Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extension for LSP Diversity Constraint Signaling
draft-ietf-pce-association-diversity-12

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (pce WG)
Last updated 2019-10-31 (latest revision 2019-10-28)
Replaces draft-dhody-pce-of-diverse, draft-litkowski-pce-association-diversity
Stream IETF
Intended RFC status Proposed Standard
Formats plain text xml pdf htmlized bibtex
Reviews
Stream WG state Submitted to IESG for Publication
Doc Shepherd Follow-up Underway
Document shepherd Julien Meuric
Shepherd write-up Show (last changed 2019-07-05)
IESG IESG state IESG Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed
Consensus Boilerplate Yes
Telechat date
Has 2 DISCUSSes. Has enough positions to pass once DISCUSS positions are resolved.
Responsible AD Deborah Brungard
Send notices to Julien Meuric <julien.meuric@orange.com>
IANA IANA review state IANA OK - Actions Needed
PCE Working Group                                           S. Litkowski
Internet-Draft                                              S. Sivabalan
Intended status: Standards Track                     Cisco Systems, Inc.
Expires: April 30, 2020                                         C. Barth
                                                        Juniper Networks
                                                                 M. Negi
                                                     Huawei Technologies
                                                        October 28, 2019

Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extension for LSP
                     Diversity Constraint Signaling
                draft-ietf-pce-association-diversity-12

Abstract

   This document introduces a simple mechanism to associate a group of
   Label Switched Paths (LSPs) via an extension to the Path Computation
   Element (PCE) communication Protocol (PCEP) with the purpose of
   computing diverse paths for those LSPs.  The proposed extension
   allows a Path Computation Client (PCC) to advertise to a PCE that a
   particular LSP belongs to a particular disjoint-group, thus the PCE
   knows that the LSPs in the same group need to be disjoint from each
   other.

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 https://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 April 30, 2020.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

Litkowski, et al.        Expires April 30, 2020                 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft    PCEP-Diversity-Constraints-Signaling      October 2019

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (https://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
   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
     1.1.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Motivation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   5.  Protocol Extension  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     5.1.  Association Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     5.2.  Disjoint TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     5.3.  Disjointness Objective Functions  . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     5.4.  Relationship to SVEC  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
       5.4.1.  SVEC and OF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     5.5.  P Flag Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     5.6.  Disjointness Computation Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
   7.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     7.1.  Association Type  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     7.2.  PCEP TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
     7.3.  Objective Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
     7.4.  NO-PATH-VECTOR Bit Flags  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
     7.5.  PCEP-ERROR Codes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
   8.  Manageability Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
     8.1.  Control of Function and Policy  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
     8.2.  Information and Data Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
     8.3.  Liveness Detection and Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
     8.4.  Verification of Correct Operations  . . . . . . . . . . .  20
     8.5.  Requirements on Other Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
     8.6.  Impact on Network Operations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
   9.  Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
   10. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
     10.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
Show full document text