected that it will be added to a later version of
[PCEP] and removed from this document.
12 Unrecognized EXRS subobject
4. Manageability Considerations
A MIB module for management of the PCEP is specified in a separate
document. This MIB module allows examination of individual PCEP
messages, in particular requests, responses and errors.
The MIB module MUST be extended to include the ability to view the
route exclusion extensions defined in this document.
Oki and Farrel Expires July 2007 [Page 10]
Extensions to PCEP for Route Exclusions January 2007
5. Security Considerations
The new exclude route mechanisms defined in this document allow
finer and more specific control of the path computed by a PCE. Such
control increases the risk if a PCEP message is intercepted,
modified, or spoofed. Therefore, the security techniques described
in [PCEP] are considered more important.
6. References
6.1. Normative Reference
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to indicate
requirements levels", RFC 2119, March 1997.
[PCEP] JP. Vasseur et al, "Path Computation Element (PCE)
communication Protocol (PCEP) - Version 1" draft-ietf-pce-pcep,
(work in progress).
6.2. Informative Reference
[RFC3812] Srinivasan, C., Viswanathan, A., and T. Nadeau,
"Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE)
Management Information Base (MIB)", RFC 3812, June 2004.
[RFC4655] A. Farrel, JP. Vasseur and J. Ash, "A Path Computation
Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655, September 2006.
[RFC4657] J. Ash and J.L. Le Roux, "Path Computation Element (PCE)
Communication Protocol Generic Requirements", RFC 4657, September
2006.
[XRO] Lee et al, "Exclude Routes - Extension to RSVP-TE", draft-
ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-exclude-route, (work in progress).
7. Authors' Addresses
Eiji Oki
NTT
3-9-11 Midori-cho,
Musashino-shi, Tokyo 180-8585, Japan
Email: oki.eiji@lab.ntt.co.jp
Adrian Farrel
Old Dog Consulting
Email: adrian@olddog.co.uk
Oki and Farrel Expires July 2007 [Page 11]
Extensions to PCEP for Route Exclusions January 2007
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
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.
Oki and Farrel Expires July 2007 [Page 12]
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-23 00:52:37 |