One document matched: draft-vasseur-mpls-computation-rsvp-05.txt
Differences from draft-vasseur-mpls-computation-rsvp-04.txt
Network Working Group JP Vasseur (editor)
Internet Draft Carol Iturralde
Document: draft-vasseur-mpls-computation-rsvp- Cisco Systems, Inc
05.txt
IETF Internet Draft Raymond Zhang
Expires: January, 2005 Infonet Services
Corporation
Xavier Vinet
Equant
Satoru Matsushima
Japan Telecom
Alia Atlas
Avici System
July 2004
RSVP Path computation request and reply messages
draft-vasseur-mpls-computation-rsvp-05.txt
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, I certify that any applicable
patent or IPR claims of which I am aware have been disclosed, and
any of which I become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with
RFC 3668.
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. 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.
Vasseur et al. 1
draft-vasseur-mpls-computation-rsvp-05.txt July 2004
Abstract
This document describes extensions to RSVP-TE to support a new
message type called a ôPath computationö message. This message is to
be used between an LSR and a Path Computation Element (PCE), which
may be an LSR or a centralized path computation tool. An RSVP Path
Computation Request message is used by the head-end LSR to send its
request to the PCE. The PCE in turn sends an RSVP Path Computation
Reply message containing either:
- a positive reply, containing one or more paths, if the request
can be satisfied.
- a negative reply if no path obeying the requested constraints
can be found. The PCE may also optionally suggest new constraint
values for which one or several paths could be found.
There are many situations where a PCE may be used. A typical example
is in the context of Inter-area MPLS TE. A head-end LSR could request
that a PCE compute one or more paths obeying a specified set of
constraints for a TE LSP spanning multiple areas. The PCE could be a
centralized path computation Element or an LSR such as an ABR or an
ASBR. Another example is the use of a PCE to compute diversely routed
paths between two end points. This may be useful in the context of
MPLS TE LSP Path protection or GMPLS LSP Path protection. The
computation of Multi-constraints paths requires intensive CPU
resources, and may be yet another usage example. Lastly, those
protocol extensions could be used as a ôUNIö like protocol between a
CE (Customer Edge equipment) and a PE (Provider Edge equipment) where
the CE is not part of the PEÆs IGP domain.
Vasseur, et al Page 2
draft-vasseur-mpls-computation-rsvp-05.txt July 2004
Table of contents
1. Introduction --------------------------------------------------- 4
2. Terminology ---------------------------------------------------- 4
3. RSVP Path computation Request/Reply messages ------------------- 5
3.1 RSVP Path Computation Request message format ------------------ 6
3.2 RSVP Path Computation Reply message format -------------------- 7
3.3 New RSVP objects used in Path computation messages ------------ 8
3.3.1 REQUEST-ID Object ------------------------------------------- 8
3.3.2 METRIC-TYPE ------------------------------------------------ 10
3.3.3 PATH_COST -------------------------------------------------- 12
3.3.4 NO-PATH-AVAILABLE object ----------------------------------- 14
3.3.5 NB-PATH object --------------------------------------------- 15
3.3.6 PATH-CORRELATED Object ------------------------------------- 22
3.3.7 MIN-BW object ---------------------------------------------- 22
3.3.8 LSP-BANDWIDTH object --------------------------------------- 23
3.3.9 EXCLUDE-ELEMENT object ------------------------------------- 25
3.3.10 OPAQUE object --------------------------------------------- 26
4. Definition of the ôclosest possible solutionö------------------ 27
5. Path Computation Server discovery ----------------------------- 27
6. Acknowledgment ------------------------------------------------ 27
7. Security Considerations --------------------------------------- 28
8. References ---------------------------------------------------- 28
9. Authors' Addresses -------------------------------------------- 29
Vasseur, et al Page 3
draft-vasseur-mpls-computation-rsvp-05.txt July 2004
1. Introduction
As mentioned in the abstract, there are various situations where a
Path Computation Client may need to compute one or more paths obeying
a specified set of constraints, and may ask a PCE to perform this
task. This exchange does not allocate any resources, it is simply a
mechanism by which a client may send a path computation request to a
server and get in return a reply (positive or negative). Note also
this is not related to policy.
LetÆs briefly describe a typical sequence of events:
1) the Path Computation Client (an LSR) sends a request to the PCE
(LSR, centralized path computation tool,à). A Path Computation
Request message will be sent containing:
a) already specified objects defined in [RSVP-TE] characterizing
the request, and
b) new objects defined in the present draft related to the
request.
2) the Path Computation Request message is sent to the PCE
3) the PCE processes the request and sends either:
a) a positive reply to the client containing one or more
computed paths that obey the requested constraints,
b) a negative reply to the client, which, if requested by the
PCC, can optionally contain alternate constraints values for
which the request would have been positive and the computed
paths which meet the alternate constraints values.
4) the Path Computation Client can in turn:
a) If the reply is positive
i) If the client has sent the same request to several
servers in parallel
1. Compare the reply with other replies it received from
other servers.
2. Select the preferred path.
Otherwise, select the returned path.
ii) Establish the LSP using RSVP with extensions as defined
in [RSVP-TE].
b) If the reply is negative
i) If the alternative constraints values given by the
PCE are acceptable, consider the computed path sent with
the replies from other servers to select the best path.
ii) Otherwise, send another request to the PCE with the
new constraints (potentially taking into account the
returned suggested constraints values by the server, if
any).
iii) Wait for an answer from other servers, if any.
iv) Go to 4).
Vasseur, et al Page 4
draft-vasseur-mpls-computation-rsvp-05.txt July 2004
2. Terminology
Terminology used in this draft
PCE: Path Computation Element (e.g. ABR, ASBR, UNIX machine)
PCC: Path Computation Client (any LSR) requesting a path computation
from the Path Computation Element.
3. RSVP Path computation Request/Reply messages
As defined in rfc2205, an RSVP message consists of a common header
followed by a body consisting of a variable number of variable-
length, typed "objects". As a reminder, the common header format is:
0 1 2 3
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Vers | Flags| Msg Type | RSVP Checksum |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Send_TTL | (Reserved) | RSVP Length |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
See RFC2205 for details.
One new RSVP message type is defined in this draft: a Path
Computation Message. The message type is [TBD by IANA].
The Flags field is used to identify whether the message is a path
computation request or a reply. Each has different contents, defined
below. Flags 0x01-0x8 are reserved. A request has its flag set to
[TBD by IANA] and a reply has its flag set to [TBD by IANA].
An RSVP Path Computation Request message is sent by an LSR to request
one or more path computations of a PCE obeying a set of specified
constraints. The objects carried in this message may include those
defined in [RSVP] and [RSVP-TE], new objects defined in this draft,
as well as other objects that may be defined in the future
characterizing, for instance, the constraints of the LSP for which
one or several paths should be computed. The IP source address is the
IP address of the requesting LSR and the IP destination address is
the IP address of the PCE.
