Path Computation Element Working Group O. Dugeon
Internet-Draft J. Meuric
Intended status: Standards Track Orange Labs
Expires: January 3, 2019 Y. Lee
D. Dhody
Huawei Technologies
D. Ceccarelli
Ericsson
July 02, 2018
PCEP Extension for Stateful Inter-Domain Tunnels
draft-dugeon-pce-stateful-interdomain-01
Abstract
This document proposes to combine a Backward Recursive or
Hierarchical method in Stateful PCE with PCInitiate message to setup
independent paths per domain, and combine these different paths
together in order to operate them as end-to-end inter-domain paths
without the need of signaling session between AS border routers. A
new Stitching Label is defined and new LSP-TYPE code points are
considered for that purpose.
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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
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 January 3, 2019.
Dugeon, et al. Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft PCE Stateful Inter-Domain Tunnels July 2018
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 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. Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. General assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2. Stitching Label . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.1. Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.2. Inter-domain LSP-TYPE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3. Backward Recursive PCInitiate procedure . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.1. Mode of operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.2. Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.3. Inter-domain LSP setup procedure completion failure . . . 13
4. Hierarchical PCInitiate procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.1. Mode of operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.2. Inter-domain LSP setup procedure completion failure . . . 16
4.3. Example for Stateful H-PCE Stiching procedure . . . . . . 17
5. Inter-domain LSP Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
5.1. Identification of inter-domain tunnels . . . . . . . . . 21
5.2. Inter-domain LSP management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
5.3. Modification of inter-domain LSP . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
5.4. Removal of inter-domain LSP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
6. Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
7.1. LSP-TYPE values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
7.2. PCEP-Error Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
10. Disclaimer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Dugeon, et al. Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft PCE Stateful Inter-Domain Tunnels July 2018
1. Problem Statement
The Path Computation Element (PCE) working group (WG) has produced a
set of RFCs to standardize the behavior of the Path Computation
Element as a tool to help MPLS-TE, GMPLS LSP tunnels and Segment
Routing paths placement. This also includes the ability to compute
inter-domain LSPs or Segment Routing paths following a distributed or
hierarchical approach. To complement the original stateless mode, a
stateful mode has been added. In particular, the new PCInitiate
message allows a PCE to directly ask a PCC to setup an MPLS-TE, GMPLS
LSP tunnel or a Segment Routing path. However, once computed, the
inter-domain LSPs or Segment Routing path are hard to setup in the
underlying network. Especially, in operational network, RSVP-TE
signaling is not enabled between AS border routers. But, such RSVP-
TE signaling is mandatory to setup contiguous LSP tunnels or to
stitch or nest independent LSP tunnels to form the end-to-end inter-
domain paths.
Looking to the different RFCs that describe the PCE architecture and
in particular PCE based architecture [RFC4655], PCE protocol
[RFC5440], BRPC [RFC5441] and H-PCE [RFC6805], the Path Computation
Element (PCE) is able to compute inter-domain paths in complement to
intra-domain computation. Such inter-domain paths could then serve
as the Explicit Route Object input for the RSVP-TE signaling to setup
the tunnels within the underlying network. Three kinds of inter-
domain paths could be established:
o Contiguous tunnel ([RFC3209] and [RFC3473]): The RSVP-TE signaling
crosses the boundary between two domains, e.g. between two AS
Border Routers (ASBRs) as if they were two routers of the same
domain. This kind of tunnel is not recommended mostly for
security and scalability purpose. In addition, the initiating
domain imposes huge constraints on subsequent domains, because
they undergo the tunnel request without being able to control it.
o Stitching tunnel ([RFC5150]): Each domain establishes in its own
network the corresponding part of the inter-domain path
independently. Then, a second end-to-end RSVP-TE Path message is
sent by the initiating domain to stitch the different tunnel parts
to form the inter-domain path. In fact, this second RSVP-TE Path
message is used by border nodes to exchange the label that must be
used by the previous domain to send the traffic in order that the
MPLS packets follow the next LSP tunnel in the following domain.
These labels are conveyed in the RSVP-TE Resv message.
o Nesting tunnel ([RFC4206]): This is similar to the stitching mode
but, this time, with the possibility to setup tunnel hierarchy.
For example, an LSP tunnel between two edge domains crossing a
Dugeon, et al. Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft PCE Stateful Inter-Domain Tunnels July 2018
transit domain could be carried over a tunnel of a higher level in
the transit domain. Again, a second end-to-end RSVP-TE Path
message is sent from the source to the destination. Labels that
must be used by the ASBRs of transit domains to identify flows to
be nested are carried by the RSVP-TE Resv message.
In all case, RSVP-TE signaling must be exchanged between the
different domains. However, from an operational point of view,
looking to different networks under the responsibility of different
administrative entities, only BGP sessions are setup and configured
between ASBRs. Technologically speaking, this is possible and many
RFCs describe how to use RSVP-TE for inter-domain. But, due to
security, scalability, management and contract constraints, RSVP-TE
is not exposed at the network boundary. To circumvent some of the
security issues, RSVP-TE can be carried inside an IPsec tunnel
between ASBRs, but, this does not eliminate the scalability aspect
nor the constraints imposed by setting up inter-domain paths.
The purpose of this memo is to take the benefit of PCE Stateful
[RFC8231] and PCE Initiated [RFC8281] modes to stitch or nest inter-
domain paths directly using PCEP between domains' PCEs instead of
using RSVP-TE signaling at the inter-domain border nodes, while
keeping each operator free to independently setup their respective
part of the inter-domain paths. PCInitiate message is used in a
Backward Recursive way like the PCReq message in BRPC [RFC5441], to
recursively setup the end-to-end tunnel. PCRep message is used to
automatically stitch or nest the different local LSP tunnels. And,
PCRep in conjunction of PCUpd messages are used to maintain, modify
and remove inter-domain paths. This method is also applicable to
Segment Routing to build inter-domain segment paths.
H-PCE [RFC6805] describes a Hierarchical PCE architecture which can
be used for computing end-to-end paths for inter-domain MPLS Traffic
Engineering (TE) and GMPLS Label Switched Paths (LSPs). Within this
architecture, the Parent PCE (P-PCE) is used to compute a multi-
domain path based on the domain connectivity information. A Child
PCE (C-PCE) may be responsible for a single domain or multiple
domains, it is used to compute the intra-domain path based on its
domain topology information.
Stateful H-PCE [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-hpce] presents general
considerations for stateful PCE(s) in hierarchical PCE architecture.
In particular, the behavior changes and additions to the existing
stateful PCE mechanisms (including PCE-initiated LSP setup and active
PCE usage) in the context of networks using the H-PCE architecture.
Section 3.3.1 [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-hpce]describes the per domain
stitched LSP mode, where the individual per domain LSP are stitched
Dugeon, et al. Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft PCE Stateful Inter-Domain Tunnels July 2018
together. PCInitiate message is also used to stitch the end-to-end
tunnel. See section 4 for details.
