|
|
|
|
|
|
IETF RFC 6805
Last modified on Wednesday, November 21st, 2012
 Permanent link to RFC 6805
 Search GitHub Wiki for RFC 6805
 Show other RFCs mentioning RFC 6805
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) D. King, Ed.
Request for Comments: 6805 A. Farrel, Ed.
Category: Informational Old Dog Consulting
ISSN: 2070-1721 November 2012
The Application of the Path Computation Element Architecture to the
Determination of a Sequence of Domains in MPLS and GMPLS
 Abstract
Computing optimum routes for Label Switched Paths (LSPs) across
multiple domains in MPLS Traffic Engineering (MPLS-TE) and GMPLS
networks presents a problem because no single point of path
computation is aware of all of the links and resources in each
domain. A solution may be achieved using the Path Computation
Element (PCE) architecture.
Where the sequence of domains is known a priori, various techniques
can be employed to derive an optimum path. If the domains are simply
connected, or if the preferred points of interconnection are also
known, the Per-Domain Path Computation technique can be used. Where
there are multiple connections between domains and there is no
preference for the choice of points of interconnection, the Backward-
Recursive PCE-based Computation (BRPC) procedure can be used to
derive an optimal path.
This document examines techniques to establish the optimum path when
the sequence of domains is not known in advance. The document shows
how the PCE architecture can be extended to allow the optimum
sequence of domains to be selected, and the optimum end-to-end path
to be derived through the use of a hierarchical relationship between
domains.
Status of This Memo
This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
published for informational purposes.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Not all documents
approved by the IESG are a candidate for any level of Internet
Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 5741.
King & Farrel Informational PAGE 1 
RFC 6805 PCE Hierarchy Framework November 2012
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 6805.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2012 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
(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 ....................................................4
1.1. Problem Statement ..........................................5
1.2. Definition of a Domain .....................................5
1.3. Assumptions and Requirements ...............................6
1.3.1. Metric Objectives ...................................6
1.3.2. Diversity ...........................................7
1.3.2.1. Physical Diversity .........................7
1.3.2.2. Domain Diversity ...........................7
1.3.3. Existing Traffic Engineering Constraints ............7
1.3.4. Commercial Constraints ..............................8
1.3.5. Domain Confidentiality ..............................8
1.3.6. Limiting Information Aggregation ....................8
1.3.7. Domain Interconnection Discovery ....................8
1.4. Terminology ................................................8
2. Examination of Existing PCE Mechanisms ..........................9
2.1. Per-Domain Path Computation ................................9
2.2. Backward-Recursive PCE-Based Computation ..................10
2.2.1. Applicability of BRPC When the Domain Path
is Not Known .......................................11
3. Hierarchical PCE ...............................................12
4. Hierarchical PCE Procedures ....................................13
4.1. Objective Functions and Policy ............................13
4.2. Maintaining Domain Confidentiality ........................14
4.3. PCE Discovery .............................................14
4.4. Traffic Engineering Database for the Parent Domain ........15
4.5. Determination of Destination Domain .......................16
4.6. Hierarchical PCE Examples .................................16
King & Farrel Informational PAGE 2
RFC 6805 PCE Hierarchy Framework November 2012
4.6.1. Hierarchical PCE Initial Information Exchange ......18
4.6.2. Hierarchical PCE End-to-End Path
Computation Procedure ..............................19
4.7. Hierarchical PCE Error Handling ...........................20
4.8. Requirements for Hierarchical PCEP Protocol Extensions ....20
4.8.1. PCEP Request Qualifiers ............................21
4.8.2. Indication of Hierarchical PCE Capability ..........21
4.8.3. Intention to Utilize Parent PCE Capabilities .......21
4.8.4. Communication of Domain Connectivity Information ...22
4.8.5. Domain Identifiers .................................22
5. Hierarchical PCE Applicability .................................23
5.1. Autonomous Systems and Areas ..............................23
5.2. ASON Architecture .........................................24
5.2.1. Implicit Consistency between Hierarchical
PCE and G.7715.2 ...................................25
5.2.2. Benefits of Hierarchical PCEs in ASON ..............26
6. A Note on BGP-TE ...............................................26
6.1. Use of BGP for TED Synchronization ........................27
7. Management Considerations ......................................27
7.1. Control of Function and Policy ............................27
7.1.1. Child PCE ..........................................27
7.1.2. Parent PCE .........................................27
7.1.3. Policy Control .....................................28
7.2. Information and Data Models ...............................28
7.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring .........................28
7.4. Verifying Correct Operation ...............................28
7.5. Impact on Network Operation ...............................29
8. Security Considerations ........................................29
9. Acknowledgements ...............................................30
10. References ....................................................30
10.1. Normative References .....................................30
10.2. Informative References ...................................31
11. Contributors ..................................................32
King & Farrel Informational PAGE 3
RFC 6805 PCE Hierarchy Framework November 2012
1. Introduction
The capability to compute the routes of end-to-end inter-domain MPLS
Traffic Engineering (MPLS-TE) and GMPLS Label Switched Paths (LSPs)
is expressed as requirements in [RFC 4105] and [RFC 4216]. This
capability may be realized by a Path Computation Element (PCE). The
PCE architecture is defined in [RFC 4655]. The methods for
establishing and controlling inter-domain MPLS-TE and GMPLS LSPs are
documented in [RFC 4726].
In this context, a domain can be defined as a separate
administrative, geographic, or switching environment within the
network. A domain may be further defined as a zone of routing or
computational ability. Under these definitions, a domain might be
categorized as an Autonomous System (AS) or an Interior Gateway
Protocol (IGP) area [RFC 4726] [RFC 4655]. Domains are connected
through ingress and egress boundary nodes (BNs). A more detailed
definition is given in Section 1.2.