An RSVP Path Computation Reply message is sent by the PCE to the
requesting LSR (PCC) to return one or more computed Paths, if any.
The object(s) carried will include one or more EROs (Explicit Route
Objects), as defined in [RSVP-TE], plus additional objects defined in
this draft. If no path can be found, the PCE reply will be negative.
An ERROR-SPEC object will be carried in the reply, and optionally
additional information as defined in section 3.3.4. The source IP
address will be the IP address of the PCE and the destination IP
address will be the IP address of the PCC.
RSVP Path computation messages are sent without the router alert
option. Path computation messages should be sent in reliable mode as
Vasseur, et al Page 5
draft-vasseur-mpls-computation-rsvp-05.txt July 2004
defined in RFC2961. This allows an acknowledgment message to be used
to acknowledge the receipt of a Path computation message (request and
reply). In case of message loss, the message will be fast
retransmitted as defined in RFC2961. Note that the DSCP field of the
IP packet carrying an RSVP Path Computation message may be set
appropriately to provide the appropriate quality of service delivery
to the packet.
The same Path Computation Request may be sent to several PCEs. In
this case, the decision process used by the PCC to select from among
(possibly) multiple replies is a local decision and is beyond the
scope of this document.
3.1 RSVP Path Computation Request Message Format
The Path Computation Request message format is as follows:
The Flags field of the common header must be set to [TBD] by IANA to
identify a request.
<Path computation request> ::= <Common Header> [ <INTEGRITY> ]
[[<MESSAGE_ID_ACK> |
<MESSAGE_ID_NACK>] ... ]
[<MESSAGE_ID>]
<SESSION>
<REQUEST-ID>
[<NB-PATH>]
[<EXPLICIT_ROUTE>]
[<METRIC-TYPE>]
[<MIN-BW>]
[<EXCLUDE-ELEMENT>]
[<SESSION_ATTRIBUTE>]
[<POLICY_DATA> ... ]
<sender descriptor>
<sender descriptor> ::= <SENDER_TEMPLATE> <SENDER_TSPEC>
[ <ADSPEC> ]
[ <RECORD_ROUTE> ]
One new (mandatory) object is defined: REQUEST-ID to identify the
request. This object is also used to indicate the requestÆs priority
and LSP type. See 3.3.1 for details.
The SESSION_ATTRIBUTE object (class=207, C-type=1) allows carrying
setup and holding priorities, resource affinities, etc. Other
constraints may also be carried in the Path Computation message. Note
that any other constraints that could be defined in the future can be
expressed as new objects.
The ERO object may also be present in the RSVP Path Computation
Request. The reason is that the head-end may want to specify some
LSR(s) that the LSP must traverse. At least one sub-object in the
ERO must have its L flag bit set to 1, referring to a loose hop. Note
that if the path computation request is related to a reoptimization,
a second ERO object specifying the existing TE LSP path will be
Vasseur, et al Page 6
draft-vasseur-mpls-computation-rsvp-05.txt July 2004
inserted to avoid double bandwidth accounting. This ERO will be
easily differentiated from the ERO related to the path constraint as
it just contains strict hops subobjects. It should be placed after
the path constraints ERO.
The optional METRIC-TYPE object allows the PCC to specify the metric
the PCE must use in its CSPF to select the ôbestö path obeying the
requested constraints. See the METRIC-TYPE object definition in 3.3.2
for more details.
The optional NB-PATH object (defined in 3.3.5) allows the PCC to
specify the number of requested paths to the PCE for the specific set
of constraints specified in the RSVP Path Computation Request
message.
3.2 RSVP Path Computation Reply message format
The Path Computation Reply message format is as follows:
The Flags field of the common header must be set to [TBD by IANA] to
identify a Path Computation Reply.
<Path Computation Reply>::=<Common Header> [ <INTEGRITY> ]
[<MESSAGE_ID_ACK> | <MESSAGE_ID_NACK>]...]
[ <MESSAGE_ID> ]
<REQUEST-ID>
[ <NB-PATH> ]
[<EXPLICIT_ROUTE> [<PATH-COST>] [<LSP-
BANDWIDTH>] ] ...
[ <ERROR_SPEC>]
[<NO-PATH-AVAILABLE] ]
[ <POLICY_DATA> ... ]
The REQUEST-ID is the same REQUEST-ID (contains the same value) as
the one contained in the Path Computation Request to which the reply
corresponds.
In case of a negative reply (no path obeying the constraints can be
found), the PCE must send a reply containing an ERROR_SPEC object
with:
- ERROR_CODE [TBD by IANA] and ERROR_VALUE [TBD by IANA]
- ôIpv4 Error Node addressö (ôIpv6 Error Node addressö) set to
the Ipv4 (Ipv6) address of the PCE. This must be the same IP
address as was used in the Path Computation Request message.
There are various reasons why the PCE may not be able to satisfy the
request:
- the Path Computation Request message was not valid (ôunknown
object class (error_code=23, ôunknown object C-type
(error_code=14), ôRouting problemö (error_code=24), à), à See
[RSVP] and [RSVP-TE] for details. In such a situation, the PCE
must send the Path Computation Reply message without any ERO
objects and without NO-PATH-AVAILABLE object.
Vasseur, et al Page 7
draft-vasseur-mpls-computation-rsvp-05.txt July 2004
- No path can be found obeying the set of requested constraints.
If no path can be found by the PCE for the specified
constraints, and only in this situation, a NO-PATH-AVAILABLE
object may be inserted into the RSVP Path Computation Reply
message sent by the PCE. This object (defined in section 3.3.4)
is optional and may specify the constraint(s) that explain(s)
why no path has been found. In addition, the PCE may use the NO-
PATH-AVAILABLE object to suggest new constraint values for which
a path can be found.
a) If the PCC did not specify that a less-constrainted
path is of interest (L flag of the REQUEST-ID object set
to 0), the Path Computation Reply message must not
contain any ERO objects.
b) If the PCC specified that a less-constrainted path
is of interest (L flag of the REQUEST-ID object set to
1), then the PCE can optionally use the NO-PATH-
AVAILABLE object to indicate new constraint values for
which the included path could be found. This is a
circumstance where the Path Computation Reply message
can contain one or more EROs.
Note that a Path Computation Reply message may contain several EROs
if and only if several paths have been requested by the LSR in its
Path Computation Request message using the NB-PATH object (see
3.3.5).
Moreover, multiple replies may be combined in the same Path
Computation Reply message. This is done using a list of EROs, each
following its corresponding REQUEST-ID as shown in the example below.
A reply should not be delayed in order to bundle several path
computation results for requests whose priority REQUEST-ID field (see
3.3.1) has been set to ôhighö.