1.1. General assumptions
In the rest of this document, we used the same references as per BRPC
[RFC5441] and make the following set of assumptions (see figure
below):
o Domain refers to an IGP area or an Autonomous System (AS).
o Inter-domain path is used to refer to a path that cross two or
more different domains as defined previously,
o At least, one PCE is deployed in each domain. These PCE are all
stateful active capable and could request to enforce LSP tunnels
in their respective domain by means of PCInitiate messages.
o LSRs, including border nodes, are PCC enable and support stateful
active mode. PCEP sessions is established between these routers
and their domains' PCE.
o Each PCE establishes a PCEP session with its respective neighbor
domain's PCE. The way a PCE discover its neighboring PCE is out
of scope of this draft. These information could be fulfill
administratively or automatically discovered through, for example
per draft 'BGP Extensions for Path Computation Element (PCE)
Discovery' [I-D.dong-pce-discovery-proto-bgp].
o PCEs are able to compute and end-o-end path as per BRPC procedure
[RFC5441] or as per H-PCE procedure (stateless [RFC6805] or
stateful [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-hpce]).
o Tunnels refer to LSPs setup by mean of RSVP-TE or Segment Path in
a Segment Routing network.
Dugeon, et al. Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft PCE Stateful Inter-Domain Tunnels July 2018
+----------------+ +----------------+
| Domain (B) | | Domain (C) |
| | | |
| /-------|---PCEP---|--------\ |
| / | | \ |
| [PCE-B] | | [PCE-C] |
| / (BN)<------>(BN) |
| / | Inter | |
+---|--(BN)------+ Domain +----------------+
| ^ Link
PCEP |
| | Inter-domain Link
| v
+---|--(BN)------+
| | |
| | Domain (A) |
| \ |
| [PCE-A] |
| |
| |
+----------------+
Example of the representation of 3 domains with 3 PCEs
1.2. Terminology
ABR: Area Border Routers. Routers used to connect two IGP areas
(areas in OSPF or levels in IS-IS).
ASBR: Autonomous System Border Router. Router used to connect
together ASes of the same or different service providers via one or
more inter-AS links.
AS: Autonomous System
Border Node (BN): a boundary node is either an ABR in the context of
inter-area Traffic Engineering or an ASBR in the context of inter-AS
Traffic Engineering.
Domains: Autonomous System (AS) or IGP Area. An Autonomous System is
composed by one or more IGP area.
BN-en(i): Entry BN of domain(i) connecting domain(i-1) to domain(i)
along a determined sequence of domains. Multiple entry BN-en(i)
could be used to connect domain(i-1) to domain(i).
Dugeon, et al. Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft PCE Stateful Inter-Domain Tunnels July 2018
BN-ex(i): Exit BN of domain(i) connecting domain(i) to domain(i+1)
along a determined sequence of domains. Multiple exit BN-ex(i) could
be used to connect domain(i) to domain(i+1).
Inter-domain path: A path that crosses two or more domains through a
pair of Border Node (BN-ex, BN-en).
Local LSP tunnel: A LSP tunnel that do not cross a domain. It is
setup between entry BN-en to output BN-ex, any source to output BN-ex
or entry BN-en to any destination of the same domain. This LSP could
be enforce by means of RSVP-TE signaling or Segment Routing labels
stack.
Local LSP tunnel(i): A local LSP tunnel of domain(i)
IGP-TE: Interior Gateway Protocol with Traffic Engineering support.
Both OSPF-TE and IS-IS-TE are identified in this category.
Stitching Label (SL): A dedicated label that is used to stitch two
RSVP-TE tunnels or two Segment Routing paths.
SL(i): A Stitching Label that link domain(i-1) to domain(i).
LK(i): A Link that connect BN-ex(i-1) to BN-en(i). Note that BN-
ex(i-1) could be connected to BN-en(i) by more than one link. LK(i)
serves to identify which of the multiple links will be used for the
inter-domain LSP setup.
PLSP-ID(i): A PLSP-ID that identify the local tunnel part of an
inter-domain tunnel in the domain(i).
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.
PCE(i) is a PCE with the scope of domain(i).
2. Stitching Label
This section introduce the concept of Stitching Label that allows
stitching and nesting of local LSP tunnels in order to form inter-
domain path that cross several different domains.
2.1. Definition
The operation of stitch or nest a local LSP tunnel(i) to a local LSP
tunnel(i+1) in order to form and inter-domain path simply consist in
defining the label that the output BN-ex(i) will use to send its
Dugeon, et al. Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft PCE Stateful Inter-Domain Tunnels July 2018
traffic to the entry BN-en(i+1). Indeed, the entry BN-en(i+1) needs
to identify the incoming traffic i.e. IP packets, in order to know if
this traffic must follow the local LSP tunnel(i+1) or not.
Forwarding Equivalent Class (FEC) could be used for that purpose.
But, when stitching or nesting tunnels, the FEC is reduce to the
incoming label that the entry BN-en(i+1) as chosen for the local LSP
tunnel(i+1).
In this memo, we introduce the named of 'Stitching Label (SL)' to
designate this label. Such label is usually exchange between output
BN-ex(i) and entry BN-en(i+1) with the RSVP-TE signaling. But, as we
want to avoid to use RSVP-TE signaling due to operational
constraints, this Stitching Label will be convey by PCEP protocol.
In fact, the Explicit Route Object (ERO) and the Record Route Object
(RRO) are defined in order to transport this Stitching Label in the
RSVP-TE signaling. As PCEP protocol used RSVP-TE Objects, and in
particular the ERO and RRO, it is able to convey the Stitching Label
without any modification of the PCEP protocol nor the PCE or RSVP-TE
Objects.
As per RFC4003 [RFC4003], the Stitching Label will be convey as a
companion of an IP address. In our case, this is one of the IP
address of the link LK(i) which connects BN-ex(i) to BN-en(i+1) and
carries the traffic from the domain(i) to domain(i+1). It is left to
implementation to select which of the two IP address of the link
LK(i) is used.
