Hierarchical PCE Discovery
draft-chen-pce-h-discovery-00
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft whose latest revision state is "Active".
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Huaimo Chen , Mehmet Toy , Lei Liu , Zhenqiang Li | ||
| Last updated | 2016-07-06 | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Additional resources | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-chen-pce-h-discovery-00
PCE Working Group H. Chen
Internet-Draft Huawei Technologies
Intended status: Standards Track M. Toy
Expires: January 6, 2017 Comcast
L. Liu
Fujitsu
Z. Li
China Mobile
July 5, 2016
Hierarchical PCE Discovery
draft-chen-pce-h-discovery-00
Abstract
This document presents extensions to the Path Computation Element
Communication Protocol (PCEP) to discover parent child relations and
the information on a parent and a child PCE in a hierarchical PCE
system.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
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."
This Internet-Draft will expire on January 6, 2017.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
Chen, et al. Expires January 6, 2017 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft H-PCE-Discovery July 2016
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Extensions to PCEP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.1. Discovery of Parent Child Relation . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.2. Sub-TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2.1. Domain Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2.2. PCE ID Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.3. Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7. Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Chen, et al. Expires January 6, 2017 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft H-PCE-Discovery July 2016
1. Introduction
A hierarchical PCE architecture is described in RFC 6805, in which a
parent PCE has a number of child PCEs. A child PCE may also be a
parent PCE, which has multiple child PCEs.
For a parent PCE, it needs to obtain the information about each of
its child PCEs. The information about a child PCE comprises the
address or ID of the PCE and the domain for which the PCE is
responsible. It may also include the position of the PCE, which
indicates whether the PCE is a leaf (i.e., only a child) or branch
(i.e., a child and also a parent).
For a child PCE, it needs to obtain the information about its parent
PCE, which includes the address or ID of the parent PCE.
This document presents extensions to the Path Computation Element
Communication Protocol (PCEP) to discover parent child relations and
the information on a parent and a child PCE in a hierarchical PCE
system.
2. Terminology
The following terminology is used in this document.
Parent Domain: A domain higher up in a domain hierarchy such that it
contains other domains (child domains) and potentially other links
and nodes.
Child Domain: A domain lower in a domain hierarchy such that it has
a parent domain.
Parent PCE: A PCE responsible for selecting a path across a parent
domain and any number of child domains by coordinating with child
PCEs and examining a topology map that shows domain inter-
connectivity.
Child PCE: A PCE responsible for computing the path across one or
more specific (child) domains. A child PCE maintains a
relationship with at least one parent PCE.
TED: Traffic Engineering Database.
This document uses terminology defined in [RFC5440].
Chen, et al. Expires January 6, 2017 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft H-PCE-Discovery July 2016
3. 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 [RFC2119].
4. Extensions to PCEP
This section describes the extensions to PCEP to discover the
relation between a parent PCE and a child PCE and the information on
a parent and a child PCE in a hierarchical PCE system. A child PCE
is simply called a child and a parent PCE is called a parent in the
following sections.
4.1. Discovery of Parent Child Relation
During a PCEP session establishment between two PCEP speakers, each
of them advertises its capabilities for Hierarchical PCE (H-PCE for
short) through the Open Message with the Open Object containing a new
TLV to indicate its capabilities for H-PCE. This new TLV is called
H-PCE capability TLV. It has the following format.
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 = TBD1 | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|P|C| Capability Flags |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Optional Sub-TLVs |
~ ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The type of the TLV is TBD1. It has a length of 4 octets plus the
size of optional Sub-TLVs. The value of the TLV comprises a
capability flags field of 32 bits, which are numbered from the most
significant as bit zero. Two of them are defined as follows. The
others are not defined and MUST be set to zero.
o P (Parent - 1 bit): Bit 0 is used as P flag. It is set to 1
indicating a parent.
o C (Child - 1 bit): Bit 1 is used as C flag. It is set to 1
indicating a child.
The following Sub-TLVs are defined:
Chen, et al. Expires January 6, 2017 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft H-PCE-Discovery July 2016
o A Domain Sub-TLV containing an AS number and optional area, and
o PCE-ID Sub-TLV containing the ID of a PCE.
4.2. Sub-TLVs
When a child sends its parent a Open message, it places the
information about it in the message through using some optional Sub-
TLVs. When a parent sends each of its child PCEs a Open message, it
puts the information about it in the message.
4.2.1. Domain Sub-TLV
A domain is a AS or an area in an AS. An AS is identified by an AS
number. An area in an AS is identified by the combination of the AS
and the area. The former is indicated by an AS number and the latter
by an area number. A domain is represented by a domain Sub-TLV
containing an AS number and a optional area number.
The format of the domain Sub-TLV is shown below:
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 (tTBD1) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| AS Number (4 bytes) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ Optional Area Number ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
where Length is four plus size of area number.
An AS is represented by a domain Sub-TLV containing only the AS
number of the AS. In this case, the Length is four. An area in an
AS is represented by a domain Sub-TLV containing the AS number of the
AS and the area number of the area. In this case, the Length is
eight.
4.2.2. PCE ID Sub-TLV
An Identifier (ID) of a PCE (PCE ID for short) is a 32-bit number
that can uniquely identify the PCE among all PCEs. This 32-bit
number for PCE ID SHOULD NOT be zero.
The format of the PCE ID Sub-TLV is shown below:
Chen, et al. Expires January 6, 2017 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft H-PCE-Discovery July 2016
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 (tTBD3) | Length (4) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| PCE ID (4 bytes) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The PCE ID Sub-TLV specifies an non zero number as the identifier of the PCE.