As an example, if a PCC sends several requests:
- L low priority requests with REQUEST-ID = R(i) I=1 à L
- P high priority requests with REQUEST-ID = RÆ(i) I=1 à P
Then the PCE MUST reply to every high priority request as soon as the
computation result is completed. On the other hand, the low priority
request results could be bundled in the SAME Path Computation Reply
message using the following format: <REQUEST-ID R(1)> <ERO(1)>
<REQUEST-ID R(2)> <ERO(2)> <ERO (2)> à <REQUEST-ID R(L)> <ERO(L)>.
If no path can be found for a specific request, an individual
negative Path Computation Reply message must be sent for the
corresponding request.
A PATH-COST object (defined 3.3.3) may be inserted and follow each
ERO object if and only if the PCC has requested the PCE to provide
the cost of each computed path in its Path Computation Request
message (the ôCö bit in the flag field of the REQUEST-ID object
present in the path computation request must be set).
3.3 New RSVP objects used in Path Computation messages
Vasseur, et al Page 8
draft-vasseur-mpls-computation-rsvp-05.txt July 2004
3.3.1 REQUEST-ID Object
The REQUEST-ID object must be used in every Path Computation Request
message and in every Path Computation Reply message.
REQUEST-ID Class-Num is [TBD]
REQUEST-ID C-Type is [TBD]
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|B|R|T|C|Pri| Epoch |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Request-ID-number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Flags: 6 bits
C (Cost): when set, the PCC does require the PCE to indicate the
pathÆs computed cost in its reply.
T (Type of reply: Partial or complete): In a request, when set, this
specifies the returned path must be complete (set of directly
connected LSRs). When this bit is cleared, the returned path may be
complete or partial (set of loose hops). In a reply, when set, this
indicates the returned path is complete. If the returned path is
partial, this bit is cleared.
R (Reoptimization): when set, the PCC specifies that the request
concerns a reoptimization (a new path computation for a TE LSP
already in place). This requires for the PCC to provide the path of
the TE LSP in place in the path computation request to avoid double
bandwidth counting. The ERO must be formed of strict hops only. If
the PCC has previously requested a Partial ERO (T bit cleared), a
reoptimization can still be requested by the PCC but this implies for
the PCE to be statefull (keep a trace of the previously computed path
with the associated list of strict hops).
If a set of TE LSPs are in place and a reoptimization is triggered:
- If all the elements of the set share the same constraints,
then the PCC should send a single path computation request
message containing the list of the EROs for the existing TE LSPs
to avoid double bandwidth counting.
- If the TE LPSs of the set do not share the same set of
constraint, the PCC should send N path computation requests
(where N is the number of TE LSPs) with the R bit of their
REQUEST-ID object set and the corresponding ERO for the existing
TE LSPs.
B (Bi-directional): when set, the PCC specifies the TE LSP is bi-
directional. When cleared, the TE LSP is unidirectional.
Vasseur, et al Page 9
draft-vasseur-mpls-computation-rsvp-05.txt July 2004
L (less-constrainted path): when set in the Path Computation Request
message, the PCC indicates to the PCE that a less-constrainted path
is of interest in case of a negative reply (the request cannot be
fully satisfied). If set in a Path Computation Reply message, this
indicates both that the PCE is capable of computing alternate
constraint values for which a path could be found and that the PCC
requested information on such a less-constrainted path. This flag
should not be set in a Path Computation Reply message unless the
corresponding Path Computation Request message had it set. In this
case, the associated constraints must be provided in the path
computation reply making use of the NO-PATH-AVAILABLE object. The PCE
will in this case provide the closest possible solution (see section
4.).
Pri (Priority): 2 bits
This field may be used for the requesting LSR to specify to the PCE
the urgency of this request. The decision of which priority should be
used for a specific request is a local matter and must be set to 0
when unused. A possible use of this field is when several
computations may be requested, each having different timing
requirements: typically a request for a reoptimization would have a
lower priority than a re-routing request.
0x0: normal. No timing requirement specified.
0x3: high. Urgent request to be served as soon as possible.
Epoch: 24 bits
Epoch is as described in RFC2961 and can be the same number.
Request-ID-number: 32 bits
This value (combined with the IP address of the PCC) uniquely
identifies the Path Computation Request the message refers to and is
incremented every time a new request is sent to the PCE. If no Path
computation reply is received from the PCE, the request may be resent
with the same Request-ID-number.
The same Request-ID-number may be sent to different PCEÆs. The Path
Computation Reply will be identified by the IP source address of the
sender.
The presence of the REQUEST-ID object is mandatory in every Path
Computation Request and Reply message.
3.3.2 METRIC-TYPE
The METRIC-TYPE object may be used in Path Computation Request
message. This object is optional.
When computing the path(s) obeying a set of specified constraints,
the PCE will run a CSPF and will select the ôshortestö path from the
subset of the topology which meets the constraints. The shortest
Path is defined as the path having the lowest cost for a specific
Vasseur, et al Page 10
draft-vasseur-mpls-computation-rsvp-05.txt July 2004
metric. This metric can be the IGP metric, the Traffic Engineering
metric, or any other metric defined in the future. See also [SEC-
METRIC] for a discussion on the use of the metric in the path
computation. The METRIC-TYPE object is used by the PCC to indicate
the PCE which metric to be used in its CSPF. When the METRIC-TYPE
object is not present, the PCE must use the TE metric.
METRIC-TYPE object format
METRIC-TYPE Class-Num is [TBD]
METRIC-TYPE C-Type is [TBD]
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) //
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Subobjects
The contents of the METRIC-TYPE object are a series of
variable-length data items called subobjects. The subobjects
are defined in section below.
Subobjects
0 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-------------//----------------+
| metric-type | Length | (Subobject contents) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-------------//----------------+
metric-type: identifies the metric type
0x00: IGP metric
0x01: Traffic Engineering metric
length
The Length contains the total length of the subobject in bytes,
including the metric-type and Length fields. The Length MUST be at
least 4, and MUST be a multiple of 4.
Subject content
Both IGP and Traffic Engineering metric have the same form:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| metric-value |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Vasseur, et al Page 11
draft-vasseur-mpls-computation-rsvp-05.txt July 2004
The metric-value subobject object will not be present in a path
computation request.
Note that the PCC may specify multiple metrics in its request.
In such a case, the PCE must:
- compute the shortest path(s) obeying the specified set of
constraints for every metric,
- provide in its reply the shortest path(s) for each metric since the
PCC has required the shortest path for more than one metric. This
means that the PCE must, for each metric type, provides the ERO and
optionally the corresponding cost (see 3.3.3). A PATH-COST object
will follow the ERO object in the reply that will specify the metric-
type and optionally the metric-value.
3.3.3 PATH-COST
The PATH-COST object is used in Path Computation Reply message.
