| < draft-ietf-pce-pcep-domain-sequence-09.txt | | draft-ietf-pce-pcep-domain-sequence-10.txt > | |
| | | | |
| PCE Working Group D. Dhody | | PCE Working Group D. Dhody | |
| Internet-Draft U. Palle | | Internet-Draft U. Palle | |
| Intended status: Experimental Huawei Technologies | | Intended status: Experimental Huawei Technologies | |
|
| Expires: March 23, 2016 R. Casellas | | Expires: May 5, 2016 R. Casellas | |
| CTTC | | CTTC | |
|
| September 20, 2015 | | November 2, 2015 | |
| | | | |
|
| Standard Representation of Domain-Sequence | | Domain Subobjects for Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication | |
| draft-ietf-pce-pcep-domain-sequence-09 | | Protocol (PCEP). | |
| | | draft-ietf-pce-pcep-domain-sequence-10 | |
| | | | |
| Abstract | | Abstract | |
| | | | |
| The ability to compute shortest constrained Traffic Engineering Label | | The ability to compute shortest constrained Traffic Engineering Label | |
| Switched Paths (TE LSPs) in Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and | | Switched Paths (TE LSPs) in Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and | |
| Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) networks across multiple domains has been | | Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) networks across multiple domains has been | |
| identified as a key requirement. In this context, a domain is a | | identified as a key requirement. In this context, a domain is a | |
| collection of network elements within a common sphere of address | | collection of network elements within a common sphere of address | |
| management or path computational responsibility such as an Interior | | management or path computational responsibility such as an Interior | |
| Gateway Protocol (IGP) area or an Autonomous System (AS). This | | Gateway Protocol (IGP) area or an Autonomous System (AS). This | |
| | | | |
| skipping to change at page 1, line 45 | | skipping to change at page 1, line 46 | |
| Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering | | Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering | |
| Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute | | Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute | |
| working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- | | working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- | |
| Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. | | Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. | |
| | | | |
| Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months | | Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months | |
| and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any | | and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any | |
| time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference | | time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference | |
| material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." | | material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." | |
| | | | |
|
| This Internet-Draft will expire on March 23, 2016. | | This Internet-Draft will expire on May 5, 2016. | |
| | | | |
| Copyright Notice | | Copyright Notice | |
| | | | |
| Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the | | Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the | |
| document authors. All rights reserved. | | document authors. All rights reserved. | |
| | | | |
| This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal | | This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal | |
| Provisions Relating to IETF Documents | | Provisions Relating to IETF Documents | |
| (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of | | (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of | |
| publication of this document. Please review these documents | | publication of this document. Please review these documents | |
| | | | |
| skipping to change at page 2, line 39 | | skipping to change at page 2, line 39 | |
| 3.3. Domain-Sequence Representation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 | | 3.3. Domain-Sequence Representation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 | |
| 3.4. Include Route Object (IRO) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 | | 3.4. Include Route Object (IRO) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 | |
| 3.4.1. Subobjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 | | 3.4.1. Subobjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 | |
| 3.4.1.1. Autonomous system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 | | 3.4.1.1. Autonomous system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 | |
| 3.4.1.2. IGP Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 | | 3.4.1.2. IGP Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 | |
| 3.4.2. Update in IRO specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 | | 3.4.2. Update in IRO specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 | |
| 3.4.3. IRO for Domain-Sequence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 | | 3.4.3. IRO for Domain-Sequence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 | |