Alternatively, an IP address attached to a PCE can also be used as an
identifier of the PCE. The format of an IPv4 address Sub-TLV is
shown below:
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 (tTBD4) | Length (4) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv4 Address (4 bytes) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The IPv4 address Sub-TLV specifies an IPv4 address associated with
the PCE, which is used as the identifier of the PCE.
The format of an IPv6 address Sub-TLV is shown below:
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 (tTBD5) | Length (16) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv6 Address (16 bytes) |
~ ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The IPv6 Sub-TLV specifies an IPv6 address associated with the PCE,
which is used as the identifier of the PCE.
4.3. Procedures
For two PCEs A and B, they discover each other through Open messages
in the initialization phase. The following is a sequence of events
related.
Chen, et al. Expires January 6, 2017 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft H-PCE-Discovery July 2016
A B
Configure B Configure A
as its child as its parent
Open (P=1, A's ID)
-------------------> Same as configured
A is B's parent
Open (C=1, B's ID)
Same as configured <-------------------
B is A's child
A sends B a Open message with P=1 and A's ID after B is configured as
its child on it. B sends A a Open message with C=1 and B's ID after
A is configured as its parent on it.
When A receives the Open message from B and determines C=1 and the
PCE ID of B in the message is the same as the PCE ID of the child
locally configured, B is A's child.
When B receives the Open message from A and determines P=1 and the
PCE ID of A in the message is the same as the PCE ID of the parent
locally configured, A is B's parent.
The Open message from child B to its parent A contains B's domain,
which is represented by a domain Sub-TLV in the H-PCE capability TLV.
If child B is also a parent, the P flag in the TLV is set to 1.
The PCE ID in a Open message may be represented in one of the
following ways:
o The source IP address of the message (i.e., PCE session).
o A PCE ID Sub-TLV in the H-PCE capability TLV.
o An IP address Sub-TLV in the H-PCE capability TLV.
When the IP address Sub-TLV is used, the address in the Sub-TLV MUST
be the same as the source IP address of the PCE session.
For a child that is a leaf, it is normally responsible for one
domain, which is contained in the message to its parent.
For a child that is a branch (i.e., also a parent of multiple child
PCEs), it may be directly responsible for one domain, which is
contained in the message to its parent. In addition, it is
responsible for the domains of its child PCEs. In other words, it is
responsible for computing paths crossing the domains through working
together with its child PCEs. If these domains are all areas of an
Chen, et al. Expires January 6, 2017 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft H-PCE-Discovery July 2016
AS, the AS is included in the message to its parent.
A parent stores the information about each of its child PCEs
received. When the session to one of them is down, it removes the
information about the child on that session.
A child stores the information about its parent received. When the
session to the parent is down, it removes the information about the
parent.
If there already exists a session between A and B and the
configurations on parent and child are issued on them, the procedures
above may be executed through bringing down the existing session and
establishing a new session between them. Alternatively, they may
discover each other regarding to H-PCE through using extended
Notification messages in the same procedures as using Open messages
described above without bringing down the existing session.
The following new Notification-type and Notification-value are
defined for H-PCE:
o Notification-type=5 (TBD): Discovery of H-PCE
* Notification-value=1: The information about a parent PCE or a
child PCE. A Notification-type=5, Notification-value=1
indicates that the PCE sends its peer the information about it
and a TLV containing the information is in the Notification
object. The format and contents of the TLV is the same as the
H-PCE capability TLV described above. The only difference may
be the type of the TLV.
5. Security Considerations
The mechanism described in this document does not raise any new
security issues for the PCEP protocols.
6. IANA Considerations
This section specifies requests for IANA allocation.
7. Acknowledgement
The authors would like to thank people for their valuable comments on
this draft.
8. References
Chen, et al. Expires January 6, 2017 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft H-PCE-Discovery July 2016
8.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/
RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC6805] King, D., Ed. and A. Farrel, Ed., "The Application of the
Path Computation Element Architecture to the Determination
of a Sequence of Domains in MPLS and GMPLS", RFC 6805,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6805, November 2012,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6805>.
[RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation
Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5440, March 2009,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5440>.
8.2. Informative References
[RFC4105] Le Roux, J., Ed., Vasseur, J., Ed., and J. Boyle, Ed.,
"Requirements for Inter-Area MPLS Traffic Engineering",
RFC 4105, DOI 10.17487/RFC4105, June 2005,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4105>.
[RFC4216] Zhang, R., Ed. and J. Vasseur, Ed., "MPLS Inter-Autonomous
System (AS) Traffic Engineering (TE) Requirements",
RFC 4216, DOI 10.17487/RFC4216, November 2005,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4216>.
[RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J., and J. Ash, "A Path Computation
Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655, DOI 10.17487/
RFC4655, August 2006,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4655>.
Authors' Addresses
Huaimo Chen
Huawei Technologies
Boston, MA,
USA
EMail: Huaimo.chen@huawei.com
Chen, et al. Expires January 6, 2017 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft H-PCE-Discovery July 2016
Mehmet Toy
Comcast
1800 Bishops Gate Blvd.
Mount Laurel, NJ 08054
USA
EMail: mehmet_toy@cable.comcast.com
Lei Liu
Fujitsu
USA
EMail: lliu@us.fujitsu.com
Zhenqiang Li
China Mobile
No.32 Xuanwumenxi Ave., Xicheng District
Beijing 100032
P.R. China
EMail: li_zhenqiang@hotmail.com
Chen, et al. Expires January 6, 2017 [Page 10]