It may be desirable for the PCC to request that the PCE return not
only the computed paths but also their corresponding costs. The cost
of the path is defined as the sum of the link metrics (IGP or TE
metric) along this path. As defined in 3.3.1, the PCC will set the
ôCö bit of the Flag field in the REQUEST-ID object of its Path
Computation Request message to indicate the path(s) cost must be
provided by the PCE in its reply (if the reply is positive).
When the PCE returns one or more computed paths to the PCC:
- if the ôCö bit of the REQUEST-ID flag has not been set in the Path
Computation Request message, the PCE may or not provide the Path(s)
cost,
- if the ôCö bit of the REQUEST-ID flag has been set in the Path
Computation Request message, the PCE must, for every ERO, include a
PATH-COST object specifying the cost of the computed path for the
requested metric(s). The requested metric is specified in the METRIC-
TYPE Object received in the Path Computation Request.
As mentioned in the previous section, there is another situation
where the PCE must include a PATH-COST object for every computed ERO:
when the request has been received with a METRIC-TYPE object
specifying more than one metric. In this case, the PCE will also add
one PATH-COST object for every ERO specifying the metric for which
the ERO corresponds to the shortest path.
The PATH-COST object will be made of subobjects identifying the
metric type and the associated value.
PATH-COST Class-Num is [TBD by IANA]
PATH-COST C-Type is [TBD by IANA]
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
Vasseur, et al Page 12
draft-vasseur-mpls-computation-rsvp-05.txt July 2004
// (Subobjects) //
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The same subobjects as defined for METRIC-TYPE will be used.
The IGP metric of a computed path is defined as the sum of the IGP
metrics of each link along the path. The TE metric of a computed path
is defined as the sum of the TE metrics of each link along the path.
Examples of METRIC-TYPE, PATH-COST Objects
In the following examples, not all optional objects are mentioned and
we suppose positive answers.
Example 1
Request
<SESSION>
<REQUEST-ID>=a, ôCö bit=0x1
<METRIC-TYPE>: TE metric
<sender descriptor>
The PCC sends a request for the computation of one path obeying the
set of specified constraints. The returned path must be the shortest
path using the TE metric and must specify the associated cost.
Reply
REQUEST-ID=a
<ERO 1>
<PATH-COST>: metric-type=öTEö, metric-value=C1 (sum of the TE metric
of the links along the path for ERO 1)
Note: if the ôCö bit is cleared in the RESQUEST-ID object of the path
computation request, the PCE may (but is not required to) return the
computed path(s) with PATH-COST objects.
Example 2
Request
<SESSION>
<REQUEST-ID>=a, ôCö bit=0x1
<METRIC-TYPE>: IGP metric & TE metric
<sender descriptor>
The PCC sends a request for the computation of one path obeying the
set of specified constraints. The returned path must be the shortest
path using the TE metric.
Reply
REQUEST-ID=a
<ERO 1>
<PATH-COST>: metric-type=öTEö, metric-value=C1 (sum of the IGP metric
of the links along the path for ERO 1)
<ERO 2>
Vasseur, et al Page 13
draft-vasseur-mpls-computation-rsvp-05.txt July 2004
<PATH-COST>: metric-type=öIGPö, metric-value=C2 (sum of the TE metric
of the links along the path for ERO 2)
3.3.4 NO-PATH-AVAILABLE object
The NO-PATH-AVAILABLE object may be used in Path Computation Reply
message. This object is optional.
When present, it allows the PCE to indicate the unsatisfied
constraint(s) (the reason why no path can be found).
- if the L bit in the REQUEST-ID of the path computation request
has been set (less-constrainted path is of interest) and the
PCE is capable of suggesting new constraint values, then the
NO-PATH-AVAILABLE object allows the PCE to specify the
alternate constraint values for which a path could be found.
These new constraint values were used to compute the ERO
included in the case where the request failed and an ERROR-SPEC
is included in the Path Computation Reply message.
- if the L bit in the REQUEST-ID of the path computation request
has not been set and the request failed, a negative path
computation reply is returned to the PCC with an ERROR-SPEC. No
NO-PATH-AVAILABLE object is included in the reply.
NO-PATH-AVAILABLE Class-Num is [TBD by IANA] - C-Type is [TBD by
IANA]
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Flag | Reserved | Contraint-type |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Suggested-value |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Flags: 8 bits
0x00: the PCE indicates the constraint for which no path can be found
but does not suggest any other value for the constraint for which a
path could be found.
0x01: the PCE indicates the constraint for which no path can be found
and suggests another value for this constraint (as close as possible
to the original requested constraint) for which a path could be
found. This value is indicated in the suggested-value field.
0x02: the PCE indicates that no path can be found with the requested
constraints but an unconstrained path could be found. In this case
both the Contraint-type and Suggested-value fields must be set to 0.
Constraint-type: 16 bits
Defines the constraint for which no path has been found by the PCE.
0x0001 = no path can be found with the requested bandwidth
0x0002 = no path can be found with the requested protection
Vasseur, et al Page 14
draft-vasseur-mpls-computation-rsvp-05.txt July 2004
0x0003 = no path can be found with the requested class affinity
attribute
0x0004 = the path-correlation requested cannot be satisfied
0x0005 = no path can be found since the LSP was requested as bi-
directional
Suggested-value: 32 bits
The PCE may, for each constraint, suggest a value (potentially the
closest to the requested constraint in the original Path computation
request) for which a path could be found. In this case, the flag must
be set to 0x01. For example, if a bandwidth of X is requested by the
head-end LSR and a path may be found but with a bandwidth of Y (with
Y<X), Y may be mentioned by the PCE in the Suggested-value field.
The suggested-value field must be set to 0x00000000 if the flag field
is set to 0x00.
Note that several NO-PATH-AVAILABLE objects may be included in the
Path Computation Reply message so that the PCE may indicate the list
of constraints for which no path has been found. In the specific case
where just an unconstrained path can be found, the PCE will return a
single NO-AVAILABLE-PATH object with the Flags=0x02 (this simplifies
the RSVP message in this particular case, instead of having to
include one NO-AVAILABLE-PATH per constraint).
A PCE is not required to support the capability of identifying the
constraint(s) that cannot be satisfied, and suggesting other values
for the constraint(s) and will not do so unless the L bit was set in
the request's REQUEST-ID.
3.3.5 NB-PATH object
The NB-PATH object may be used in Path Computation Request message
and Path Computation Reply messages. This object is optional in the
Path Computation Request message. When present in the Path
Computation Request message, it must be also present in the
corresponding Path Computation Reply message.
There are many situations where a PCC may desire to get more than one
LSP (and so more than one path) between two points:
- to perform load balancing between two LSRS in order to reduce
the traffic disruption impact in case of link failure,
- when a single TE LSP with the requested bandwidth cannot be
found due to lack of bandwidth. In this case, the PCC could
request a set of N TE LPS such that the sum of their bandwidth
is equal to a known value X:
- without specifying N,
- without specifying N but a maximum for N,
Also, in this case the PCC may want specify the minimum of
bandwidth for each TE LSPs in the set (a set of 10000 TE LSPs of
10K bandwidth each is likely to be undesirable).