In a multi-domain environment, the determination of an end-to-end
traffic engineered path is a problem because no single point of path
computation is aware of all of the links and resources in each
domain. PCEs can be used to compute end-to-end paths using a per-
domain path computation technique [RFC 5152]. Alternatively, the
Backward-Recursive PCE-based Computation (BRPC) mechanism [RFC 5441]
allows multiple PCEs to collaborate in order to select an optimal
end-to-end path that crosses multiple domains. Both mechanisms
assume that the sequence of domains to be crossed between ingress and
egress is known in advance.
This document examines techniques to establish the optimum path when
the sequence of domains is not known in advance. It shows how the
PCE architecture can be extended to allow the optimum sequence of
domains to be selected, and the optimum end-to-end path to be
derived.
The model described in this document introduces a hierarchical
relationship between domains. It is applicable to environments with
small groups of domains where visibility from the ingress Label
Switching Router (LSR) is limited. Applying the hierarchical PCE
model to large groups of domains such as the Internet, is not
considered feasible or desirable, and is out of scope for this
document.
King & Farrel Informational PAGE 4
RFC 6805 PCE Hierarchy Framework November 2012
This document does not specify any protocol extensions or
enhancements. That work is left for future protocol specification
documents. However, some assumptions are made about which protocols
will be used to provide specific functions, and guidelines to future
protocol developers are made in the form of requirements statements.
1.1. Problem Statement
Using a PCE to compute a path between nodes within a single domain is
relatively straightforward. Computing an end-to-end path when the
source and destination nodes are located in different domains
requires co-operation between multiple PCEs, each responsible for its
own domain.
Techniques for inter-domain path computation described so far
([RFC 5152] and [RFC 5441]) assume that the sequence of domains to be
crossed from source to destination is well known. No explanation is
given (for example, in [RFC 4655]) of how this sequence is generated
or what criteria may be used for the selection of paths between
domains. In small clusters of domains, such as simple cooperation
between adjacent ISPs, this selection process is not complex. In
more advanced deployments (such as optical networks constructed from
multiple sub-domains, or in multi-AS environments), the choice of
domains in the end-to-end domain sequence can be critical to the
determination of an optimum end-to-end path.
1.2. Definition of a Domain
A domain is defined in [RFC 4726] as any collection of network
elements within a common sphere of address management or path
computational responsibility. Examples of such domains include IGP
areas and Autonomous Systems. Wholly or partially overlapping
domains are not within the scope of this document.
In the context of GMPLS, a particularly important example of a domain
is the Automatically Switched Optical Network (ASON) subnetwork
[G-8080]. In this case, a domain might be an ASON Routing Area
[G-7715]. Furthermore, computation of an end-to-end path requires
the selection of nodes and links within a routing area where some
nodes may, in fact, be subnetworks. A PCE may perform the path
computation function of an ASON Routing Controller as described in
[G-7715-2]. See Section 5.2 for a further discussion of the
applicability to the ASON architecture.
This document assumes that the selection of a sequence of domains for
an end-to-end path is in some sense a hierarchical path computation
problem. That is, where one mechanism is used to determine a path
across a domain, a separate mechanism (or at least a separate set of
King & Farrel Informational PAGE 5
RFC 6805 PCE Hierarchy Framework November 2012
paradigms) is used to determine the sequence of domains. The
responsibility for the selection of domain interconnection can belong
to either or both of the mechanisms.
1.3. Assumptions and Requirements
Networks are often constructed from multiple domains. These domains
are often interconnected via multiple interconnect points. It's
assumed that the sequence of domains for an end-to-end path is not
always well known; that is, an application requesting end-to-end
connectivity has no preference for, or no ability to specify, the
sequence of domains to be crossed by the path.
The traffic engineering properties of a domain cannot be seen from
outside the domain. Traffic engineering aggregation or abstraction,
hides information and can lead to failed path setup or the selection
of suboptimal end-to-end paths [RFC 4726]. The aggregation process
may also have significant scaling issues for networks with many
possible routes and multiple TE metrics. Flooding TE information
breaks confidentiality and does not scale in the routing protocol.
See Section 6 for a discussion of the concept of inter-domain traffic
engineering information exchange known as BGP-TE.
The primary goal of this document is to define how to derive optimal
end-to-end, multi-domain paths when the sequence of domains is not
known in advance. The solution needs to be scalable and to maintain
internal domain topology confidentiality while providing the optimal
end-to-end path. It cannot rely on the exchange of TE information
between domains, and for the confidentiality, scaling, and
aggregation reasons just cited, it cannot utilize a computation
element that has universal knowledge of TE properties and topology of
all domains.
The sub-sections that follow set out the primary objectives and
requirements to be satisfied by a PCE solution to multi-domain path
computation.
1.3.1. Metric Objectives
The definition of optimality is dependent on policy and is based on a
single objective or a group of objectives. An objective is expressed
as an objective function [RFC 5541] and may be specified on a path
computation request. The following objective functions are
identified in this document. They define how the path metrics and TE
link qualities are manipulated during inter-domain path computation.
The list is not proscriptive and may be expanded in other documents.
King & Farrel Informational PAGE 6
RFC 6805 PCE Hierarchy Framework November 2012
o Minimize the cost of the path [RFC 5541].
o Select a path using links with the minimal load [RFC 5541].
o Select a path that leaves the maximum residual bandwidth
[RFC 5541].
o Minimize aggregate bandwidth consumption [RFC 5541].
o Minimize the load of the most loaded link [RFC 5541].
o Minimize the cumulative cost of a set of paths [RFC 5541].
o Minimize or cap the number of domains crossed.
o Disallow domain re-entry.