| 3.4.3.1. PCC Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 | | 3.4.3.1. PCC Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 | |
| 3.4.3.2. PCE Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 | | 3.4.3.2. PCE Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 | |
| 3.5. Exclude Route Object (XRO) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 | | 3.5. Exclude Route Object (XRO) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 | |
|
| 3.5.1. Subobjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 | | 3.5.1. Subobjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 | |
| 3.5.1.1. Autonomous system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 | | 3.5.1.1. Autonomous system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 | |
|
| 3.5.1.2. IGP Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 | | 3.5.1.2. IGP Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 | |
| 3.6. Explicit Exclusion Route Subobject (EXRS) . . . . . . . . 15 | | 3.6. Explicit Exclusion Route Subobject (EXRS) . . . . . . . . 15 | |
| 3.7. Explicit Route Object (ERO) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 | | 3.7. Explicit Route Object (ERO) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 | |
| 4. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 | | 4. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 | |
| 4.1. Inter-Area Path Computation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 | | 4.1. Inter-Area Path Computation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 | |
| 4.2. Inter-AS Path Computation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 | | 4.2. Inter-AS Path Computation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 | |
| 4.2.1. Example 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 | | 4.2.1. Example 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 | |
| 4.2.2. Example 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 | | 4.2.2. Example 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 | |
| 4.3. Boundary Node and Inter-AS-Link . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 | | 4.3. Boundary Node and Inter-AS-Link . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 | |
| 4.4. PCE Serving multiple Domains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 | | 4.4. PCE Serving multiple Domains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 | |
| 4.5. P2MP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 | | 4.5. P2MP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 | |
| 4.6. Hierarchical PCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 | | 4.6. Hierarchical PCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 | |
| | | | |
| 5. Other Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 | | 5. Other Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 | |
| 5.1. Relationship to PCE Sequence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 | | 5.1. Relationship to PCE Sequence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 | |
| 5.2. Relationship to RSVP-TE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 | | 5.2. Relationship to RSVP-TE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 | |
| 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 | | 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 | |
| 6.1. New Subobjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 | | 6.1. New Subobjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 | |
| 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 | | 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 | |
| 8. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 | | 8. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 | |
|
| 8.1. Control of Function and Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 | | 8.1. Control of Function and Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 | |
| 8.2. Information and Data Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 | | 8.2. Information and Data Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 | |
| 8.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 | | 8.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 | |
| 8.4. Verify Correct Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 | | 8.4. Verify Correct Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 | |
| 8.5. Requirements On Other Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 | | 8.5. Requirements On Other Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 | |
| 8.6. Impact On Network Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 | | 8.6. Impact On Network Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 | |
| 9. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 | | 9. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 | |
| 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 | | 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 | |
| 10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 | | 10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 | |