2.2. Inter-domain LSP-TYPE
However, even if PCEP could convey the Stitching Label, a PCC is not
aware that a PCE requests or provides such label. For that purpose,
this memo propose to use the LSP-TYPE as defined in
[I-D.ietf-pce-lsp-setup-type] with new values (See IANA section of
this memo) defined as follow:
o TBD1: Inter-Domain Traffic engineering end-to-end path is setup
using Backward Recursive or Hierarchical method. This new LSP-
TYPE value MUST be set in a PCInitiate messages sends by a PCE(i)
to its neighbor PCE(i+1) in the Backward Recursive method or by
the Parent PCE to the Child PCE(i) to initiate a new inter-domain
path. In turn, neighbor PCE(i+1) or Child PCE(i) MUST return a
Stitching Label SL with the IP address of the associated link in
the RRO of the PCRpt message to PCE(i) or Parent PCE.
o TBD2: Inter-Domain Traffic engineering local path is setup using
RSVP-TE. This new LSP-TYPE value MUST be set in the PCInitiate
message sends by a PCE(i) requesting to a PCC of domain(i) to
initiate a new local LSP tunnel(i) which is part of an inter-
Dugeon, et al. Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft PCE Stateful Inter-Domain Tunnels July 2018
domain path. This LSP-TYPE value MUST be used by the PCE(i) only
after receiving a PCInitiate message with an LSP-TYPE equal to
TBD1 from a neighbor PCE(i+1) in the Backward Recursive method or
Parent PCE in the Hierarchical method. In turn, the PCC of
domain(i) MUST return a Stitching Label SL with the IP address of
associated link in the RRO of the PCRpt message.
o TBD3: Inter-Domain Traffic engineering local path is setup using
Segment Routing. This new LSP-TYPE value MUST be set in the
PCInitiate message sends by a PCE(i) requesting to a PCC of
domain(i) to initiate a new Segment Routing path which is part of
and inter-domain Segment Routing path. This LSP-TYPE value MUST
be used by the PCE(i) only after receiving a PCInitiate message
with an LSP-TYPE equal to TBD1 from a neighbor PCE(i+1). In turn,
the PCC MUST return a Stitching Label SL with the IP address of
the associated link in the RRO of the PCRpt message.
3. Backward Recursive PCInitiate procedure
This section describes how to setup inter-domain paths than cross
several different domains by using a Backward Recursive method which
is compatible to inter-domain path computation by means of the BRPC
procedure as describe in RFC5441 [RFC5441].
3.1. Mode of operation
This section describes how PCInitiate and PCRpt messages are combined
between PCE in order to setup inter-domain paths between a source
domain(1) to a destination domain(n). S and D are respectively the
source and destination of the inter-domain path. Domain(1) and
domain(n) are different and connected through 0 or more intermediate
domains denoted domain(i) with i = (2, n-1). Domains are directly
connected when n = 2.
First, the PCE(S) run standard BRPC algorithm as per RFC5441
[RFC5441] with its neighbor PCEs in order to compute the inter-domain
path from S to D, where S and D are respectively a node in the
domain(1) and domain(n). Path Key confidentiality as per RFC5520
[RFC5520] MAY be used to obfuscate the detailed ERO of the different
domains(i). The resulting ERO is of the form {S, PKS(1), BN-ex(1),
..., BN-en(i), PKS(i), BN-ex(i), ..., BN-en(n), PKS(n), D}. As
subsequent domains are not aware about the final computed ERO in case
of multiple VSPT, the final computed ERO MUST be send in the
PCInitiate message to indicate to the subsequent PCEs which solution
has been finally chosen.
The complete procedure follow the different steps described below:
Dugeon, et al. Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft PCE Stateful Inter-Domain Tunnels July 2018
Steps 1: Initialization
Once ERO(S, D) computed, PCE(1) sends a PCInitiate message to PCE(2)
containing and ERO equal to {S, PKS(1), BN-ex(1), ..., BN-en(i),
PKS(i), BN-ex(i), ..., BN-en(n), PKS(n), D}, LSP-TYPE = TBD1 and End-
Points Object = (S, D). The ERO corresponds to the one PCE(1) as
received from PCE(2) during the BRPC process. In case of multiple
EROs, i.e. VSPT > 1, PCE(1) has chosen one of them and used the
selected one for the PCInitiate message. PKS(i) could be replaced by
the full ERO description if Path Key is not used by PCE(i).
When PCE(i) receives a PCInitiate message from domain(i-1) with LSP-
TYPE = TBD1 and ERO = {BN-en(i), PKS(i), BN-ex(i), ..., BN-en(n),
PKS(n), D)}, it forwards the PCInitiate message to PCE(i+1) once
remove its {BN-en(i), PKS(i), BN-ex(i)} part from the ERO. All
PCE(i) propagate the PCInitiate message to PCE(i+1) up to PCE(n) i.e.
to the domain(n).
Steps 2: Actions taken at the destination domain(n) by PCE(n)
When PCInitiate message propagation reach the destination domain(n),
PCE(n) retrieves the ERO from the PKS(n) if necessary and sends to
BN-en(n) a PCInitiate message with the ERO(n) = {BN-en(n), ..., D},
LSP-TYPE= TBD2 and End-Points Object = {BN(n), D} in order to inform
the PCC BN-en(n) that this local LSP tunnel(n) is part of an inter-
domain path. When the PCC BN-en(n) received the PCInitiate message
from its PCE(n), it setup the local LSP tunnels from entry BN-en(n)
to D by means of RSVP-TE signaling with the given ERO(n). Once the
tunnel setup, it chooses a free label for the Stitching Label SL(n)
and add a new entry in its MPLS LFIB with this SL(n) label. Then, it
sends a PCRpt message to its PCE(n) with an RRO equal to {[LK(n),
SL(n)], RRO(n)} and PLSP-ID(n). Once PCE(n) receives the PCRpt from
the PCC BN-en(n) with the RRO, PLSP-ID and LSP-TYPE = TBD2, it sends
to the PCE(n-1) a PCRpt containing the RRO equal to {[LK(n), SL(n)]}
and PLSP-ID(n). PCE(n) MAY adds {BN(n), D} in the RRO as loose path.
Steps i: Actions performed by all intermediate domains(i), for i = 2
to n-1
1. When the PCE(i) receives a PCRpt message from domain(i+1) with
LSP-TYPE = TBD1, RRO = {[LK(i+1), SL(i+1)]} and PLSP-ID(i+1), it
retrieves the ERO from the PKS(i) if necessary and sends to the
PCC BN-en(i) a PCInitiate message with ERO = {ERO(i), [LK(i+1),
SL(i+1)]}, LSP-TYPE = TBD2 and End-Points Object = {BN-en(i), BN-
ex(i)} in order to inform the PCC BN-en(i) that this local LSP
tunnel(i) is part of an inter-domain path.
Dugeon, et al. Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft PCE Stateful Inter-Domain Tunnels July 2018
2. When the PCC BN-en(i) received the PCInitiate message from its
PCE(i), it setup the local LSP tunnels from BN-en(i) to BN-ex(i)
by means of RSVP-TE signaling with the given ERO(i).
3. Egress Control mechanism, as per RFC4003 section 2.1 [RFC4003],
is used to instruct the egress node of domain(i), i.e. BN-ex(i)
to forward packets belonging to this tunnel with the Stitching
Label. Both Label Stitching and IP address of outgoing interface
are carried in the ERO = {..., [LK(i+1), SL(i+1)]} as the last
SubObject in conformance to [RFC4003]. So that, BN-ex(i)
installs in its MPLS LFIB the SWAP instruction to label SL(i+1)
with forward to LK(i+1) instead of the usual POP instruction.