See Section 4.1 for further discussion of objective functions.
1.3.2. Diversity
1.3.2.1. Physical Diversity
Within a "Carrier's Carrier" environment, MPLS services may share
common underlying equipment and resources, including optical fiber
and nodes. An MPLS service request may require a path for traffic
that is physically disjointed from another service. Thus, if a
physical link or node fails on one of the disjoint paths, not all
traffic is lost.
1.3.2.2. Domain Diversity
A pair of paths are domain-diverse if they do not transit any of the
same domains. A pair of paths that share a common ingress and egress
are domain-diverse if they only share the same domains at the ingress
and egress (the ingress and egress domains). Domain diversity may be
maximized for a pair of paths by selecting paths that have the
smallest number of shared domains. (Note that this is not the same
as finding paths with the greatest number of distinct domains!)
Path computation should facilitate the selection of paths that share
ingress and egress domains but do not share any transit domains.
This provides a way to reduce the risk of shared failure along any
path and automatically helps to ensure path diversity for most of the
route of a pair of LSPs.
Thus, domain path selection should provide the capability to include
or exclude specific domains and specific boundary nodes.
1.3.3. Existing Traffic Engineering Constraints
Any solution should take advantage of typical traffic engineering
constraints (hop count, bandwidth, lambda continuity, path cost,
etc.) to meet the service demands expressed in the path computation
request [RFC 4655].
King & Farrel Informational PAGE 7
RFC 6805 PCE Hierarchy Framework November 2012
1.3.4. Commercial Constraints
The solution should provide the capability to include commercially
relevant constraints such as policy, Service Level Agreements (SLAs),
security, peering preferences, and monetary costs.
Additionally, it may be necessary for the service provider to request
that specific domains are included or excluded based on commercial
relationships, security implications, and reliability.
1.3.5. Domain Confidentiality
A key requirement is the ability to maintain domain confidentiality
when computing inter-domain end-to-end paths. It should be possible
for local policy to require that a PCE not disclose to any other PCE
the intra-domain paths it computes or the internal topology of the
domain it serves. This requirement should have no impact in the
optimality or quality of the end-to-end path that is derived.
1.3.6. Limiting Information Aggregation
In order to reduce processing overhead and to not sacrifice
computational detail, there should be no requirement to aggregate or
abstract traffic engineering link information.
1.3.7. Domain Interconnection Discovery
To support domain mesh topologies, the solution should allow the
discovery and selection of domain interconnections. Pre-
configuration of preferred domain interconnections should also be
supported for network operators that have bilateral agreement and
have a preference for the choice of points of interconnection.
1.4. Terminology
This document uses PCE terminology defined in [RFC 4655], [RFC 4726],
and [RFC 5440]. Additional terms are defined below.
Domain Path: The sequence of domains for a path.
Ingress Domain: The domain that includes the ingress LSR of a path.
Transit Domain: A domain that has an upstream and downstream neighbor
domain for a specific path.
Egress Domain: The domain that includes the egress LSR of a path.
King & Farrel Informational PAGE 8
RFC 6805 PCE Hierarchy Framework November 2012
Boundary Nodes: Each Domain has entry LSRs and exit LSRs that could
be Area Border Routers (ABRs) or Autonomous System Border Routers
(ASBRs) depending on the type of domain. They are defined here more
generically as Boundary Nodes (BNs).
Entry BN of domain(n): a BN connecting domain(n-1) to domain(n) on a
path.
Exit BN of domain(n): a BN connecting domain(n) to domain(n+1) on a
path.
Parent Domain: A domain higher up in a domain hierarchy such that it
contains other domains (child domains) and potentially other links
and nodes.
Child Domain: A domain lower in a domain hierarchy such that it has a
parent domain.
Parent PCE: A PCE responsible for selecting a path across a parent
domain and any number of child domains by coordinating with child
PCEs and examining a topology map that shows domain inter-
connectivity.
Child PCE: A PCE responsible for computing the path across one or
more specific (child) domains. A child PCE maintains a relationship
with at least one parent PCE.
Objective Function (OF): A set of one or more optimization criteria
used for the computation of a single path (e.g., path cost
minimization), or the synchronized computation of a set of paths
(e.g., aggregate bandwidth consumption minimization). See [RFC 4655]
and [RFC 5541].
2. Examination of Existing PCE Mechanisms
This section provides a brief overview of two existing PCE
cooperation mechanisms called the Per-Domain Path Computation method
and the BRPC method. It describes the applicability of these methods
to the multi-domain problem.
2.1. Per-Domain Path Computation
The Per-Domain Path Computation method for establishing inter-domain
TE-LSPs [RFC 5152] defines a technique whereby the path is computed
during the signaling process on a per-domain basis. The entry BN of
each domain is responsible for performing the path computation for
the section of the LSP that crosses the domain, or for requesting
that a PCE for that domain computes that piece of the path.
King & Farrel Informational PAGE 9
RFC 6805 PCE Hierarchy Framework November 2012
During per-domain path computation, each computation results in a
path that crosses the domain to provide connectivity to the next
domain in the sequence. The chosen path across the domain will be
selected as best according to the optimization characteristics of the
computation. The next domain in the sequence is usually indicated in
signaling by an identifier of the next domain or the identity of the
next entry BN.
Per-domain path computation may lead to suboptimal end-to-end paths
because the most optimal path in one domain may lead to the choice of
an entry BN for the next domain that results in a very poor path
across that next domain.
In the case that the domain path (in particular, the sequence of
boundary nodes) is not known, the path computing entity must select
an exit BN based on some determination of how to reach the
destination that is outside the domain for which the path computing
entity has computational responsibility. [RFC 5152] suggest that this
might be achieved using the IP shortest path as advertised by BGP.
