PCE Working Group D. Dhody
Internet-Draft F. Zhang
Intended status: Standards Track X. Zhang
Expires: August 10, 2015 Huawei Technologies
V. Lopez
O. Gonzalez de Dios
Telefonica I+D
February 6, 2015
PCEP Extensions for Receiving SRLG Information
draft-dhody-pce-recv-srlg-03
Abstract
The Path Computation Element (PCE) provides functions of path
computation in support of traffic engineering (TE) in networks
controlled by Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized
MPLS (GMPLS).
This document provides extensions for the Path Computation Element
Protocol (PCEP) to receive Shared Risk Link Group (SRLG) information
during path computation via encoding this information in the path
computation reply message.
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 August 10, 2015.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Dhody, et al. Expires August 10, 2015 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft PCE-SRLG February 2015
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
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Usage of SRLG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. PCEP Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. Extension to PCEP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5.1. The Extension of the RP Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5.2. SRLG Subobject in ERO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. Other Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6.1. Backward Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6.2. Confidentiality via PathKey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6.3. Coherent SRLG IDs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8.1. Control of Function and Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8.2. Information and Data Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8.4. Verify Correct Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8.5. Requirements On Other Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8.6. Impact On Network Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9.1. New RP Object Flag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9.2. New Subobjects for the ERO Object . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
10. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Appendix A. Contributor Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1. Introduction
As per [RFC4655], PCE based path computation model is deployed in
large, multi-domain, multi-region, or multi-layer networks. In such
case PCEs may cooperate with each other to provide end to end optimal
path.
Dhody, et al. Expires August 10, 2015 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft PCE-SRLG February 2015
It is important to understand which TE links in the network might be
at risk from the same failures. In this sense, a set of links can
constitute a 'shared risk link group' (SRLG) if they share a resource
whose failure can affect all links in the set [RFC4202]. H-LSP
(Hierarchical LSP) or S-LSP (Stitched LSP) can be used for carrying
one or more other LSPs as described in [RFC4206] and [RFC6107].
H-LSP and S-LSP may be computed by PCE(s) and further form as a TE
link. The SRLG information of such LSPs can be obtained during path
computation itself and encoded in the PCEP Path Computation Reply
(PCRep) message. [I-D.zhang-ccamp-gmpls-uni-app] describes the use
of a PCE for end to end User-Network Interface (UNI) path
computation.
Note that [I-D.ietf-teas-rsvp-te-srlg-collect] specifies a extension
to Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) where
SRLG information is collected at the time of signaling. But in case
a PCE or cooperating PCEs are used for path computation it is
recommended that SRLG information is provided by the PCE(s) during
the path computation itself to the ingress (PCC) rather than
receiving this information during signaling.
[I-D.ietf-teas-interconnected-te-info-exchange] describes a scaling
problem with SRLGs in multi-layer environment and introduce a concept
of Macro SRLG (MSRLG). Lower layer SRLG are abstracted at the time
of path computation and can be the basis to generate such a Macro
SRLG at the PCE.
1.1. Requirements Language
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].
2. Terminology
The following terminology is used in this document.
CPS: Confidential Path Segment. A segment of a path that contains
nodes and links that the policy requires not to be disclosed
outside the domain.
PCE: Path Computation Element. An entity (component, application,
or network node) that is capable of computing a network path or
route based on a network graph and applying computational
constraints.
SRLG: Shared Risk Link Group.
Dhody, et al. Expires August 10, 2015 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft PCE-SRLG February 2015
UNI: User-Network Interface.
3. Usage of SRLG
[RFC4202] states that a set of links can constitute a 'shared risk
link group' (SRLG) if they share a resource whose failure can affect
all links in the set. For example, two fibers in the same conduit
would be in the same SRLG. If an LSR is required to have multiple
diversely routed LSPs to another LSR, the path computation should
attempt to route the paths so that they do not have any links in
common, and such that the path SRLGs are disjoint.
In case a PCE or cooperating PCEs are used for path computation, the
SRLG information is provided by the PCE(s). For example, disjoint
paths for inter-domain or inter-layer LSPs. In order to achieve path
computation for a secondary (backup) path, a PCC may request the PCE
for a route that must be SRLG disjoint from the primary (working)
path. The Exclude Route Object (XRO) [RFC5521] is used to specify
SRLG information to be explicitly excluded.
