< draft-ietf-pce-pcep-domain-sequence-09.txt | draft-ietf-pce-pcep-domain-sequence-10.txt > | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
PCE Working Group D. Dhody | PCE Working Group D. Dhody | |||
Internet-Draft U. Palle | Internet-Draft U. Palle | |||
Intended status: Experimental Huawei Technologies | Intended status: Experimental Huawei Technologies | |||
Expires: March 23, 2016 R. Casellas | Expires: May 5, 2016 R. Casellas | |||
CTTC | CTTC | |||
September 20, 2015 | November 2, 2015 | |||
Standard Representation of Domain-Sequence | Domain Subobjects for Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication | |||
draft-ietf-pce-pcep-domain-sequence-09 | Protocol (PCEP). | |||
draft-ietf-pce-pcep-domain-sequence-10 | ||||
Abstract | Abstract | |||
The ability to compute shortest constrained Traffic Engineering Label | The ability to compute shortest constrained Traffic Engineering Label | |||
Switched Paths (TE LSPs) in Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and | Switched Paths (TE LSPs) in Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and | |||
Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) networks across multiple domains has been | Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) networks across multiple domains has been | |||
identified as a key requirement. In this context, a domain is a | identified as a key requirement. In this context, a domain is a | |||
collection of network elements within a common sphere of address | collection of network elements within a common sphere of address | |||
management or path computational responsibility such as an Interior | management or path computational responsibility such as an Interior | |||
Gateway Protocol (IGP) area or an Autonomous System (AS). This | Gateway Protocol (IGP) area or an Autonomous System (AS). This | |||
skipping to change at page 1, line 45 | skipping to change at page 1, line 46 | |||
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering | Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering | |||
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute | Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute | |||
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- | working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- | |||
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. | Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. | |||
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months | Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months | |||
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any | and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any | |||
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference | time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference | |||
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." | material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." | |||
This Internet-Draft will expire on March 23, 2016. | This Internet-Draft will expire on May 5, 2016. | |||
Copyright Notice | Copyright Notice | |||
Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the | Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the | |||
document authors. All rights reserved. | document authors. All rights reserved. | |||
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal | This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal | |||
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents | Provisions Relating to IETF Documents | |||
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of | (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of | |||
publication of this document. Please review these documents | publication of this document. Please review these documents | |||
skipping to change at page 2, line 39 | skipping to change at page 2, line 39 | |||
3.3. Domain-Sequence Representation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 | 3.3. Domain-Sequence Representation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 | |||
3.4. Include Route Object (IRO) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 | 3.4. Include Route Object (IRO) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 | |||
3.4.1. Subobjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 | 3.4.1. Subobjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 | |||
3.4.1.1. Autonomous system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 | 3.4.1.1. Autonomous system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 | |||
3.4.1.2. IGP Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 | 3.4.1.2. IGP Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 | |||
3.4.2. Update in IRO specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 | 3.4.2. Update in IRO specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 | |||
3.4.3. IRO for Domain-Sequence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 | 3.4.3. IRO for Domain-Sequence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 | |||
3.4.3.1. PCC Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 | 3.4.3.1. PCC Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 | |||
3.4.3.2. PCE Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 | 3.4.3.2. PCE Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 | |||
3.5. Exclude Route Object (XRO) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 | 3.5. Exclude Route Object (XRO) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 | |||
3.5.1. Subobjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 | 3.5.1. Subobjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 | |||
3.5.1.1. Autonomous system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 | 3.5.1.1. Autonomous system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 | |||
3.5.1.2. IGP Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 | 3.5.1.2. IGP Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 | |||
3.6. Explicit Exclusion Route Subobject (EXRS) . . . . . . . . 15 | 3.6. Explicit Exclusion Route Subobject (EXRS) . . . . . . . . 15 | |||
3.7. Explicit Route Object (ERO) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 | 3.7. Explicit Route Object (ERO) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 | |||
4. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 | 4. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 | |||
4.1. Inter-Area Path Computation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 | 4.1. Inter-Area Path Computation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 | |||