4. Once the tunnel setup, PCC BN-en(i) chooses a free label for the
Stitching Label SL(i) and add a new entry in its MPLS LFIB with
this SL(i) label. Then, it sends a PCRpt message to its PCE(i)
with an RRO equal to {[LK(i), SL(i)], RRO(i)} and PLSP-ID(i).
5. Once PCE(i) receives the PCRpt from the PCC BN-en(i) with the RRO
and LSP-TYPE = TBD2, it sends to the PCE(i-1) a PCRpt message
containing the RRO equal to {[LK(i), SL(i)]} and the PLSP-ID(i).
PCE(i) MAY adds {BN-en(i), BN-ex(i)} in the RRO as loose path.
Steps n: Actions performed at the source domain(1)
Once PCE(1) received the PCRpt message from PCE(2) with the RRO
containing the label SL(2), it sends a PCInitiate message to PCC node
S with ERO equal to {ERO(1), [LK(2), SL(2)]}, LSP_TYPE = 0 and End-
Points Object = {S, BN-ex(1)}. This time, the LSP_TYPE is equal to 0
as the PCC S does not need to return a Stitching Label SL i.e. it is
the head-end of the inter-domain path. Standard PCRpt message is
sent back to PCE(1) by the PCC node S.
3.2. Example
In the figure below, two different domains S and D are interconnected
through BN respectively BN-S and BN-D. PE-S and PE-D are edge
routers. All routers in the figure are connected to their respective
PCE through PCEP protocol. In this example, PCE(S) would setup an
inter-domain path between PE-S and PE-D acting as source and
destination of the tunnel. Intermediate routers between (PE-S, BN-
S), (BN-D and PE-D) as well as RSVP-TE messages are not represented
to simplify the figure. But they are all presents. The following
notation is used in the figure:
o PKS(D) = Path Key corresponding to the path from BN(D) to PE-D
Dugeon, et al. Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft PCE Stateful Inter-Domain Tunnels July 2018
o ERO(D) = Explicit Route Object corresponding to the path from
BN(D) to PE-D retrieves from PKS(D)
o RRO(D) = Record Route Object of local LSP tunnel(D) from BN(D) to
PE-D
o SL(D) = Stitching Label for local LSP tunnel from BN(D) to PE-D
o ERO(S) = Explicit Route Object corresponding to the path from PE-S
to BN(S)
o RRO(S) = Record Route Object of local LSP tunnel(S) from PE-S to
BN(S)
Dugeon, et al. Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft PCE Stateful Inter-Domain Tunnels July 2018
PE-S PCE-S BN-D PCE-D
| | | |
| [ -------- Standard BRPC exchange ------------]
| | | |
| | PCInitiate(ERO={BN(D), PKS(D)}, LSP-TYPE = TBD1)
| | --------------------------------------> |
| | | |
| | PCInitiate(ERO = ERO(D), LSP-TYPE = TBD2)
| | | <------- |
| | | |
| | PCRpt(RRO = {SL(D), RRO(D)}, LSP-TYPE = TBD2)
| | | ------> |
| | | |
| PCRpt(RRO = {SL(D), PKS(D)}, LSP-TYPE = TBD1, PLSP-ID(D))
| | <-------------------------------------- |
| | | |
| PCInitiate(ERO={ERO(S), SL(D), BN(D)}, LSP-TYPE = 0)
| <------- | | |
| | | |
| PCRpt(RRO={RRO(S)}, LSP-TYPE = 0) | |
| -------> | | |
| | | |
+----------------------+ +----------------------+
| | | |
| +------+ | PCEP | +------+ |
| +---->|PCE(S)|<-------------------------------->|PCE(D)| |
| | +------+ | | +------+ |
| | ^ | | ^ ^ |
| | | | | | | |
| |PCEP | | | | | |
| | |PCEP | | PCEP | | PCEP |
| v | | | | | |
(PE-S) +------> (BN-S) <---------> (BN-D)<----+ +----> (PE-D)
| | Inter-Domain | |
| Domain (S) | Link | Domain (D) |
+----------------------+ +----------------------+
[--- LSP Tunnel (S) ---][---- SL label ----][--- LSP Tunnel (D) ---]
Example of inter-domain path setup between two domains
3.3. Inter-domain LSP setup procedure completion failure
In case of error during LSP setup, PCRpt and or PCErr messages MUST
be used to signal the problem to the neighbor PCE domain backward.
In particular, if new LSP-TYPE values defined in this memo are not
Dugeon, et al. Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft PCE Stateful Inter-Domain Tunnels July 2018
supported by the neighbor PCE or the PCC, the PCE, receptively the
PCC, MUST return a PCErr message with Error-Type = 21 (Traffic
engineering path setup error) and Error-Value = 1 (Unsupported path
setup type) to its neighbor PCE. If a PCE(i) receives a PCInitiate
message from its peer PCE(i-1) without LSP-TYPE set to TBD1 or LSP-
TYPE set to a value different from TBD1, it MUST return a PCErr
message with Error-Type = 21 (Traffic engineering path setup error)
and Error-Value = 1 (Unsupported path setup type) to its peer
PCE(i-1).
If a PCC or a PCE don't return an RRO or an RRO without the Stitching
Label SL with the IP address of the associated link following a
PCInitiate message with LSP-TYPE set to TBD1, the PCE MUST return a
PCErr message with Error-Type = 21 (Traffic engineering path setup
error) and Error-Value = TBD4 (No Mandatory Stitching Label is
present in the RRO).
In case of completion failure, the PCE(i) MUST propagate the PCErr
message up to the PCE(1). In turn, PCE(1) MUST send a PCInitate
message (R flag set in the SRP Object as per draft pce initiated lsp
[RFC8281]) to delete this inter-domain path to its neighbor PCEs.
PCE(i) MUST propagate the PCInitiate message and remove their local
LSP tunnel by means of PCInitiate message to their PCC BN-en(i) and
send back PCRpt message to PCE(i-1).
In case of error in domain(i+1), PCE(i) MAY add the AS number of
domain(i+1) in the RRO to identify the faulty domain.
4. Hierarchical PCInitiate procedure
This section describes how to setup inter-domain paths than cross
several different domains by using a Hierarchical method which is
compatible to inter-domain path computation as describe in [RFC6805].
4.1. Mode of operation
This section describes how PCInitiate and PCRpt messages are combined
between PCE in order to setup inter-domain paths between a source
domain(1) to a destination domain(n). S and D are respectively the
source and destination of the inter-domain path. Domain(1) and
domain(n) are different and connected through 0 or more intermediate
domains denoted domain(i) with i = (2, n-1). Domains are directly
connected when n = 2.