| 10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 | | 10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 | |
|
| Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 | | Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 | |
| | | | |
| 1. Introduction | | 1. Introduction | |
| | | | |
| A Path Computation Element (PCE) may be used to compute end-to-end | | A Path Computation Element (PCE) may be used to compute end-to-end | |
| paths across multi-domain environments using a per-domain path | | paths across multi-domain environments using a per-domain path | |
| computation technique [RFC5152]. The backward recursive path | | computation technique [RFC5152]. The backward recursive path | |
| computation (BRPC) mechanism [RFC5441] also defines a PCE-based path | | computation (BRPC) mechanism [RFC5441] also defines a PCE-based path | |
| computation procedure to compute inter-domain constrained path for | | computation procedure to compute inter-domain constrained path for | |
| (G)MPLS TE LSPs. However, both per-domain and BRPC techniques assume | | (G)MPLS TE LSPs. However, both per-domain and BRPC techniques assume | |
| that the sequence of domains to be crossed from source to destination | | that the sequence of domains to be crossed from source to destination | |
| | | | |
| skipping to change at page 12, line 38 | | skipping to change at page 12, line 38 | |
| that has this link. | | that has this link. | |
| | | | |
| * Otherwise, it assumes that the subobject belongs to the current | | * Otherwise, it assumes that the subobject belongs to the current | |
| Area. | | Area. | |
| | | | |
| o In case the current PCE is not responsible for the path | | o In case the current PCE is not responsible for the path | |
| computation in the current AS or Area, then the PCE selects the | | computation in the current AS or Area, then the PCE selects the | |
| "next PCE" in the domain-sequence based on the current AS and | | "next PCE" in the domain-sequence based on the current AS and | |
| Area. | | Area. | |
| | | | |
|
| | | Note that it is advised that, PCC should use AS and Area subobject | |
| | | while building the domain-sequence in IRO and avoid using other | |
| | | mechanism to change the "current AS" and "current Area" as described | |
| | | above. | |
| | | | |
| 3.5. Exclude Route Object (XRO) | | 3.5. Exclude Route Object (XRO) | |
| | | | |
| The Exclude Route Object (XRO) [RFC5521] is an optional object used | | The Exclude Route Object (XRO) [RFC5521] is an optional object used | |
| to specify exclusion of certain abstract nodes or resources from the | | to specify exclusion of certain abstract nodes or resources from the | |
| whole path. | | whole path. | |
| | | | |
| 3.5.1. Subobjects | | 3.5.1. Subobjects | |
| | | | |
| Some subobjects to be used in XRO as defined in [RFC3209], [RFC3477], | | Some subobjects to be used in XRO as defined in [RFC3209], [RFC3477], | |
| [RFC4874], and [RFC5520], but new subobjects related to Domain- | | [RFC4874], and [RFC5520], but new subobjects related to Domain- | |
| | | | |
| skipping to change at page 15, line 10 | | skipping to change at page 15, line 19 | |
| | | | |
| All other fields are consistent with the definition in Section 3.4. | | All other fields are consistent with the definition in Section 3.4. | |
| | | | |
| All the processing rules are as per [RFC5521]. | | All the processing rules are as per [RFC5521]. | |
| | | | |
| Note that, if a PCE receives an XRO in a PCReq message that contains | | Note that, if a PCE receives an XRO in a PCReq message that contains | |
| subobjects defined in this document, that it does not recognize, it | | subobjects defined in this document, that it does not recognize, it | |
| will respond according to the rules for a malformed object as per | | will respond according to the rules for a malformed object as per | |
| [RFC5440]. | | [RFC5440]. | |
| | | | |
|
| | | IGP Area subobjects in the XRO are local to the current AS. In case | |
| | | of multi-AS path computation to exclude an IGP area in a different | |
| | | AS, IGP Area subobject should be part of Explicit Exclusion Route | |
| | | Subobject (EXRS) in the IRO to specify the AS in which the IGP area | |
| | | is to be excluded. | |
| | | | |
| 3.6. Explicit Exclusion Route Subobject (EXRS) | | 3.6. Explicit Exclusion Route Subobject (EXRS) | |
| | | | |
|
| Explicit Exclusion Route Subobject (EXRS) [RFC5521] is used to | | EXRS [RFC5521] is used to specify exclusion of certain abstract nodes | |
| specify exclusion of certain abstract nodes between a specific pair | | between a specific pair of nodes. | |
| of nodes. | | | |
| | | | |
| The EXRS subobject can carry any of the subobjects defined for | | The EXRS subobject can carry any of the subobjects defined for | |
| inclusion in the XRO, thus the new subobjects to support 4 byte AS | | inclusion in the XRO, thus the new subobjects to support 4 byte AS | |
| and IGP (OSPF / ISIS) Area can also be used in the EXRS. The | | and IGP (OSPF / ISIS) Area can also be used in the EXRS. The | |