Vasseur, et al Page 15
draft-vasseur-mpls-computation-rsvp-05.txt July 2004
This type of request is called a global bandwidth request.
- with path protection to compute both the primary and backup TE
LSP (in this case they must be diversely routed),
- à
Also:
- the PCE requests the computation of N (potentially correlated)
paths sharing the same set of constraints. By correlated, we mean
link/node/SRLG diverse.
- the PCE requests the computation of N correlated paths each path
having a different set of constraints. Such a request is called a
global request and is made of individual requests. For each
individual request, a specific path computation request message is
sent to the PCE. A global path computation request is said satisfied
if each individual request can be satisfied with their corresponding
correlation.
When the NB-PATH object is not present, exactly one path must be
returned (provided one path satisfying the constraints exists).
NB-PATH Class-Num is [TBD by IANA] C-Type is [TBD by IANA]
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Res|N|S| Path-correlation | number-path |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Flags: 4 bits
S bit:
- S=0: the PCE requests the computation of (potentially
correlated) number-path paths that share the same set of
constraints.
- S=1: the PCE requests the computation of number-path
correlated paths having different set of constraints. The set of
constraints of each path is defined in a different Path
computation request message identified by the REQUEST-ID_number.
The list of requests is specified in the PATH-CORRELATED object
(defined in section 3.3.6). Note that in this case, the PCE
starts the path computation after having received the number-
path Path computation request.
N bit:
- N=0: the PCE requests the computation of exactly number-path
paths
- N=1: the PCE requests the computation of a maximum of number-
path paths.
Note
In some situation, the PCC may want to request the computation of a
set of n TE LSPs such that the sum of their bandwidth is equal to a
specified value X. In this case, the sender-descriptor included in
Vasseur, et al Page 16
draft-vasseur-mpls-computation-rsvp-05.txt July 2004
the path computation request must reflect this value X for the
bandwidth. n may be considered as a strict value (N bit =0 in the NB-
PATH object and number-path=n), a maximum (N bit =1 in the NB-PATH
object and number-path=n) or may be unknown (number-path=0xFFFFFF).
Then in order to specify that each element of the set of TE LSPs must
have a minimum bandwidth, the MIN-BW should be inserted (see 3.3.7).
Path-correlation
Defines the correlation between the various requested paths.
0x000: no path correlation
0x001: the various paths must be diversely routed (link diverse)
0x002: the various paths must be diversely routed (node diverse)
0x003: the various paths must be diversely routed (SRLG disjoint)
0x004: the various paths must be diversely routed (link and SRLG)
0x005: the various paths must be diversely routed (node and SRLG)
number-path
Defines the number of requested paths obeying the specified
constraints to the PCE. The number-path must always be strictly
greater than 1. If just one path is required no NB-PATH object must
be inserted in the request.
When the value 0xFFFF is specified, the PCC requires the computation
of a number of TE LSPs which is not known a priori: typically, when
the PCC requires the computation of a set of TE LSPs such that the
sum of their bandwidth is equal to X but does not know the number of
TE LSPS that will be required and does not impose any bound. When
number-path=0xFFFF, the N bit must be set to 1.
It may of course not be possible to compute number-path paths that
obey the specified constraints; this will be more likely the case if
diverse routing is requested.
A NB-PATH object must be used in every Path Computation Reply message
if the corresponding Path Computation Request message also contained
an NB-PATH object.
If the PCE requests the computation of (potentially correlated)
number-path paths sharing the same set of constraints:
- The S bit flag of the NB-PATH object in the Path computation
request must be set to 0,
If the reply is positive:
If exactly N EROs have been requested (number-path=N
and N bit=0 in the NB-PATH object of the request), then
the number-path field of NB-PATH in the reply is N. If
up to N EROs have been requested (number-path=N and N
bit=1 in the NB-PATH object of the request), then the
number-path field of NB-PATH in the reply should be M
(M<N), the number of paths which were found and
necessary to meet the request.
Vasseur, et al Page 17
draft-vasseur-mpls-computation-rsvp-05.txt July 2004
If the reply is negative:
The number-path field of NB-PATH in the Path
computation reply contains the number of paths that
could be computed by the PCE. If N EROs have been
requested (number-path=N and N bit=0 in the NB_PATH
object of the request) but the PCE can only find M EROs
obeying the constraints (M<N), the PCE will return a
Path Computation Reply message with an NB-PATH object
where number-path=M. If up to N EROs have been
requested (number-path=N and N bit=1 in the NB-PATH
object of the request) but the PCE cannot meet the
constraints with the M paths that it can find (M>N),
then the PCE will return Path Computation Reply message
with an NB-PATH object where number-path=M.
If the request desired information on less-constrainted
paths in the event of a failure (L bit=1 in REQUEST-
ID), then one or more EROs may be included along with
one or more NO-PATH-AVAILABLE objects. The reply will
also contain an ERROR_SPEC object.
If the request did not desire information on less-
constrainted paths in the event of a failure (L bit=0
in REQUEST-ID), no ERO object will be inserted in the
reply.
The reply will also contain an ERROR_SPEC object.
If the PCE requests the computation of number-path correlated paths
having different set of constraints, the NB-PATH object must just be
present in the first of number-path requests.
- The S bit flag of the NB-PATH object in the Path computation
request must be set to 1,
- In a request for number-path sharing different set of
constraints, the N bit must always be set to 0,
- The path computation request must contain a PATH-CORRELATED
object listing the number-path REQUEST-ID. The set of
constraints of each path is defined in number-path path
computation requests,
If the reply is positive:
If N correlated paths have been requested (number-path=N
in the NB-PATH object of the request), the number-path
field of NB-PATH in the reply is N.
If the reply is negative:
The number-path field of NB-PATH in the Path computation
reply contains the number of correlated paths that could
be computed by the PCE. If N path computation have been
requested (number-path=N in the NB-PATH object of the
Vasseur, et al Page 18
draft-vasseur-mpls-computation-rsvp-05.txt July 2004
request) but the PCE can only find M paths obeying the
constraints (M<N), the PCE will return a Path
Computation Reply message with an NB-PATH object where
number-path=M. The PCE will also include a PATH-
CORRELATED object listing the set of N-M requests that
could not be satisfied (identified by their REQUEST-ID-
number).
If the request desired information on less-constrainted
paths in the event of a failure (L bit=1 in REQUEST-ID)
and the PCE is capable of computing alternate
constraint values for which a path could be found,
then:
- the EROs for the satisfied individual
requests must be provided,
- one or more EROs may be included along with
one or more NO-PATH-AVAILABLE objects for the
individual requests that could not be satisfied
as requested.