First, the Parent PCE contacts its Child PCE as per [RFC6805] in
order to compute the inter-domain path from S to D, where S and D are
respectively a node in the domain(1) and domain(n). Path Key
confidentiality as per RFC5520 [RFC5520] MAY be used to obfuscate the
Dugeon, et al. Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft PCE Stateful Inter-Domain Tunnels July 2018
detailed ERO of the different domains(i). The resulting ERO is of
the form (S, PKS(1), BN-ex(1), ..., BN-en(i), PKS(i), BN-ex(i), ...,
BN-en(n), PKS(n), D).
The complete procedure follow the different steps described below:
Step 1: Initialization
Parent PCE sends a PCInitiate message to child PCE(n) with an ERO =
{PKS(n)} and End-Points = {BN-en(n), D}. Then, PCE(n) retrieves the
ERO from the PKS(n) if necessary and sends to BN-en(n) a PCInitiate
message with the ERO(n) = {BN-en(n), ..., D}, LSP-TYPE= TBD2 and End-
Points Object = {BN-en(n), D} in order to inform the PCC BN-en(n)
that this local LSP tunnel(n) is part of an inter-domain path. When
the PCC BN-en(n) received the PCInitiate message from its PCE(n), it
setup the local LSP tunnel from entry BN-en(n) to D by means of RSVP-
TE signaling with the given ERO(n). Once the tunnel setup, it
chooses a free label for the Stitching Label SL(n) and add a new
entry in its MPLS LFIB with this SL(n) label. Then, it sends a PCRpt
message to its PCE(n) with an RRO equal to {[LK(n), SL(n)], RRO(n)}
and PLSP-ID(n). Once PCE(n) receives the PCRpt from the PCC BN-en(n)
with the RRO, PLSP-ID and LSP-TYPE = TBD2, it sends to its Parent PCE
a PCRpt containing the RRO equal to {[LK(n), SL(n)]} and PLSP-ID(n).
PCE(n) MAY adds {BN-en(n), D} in the RRO as loose path.
Steps i: Actions performed for all intermediate domains(i), for i =
n-1 to 2
1. Parent PCE sends a PCInitiate message to Child PCE(i) with LSP-
TYPE = TBD1, ERO = {PKS(i), [LK(i+1), SL(i+1)]} and End-Points =
{BN-en(i), BN-ex(i)}
2. Then, PCE(i) retrieves the ERO from the PKS(i) if necessary and
sends to the PCC BN-en(i) a PCInitiate message with ERO =
{ERO(i), [LK(i+1), SL(i+1)]}, LSP-TYPE = TBD2 and End-Points
Object = {BN-en(i), BN-ex(i)} in order to inform the PCC BN-en(i)
that this local LSP tunnel(i) is part of an inter-domain path.
3. When the PCC BN-en(i) received the PCInitiate message from its
PCE(i), it setup the local LSP tunnel from BN-en(i) to BN-ex(i)
by means of RSVP-TE signaling with the given ERO(i).
4. Egress Control mechanism, as per RFC4003 section 2.1 [RFC4003],
is used to instruct the egress node of domain(i), i.e. BN-ex(i)
to forward packets belonging to this tunnel with the Stitching
Label. Both Label Stitching and IP address of outgoing interface
are carried in the ERO = {..., [LK(i+1), SL(i+1)]} as the last
SubObject in conformance to [RFC4003]. So that, BN-ex(i)
Dugeon, et al. Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft PCE Stateful Inter-Domain Tunnels July 2018
installs in its MPLS LFIB the SWAP instruction to label SL(i+1)
with forward to LK(i+1) instead of the usual POP instruction.
5. Once the tunnel setup, PCC BN-en(i) chooses a free label for the
Stitching Label SL(i) and add a new entry in its MPLS L(F)IB with
this SL(i) label. Then, it sends a PCRpt message to its PCE(i)
with an RRO equal to {[LK(i), SL(i)], RRO(i)} and PLSP-ID(i).
6. Once PCE(i) receives the PCRpt from the PCC BN-en(i) with the RRO
and LSP-TYPE = TBD2, it sends to its Parent PCE a PCRpt message
containing the RRO equal to {[LK(i), SL(i)]} and the PLSP-ID(i).
PCE(i) MAY adds {BN-en(i), BN-ex(i)} in the RRO as loose path.
7. Once Parent PCE receives the PCRpt from the Child PCE(i), it
stores the corresponding PLSP-ID for this inter-domain tunnel
part
Steps n: Actions performed to the source domain(1)
Finally, Parent PCE sends a last PCInitiate message to Child PCE(1)
with LSP-TYPE = TBD1, ERO = {PKS(1), [LK(2), SL(2)]} and End-Points =
{S, BN-ex(1)}. In turn, Child PCE(1) sends a PCInitiate message to
PCC node S with ERO equal to {ERO(1), [LK(2), SL(2)]}, LSP_TYPE = 0
and End-Points Object = {S, BN-ex(1)}. This time, the LSP_TYPE is
equal to 0 as the PCC S does not need to return a Stitching Label SL,
i.e. it is the head-end of the inter-domain path. Standard PCRpt
message is sent back to PCE(1) by the PCC node S. In turn, Child
PCE(1) send a final PCRpt message to the Parent PCE with the PSLP-
ID(1). PCE(1) MAY adds {S, BN-ex(1)} in the RRO as loose path.
4.2. Inter-domain LSP setup procedure completion failure
In case of error during LSP setup, PCRpt and or PCError messages MUST
be used to signal the problem to the Parent PCE. In particular, if
new LSP-TYPE values defined in this memo are not supported by the
Child PCE or the PCC, the Child PCE, receptively the PCC, MUST return
a PCErr message with Error-Type = 21 (Traffic engineering path setup
error) and Error-Value = 1 (Unsupported path setup type) to its
Parent PCE. If Child PCE(i) receives a PCInitiate message from its
Parent PCE without LSP-TYPE set to TBD1 or LSP-TYPE set to a value
different from TBD1, it MUST return a PCErr message with Error-Type =
21 (Traffic engineering path setup error) and Error-Value = 1
(Unsupported path setup type) to its Parent PCE.
If a Child PCE or a PCC don't return an RRO or an RRO without the
Stitching Label SL with the IP address of the associated link
following a PCInitiate message with LSP-TYPE set to TBD1, the Parent
PCE, respectively the Child PCE, MUST return a PCErr message with
Dugeon, et al. Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft PCE Stateful Inter-Domain Tunnels July 2018
Error-Type = 21 (Traffic engineering path setup error) and Error-
Value = TBD4 (No Mandatory Stitching Label is present in the RRO).
In case of completion failure, the Parent PCE MUST MUST send a
PCInitate message (R flag set in the SRP Object as per draft pce
initiated lsp [RFC8281]) to delete this inter-domain path to the
Child PCEs that already setup their respective part of the inter-
domain tunnel. Child PCE(i) MUST remove their local LSP tunnel by
means of PCInitiate message with R flag set to 1 to their PCC BN-
en(i) and send back PCRpt message to the Parent PCE.
4.3. Example for Stateful H-PCE Stiching procedure
Taking the sample hierarchical domain topology example from [RFC6805]
as the reference topology for the entirety of this section.