4. PCEP Requirements
Following key requirements are identified for PCEP to receive SRLG
information during path computation:
SRLG Indication: The PCEP speaker SHOULD be capable of indicating
whether the SRLG information of the path is to be received during
the path computation procedure.
SRLG: If requested, the SRLG information SHOULD be received during
the path computation and encoded in the PCRep message.
Cooperating PCEs [RFC4655] with inter-PCE Communication work together
to provide the end to end optimal path as well as the SRLG
information of this path. During inter-domain or inter-layer path
computation, the aggregating PCE (Parent PCE [RFC6805] or Ingress
PCE(1) [RFC5441] or Higher-Layer PCE [RFC5623]) should receive the
SRLG information of path segments from other PCEs and provide the end
to end SRLG information of the optimal path to the Path Computation
Client (PCC).
5. Extension to PCEP
This document extends the existing RP (Request Parameters) object
[RFC5440] so that a PCEP speaker can request SRLG information during
path computation. The SRLG subobject maybe carried inside the
Explicit Route Object (ERO) in the PCRep message.
Dhody, et al. Expires August 10, 2015 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft PCE-SRLG February 2015
5.1. The Extension of the RP Object
This document adds the following flags to the RP Object:
S (SRLG - 1 bit) (TBA-IANA) : when set, in a PCReq message, this
indicates that the SRLG information of the path SHOULD be provided
in the PCRep message. Otherwise, when cleared, this indicates
that the SRLG information SHOULD not be included in the PCRep
message. In a PCRep message, when the S bit is set this indicates
that the returned path in ERO also carry the SRLG information;
otherwise (when the S bit is cleared), the returned path does not
carry SRLG information.
5.2. SRLG Subobject in ERO
As per [RFC5440], ERO is used to encode the path and is carried
within a PCRep message to provide the computed path when computation
was successful.
The SRLG of a path is the union of the SRLGs of the links in the path
[RFC4202]. The SRLG subobject is defined in
[I-D.ietf-teas-rsvp-te-srlg-collect] for ROUTE_RECORD object (RRO).
The same subobject format (reproduced below) can be used by the ERO
object in the PCRep message.
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 | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| SRLG ID 1 (4 bytes) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ ...... ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| SRLG ID n (4 bytes) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The meaning and description of Type, Length and SRLG ID can be found
in [I-D.ietf-teas-rsvp-te-srlg-collect]. Reserved field SHOULD be
set to zero on transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt.
The SRLG subobject should be encoded inside the ERO object in the
PCRep message when the S-Bit (SRLG) is set in the PCReq message.
Dhody, et al. Expires August 10, 2015 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft PCE-SRLG February 2015
6. Other Considerations
6.1. Backward Compatibility
If a PCE receives a request and the PCE does not understand the new
SRLG flag in the RP object, then the PCE SHOULD reject the request.
If PCEP speaker receives a PCRep message with SRLG subobject that it
does not support or recognize, it must act according to the existing
processing rules of ERO.
6.2. Confidentiality via PathKey
[RFC5520] defines a mechanism to hide the contents of a segment of a
path, called the Confidential Path Segment (CPS). The CPS may be
replaced by a path-key that can be conveyed in the PCEP and signaled
within in a RSVP-TE ERO.
When path-key confidentiality is used, encoding SRLG information in
PCRep along with the path-key could be useful to compute a SRLG
disjoint backup path at the later instance.
The path segment that needs to be hidden (that is, CPS) MAY be
replaced in the ERO with a PKS. The PCE MAY use the SRLG Sub-objects
in the ERO along with the PKS sub-object.
6.3. Coherent SRLG IDs
In a multi-layer multi-domain scenario, SRLG ids may be configured by
different management entities in each layer/domain. In such
scenarios, maintaining a coherent set of SRLG IDs is a key
requirement in order to be able to use the SRLG information properly.