If the request did not desire information on less-
constrainted paths in the event of a failure (L bit=0
in REQUEST-ID), no ERO object will be inserted in the
reply.
The reply will also contain an ERROR_SPEC object.
Example 1 (Path computation of 5 paths sharing the same set of
constraints). Less constrainted path is of interest.
The PCC sends a request to the PCE with the following constraints:
Request
<SESSION>
<REQUEST-ID>=a, L bit=1
<NB-PATH>: Flag: N=0, S=0, number-path=5, Path-correlation=0x02 (Node
diversely routed paths)
sender descriptor: bw=x, à
If just M=3 (M<N=5) paths can be found by the PCE with the requested
constraints but 5 such paths can be found if the requested bandwidth
is y (y<x), then the PCE may send the path computation reply of this
form:
Reply
REQUEST-ID=a
<ERROR-SPEC> (specifying a negative reply)
<NB-PATH>: Flag: N=0, S=0 number-path=3, Path-correlation=0x02
<ERO1>
<ERO2>
<ERO3>
<NO-PATH-AVAILABLE>: Flags=0x01, Constraint-type=0x0001 (bandwidth),
Suggested-value=y
Vasseur, et al Page 19
draft-vasseur-mpls-computation-rsvp-05.txt July 2004
Which means:
- the reply is negative (the request cannot be satisfied with
the specified constraints)
- the unsatisfied constraint is ôBandwidthö
- Exactly M=3 EROs (M<N) could be found with the requested
constraints. Their corresponding paths are ERO1, ERO2 and ERO3.
- N=5 node diversely routed path could be found if the bandwidth
is set to y.
Then the PCC could decide to resend a path computation request for N
EROs but with the new suggested value for the bandwidth (y).
Example 2 (Path computation of N=4 paths sharing different set of
constraints). Less constrainted path is not of interest.
The PCC sends a request to the PCE with the following constraints:
Request 1
<SESSION>
<REQUEST-ID>=a, L bit=0
<NB-PATH>: Flag: N=0, S=1, number-path=4, Path-correlation=0x02 (Node
diversely routed paths)
<PATH-CORRELATED>=a,b,c,d
sender descriptor: bw=x, à
The PCE receives a Global path computation request for N=4 paths
sharing different set of constraints. The PCE will start the
computation after having received the N=4 path computation requests
having the request-ID-number a, b, c and d.
Request 2
<SESSION>
<REQUEST-ID>=b
sender descriptor: bw=y, à
Request 3
<SESSION>
<REQUEST-ID>=c
sender descriptor: bw=z, à
Request 3
<SESSION>
<REQUEST-ID>=d
sender descriptor: bw=w, à
Reply 1
REQUEST-ID=a
<ERROR-SPEC> (specifying a negative reply)
<NB-PATH>: Flag: N=0, S=1, number-path=2, Path-correlation=0x02
<PATH-CORRELATED>: b,c
Which means:
- the reply is negative (the global request cannot be satisfied with
the specified constraints)
- just 2 requests could be satisfied: a and d
Vasseur, et al Page 20
draft-vasseur-mpls-computation-rsvp-05.txt July 2004
- the requests whose request-ID-number are b and c could not be
satisfied
Example 3 (Path computation of N=4 paths sharing different set of
constraints). Less constrainted path is of interest.
The PCC sends a request to the PCE with the following constraints:
Request 1
<SESSION>
<REQUEST-ID>=a, L bit=1
<NB-PATH>: Flag: N=0, S=1, number-path=4, Path-correlation=0x02 (Node
diversely routed paths)
<PATH-CORRELATED>=a,b,c,d
sender descriptor: bw=x, à
The PCE receives a Global path computation request for N=4 paths
sharing different set of constraints. The PCE will start the
computation after having received the N=4 path computation requests
having the request-ID-number a, b, c and d.
Request 2
<SESSION>
<REQUEST-ID>=b
sender descriptor: bw=y, à
Request 3
<SESSION>
<REQUEST-ID>=c
sender descriptor: bw=z, à
Request 3
<SESSION>
<REQUEST-ID>=d
sender descriptor: bw=w, à
Reply 1
REQUEST-ID=a, L bit=1
<NB-PATH>: Flag: N=0, S=1, number-path=2, Path-correlation=0x02
<PATH-CORRELATED>: b,c
<ERO>
Reply 2
REQUEST-ID=d, L bit=1
<ERO>
Reply 3
REQUEST-ID=b
<ERROR-SPEC> (specifying a negative reply)
<NO-PATH-AVAILABLE>: Flags=0x01, Constraint-type=0x0001 (bandwidth),
Suggested-value=yÆ
<ERO>
Reply 4
Vasseur, et al Page 21
draft-vasseur-mpls-computation-rsvp-05.txt July 2004
REQUEST-ID=c
<ERROR-SPEC> (specifying a negative reply)
<NO-PATH-AVAILABLE>: Flags=0x01, Constraint-type=0x0001 (bandwidth),
Suggested-value=zÆ
<ERO>
Which means:
- the reply is negative (the global request cannot be satisfied with
the specified constraints)
- just 2 requests could be satisfied: a and d and their corresponding
ERO are provided.
- the requests whose request-ID-number are b and c could not be
satisfied as specified,
- the unsatisfied constraint for request b and c is ôBandwidthö
- the global request can be satisfied if the request bandwidth for
request b is yÆ and the requested bandwidth for c is zÆ. The
corresponding EROs are provided in the reply since the L bit in the
REQUEST-ID object of the path computation request had been set.
3.3.6 PATH-CORRELATED object
The PATH-CORRELATED object may be used in Path Computation Request
message. This object is optional.
It allows the PCC to request to the PCE the computation of N
correlated paths having different set of constraints and contains the
list of the REQUEST-ID of those paths.
PATH-CORRELATED Class-Num is [TBD]
PATH-CORRELATED C-Type is [TBD]
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) //
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Subobjects
The contents of a PATH-CORRELATED object is a series REQUEST-
ID objects.
3.3.7 MIN-BW object
The MIN-BW object is used in Path Computation Request messages. This
object is optional and used by the PCC to request a set of TE LSPs
such that the sum of their bandwidth is determined, the number of
elements in the set may or not be specified, and the minimum
bandwidth of each element in the set is specified thanks to the MIN-
BW object.
Vasseur, et al Page 22
draft-vasseur-mpls-computation-rsvp-05.txt July 2004
Note that the TE LSPs may or not share the same constraints.
MIN-BW Class-Num is [TBD]
MIN-BW C-Type is [TBD]
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MIN-BW-LSP |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
MIN-BW-LSP: Minimum bandwidth of any element of the backup
tunnel set.
3.3.8 LSP-BANDWIDTH object
The LSP-BANDWIDTH object is used in Path Computation reply messages
and is included in any positive path computation reply to specify the
bandwidth of a computed TE LSP path when the request was a global
bandwidth request (see the definition in section 3.3.5). It
immediately follows the ERO.