Dugeon, et al. Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft PCE Stateful Inter-Domain Tunnels July 2018
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| Domain 5 |
| ----- |
| |PCE 5| |
| ----- |
| |
| ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- |
| | Domain 1 | | Domain 2 | | Domain 3 | |
| | | | | | | |
| | ----- | | ----- | | ----- | |
| | |PCE 1| | | |PCE 2| | | |PCE 3| | |
| | ----- | | ----- | | ----- | |
| | | | | | | |
| | ----| |---- ----| |---- | |
| | |BN11+---+BN21| |BN23+---+BN31| | |
| | - ----| |---- ----| |---- - | |
| | |S| | | | | |D| | |
| | - ----| |---- ----| |---- - | |
| | |BN12+---+BN22| |BN24+---+BN32| | |
| | ----| |---- ----| |---- | |
| | | | | | | |
| | ---- | | | | ---- | |
| | |BN13| | | | | |BN33| | |
| -----------+---- ---------------- ----+----------- |
| \ / |
| \ ---------------- / |
| \ | | / |
| \ |---- ----| / |
| ----+BN41| |BN42+---- |
| |---- ----| |
| | | |
| | ----- | |
| | |PCE 4| | |
| | ----- | |
| | | |
| | Domain 4 | |
| ---------------- |
| |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hierarchical domain topology from RFC6805
Section 3.3.1 of [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-hpce]describes the per-domain
stitched LSP mode and list all the steps needed. To support SL based
stiching, using the reference architecture described in Figure above,
the steps are modified as follows (note that we do not use PKS in
this example for simplicity):
Dugeon, et al. Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft PCE Stateful Inter-Domain Tunnels July 2018
Step 1: initialization
The P-PCE (PCE5) is requested to initiate a LSP. Steps 4 to 10 of
section 4.6.2 of [RFC6805] are executed to determine the end to end
path, which are broken into per-domain LSPs e.g. {S-BN41, BN41-BN33,
BN33-D}
Step 2: LSP (BN33-D) at PCE3:
1. The P-PCE (PCE5) sends the initiate request to the child PCE
(PCE3) via PCInitiate message for LSP (BN33-D) with ERO=(BN33..D)
and LSP-TYPE=TBD1
2. The PCE3 further propagates the initiate message to BN33 with the
ERO and LSP-TYPE=TBD2/TBD3 based on setup type
3. BN33 initiates the setup of the LSP as per the path and reports
to the PCE3 the LSP status ("GOING-UP")
4. The PCE3 further reports the status of the LSP to the P-PCE
(PCE5)
5. The node BN33 notifies the LSP state to PCE3 when the state is
"UP" it also carry the stitching label (SL33) in RRO as
(SL33,BN33..D)
6. The PCE3 further reports the status of the LSP to the P-PCE
(PCE5) as well as carry the stitching label (SL33) in RRO as
(LK33,SL33,BN33..D)
Step 3: LSP (BN41-BN33) at PCE4
1. The P-PCE (PCE5) sends the initiate request to the child PCE
(PCE4) via PCInitiate message for LSP (BN41-BN33) with
ERO=(BN41..BN42,LK33,SL33,BN33) and LSP-TYPE=TBD1
2. The PCE4 further propagates the initiate message to BN41 with the
ERO and LSP-TYPE=TBD2/TBD3 based on setup type. In case of
RSVP_TE, the node BN41 encode the stitching label SL33 as part of
the ERO to make sure the node BN42 uses the label SL33 towards
node BN33. In case of SR, the label SL33 is part of the label
stack pushed at node BN41
3. BN41 initiates the setup of the LSP as per the path and reports
to the PCE4 the LSP status ("GOING-UP")
4. The PCE4 further reports the status of the LSP to the P-PCE
(PCE5)
Dugeon, et al. Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft PCE Stateful Inter-Domain Tunnels July 2018
5. The node BN41 notifies the LSP state to PCE4 when the state is
"UP" it also carry the stitching label (SL41) in RRO as
(LK41,SL41,BN41..BN33)
6. The PCE4 further reports the status of the LSP to the P-PCE
(PCE5) as well as carry the stitching label (SL41) in RRO as
(LK41,SL41,BN41..BN33)
Step 3: LSP (S-BN41) for PCE1
1. The P-PCE (PCE5) sends the initiate request to the child PCE
(PCE1) via PCInitiate message for LSP (S-BN41) with
ERO=(S..BN13,LK41,SL41,BN41)
2. The PCE1 further propagates the initiate message to node S with
the ERO. In case of RSVP_TE, the node S encode the stitching
label SL41 as part of the ERO to make sure the node BN13 uses the
label SL41 towards node BN41. In case of SR, the label SL41 is
part of the label stack pushed at node S
3. S initiates the setup of the LSP as per the path and reports to
the PCE1 the LSP status ("GOING-UP")
4. The PCE1 further reports the status of the LSP to the P-PCE
(PCE5)
5. The node S notifies the LSP state to PCE1 when the state is"UP"
6. The PCE1 further reports the status of the LSP to the P-PCE
(PCE5)
In this way, per-domain LSP are stitched together using the stitching
label (SL). The per-domain LSP MUST be setup from the destination
domain towards the source domain one after the other.
Once the per-domain LSP is setup, the entry BN chooses a free label
for the Stitching Label SL and add a new entry in its MPLS LFIB with
this SL label. The SL from the destination domain is propagated to
adjacent transit domain, towards the source domain at each step.
This happens through the entry BN to C-PCE to the P-PCE and vice-
versa. In case of RSVP-TE, the entry BN further propagates the SL
label to the exit BN via RSVP-TE. In case of SR, the SL label is
pushed as part of the SR label stack.
Dugeon, et al. Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft PCE Stateful Inter-Domain Tunnels July 2018
5. Inter-domain LSP Management
This section describe how inter-domain LSPs could be manage.
5.1. Identification of inter-domain tunnels
First, in order to manage inter-domain tunnels composed by the
stitching or nesting of local tunnels, it is important to identify
them. For this purpose, PLSP-ID managed by PCEs are combined to one
provided by PCCs to form global identifier as follow:
o PCE(i) in the Backward Recursive method or the Child PCE in
Hierarchical method MUST create a new unique PLSP-ID for this
inter-domain LSP part and MUST send it in the PCRpt message, to
the PCE(i-1), respectively the Parent PCE. In addition this new
PLSP-ID MUST be associated to the one received from the PCC that
instantiate the local tunnel part for further reference.
o In Hierarchical mode, Parent PCE MUST store and associate the
different PLSP-ID(i)s received from the different Child PCE(i)s in
order to identify the different part of the inter-domain paths.
o In Backward Recursive method, PCE(i) MUST store and associate its
PLSP-ID(i) and the PLSP-ID(i+1) it received from the PCE(i+1).
PCE(n) i.e. the last one in the chain, don't need to perform such
association.