Thus, SRLG IDs must be unique. Note that current procedure is
targeted towards a scenario where the different layers and domains
belong to the same operator, or to several coordinated administrative
groups. Ensuring the aforementioned coherence of SRLG IDs is beyond
the scope of this document. Further scenarios, where coherence in
the SRLG IDs cannot be guaranteed are out of the scope of the present
document and are left for further study.
7. Security Considerations
The procedures defined in this document permit the transfer of SRLG
data between layers or domains during the path computation of LSPs,
subject to policy at the PCE. It is recommended that PCE policies
take the implications of releasing SRLG information into
consideration and behave accordingly during path computation. Other
security concerns are discussed in [RFC5440]. An analysis of the
Dhody, et al. Expires August 10, 2015 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft PCE-SRLG February 2015
security issues for routing protocols that use TCP (including PCEP)
is provided in [RFC6952], while [I-D.ietf-pce-pceps] discusses an
experimental approach to provide secure transport for PCEP.
8. Manageability Considerations
8.1. Control of Function and Policy
A PCE involved in inter-domain or inter-layer path computation should
be capable of being configured with a SRLG processing policy to
specify if the SRLG IDs of the domain or specific layer network can
be exposed to the PCEP peer outside the domain or layer network, or
whether they should be summarized, mapped to values that are
comprehensible to PCC outside the domain or layer network, or removed
entirely.
8.2. Information and Data Models
[RFC7420] describes the PCEP MIB, there are no new MIB Objects for
this document.
8.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring
Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new liveness
detection and monitoring requirements in addition to those already
listed in [RFC5440].
8.4. Verify Correct Operations
Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new operation
verification requirements in addition to those already listed in
[RFC5440].
8.5. Requirements On Other Protocols
Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new requirements
on other protocols. Note that, [I-D.ietf-teas-rsvp-te-srlg-collect]
provide similar requirements for signaling protocol.
8.6. Impact On Network Operations
Mechanisms defined in this document do not have any impact on network
operations in addition to those already listed in [RFC5440].
Dhody, et al. Expires August 10, 2015 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft PCE-SRLG February 2015
9. IANA Considerations
IANA assigns values to PCEP parameters in registries defined in
[RFC5440]. IANA is requested to make the following additional
assignments.
9.1. New RP Object Flag
IANA maintains the "Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers"
registry and the "RP Object Flag Field" sub-registry.
IANA has allocated a new bit from this registry as follows:
Bit Meaning Reference
TBA SRLG This document
9.2. New Subobjects for the ERO Object
IANA has previously assigned an Object-Class and Object-Type to the
ERO carried in PCEP messages [RFC5440]. IANA also maintains a list
of subobject types valid for inclusion in the ERO.
IANA is requested to assign one new subobject types for inclusion in
the ERO as follows:
Subobject Meaning Reference
xx (TBA) SRLG sub-object This document
Note that, an early allocation for SRLG sub-object for RRO in RSVP-TE
is made for [I-D.ietf-teas-rsvp-te-srlg-collect] which expires on
2015-09-11.
10. Acknowledgments
Special thanks to the authors of
[I-D.ietf-teas-rsvp-te-srlg-collect]. This document borrows some of
text from it.
11. References
11.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC5440] Vasseur, JP. and JL. Le Roux, "Path Computation Element
(PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440, March
2009.
Dhody, et al. Expires August 10, 2015 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft PCE-SRLG February 2015
11.2. Informative References
[RFC4202] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Routing Extensions in
Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS)", RFC 4202, October 2005.
[RFC4206] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Label Switched Paths (LSP)
Hierarchy with Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE)", RFC 4206, October 2005.
[RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J., and J. Ash, "A Path Computation
Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655, August 2006.
[RFC5441] Vasseur, JP., Zhang, R., Bitar, N., and JL. Le Roux, "A
Backward-Recursive PCE-Based Computation (BRPC) Procedure
to Compute Shortest Constrained Inter-Domain Traffic
Engineering Label Switched Paths", RFC 5441, April 2009.
[RFC5520] Bradford, R., Vasseur, JP., and A. Farrel, "Preserving
Topology Confidentiality in Inter-Domain Path Computation
Using a Path-Key-Based Mechanism", RFC 5520, April 2009.