LSP-BANDWIDTH Class-Num is [TBD]
LSP-BANDWIDTH C-Type is [TBD]
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LSP-Bandwidth |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
LSP-Bandwidth: Actual bandwidth determined for the associated path
Example 1: Path computation of a set diversely routed paths sharing
the same set of constraints such that:
- number of elements in the set is not specified and not bounded
by the PCC,
- the sum of their bandwidths is X,
- each element of the set has a minimum bandwidth of m
Request
<SESSION>
<REQUEST_ID>=a
<NB_PATH>: Flag: N=1, S=0, number-path=0xFFFFFF,
Path_correlation=0x02 (Node diversely routed paths)
sender descriptor: bw=X, à
<MIN-BW>: MIN-BW-LSP=m
Supposing the PCE can find such a solution with 4 node diverse TE
LSPs: LSP1, LSP2, LSP3, LSP4 such that:
- TE LSP 1 : ERO1, Bw=x1, x1>m
- TE LSP 2 : ERO2, Bw=x2, x2>m
- TE LSP 3 : ERO3, Bw=x3, x3>m,
Vasseur, et al Page 23
draft-vasseur-mpls-computation-rsvp-05.txt July 2004
- TE LSP 4 : ERO4, Bw=x4, x4>m,
- x1+x2+x3+x4=X
Reply
REQUEST_ID=a
<NB_PATH>: Flag: N=1, S=0, number-path=4, Path_correlation=0x02
<ERO1>, <LSP-BANDWIDTH> (Bw=x1)
<ERO2>, <LSP-BANDWIDTH> (Bw=x2)
<ERO3>, <LSP-BANDWIDTH> (Bw=x3)
<ERO4>, <LSP-BANDWIDTH> (Bw=x4)
Example 2: Path computation of a maximum of n diversely routed paths
sharing the same set of constraints such that:
- the sum of their bandwidths is X,
- each element of the set has a minimum bandwidth of m
Request
<SESSION>
<REQUEST_ID>=a
<NB_PATH>: Flag: N=1, S=0, number-path=n, Path_correlation=0x02 (Node
diversely routed paths)
sender descriptor: bw=X, à
<MIN-BW>: MIN-BW-LSP=m
Supposing the PCE can find such a solution with 3 node diverse TE
LSPs: LSP1, LSP2, LSP3 such that
- TE LSP 1 : ERO1, Bw=x1, x1>m
- TE LSP 2 : ERO2, Bw=x2, x2>m
- TE LSP 3 : ERO3, Bw=x3, x3>m,
- x1+x2+x3=X
Reply
REQUEST_ID=a
<NB_PATH>: Flag: N=1, S=0, number-path=n, Path_correlation=0x02
<ERO1>, <LSP-BANDWIDTH> (Bw=x1)
<ERO2>, <LSP-BANDWIDTH> (Bw=x2)
<ERO3>, <LSP-BANDWIDTH> (Bw=x3)
Example 3: Path computation of exactly 2 diversely routed paths not
sharing the same set of constraints such that the sum of their
bandwidths is X.
Request
<SESSION>
<REQUEST_ID>=a
<NB_PATH>: Flag: N=0, S=1, number-path=2, Path_correlation=0x02 (Node
diversely routed paths)
sender descriptor: bw=X, à
<PATH_CORRELATED>=a,b
à
<REQUEST_ID>=b
<NB_PATH>: flag: N=0, S=1, number_PATH=2, Path_correlation=0x02 (Node
diversely routed paths)
Vasseur, et al Page 24
draft-vasseur-mpls-computation-rsvp-05.txt July 2004
sender descriptor: bw=X, à
à
Supposing the PCE can find such a solution with 3 node diverse TE
LSPs: LSP1, LSP2, LSP3 such that
- TE LSP 1 : ERO1, Bw=x1, x1>m
- TE LSP 2 : ERO2, Bw=x2, x2>m
- x1+x2=X
Reply
REQUEST_ID=a
<NB_PATH>: Flag: N=0, S=1, number-path=2, Path_correlation=0x02
<ERO1>, <LSP-BANDWIDTH> (Bw=x1)
<ERO2>, <LSP-BANDWIDTH> (Bw=x2)
3.3.9 EXCLUDE-ELEMENT object
The EXCLUDE-ELEMENT object may be used in Path Computation Request
message. This object is optional.
It allows the PCC to specify to the PCE another constraint related to
the computed path: the exclusion of one or more network elements in
the computed path. A network element may be a link, an entire node
or even an Autonomous System. The EXCLUDED-ELEMENT object contains
the list of network elements to exclude from the computed path. Each
network element is represented as a subobject.
EXCLUDE-ELEMENT Class-Num is [TBD]
EXCLUDE-ELEMENT C-Type is [TBD]
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) //
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Subobjects
The contents of an EXCLUDE-OBJECT object is a series of
variable-length data items called subobjects. The subobjects
are defined in section below.
Subobjects
0 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-------------//----------------+
|NET| Type | Length | (Subobject contents) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-------------//----------------+
NET (Network Element Type)
Vasseur, et al Page 25
draft-vasseur-mpls-computation-rsvp-05.txt July 2004
Defines whether the network element is a link, a node or an AS.
L=0x00 the subobject identifies a link address the computed path must
not traverse.
L=0x01 the subobject identifies a node address the computed path must
not traverse.
L=0x02 the subobject identifies an Autonomous System the computed
path must not traverse.
L=0x03 the subobject identifies a SRLG the computed path must avoid.
Type
Indicates the type of data found in the subobject.
Currently defined values are:
0 Reserved
1 IPv4 prefix
2 IPv6 prefix
32 Autonomous system number
Length
The Length contains the total length of the subobject in bytes,
including the NET, Type and Length fields. The Length MUST be at
least 4, and MUST be a multiple of 4.
3.3.10 OPAQUE object
The OPAQUE object may be present in both Path Computation Request and
Reply message types. This object is optional.
The OPAQUE object may be used by the PCC to transfer information to
the PCE (in a Path Computation Request message) or by the PCE to
transfer information to the PCC (in a Path Computation Reply
message). Opaque object may be used for future extensions and the
exact content of the OPAQUE object is beyond the scope of this draft.
OPAQUE Class-Num is [TBD by IANA] - C-Type is [TBD by IANA]
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
// Value //
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Where
Type: identifies the TLV type
Length: length of the value field in octets
Vasseur, et al Page 26
draft-vasseur-mpls-computation-rsvp-05.txt July 2004
The OPAQUE object may also contain sub-TLV to be defined in the
future.
4. Definition of the ôclosest possible solutionö
At several places in this draft the term ôclosest possible solutionö
is mentioned. This refers to the solution (the set of paths) the PCE
could find if the request cannot be fully satisfied (negative
reply). The definition of ôclosest possible solutionö is determined
by the PCE (local decision).