Further reference to the inter-domain tunnel will use this PLSP-
ID(i). In Backward Recursive method, PCE(i) MUST replace the PLSP-
ID(i) by PLSP-ID(i+1) in the PCUpd message before propagating it to
PCE(i+1) and PCE(i) MUST replace the PLSP-ID(i+1) by PLSP-ID(i) in
the PCRpt message before propagating it to the PCE(i-1). In
Hierarchical method, Parent PCE MUST use the corresponding PLSP-ID(i)
of the Child PCE(i).
5.2. Inter-domain LSP management
For the Backward Recursive method, each domain manages their
respective local LSP tunnel part of an inter-domain path
independently of each other. In particular, Stitching Label(i) is
managed by domain(i) and is of interest of domain(i-1) only. Thus,
Stitching Label SL(i) is not supposed to be propagated to other
domains. The same behavior apply to PLSP-ID(i). In Hierarchical
method, the Parent PCE MUST ensure the correct distribution of
Stitching Label SL(i) to Child PCE(i-1. The PLSP-ID(i) is kept for
the usage of the Parent PCE and thus is not propagated.
Dugeon, et al. Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft PCE Stateful Inter-Domain Tunnels July 2018
If a PCE(i) needs to modify its local LSP tunnel(i) with PCUpd
message to the PCC BN-en(i), once PCRpt message received by the PCC
BN-en(i), it MUST sends a new PCRpt message to its neighbor PCE(i-1)
in Backward Recursive method, respectively to Parent PCE in
Hierarchical method, to advertise it of the modification. In
particular. In this case PLSP-ID(i) is used to identify the inter-
domain tunnel. PCE(i-1), respectively the Parent PCE, MUST propagate
the PCRpt message if the modification imply the previous domain e.g.
if the PCRpt indicates that the Stitching Label SL(i) has changed.
PCE(1), respectively Parent PCE, could modify the inter-domain path.
For that purpose, it MUST sends a PCUpd message to its neighbor PCEs,
respectively Child PCE, using the PLSP-ID it received. Each PCE(i)
MUST process PCUpd message the same way they process PCInitiate
message as define in section 3.1 for Backward Recursive method and in
section 4.1 for Hierarchical method.
In case a failure appear in domain(i), e.g. tunnel becoming down,
PCE(i) MUST sends a PCRpt message to its neighbor PCE(i-1),
respectively its Parent PCE to advertise it of the problem in its
local part of the inter-domain path. Once PCE(1), respectively
Parent PCE, receives this PCRpt message indicating that the tunnel is
down, it is up to the PCE(1), respectively Parent PCE to take
appropriate correction e.g. start a new path computation to update
the ERO.
5.3. Modification of inter-domain LSP
Modification of local LSP tunnel, BN-en(i) and BN-ex(i) is left for
further study.
5.4. Removal of inter-domain LSP
Deletion of inter-domain LSP is only possible by the inter-domain
tunnel initiator. For Backward Recursive method, PCInitiate message
with R flag set to 1 and PLSP-ID set accordingly to section 5.1, is
sent by PCE(1) to PCE(n) through PCE(i) and process the same way as
describe in section 3.1. For Hierarchical method, PCInitiate message
with R flag set to 1 is sent by the Parent PCE to each Child PCE(i)
with corresponding PLSP-ID(i) and process accordingly to section 4.1.
Each domain PCE(i) is responsible to delete its part of the tunnel
and PCC MUST remove the Stitching label SL in its LFIB in addition to
the tunnel when it received the PCInitiate message with the R flag
set to 1 and corresponding PLSP-ID.
Dugeon, et al. Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft PCE Stateful Inter-Domain Tunnels July 2018
6. Applicability
The newly introduce Stitching Label SL serves to stitch or nest part
of local LSP tunnels to form an inter-domain path. Each domain is
free to decide if the tunnel is stitched or nested. For example, a
domain(i) may decided to nest the incoming local LSP tunnel into a
higher hierarchy of tunnel for Traffic Engineering purpose. A PCE(i)
may also decided to group local LSP tunnels part of inter-domain
paths into a higher hierarchical tunnel to carry all these local LSP
tunnels from one BN-en(i) to one BN-ex(i).
To use Segment Routing instead of RSVP-TE to setup the local LSP
tunnels as defined in draft pce segment routing
[I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing], PCE(i) MUST send PCInitiate message
with LSP-TYPE = TBD3 instead of TBD2 to advertise their respective
PCC that the local LSP tunnels is enforce by means of Segment
Routing. Stitching Label SL(i) will be inserted in the label stack
in order to become the top label in the stack when the packet reach
BN-en(i+1): BN-en(i) MUST install in its MPLS LFIB a SWAP instruction
to the replace the incoming Stitching Label SL(i) by the label stack
given by the ERO(i) plus the Stitching Label SL(i+1) as the last
label in the stack. The Stitching Label SL(i) serves as entry FEC
for BN-en(i) to identify the packets that follow the next Segment
Path. When packet reach BN-ex(i), the last label in the stack before
the label SL(i+1) corresponds to the SID that design BN-en(i+1).
This inter-domain SID could be obtain as per draft Egress Peer
Engineering [I-D.ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe].
The Stitching Label SL could serves to stitch Segment Path and RSVP-
TE tunnel. Indeed, each domain is free to enforce its part of the
inter-domain path with the underlying mechanism it chosen. Stitching
Label SL will be part of the label stack in order to become the top
label in the stack when reaching the BN-en(i+1). This Stitching
Label could be swap as usual if the next domain uses RSVP-TE tunnel.
When the previous domain uses a RSVP-TE tunnel, the Stitching Label
will serve as key for the BN-en(i+1) to determine which label stack
it must push on top of the packet for a Segment Routing path.
During the instantiation procedure, if PCE(i) decides to reuse a
local tunnel which is not yet part of an inter-domain tunnel, it
SHOULD send a PCUpd message with LSP-TYPE = TBD2 to the PCC BN-en(i)
in order to request a Stitching Label SL(i) and new ERO(i) to include
the Stitching Label SL(i+1) and the associated link to the previous
ERO.
[I-D.ietf-teas-actn-framework] describes framework for Abstraction
and Control of TE Networks (ACTN), where each Physical Network
Controller (PNC) is equivalent to C-PCE and P-PCE is the Multi-Domain
Dugeon, et al. Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft PCE Stateful Inter-Domain Tunnels July 2018
Service Coordinator (MDSC). The Per domain stitched LSP as per the
Hierarchical PCE architecture described in Section 3.3.1 and
Section 4.1 of [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-hpce] is well suited for ACTN.
The stitching label (SL) mechanism as described in this document is
well suited for ACTN when per domain LSP needs to be stitched to form
an E2E tunnel or a VN Member. It is to be noted that certain VNs
require isolation from other clients. The stitching label mechanism
described in this document can be applicable to the VN isolation use-
case by uniquely identifying the concatenated stitching labels across
multi-domain only to a certain VN member or an E2E tunnel.