4.2. Inter-AS Path Computation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 | 4.2. Inter-AS Path Computation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 | |||
4.2.1. Example 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 | 4.2.1. Example 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 | |||
4.2.2. Example 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 | 4.2.2. Example 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 | |||
4.3. Boundary Node and Inter-AS-Link . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 | 4.3. Boundary Node and Inter-AS-Link . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 | |||
4.4. PCE Serving multiple Domains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 | 4.4. PCE Serving multiple Domains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 | |||
4.5. P2MP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 | 4.5. P2MP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 | |||
4.6. Hierarchical PCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 | 4.6. Hierarchical PCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 | |||
5. Other Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 | 5. Other Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 | |||
5.1. Relationship to PCE Sequence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 | 5.1. Relationship to PCE Sequence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 | |||
5.2. Relationship to RSVP-TE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 | 5.2. Relationship to RSVP-TE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 | |||
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 | 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 | |||
6.1. New Subobjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 | 6.1. New Subobjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 | |||
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 | 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 | |||
8. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 | 8. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 | |||
8.1. Control of Function and Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 | 8.1. Control of Function and Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 | |||
8.2. Information and Data Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 | 8.2. Information and Data Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 | |||
8.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 | 8.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 | |||
8.4. Verify Correct Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 | 8.4. Verify Correct Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 | |||
8.5. Requirements On Other Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 | 8.5. Requirements On Other Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 | |||
8.6. Impact On Network Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 | 8.6. Impact On Network Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 | |||
9. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 | 9. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 | |||
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 | 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 | |||
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 | 10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 | |||
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 | 10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 | |||
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 | Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 | |||
1. Introduction | 1. Introduction | |||
A Path Computation Element (PCE) may be used to compute end-to-end | A Path Computation Element (PCE) may be used to compute end-to-end | |||
paths across multi-domain environments using a per-domain path | paths across multi-domain environments using a per-domain path | |||
computation technique [RFC5152]. The backward recursive path | computation technique [RFC5152]. The backward recursive path | |||
computation (BRPC) mechanism [RFC5441] also defines a PCE-based path | computation (BRPC) mechanism [RFC5441] also defines a PCE-based path | |||
computation procedure to compute inter-domain constrained path for | computation procedure to compute inter-domain constrained path for | |||
(G)MPLS TE LSPs. However, both per-domain and BRPC techniques assume | (G)MPLS TE LSPs. However, both per-domain and BRPC techniques assume | |||
that the sequence of domains to be crossed from source to destination | that the sequence of domains to be crossed from source to destination | |||
skipping to change at page 12, line 38 | skipping to change at page 12, line 38 | |||
that has this link. | that has this link. | |||
* Otherwise, it assumes that the subobject belongs to the current | * Otherwise, it assumes that the subobject belongs to the current | |||
Area. | Area. | |||
o In case the current PCE is not responsible for the path | o In case the current PCE is not responsible for the path | |||
computation in the current AS or Area, then the PCE selects the | computation in the current AS or Area, then the PCE selects the | |||
"next PCE" in the domain-sequence based on the current AS and | "next PCE" in the domain-sequence based on the current AS and | |||
Area. | Area. | |||
Note that it is advised that, PCC should use AS and Area subobject | ||||
while building the domain-sequence in IRO and avoid using other | ||||
mechanism to change the "current AS" and "current Area" as described | ||||
above. | ||||
3.5. Exclude Route Object (XRO) | 3.5. Exclude Route Object (XRO) | |||
The Exclude Route Object (XRO) [RFC5521] is an optional object used | The Exclude Route Object (XRO) [RFC5521] is an optional object used | |||
to specify exclusion of certain abstract nodes or resources from the | to specify exclusion of certain abstract nodes or resources from the | |||
whole path. | whole path. | |||
3.5.1. Subobjects | 3.5.1. Subobjects | |||
Some subobjects to be used in XRO as defined in [RFC3209], [RFC3477], | Some subobjects to be used in XRO as defined in [RFC3209], [RFC3477], | |||
[RFC4874], and [RFC5520], but new subobjects related to Domain- | [RFC4874], and [RFC5520], but new subobjects related to Domain- | |||
skipping to change at page 15, line 10 | skipping to change at page 15, line 19 | |||
All other fields are consistent with the definition in Section 3.4. | All other fields are consistent with the definition in Section 3.4. | |||