Note, however, that the existence of an IP forwarding path does not
guarantee the presence of sufficient bandwidth, let alone an optimal
TE path. Furthermore, in many GMPLS systems, inter-domain IP routing
will not be present. Thus, per-domain path computation may require a
significant number of crankback routing attempts to establish even a
suboptimal path.
Note also that the path computing entities in each domain may have
different computation capabilities, may run different path
computation algorithms, and may apply different sets of constraints
and optimization criteria, etc.
This can result in the end-to-end path being inconsistent and
suboptimal.
Per-domain path computation can suit simply connected domains where
the preferred points of interconnection are known.
2.2. Backward-Recursive PCE-Based Computation
The Backward-Recursive PCE-based Computation (BRPC) [RFC 5441]
procedure involves cooperation and communication between PCEs in
order to compute an optimal end-to-end path across multiple domains.
The sequence of domains to be traversed can be determined either
before or during the path computation. In the case where the
sequence of domains is known, the ingress Path Computation Client
(PCC) sends a path computation request to a PCE responsible for the
ingress domain. This request is forwarded between PCEs, domain-by-
domain, to a PCE responsible for the egress domain. The PCE in the
King & Farrel Informational PAGE 10
RFC 6805 PCE Hierarchy Framework November 2012
egress domain creates a set of optimal paths from all of the domain
entry BNs to the egress LSR. This set is represented as a tree of
potential paths called a Virtual Shortest Path Tree (VSPT), and the
PCE passes it back to the previous PCE on the domain path. As the
VSPT is passed back toward the ingress domain, each PCE computes the
optimal paths from its entry BNs to its exit BNs that connect to the
rest of the tree. It adds these paths to the VSPT and passes the
VSPT on until the PCE for the ingress domain is reached and computes
paths from the ingress LSR to connect to the rest of the tree. The
ingress PCE then selects the optimal end-to-end path from the tree,
and returns the path to the initiating PCC.
BRPC may suit environments where multiple connections exist between
domains and there is no preference for the choice of points of
interconnection. It is best suited to scenarios where the domain
path is known in advance, but it can also be used when the domain
path is not known.
2.2.1. Applicability of BRPC When the Domain Path is Not Known
As described above, BRPC can be used to determine an optimal inter-
domain path when the domain sequence is known. Even when the
sequence of domains is not known, BRPC could be used as follows.
o The PCC sends a request to a PCE for the ingress domain (the
ingress PCE).
o The ingress PCE sends the path computation request direct to a PCE
responsible for the domain containing the destination node (the
egress PCE).
o The egress PCE computes an egress VSPT and passes it to a PCE
responsible for each of the adjacent (potentially upstream)
domains.
o Each PCE in turn constructs a VSPT and passes it on to all of its
neighboring PCEs.
o When the ingress PCE has received a VSPT from each of its
neighboring domains, it is able to select the optimum path.
Clearly, this mechanism (which could be called path computation
flooding) has significant scaling issues. It could be improved by
the application of policy and filtering, but such mechanisms are not
simple and would still leave scaling concerns.
King & Farrel Informational PAGE 11
RFC 6805 PCE Hierarchy Framework November 2012
3. Hierarchical PCE
In the hierarchical PCE architecture, a parent PCE maintains a domain
topology map that contains the child domains (seen as vertices in the
topology) and their interconnections (links in the topology). The
parent PCE has no information about the content of the child domains;
that is, the parent PCE does not know about the resource availability
within the child domains, nor does it know about the availability of
connectivity across each domain because such knowledge would violate
the confidentiality requirement and either would require flooding of
full information to the parent (scaling issue) or would necessitate
some form of aggregation. The parent PCE is aware of the TE
capabilities of the interconnections between child domains as these
interconnections are links in its own topology map.
Note that, in the case that the domains are IGP areas, there is no
link between the domains (the ABRs have a presence in both
neighboring areas). The parent domain may choose to represent this
in its Traffic Engineering Database (TED) as a virtual link that is
unconstrained and has zero cost, but this is entirely an
implementation issue.
Each child domain has at least one PCE capable of computing paths
across the domain. These PCEs are known as child PCEs and have a
relationship with the parent PCE. Each child PCE also knows the
identity of the domains that neighbor its own domain. A child PCE
only knows the topology of the domain that it serves and does not
know the topology of other child domains. Child PCEs are also not
aware of the general domain mesh connectivity (i.e., the domain
topology map) beyond the connectivity to the immediate neighbor
domains of the domain it serves.
The parent PCE builds the domain topology map either from
configuration or from information received from each child PCE. This
tells it how the domains are interconnected including the TE
properties of the domain interconnections. But, the parent PCE does
not know the contents of the child domains. Discovery of the domain
topology and domain interconnections is discussed further in Section
4.3.
When a multi-domain path is needed, the ingress PCE sends a request
to the parent PCE (using the Path Computation Element Protocol, PCEP
[RFC 5440]). The parent PCE selects a set of candidate domain paths
based on the domain topology and the state of the inter-domain links.
It then sends computation requests to the child PCEs responsible for
each of the domains on the candidate domain paths. These requests
may be sequential or parallel depending on implementation details.
King & Farrel Informational PAGE 12
RFC 6805 PCE Hierarchy Framework November 2012
Each child PCE computes a set of candidate path segments across its
domain and sends the results to the parent PCE. The parent PCE uses
this information to select path segments and concatenate them to
derive the optimal end-to-end inter-domain path. The end-to-end path
is then sent to the child PCE that received the initial path request,
and this child PCE passes the path on to the PCC that issued the
original request.