[RFC5521] Oki, E., Takeda, T., and A. Farrel, "Extensions to the
Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) for
Route Exclusions", RFC 5521, April 2009.
[RFC5623] Oki, E., Takeda, T., Le Roux, JL., and A. Farrel,
"Framework for PCE-Based Inter-Layer MPLS and GMPLS
Traffic Engineering", RFC 5623, September 2009.
[RFC6107] Shiomoto, K. and A. Farrel, "Procedures for Dynamically
Signaled Hierarchical Label Switched Paths", RFC 6107,
February 2011.
[RFC6805] King, D. and A. Farrel, "The Application of the Path
Computation Element Architecture to the Determination of a
Sequence of Domains in MPLS and GMPLS", RFC 6805, November
2012.
[RFC6952] Jethanandani, M., Patel, K., and L. Zheng, "Analysis of
BGP, LDP, PCEP, and MSDP Issues According to the Keying
and Authentication for Routing Protocols (KARP) Design
Guide", RFC 6952, May 2013.
[RFC7420] Koushik, A., Stephan, E., Zhao, Q., King, D., and J.
Hardwick, "Path Computation Element Communication Protocol
(PCEP) Management Information Base (MIB) Module", RFC
7420, December 2014.
Dhody, et al. Expires August 10, 2015 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft PCE-SRLG February 2015
[I-D.ietf-pce-pceps]
Lopez, D., Dios, O., Wu, W., and D. Dhody, "Secure
Transport for PCEP", draft-ietf-pce-pceps-02 (work in
progress), October 2014.
[I-D.ietf-teas-rsvp-te-srlg-collect]
Zhang, F., Dios, O., Li, D., Margaria, C., Hartley, M.,
and Z. Ali, "RSVP-TE Extensions for Collecting SRLG
Information", draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-srlg-collect-00
(work in progress), December 2014.
[I-D.ietf-teas-interconnected-te-info-exchange]
Farrel, A., Drake, J., Bitar, N., Swallow, G., Ceccarelli,
D., and X. Zhang, "Problem Statement and Architecture for
Information Exchange Between Interconnected Traffic
Engineered Networks", draft-ietf-teas-interconnected-te-
info-exchange-00 (work in progress), December 2014.
[I-D.zhang-ccamp-gmpls-uni-app]
Zhang, F., Dios, O., Farrel, A., Zhang, X., and D.
Ceccarelli, "Applicability of Generalized Multiprotocol
Label Switching (GMPLS) User-Network Interface (UNI)",
draft-zhang-ccamp-gmpls-uni-app-05 (work in progress),
February 2014.
Dhody, et al. Expires August 10, 2015 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft PCE-SRLG February 2015
Appendix A. Contributor Addresses
Udayasree Palle
Huawei Technologies
Divyashree Techno Park, Whitefield
Bangalore, Karnataka 560037
India
EMail: udayasree.palle@huawei.com
Avantika
Huawei Technologies
Divyashree Techno Park, Whitefield
Bangalore, Karnataka 560037
India
EMail: avantika.sushilkumar@huawei.com
Authors' Addresses
Dhruv Dhody
Huawei Technologies
Divyashree Techno Park, Whitefield
Bangalore, Karnataka 560037
India
EMail: dhruv.ietf@gmail.com
Fatai Zhang
Huawei Technologies
Bantian, Longgang District
Shenzhen, Guangdong 518129
P.R.China
EMail: zhangfatai@huawei.com
Xian Zhang
Huawei Technologies
Bantian, Longgang District
Shenzhen, Guangdong 518129
P.R.China
EMail: zhang.xian@huawei.com
Dhody, et al. Expires August 10, 2015 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft PCE-SRLG February 2015
Victor Lopez
Telefonica I+D
Distrito Telefonica
Edificio Sur 3, 3rd floor
Madrid 28050
Spain
EMail: victor.lopezalvarez@telefonica.com
Oscar Gonzalez de Dios
Telefonica I+D
Distrito Telefonica
Edificio Sur 3, 3rd floor
Madrid 28050
Spain
EMail: oscar.gonzalezdedios@telefonica.com
Dhody, et al. Expires August 10, 2015 [Page 12]