All the processing rules are as per [RFC5521]. | All the processing rules are as per [RFC5521]. | |||
Note that, if a PCE receives an XRO in a PCReq message that contains | Note that, if a PCE receives an XRO in a PCReq message that contains | |||
subobjects defined in this document, that it does not recognize, it | subobjects defined in this document, that it does not recognize, it | |||
will respond according to the rules for a malformed object as per | will respond according to the rules for a malformed object as per | |||
[RFC5440]. | [RFC5440]. | |||
IGP Area subobjects in the XRO are local to the current AS. In case | ||||
of multi-AS path computation to exclude an IGP area in a different | ||||
AS, IGP Area subobject should be part of Explicit Exclusion Route | ||||
Subobject (EXRS) in the IRO to specify the AS in which the IGP area | ||||
is to be excluded. | ||||
3.6. Explicit Exclusion Route Subobject (EXRS) | 3.6. Explicit Exclusion Route Subobject (EXRS) | |||
Explicit Exclusion Route Subobject (EXRS) [RFC5521] is used to | EXRS [RFC5521] is used to specify exclusion of certain abstract nodes | |||
specify exclusion of certain abstract nodes between a specific pair | between a specific pair of nodes. | |||
of nodes. | ||||
The EXRS subobject can carry any of the subobjects defined for | The EXRS subobject can carry any of the subobjects defined for | |||
inclusion in the XRO, thus the new subobjects to support 4 byte AS | inclusion in the XRO, thus the new subobjects to support 4 byte AS | |||
and IGP (OSPF / ISIS) Area can also be used in the EXRS. The | and IGP (OSPF / ISIS) Area can also be used in the EXRS. The | |||
meanings of the fields of the new XRO subobjects are unchanged when | meanings of the fields of the new XRO subobjects are unchanged when | |||
the subobjects are included in an EXRS, except that scope of the | the subobjects are included in an EXRS, except that scope of the | |||
exclusion is limited to the single hop between the previous and | exclusion is limited to the single hop between the previous and | |||
subsequent elements in the IRO. | subsequent elements in the IRO. | |||
The EXRS subobject should be interpreted in the context of the | The EXRS subobject should be interpreted in the context of the | |||
skipping to change at page 26, line 27 | skipping to change at page 26, line 27 | |||
pcep.xhtml#xro-subobject | pcep.xhtml#xro-subobject | |||
Upon approval of this document, IANA is requested to make identical | Upon approval of this document, IANA is requested to make identical | |||
additions to these registries as follows: | additions to these registries as follows: | |||
Subobject Type Reference | Subobject Type Reference | |||
TBD1 4 byte AS number [This I.D.][DOMAIN-SUBOBJ] | TBD1 4 byte AS number [This I.D.][DOMAIN-SUBOBJ] | |||
TBD2 OSPF Area ID [This I.D.][DOMAIN-SUBOBJ] | TBD2 OSPF Area ID [This I.D.][DOMAIN-SUBOBJ] | |||
TBD3 IS-IS Area ID [This I.D.][DOMAIN-SUBOBJ] | TBD3 IS-IS Area ID [This I.D.][DOMAIN-SUBOBJ] | |||
Further upon approval of this document, IANA is requested to add a | ||||
reference to this document to the new RSVP numbers that are | ||||
registered by [DOMAIN-SUBOBJ]. | ||||
7. Security Considerations | 7. Security Considerations | |||
This document specifies a standard representation of Domain-Sequence | This document specifies a standard representation of Domain-Sequence | |||
and new subobjects, which could be used in inter-domain PCE scenarios | and new subobjects, which could be used in inter-domain PCE scenarios | |||
as explained in other RFC and drafts. The new subobjects and Domain- | as explained in other RFC and drafts. The new subobjects and Domain- | |||
Sequence mechanisms defined in this document allow finer and more | Sequence mechanisms defined in this document allow finer and more | |||
specific control of the path computed by a cooperating PCE(s). Such | specific control of the path computed by a cooperating PCE(s). Such | |||
control increases the risk if a PCEP message is intercepted, | control increases the risk if a PCEP message is intercepted, | |||
modified, or spoofed because it allows the attacker to exert control | modified, or spoofed because it allows the attacker to exert control | |||
over the path that the PCE will compute or to make the path | over the path that the PCE will compute or to make the path | |||
skipping to change at page 29, line 31 | skipping to change at page 29, line 38 | |||
[IRO-UPDATE] | [IRO-UPDATE] | |||
Dhody, D., "Update to Include Route Object (IRO) | Dhody, D., "Update to Include Route Object (IRO) | |||
specification in Path Computation Element communication | specification in Path Computation Element communication | |||
Protocol (PCEP. (draft-ietf-pce-iro-update-02)", May 2015. | Protocol (PCEP. (draft-ietf-pce-iro-update-02)", May 2015. | |||
[DOMAIN-SUBOBJ] | [DOMAIN-SUBOBJ] | |||
Dhody, D., Palle, U., Kondreddy, V., and R. Casellas, | Dhody, D., Palle, U., Kondreddy, V., and R. Casellas, | |||
"Domain Subobjects for Resource ReserVation Protocol - | "Domain Subobjects for Resource ReserVation Protocol - | |||
Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE). (draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te- | Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE). (draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te- | |||
domain-subobjects-02)", July 2015. | domain-subobjects-04)", November 2015. | |||
10.2. Informative References | 10.2. Informative References | |||
[RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J., and J. Ash, "A Path Computation | [RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J., and J. Ash, "A Path Computation | |||
Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655, | Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655, | |||
DOI 10.17487/RFC4655, August 2006, | DOI 10.17487/RFC4655, August 2006, | |||
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4655>. | <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4655>. | |||
[RFC4726] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J., and A. Ayyangar, "A Framework for | [RFC4726] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J., and A. Ayyangar, "A Framework for | |||
Inter-Domain Multiprotocol Label Switching Traffic | Inter-Domain Multiprotocol Label Switching Traffic | |||
End of changes. 13 change blocks. | ||||
13 lines changed or deleted | 28 lines changed or added | |||
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.42. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/ |