PCEP Extensions for Associating Working and Protection LSPs with Stateful PCE
draft-ietf-pce-stateful-path-protection-08

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (pce WG)
Last updated 2019-08-14 (latest revision 2019-08-01)
Replaces draft-ananthakrishnan-pce-stateful-path-protection
Stream IETF
Intended RFC status Proposed Standard
Formats plain text xml pdf html 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 2019-06-18)
IESG IESG state In Last Call (ends 2019-08-28)
Consensus Boilerplate Yes
Telechat date
Responsible AD Deborah Brungard
Send notices to Julien Meuric <julien.meuric@orange.com>
IANA IANA review state IANA - Review Needed
IANA action state None
PCE Working Group                                     H. Ananthakrishnan
Internet-Draft                                                   Netflix
Intended status: Standards Track                            S. Sivabalan
Expires: February 1, 2020                                          Cisco
                                                                C. Barth
                                                        Juniper Networks
                                                                I. Minei
                                                             Google, Inc
                                                                 M. Negi
                                                     Huawei Technologies
                                                           July 31, 2019

    PCEP Extensions for Associating Working and Protection LSPs with
                              Stateful PCE
               draft-ietf-pce-stateful-path-protection-08

Abstract

   An active stateful Path Computation Element (PCE) is capable of
   computing as well as controlling via Path Computation Element
   Communication Protocol (PCEP) Multiprotocol Label Switching Traffic
   Engineering Label Switched Paths (MPLS LSP).  Furthermore, it is also
   possible for an active stateful PCE to create, maintain, and delete
   LSPs.  This document describes PCEP extension to associate two or
   more LSPs to provide end-to-end path protection.

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 February 1, 2020.

Ananthakrishnan, et al. Expires February 1, 2020                [Page 1]
Internet-Draft      Stateful PCE LSP Path Protection           July 2019

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2019 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
   (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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  PCEP Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.1.  Path Protection Association Type  . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.2.  Path Protection Association TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   4.  Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     4.1.  State Synchronization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     4.2.  PCC-Initiated LSPs  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     4.3.  PCE-Initiated LSPs  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     4.4.  Session Termination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     4.5.  Error Handling  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   5.  Other Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     6.1.  Association Type  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     6.2.  PPAG TLV  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     6.3.  PCEP Errors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   7.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   8.  Manageability Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     8.1.  Control of Function and Policy  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     8.2.  Information and Data Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     8.3.  Liveness Detection and Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     8.4.  Verify Correct Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     8.5.  Requirements On Other Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     8.6.  Impact On Network Operations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   9.  Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   10. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
Show full document text