Inter-layer scenario is left for further study.
7. IANA Considerations
7.1. LSP-TYPE values
Draft pce lsp setup type [I-D.ietf-pce-lsp-setup-type] defines the
PATH-SETUP-TYPE TLV and requests that IANA creates a registry to
manage the value of the PATH_SETUP_TYPE TLV's PST field. IANA is
requested to allocate a new code point in the PCEP PATH_SETUP_TYPE
TLV PST field registry, as follows:
+-------+-----------------------------------------------+-----------+
| Value | Description | Reference |
+-------+-----------------------------------------------+-----------+
| TBD1 | Inter-Domain Traffic engineering end-to-end | This |
| | path is setup using Backward Recursive method | Document |
| TBD2 | Inter-Domain Traffic engineering local path | This |
| | is setup using RSVP-TE | Document |
| TBD3 | Inter-Domain Traffic engineering local path | This |
| | is setup using Segment Routing | Document |
+-------+-----------------------------------------------+-----------+
7.2. PCEP-Error Object
IANA is requested to allocate code-points in the PCEP-ERROR Object
Error Values registry for a new error-value or Error-Type 21 Invalid
traffic engineering path setup:
+-------------+------------------------------------------+
| Error-Value | Description |
+-------------+------------------------------------------+
| TBD4 | Missing Mandatory Stitching Label in RRO |
+-------------+------------------------------------------+
Dugeon, et al. Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft PCE Stateful Inter-Domain Tunnels July 2018
8. Security Considerations
No modification of PCE protocol (PCEP) has been requested by this
draft which not introduce any issue regarding security. Concerning
the PCEP session between PCEs, authors recommend to use the secure
version of PCEP as defined in draft secure transport for PCEP
[RFC8253] or use any other secure tunnel mechanism e.g. IPsec tunnel
to transport PCEP session between PCE.
9. Acknowledgements
The authors want to thanks PCE's WG members.
10. Disclaimer
This work has been performed in the framework of the H2020-ICT-2014
project 5GEx (Grant Agreement no. 671636), which is partially funded
by the European Commission. This information reflects the
consortium's view, but neither the consortium nor the European
Commission are liable for any use that may be done of the information
contained therein.
11. References
11.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-pce-lsp-setup-type]
Sivabalan, S., Tantsura, J., Minei, I., Varga, R., and J.
Hardwick, "Conveying path setup type in PCEP messages",
draft-ietf-pce-lsp-setup-type-10 (work in progress), May
2018.
[I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-hpce]
Dhody, D., Lee, Y., Ceccarelli, D., Shin, J., King, D.,
and O. Dios, "Hierarchical Stateful Path Computation
Element (PCE).", draft-ietf-pce-stateful-hpce-05 (work in
progress), June 2018.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J., and J. Ash, "A Path Computation
Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4655, August 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4655>.
Dugeon, et al. Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft PCE Stateful Inter-Domain Tunnels July 2018
[RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation
Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5440, March 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5440>.
[RFC5441] Vasseur, JP., Ed., 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,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5441, April 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5441>.
[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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6805>.
[RFC8231] Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Medved, J., and R. Varga, "Path
Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)
Extensions for Stateful PCE", RFC 8231,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8231, September 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8231>.
[RFC8281] Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Sivabalan, S., and R. Varga, "Path
Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)
Extensions for PCE-Initiated LSP Setup in a Stateful PCE
Model", RFC 8281, DOI 10.17487/RFC8281, December 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8281>.
11.2. Informative References
[I-D.dong-pce-discovery-proto-bgp]
Dong, J., Chen, M., Dhody, D., Tantsura, J., Kumaki, K.,
and T. Murai, "BGP Extensions for Path Computation Element
(PCE) Discovery", draft-dong-pce-discovery-proto-bgp-07
(work in progress), July 2017.
[I-D.ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe]
Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Patel, K., Ray, S., and J.
Dong, "BGP-LS extensions for Segment Routing BGP Egress
Peer Engineering", draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-
epe-15 (work in progress), March 2018.
Dugeon, et al. Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft PCE Stateful Inter-Domain Tunnels July 2018
[I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing]
Sivabalan, S., Filsfils, C., Tantsura, J., Henderickx, W.,
and J. Hardwick, "PCEP Extensions for Segment Routing",
draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-11 (work in progress),
November 2017.
[I-D.ietf-teas-actn-framework]
Ceccarelli, D. and Y. Lee, "Framework for Abstraction and
Control of Traffic Engineered Networks", draft-ietf-teas-
actn-framework-15 (work in progress), May 2018.
[RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.,
and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
Tunnels", RFC 3209, DOI 10.17487/RFC3209, December 2001,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3209>.
[RFC3473] Berger, L., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-
Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3473, January 2003,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3473>.
[RFC4003] Berger, L., "GMPLS Signaling Procedure for Egress
Control", RFC 4003, DOI 10.17487/RFC4003, February 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4003>.
[RFC4206] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Label Switched Paths (LSP)
Hierarchy with Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE)", RFC 4206,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4206, October 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4206>.
[RFC5150] Ayyangar, A., Kompella, K., Vasseur, JP., and A. Farrel,
"Label Switched Path Stitching with Generalized
Multiprotocol Label Switching Traffic Engineering (GMPLS
TE)", RFC 5150, DOI 10.17487/RFC5150, February 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5150>.
[RFC5520] Bradford, R., Ed., Vasseur, JP., and A. Farrel,
"Preserving Topology Confidentiality in Inter-Domain Path
Computation Using a Path-Key-Based Mechanism", RFC 5520,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5520, April 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5520>.
Dugeon, et al. Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft PCE Stateful Inter-Domain Tunnels July 2018
[RFC8253] Lopez, D., Gonzalez de Dios, O., Wu, Q., and D. Dhody,
"PCEPS: Usage of TLS to Provide a Secure Transport for the
Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)",
RFC 8253, DOI 10.17487/RFC8253, October 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8253>.
Authors' Addresses
Olivier Dugeon
Orange Labs
2, Avenue Pierre Marzin
Lannion 22307
France
Email: olivier.dugeon@orange.com
Julien Meuric
Orange Labs
2, Avenue Pierre Marzin
Lannion 22307
France
Email: julien.meuric@orange.com
Young Lee
Huawei Technologies
5340 Legacy Drive, Building 3
Plano TX 75023
USA
Email: leeyoung@huwaei.com
Drhuv Dhody
Huawei Technologies
Divyashree Techno Park, Whitefield
Bangalore Karnataka 560066
India
Email: dhruv.ietf@gmail.com
Dugeon, et al. Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft PCE Stateful Inter-Domain Tunnels July 2018
Daniele Ceccarelli
Ericsson
Torshamnsgatan, 48
Stockholm
Sweden
Email: daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com
Dugeon, et al. Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 29]