Specific deployment and implementation scenarios are out of scope of
this document. However, the hierarchical PCE architecture described
does support the function of parent PCE and child PCE being
implemented as a common PCE.
4. Hierarchical PCE Procedures
4.1. Objective Functions and Policy
The definition of "optimal" in the context of deriving an optimal
end-to-end path is dependent on the choices that are made during the
path selection. An Objective Function (OF) [RFC 5541], or set of OFs,
specify the intentions of the path computation and so define the
"optimality" in the context of that computation.
An OF specifies the desired outcome of a computation: it does not
describe or demand the algorithm to use, and an implementation may
apply any algorithm or set of algorithms to achieve the result
indicated by the OF. OFs can be included in PCEP computation
requests to satisfy the policies encoded or configured at the PCC,
and a PCE may be subject to policy in determining whether it meets
the OFs included in the computation request, or applies its own OFs.
In inter-domain path computation, the selection of a domain sequence,
the computation of each (per-domain) path fragment, and the
determination of the end-to-end path may each be subject to different
OFs and different policy.
When computing end-to-end paths, OFs may include (see Section 1.3.1):
o Minimum cost path
o Minimum load path
o Maximum residual bandwidth path
o Minimize aggregate bandwidth consumption
o Minimize or cap the number of transit domains
o Disallow domain re-entry
The objective function may be requested by the PCC, the ingress
domain PCE (according to local policy), or applied by the parent PCE
according to inter-domain policy.
King & Farrel Informational PAGE 13
RFC 6805 PCE Hierarchy Framework November 2012
More than one OF (or a composite OF) may be chosen to apply to a
single computation provided they are not contradictory. Composite
OFs may include weightings and preferences for the fulfillment of
pieces of the desired outcome.
4.2. Maintaining Domain Confidentiality
Information about the content of child domains is not shared for
scaling and confidentiality reasons. This means that a parent PCE is
aware of the domain topology and the nature of the connections
between domains but is not aware of the content of the domains.
Similarly, a child PCE cannot know the internal topology of another
child domain. Child PCEs also do not know the general domain mesh
connectivity; this information is only known by the parent PCE.
As described in the earlier sections of this document, PCEs can
exchange path information in order to construct an end-to-end inter-
domain path. Each per-domain path fragment reveals information about
the topology and resource availability within a domain. Some
management domains or ASes will not want to share this information
outside of the domain (even with a trusted parent PCE). In order to
conceal the information, a PCE may replace a path segment with a
path-key [RFC 5520]. This mechanism effectively hides the content of
a segment of a path.
4.3. PCE Discovery
It is a simple matter for each child PCE to be configured with the
address of its parent PCE. Typically, there will only be one or two
parents of any child.
The parent PCE also needs to be aware of the child PCEs for all child
domains that it can see. This information is most likely to be
configured (as part of the administrative definition of each domain).
Discovery of the relationships between parent PCEs and child PCEs
does not form part of the hierarchical PCE architecture. Mechanisms
that rely on advertising or querying PCE locations across domain or
provider boundaries are undesirable for security, scaling,
commercial, and confidentiality reasons.
The parent PCE also needs to know the inter-domain connectivity.
This information could be configured with suitable policy and
commercial rules, or could be learned from the child PCEs as
described in Section 4.4.
King & Farrel Informational PAGE 14
RFC 6805 PCE Hierarchy Framework November 2012
In order for the parent PCE to learn about domain interconnection,
the child PCE will report the identity of its neighbor domains. The
IGP in each neighbor domain can advertise its inter-domain TE link
capabilities [RFC 5316] [RFC 5392]. This information can be collected
by the child PCEs and forwarded to the parent PCE, or the parent PCE
could participate in the IGP in the child domains.
4.4. Traffic Engineering Database for the Parent Domain
The parent PCE maintains a domain topology map of the child domains
and their interconnectivity. Where inter-domain connectivity is
provided by TE links, the capabilities of those links may also be
known to the parent PCE. The parent PCE maintains a TED for the
parent domain in the same way that any PCE does.
The parent domain may just be the collection of child domains and
their interconnectivity, may include details of the inter-domain TE
links, and may contain nodes and links in its own right.
The mechanism for building the parent TED is likely to rely heavily
on administrative configuration and commercial issues because the
network was probably partitioned into domains specifically to address
these issues.
In practice, certain information may be passed from the child domains
to the parent PCE to help build the parent TED. In theory, the
parent PCE could listen to the routing protocols in the child
domains, but this would violate the confidentiality and scaling
principles that may be responsible for the partition of the network
into domains. So, it is much more likely that a suitable solution
will involve specific communication from an entity in the child
domain (such as the child PCE) to convey the necessary information.
As already mentioned, the "necessary information" relates to how the
child domains are inter-connected. The topology and available
resources within the child domain do not need to be communicated to
the parent PCE: doing so would violate the PCE architecture.
Mechanisms for reporting this information are described in the
examples in Section 4.6 in abstract terms as a child PCE "reports its
neighbor domain connectivity to its parent PCE"; the specifics of a
solution are out of scope of this document, but the requirements are
indicated in Section 4.8. See Section 6 for a brief discussion of
BGP-TE.
In models such as ASON (see Section 5.2), it is possible to consider
a separate instance of an IGP running within the parent domain where
the participating protocol speakers are the nodes directly present in
that domain and the PCEs (Routing Controllers) responsible for each
of the child domains.
King & Farrel Informational PAGE 15
RFC 6805 PCE Hierarchy Framework November 2012
4.5. Determination of Destination Domain
The PCC asking for an inter-domain path computation is aware of the
identity of the destination node by definition. If it knows the
egress domain, it can supply this information as part of the path
computation request. However, if it does not know the egress domain,
this information must be known by the child PCE or known/determined
by the parent PCE.