In a future version of this draft, this could be defined by the PCC
in its request (detailing the set of constraints that should be
relaxed by order of priority): this is for further study.
Example
- Request for 5 TE LSPs sharing the same set of constraint for 10M
of bandwidth each,
- The PCE can find three solutions:
- Solution 1: LSP1=10, LSP2=10, LSP3=10, LSP4=5, LSP5=5
- Solution 2: LSP1=8, LSP2=8, LSP3=8, LSP4=8, LSP5=8
- Solution 3: LSP1=11, LSP2=11, LSP3=11, LSP4=11
Which solution is the closest of the initial request depends on the
definition of ôclosestö. It could be:
- Solution 1: 3 LSPs could be found with 10M
- Solution 2: exactly 5 LSPs with the same bandwidth could be
found
- Solution 3: 4 LSPs could be found but the total of their
bandwidth is 44M closest to the initial request for 50M.
5. PCE discovery
There are several possibilities for the PCC to learn the PCE(s)
location (IP addresses) and capabilities:
- by static configuration: the list of PCE can be manually
configured on each LSR, optionally:
o with an order of priority,
o their respective capabilities,
o à
- using IGP extensions for an automatic PCE discovery (see [14]
and [15]).
6. Acknowledgment
The authors would like to thank Bob Thomas, Francois Le Faucheur, Rob
Goguen, Anna Charny and Ashok Naranayan for their very valuable
comments.
7. Security Considerations
Vasseur, et al Page 27
draft-vasseur-mpls-computation-rsvp-05.txt July 2004
No new security issues are raised in this document. See [RSVP] for a
general discussion on RSVP security issues.
8. References
Normative references
[RFC] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to indicate
requirements levels", RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC3667] Bradner, S., "IETF Rights in Contributions", BCP 78,
RFC 3667, February 2004.
[RFC3668] Bradner, S., Ed., "Intellectual Property Rights in IETF
Technology", BCP 79, RFC 3668, February 2004.
[RSVP] Braden R. et al, ôResource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP)ö, RFC
2205, September 1997.
[RSVP-TE] Awduche, D., et. al., "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001.
Informative references
[OSPF-v2] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", RFC 2328, April 1998.
[ISIS] "Intermediate System to Intermediate System Intra-Domain
Routing Exchange Protocol " ISO 10589.
[ISIS-IP] Callon, R., "Use of OSI IS-IS for routing in TCP/IP and
dual environments", RFC 1195, December 1990.
[OSPF-TE] Katz, D., Yeung, D., Kompella, K., "Traffic Engineering
Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC 3630, September 2003.
[ISIS-TE] Li, T., Smit, H., "IS-IS extensions for Traffic
Engineering", RFC 3784, June 2004.
[OSPF-CAP] Lindem, A., Shen, N., Aggarwal, R., Shaffer, S., Vasseur,
J.P., "Extensions to OSPF for advertising Optional Router
Capabilities", draft-ietf-ospf-cap-03.txt, work in progress.
[OSPF-TE-CAP] Vasseur, J.P., Psenak, P., Yasukawa, S., "OSPF MPLS
Traffic Engineering Capabilities", draft-vasseur-ospf-te-caps-
00.txt, work in progress.
[ISIS-CAP] Vasseur, J.P., Aggarwal, R., Shen, N., "IS-IS extensions
for advertising router information", draft-vasseur-isis-caps-02.txt,
work in progress.
[ISIS-TE-CAP] Vasseur, J.P, Previdi, S., Mabey, P., Le Roux, J.L.,
"IS-IS MPLS Traffic Engineering Capabilities", draft-vasseur-isis-
te-caps-00.txt, work in progress.
Vasseur, et al Page 28
draft-vasseur-mpls-computation-rsvp-05.txt July 2004
[IGP-TE-CAP] Vasseur JP, Le Roux et al. ôRouting extensions for
discovery of TE router informationö, draft-vasseur-ccamp-te-router-
info-00.txt, work in progress.
[INT-AREA-REQ] Le Roux, J.L., Vasseur, J.P., Boyle, J.,
"Requirements for inter-area MPLS Traffic Engineering", draft-ietf-
tewg-interarea-mpls-te-req-02.txt, work in progress.
[INT-AS-REQ] Zhang, R., Vasseur, J.P., "MPLS Inter-AS Traffic
Engineering Requirements", draft-ietf-tewg-interas-mpls-te-req-
07.txt, work in progress.
[INT-DOMAIN-FRWK] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J.P., Ayyangar, A., "A
Framework for Inter-Domain MPLS Traffic Engineering", draft-farrel-
ccamp-inter-domain-framework-01.txt, work in progress.
[FACILITY-BACKUP] Le Roux, J.L., Vasseur, J.P. et al. "Framework for
PCE based MPLS Facility Backup Path Computation", draft-leroux-pce-
backup-comp-frwk-00.txt, work in progress
[REFRESH-REDUCTION] Berger L., Gan D., Swallow G., Pan P., Tommasi
F., Molendini S., "RSVP Refresh Overhead Reduction Extensions", RFC
2961, April 2001.
[SEC-METRIC] Le faucheur F. et al, ôUse of IGP Metric as a second TE
Metricö, RFC 3785, May 2004.
9. Author's Addresses
JP Vasseur
CISCO Systems, Inc.
300 Beaver Brook Road
Boxborough , MA - 01719
USA
Email: jpv@cisco.com
Carol Iturralde
Cisco Systems, Inc.
300 Beaver Brook Road
Boxborough , MA - 01719
USA
Email: cei@cisco.com
Raymond Zhang
Infonet Services Corporation
2160 E. Grand Ave.
El Segundo, CA 90025
USA
Office: +310-335-1039
Email: raymond_zhang@infonet.com
Xavier VINET
EQUANT
9 rue du ChŠne Germain - BP 80
Vasseur, et al Page 29
draft-vasseur-mpls-computation-rsvp-05.txt July 2004
35512 Cesson Sevigne cedex
FRANCE
Email : xavier.vinet@equant.com
Satoru Matsushima
Japan Telecom
4-7-1, Hatchobori, Chuo-ku
Tokyo, 104-8508 Japan
Phone: +81-3-5540-8214
Email: satoru@japan-telecom.co.jp
Alia Atlas
Avici Systems
101 Billerica Avenue
N. Billerica, MA 01862
email: aatlas@avici.com
phone: +1 978 964 2070
Intellectual Property Statement
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..
IPR Disclosure Acknowledgement
By submitting this Internet-Draft, I certify that any applicable
patent or other IPR claims of which I am aware have been disclosed,
and any of which I become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with
RFC 3668.
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). 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.
Vasseur, et al Page 30
draft-vasseur-mpls-computation-rsvp-05.txt July 2004
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 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.
Vasseur, et al Page 31
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-22 23:18:46 |