| meanings of the fields of the new XRO subobjects are unchanged when | | meanings of the fields of the new XRO subobjects are unchanged when | |
| the subobjects are included in an EXRS, except that scope of the | | the subobjects are included in an EXRS, except that scope of the | |
| exclusion is limited to the single hop between the previous and | | exclusion is limited to the single hop between the previous and | |
| subsequent elements in the IRO. | | subsequent elements in the IRO. | |
| | | | |
| The EXRS subobject should be interpreted in the context of the | | The EXRS subobject should be interpreted in the context of the | |
| | | | |
| skipping to change at page 26, line 27 | | skipping to change at page 26, line 27 | |
| pcep.xhtml#xro-subobject | | pcep.xhtml#xro-subobject | |
| | | | |
| Upon approval of this document, IANA is requested to make identical | | Upon approval of this document, IANA is requested to make identical | |
| additions to these registries as follows: | | additions to these registries as follows: | |
| | | | |
| Subobject Type Reference | | Subobject Type Reference | |
| TBD1 4 byte AS number [This I.D.][DOMAIN-SUBOBJ] | | TBD1 4 byte AS number [This I.D.][DOMAIN-SUBOBJ] | |
| TBD2 OSPF Area ID [This I.D.][DOMAIN-SUBOBJ] | | TBD2 OSPF Area ID [This I.D.][DOMAIN-SUBOBJ] | |
| TBD3 IS-IS Area ID [This I.D.][DOMAIN-SUBOBJ] | | TBD3 IS-IS Area ID [This I.D.][DOMAIN-SUBOBJ] | |
| | | | |
|
| | | Further upon approval of this document, IANA is requested to add a | |
| | | reference to this document to the new RSVP numbers that are | |
| | | registered by [DOMAIN-SUBOBJ]. | |
| | | | |
| 7. Security Considerations | | 7. Security Considerations | |
| | | | |
| This document specifies a standard representation of Domain-Sequence | | This document specifies a standard representation of Domain-Sequence | |
| and new subobjects, which could be used in inter-domain PCE scenarios | | and new subobjects, which could be used in inter-domain PCE scenarios | |
| as explained in other RFC and drafts. The new subobjects and Domain- | | as explained in other RFC and drafts. The new subobjects and Domain- | |
| Sequence mechanisms defined in this document allow finer and more | | Sequence mechanisms defined in this document allow finer and more | |
| specific control of the path computed by a cooperating PCE(s). Such | | specific control of the path computed by a cooperating PCE(s). Such | |
| control increases the risk if a PCEP message is intercepted, | | control increases the risk if a PCEP message is intercepted, | |
| modified, or spoofed because it allows the attacker to exert control | | modified, or spoofed because it allows the attacker to exert control | |
| over the path that the PCE will compute or to make the path | | over the path that the PCE will compute or to make the path | |
| | | | |
| skipping to change at page 29, line 31 | | skipping to change at page 29, line 38 | |
| | | | |
| [IRO-UPDATE] | | [IRO-UPDATE] | |
| Dhody, D., "Update to Include Route Object (IRO) | | Dhody, D., "Update to Include Route Object (IRO) | |
| specification in Path Computation Element communication | | specification in Path Computation Element communication | |
| Protocol (PCEP. (draft-ietf-pce-iro-update-02)", May 2015. | | Protocol (PCEP. (draft-ietf-pce-iro-update-02)", May 2015. | |
| | | | |
| [DOMAIN-SUBOBJ] | | [DOMAIN-SUBOBJ] | |
| Dhody, D., Palle, U., Kondreddy, V., and R. Casellas, | | Dhody, D., Palle, U., Kondreddy, V., and R. Casellas, | |
| "Domain Subobjects for Resource ReserVation Protocol - | | "Domain Subobjects for Resource ReserVation Protocol - | |
| Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE). (draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te- | | Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE). (draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te- | |
|
| domain-subobjects-02)", July 2015. | | domain-subobjects-04)", November 2015. | |
| | | | |
| 10.2. Informative References | | 10.2. Informative References | |
| | | | |
| [RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J., and J. Ash, "A Path Computation | | [RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J., and J. Ash, "A Path Computation | |
| Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655, | | Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655, | |
| DOI 10.17487/RFC4655, August 2006, | | DOI 10.17487/RFC4655, August 2006, | |
| <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4655>. | | <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4655>. | |
| | | | |
| [RFC4726] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J., and A. Ayyangar, "A Framework for | | [RFC4726] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J., and A. Ayyangar, "A Framework for | |
| Inter-Domain Multiprotocol Label Switching Traffic | | Inter-Domain Multiprotocol Label Switching Traffic | |
| | | | |
End of changes. 13 change blocks. |
| 13 lines changed or deleted | | 28 lines changed or added | |
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.42. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/ |