In some specialist topologies the parent PCE could determine the
destination domain based on the destination address, for example,
from configuration. However, this is not appropriate for many multi-
domain addressing scenarios. In IP-based multi-domain networks, the
parent PCE may be able to determine the destination domain by
participating in inter-domain routing. Finally, the parent PCE could
issue specific requests to the child PCEs to discover if they contain
the destination node, but this has scaling implications.
For the purposes of this document, the precise mechanism of the
discovery of the destination domain is left out of scope. Suffice to
say that for each multi-domain path computation some mechanism will
be required to determine the location of the destination.
4.6. Hierarchical PCE Examples
The following example describes the generic hierarchical domain
topology. Figure 1 demonstrates four interconnected domains within a
fifth, parent domain. Each domain contains a single PCE:
o Domain 1 is the ingress domain and child PCE 1 is able to compute
paths within the domain. Its neighbors are Domain 2 and Domain 4.
The domain also contains the source LSR (S) and three egress
boundary nodes (BN11, BN12, and BN13).
o Domain 2 is served by child PCE 2. Its neighbors are Domain 1 and
Domain 3. The domain also contains four boundary nodes (BN21,
BN22, BN23, and BN24).
o Domain 3 is the egress domain and is served by child PCE 3. Its
neighbors are Domain 2 and Domain 4. The domain also contains the
destination LSR (D) and three ingress boundary nodes (BN31, BN32,
and BN33).
o Domain 4 is served by child PCE 4. Its neighbors are Domain 2 and
Domain 3. The domain also contains two boundary nodes (BN41 and
BN42).
King & Farrel Informational PAGE 16
RFC 6805 PCE Hierarchy Framework November 2012
All of these domains are contained within Domain 5, which is served
by the parent PCE (PCE 5).
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| 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 | |
| ---------------- |
| |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Figure 1: Sample Hierarchical Domain Topology
King & Farrel Informational PAGE 17
RFC 6805 PCE Hierarchy Framework November 2012
Figure 2 shows the view of the domain topology as seen by the parent
PCE (PCE 5). This view is an abstracted topology; PCE 5 is aware of
domain connectivity but not of the internal topology within each
domain.
----------------------------
| Domain 5 |
| ---- |
| |PCE5| |
| ---- |
| |
| ---- ---- ---- |
| | |---| |---| | |
| | D1 | | D2 | | D3 | |
| | |---| |---| | |
| ---- ---- ---- |
| \ ---- / |
| \ | | / |
| ----| D4 |---- |
| | | |
| ---- |
| |
----------------------------
Figure 2: Abstract Domain Topology as Seen by the Parent PCE
4.6.1. Hierarchical PCE Initial Information Exchange
Based on the topology in Figure 1, the following is an illustration
of the initial hierarchical PCE information exchange.
1. Child PCE 1, the PCE responsible for Domain 1, is configured with
the location of its parent PCE (PCE 5).
2. Child PCE 1 establishes contact with its parent PCE. The parent
applies policy to ensure that communication with PCE 1 is
allowed.
3. Child PCE 1 listens to the IGP in its domain and learns its
inter-domain connectivity. That is, it learns about the links
BN11-BN21, BN12-BN22, and BN13-BN41.
4. Child PCE 1 reports its neighbor domain connectivity to its
parent PCE.
5. Child PCE 1 reports any change in the resource availability on
its inter-domain links to its parent PCE.
King & Farrel Informational PAGE 18
RFC 6805 PCE Hierarchy Framework November 2012
Each child PCE performs steps 1 through 5 so that the parent PCE can
create a domain topology view as shown in Figure 2.
4.6.2. Hierarchical PCE End-to-End Path Computation Procedure
The procedure below is an example of a source PCC requesting an end-
to-end path in a multi-domain environment. The topology is
represented in Figure 1. It is assumed that the each child PCE has
connected to its parent PCE and exchanged the initial information
required for the parent PCE to create its domain topology view as
described in Section 4.6.1.
1. The source PCC (the ingress LSR in our example) sends a request
to the PCE responsible for its domain (PCE 1) for a path to the
destination LSR (D).
2. PCE 1 determines the destination is not in domain 1.
3. PCE 1 sends a computation request to its parent PCE (PCE 5).
4. The parent PCE determines that the destination is in Domain 3.
(See Section 4.5.)
5. PCE 5 determines the likely domain paths according to the domain
interconnectivity and TE capabilities between the domains. For
example, assuming that the link BN12-BN22 is not suitable for the
requested path, three domain paths are determined:
S-BN11-BN21-D2-BN23-BN31-D
S-BN11-BN21-D2-BN24-BN32-D
S-BN13-BN41-D4-BN42-BN33-D
6. PCE 5 sends edge-to-edge path computation requests to PCE 2,
which is responsible for Domain 2 (i.e., BN21-to-BN23 and
BN21-to-BN24), and to PCE 4 for Domain 4 (i.e., BN41-to-BN42).
7. PCE 5 sends source-to-edge path computation requests to PCE 1,
which is responsible for Domain 1 (i.e., S-to-BN11 and
S-to-BN13).
8. PCE 5 sends edge-to-egress path computation requests to PCE 3,
which is responsible for Domain 3 (i.e., BN31-to-D, BN32-to-D,
and BN33-to-D).
9. PCE 5 correlates all the computation responses from each child
PCE, adds in the information about the inter-domain links, and
applies any requested and locally configured policies.
King & Farrel Informational PAGE 19
RFC 6805 PCE Hierarchy Framework November 2012
10. PCE 5 then selects the optimal end-to-end multi-domain path that
meets the policies and objective functions, and supplies the
resulting path to PCE 1.
11. PCE 1 forwards the path to the PCC (the ingress LSR).
Note that there is no requirement for steps 6, 7, and 8 to be carried
out in parallel or in series. Indeed, they could be overlapped with
step 5. This is an implementation issue.
4.7. Hierarchical PCE Error Handling
In the event that a child PCE in a domain cannot find a suitable path
to the egress, the child PCE should return the relevant error to
notify the parent PCE. Depending on the error response, the parent
PCE selects one of the following actions:
o Cancel the request and send the relevant response back to the
initial child PCE that requested an end-to-end path;
o Relax some of the constraints associated with the initial path
request; or
o Select another candidate domain and send the path request to the
child PCE responsible for the domain.
If the parent PCE does not receive a response from a child PCE within
an allotted time period, the parent PCE can elect to:
o Cancel the request and send the relevant response back to the
initial child PCE that requested an end-to-end path; o Send the path
request to another child PCE in the same domain, if a secondary child
PCE exists; o Select another candidate domain and send the path
request to the child PCE responsible for that domain.
The parent PCE may also want to prune any unresponsive child PCE
domain paths from the candidate set.
4.8. Requirements for Hierarchical PCEP Protocol Extensions
This section lists the high-level requirements for extensions to the
PCEP to support the hierarchical PCE model. It is provided to offer
guidance to PCEP protocol developers in designing a solution suitable
for use in a hierarchical PCE framework.
King & Farrel Informational PAGE 20
RFC 6805 PCE Hierarchy Framework November 2012
4.8.1. PCEP Request Qualifiers
Path Computation Request (PCReq) messages are used by a PCC or a PCE
to make a computation request or enquiry to a PCE. The requests are
qualified so that the PCE knows what type of action is required.
Support of the hierarchical PCE architecture will introduce two new
qualifications as follows:
o It must be possible for a child PCE to indicate that the response
it receives from the parent PCE should consist of a domain
sequence only (i.e., not a fully specified end-to-end path). This
allows the child PCE to initiate Per-Domain or BRPC.
o A parent PCE may need to be able to ask a child PCE whether a
particular node address (the destination of an end-to-end path) is
present in the domain that the child PCE serves.
In PCEP, such request qualifications are carried as bit flags in the
RP object (Request Parameter object) within the PCReq message.
4.8.2. Indication of Hierarchical PCE Capability
Although parent/child PCE relationships are likely configured, it
will assist network operations if the parent PCE is able to indicate
to the child that it really is capable of acting as a parent PCE.
This will help to trap misconfigurations.
In PCEP, such capabilities are carried in the Open Object within the
Open message.
4.8.3. Intention to Utilize Parent PCE Capabilities
A PCE that is capable of acting as a parent PCE might not be
configured or willing to act as the parent for a specific child PCE.
This fact could be determined when the child sends a PCReq that
requires parental activity (such as querying other child PCEs), and
could result in a negative response in a PCEP Error (PCErr) message.
However, the expense of a poorly targeted PCReq can be avoided if the
child PCE indicates that it might wish to use the parent-capable PCE
as a parent (for example, on the Open message), and if the parent-
capable PCE determines at that time whether it is willing to act as a
parent to this child.
King & Farrel Informational PAGE 21
RFC 6805 PCE Hierarchy Framework November 2012
4.8.4. Communication of Domain Connectivity Information
Section 4.4 describes how the parent PCE needs a parent TED and
indicates that the information might be supplied from the child PCEs
in each domain. This requires a mechanism whereby information about
inter-domain links can be supplied by a child PCE to a parent PCE,
for example, on a PCEP Notify (PCNtf) message.
The information that would be exchanged includes:
o Identifier of advertising child PCE
o Identifier of PCE's domain
o Identifier of the link
o TE properties of the link (metrics, bandwidth)
o Other properties of the link (technology-specific)
o Identifier of link endpoints
o Identifier of adjacent domain
It may be desirable for this information to be periodically updated,
for example, when available bandwidth changes. In this case, the
parent PCE might be given the ability to configure thresholds in the
child PCE to prevent flapping of information.
4.8.5. Domain Identifiers
Domain identifiers are already present in PCEP to allow a PCE to
indicate which domains it serves, and to allow the representation of
domains as abstract nodes in paths. The wider use of domains in the
context of this work on hierarchical PCE will require that domains
can be identified in more places within objects in PCEP messages.
This should pose no problems.
However, more attention may need to be applied to the precision of
domain identifier definitions to ensure that it is always possible to
unambiguously identify a domain from its identifier. This work will
be necessary in configuration, and also in protocol specifications
(for example, an OSPF area identifier is sufficient within an
Autonomous System, but becomes ambiguous in a path that crosses
multiple Autonomous Systems).
King & Farrel Informational PAGE 22
RFC 6805 PCE Hierarchy Framework November 2012
5. Hierarchical PCE Applicability
As per [RFC 4655], PCE can inherently support inter-domain path
computation for any definition of a domain as set out in Section 1.2
of this document.
Hierarchical PCE can be applied to inter-domain environments,
including autonomous Systems and IGP areas. The hierarchical PCE
procedures make no distinction between, autonomous Systems and IGP
area applications, although it should be noted that the TED
maintained by a parent PCE must be able to support the concept of
child domains connected by inter-domain links or directly connected
at boundary nodes (see Section 3).
This section sets out the applicability of hierarchical PCE to three
environments:
o MPLS traffic engineering across multiple Autonomous Systems
o MPLS traffic engineering across multiple IGP areas
o GMPLS traffic engineering in the ASON architecture
5.1. Autonomous Systems and Areas
Networks are comprised of domains. A domain can be considered to be
a collection of network elements within an AS or area that has a
common sphere of address management or path computational
responsibility.
As networks increase in size and complexity it may be required to
introduce scaling methods to reduce the amount information flooded
within the network and make the network more manageable. An IGP
hierarchy is designed to improve IGP scalability by dividing the IGP
domain into areas and limiting the flooding scope of topology
information to within area boundaries. This restricts a router's
visibility to information about links and other routers within the
single area. If a router needs to compute a route to destination
located in another area, a method is required to compute a path
across the area boundary.
When an LSR within an AS or area needs to compute a path across an
area or AS boundary, it must also use an inter-AS computation
technique. Hierarchical PCE is equally applicable to computing
inter-area and inter-AS MPLS and GMPLS paths across domain
boundaries.
King & Farrel Informational PAGE 23
RFC 6805 PCE Hierarchy Framework November 2012
5.2. ASON Architecture
The International Telecommunication Union (ITU) defines the ASON
architecture in [G-8080]. [G-7715] defines the routing architecture
for ASON and introduces a hierarchical architecture. In this
architecture, the Routing Areas (RAs) have a hierarchical
relationship between different routing levels, which means a parent
(or higher-level) RA can contain multiple child RAs. The
interconnectivity of the lower RAs is visible to the higher-level RA.
Note that the RA hierarchy can be recursive.
In the ASON framework, a path computation request is termed a Route
Query. This query is executed before signaling is used to establish
an LSP termed a Switched Connection (SC) or a Soft Permanent
Connection (SPC). [G-7715-2] defines the requirements and
architecture for the functions performed by Routing Controllers (RCs)
during the operation of remote route queries -- an RC is synonymous
with a PCE. For an end-to-end connection, the route may be computed
by a single RC or multiple RCs in a collaborative manner (i.e., RC
federations). In the case of RC federations, [G-7715-2] describes
three styles during remote route query operation:
o step-by-step remote path computation
o hierarchical remote path computation
o a combination of the above.
In a hierarchical ASON routing environment, a child RC may
communicate with its parent RC (at the next higher level of the ASON
routing hierarchy) to request the computation of an end-to-end path
across several RAs. It does this using a route query message (known
as the abstract message RI_QUERY). The corresponding parent RC may
communicate with other child RCs that belong to other child RAs at
the next lower hierarchical level. Thus, a parent RC can act as
either a Route Query Requester or Route Query Responder.
It can be seen that the hierarchical PCE architecture fits the
hierarchical ASON routing architecture well. It can be used to
provide paths across subnetworks and to determine end-to-end paths in
networks constructed from multiple subnetworks or RAs.
When hierarchical PCE is applied to implement hierarchical remote
path computation in [G-7715-2], it is very important for operators to
understand the different terminology and implicit consistency between
hierarchical PCE and [G-7715-2].
King & Farrel Informational PAGE 24
RFC 6805 PCE Hierarchy Framework November 2012
5.2.1. Implicit Consistency between Hierarchical PCE and G.7715.2
This section highlights the correspondence between features of the
hierarchical PCE architecture and the ASON routing architecture.
(1) RC (Routing Controller) and PCE (Path Computation Element)
[G-8080] describes the Routing Controller component as an
abstract entity, which is responsible for responding to requests
for path (route) information and topology information. It can be
implemented as a single entity, or as a distributed set of
entities that make up a cooperative federation.
[RFC 4655] describes PCE (Path Computation Element) is 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.
Therefore, in the ASON architecture, a PCE can be regarded as a
realization of the RC.
(2) Route Query Requester/Route Query Responder and PCC/PCE
[G-7715-2] describes the Route Query Requester as a Connection
Controller or Routing Controller that sends a route query message
to a Routing Controller requesting one or more paths that satisfy
a set of routing constraints. The Route Query Responder is a
Routing Controller that performs path computation upon receipt of
a route query message from a Route Query Requester, sending a
response back at the end of the path computation.
In the context of ASON, a Signaling Controller initiates and
processes signaling messages and is closely coupled to a
Signaling Protocol Speaker. A Routing Controller makes routing
decisions and is usually coupled to configuration entities and/or
a Routing Protocol Speaker.
It can be seen that a PCC corresponds to a Route Query Requester,
and a PCE corresponds to a Route Query Responder. A PCE/RC can
also act as a Route Query Requester sending requests to another
Route Query Responder.
The Path Computation Request (PCReq) and Path Computation Reply
(PCRep) messages between PCC and PCE correspond to the RI_QUERY
and RI_UPDATE messages in [G-7715-2].
King & Farrel Informational PAGE 25
RFC 6805 PCE Hierarchy Framework November 2012
(3) Routing Area Hierarchy and Hierarchical Domain
The ASON routing hierarchy model is shown in Figure 6 of [G-7715]
through an example that illustrates routing area levels. If the
hierarchical remote path computation mechanism of [G-7715-2] is
applied in this scenario, each routing area should have at least
one RC to perform the route query function, and the child RCs
within the area should have a parent RC.
According to [G-8080], the parent RC has visibility of the
structure of the lower level, so it knows the interconnectivity
of the RAs in the lower level. Each child RC can compute edge-
to-edge paths across its own child RA.
Thus, an RA corresponds to a domain in the PCE architecture, and
the hierarchical relationship between RAs corresponds to the
hierarchical relationship between domains in the hierarchical PCE
architecture. Furthermore, a parent PCE in a parent domain can
be regarded as parent RC in a higher routing level, and a child
PCE in a child domain can be regarded as child RC in a lower
routing level.
5.2.2. Benefits of Hierarchical PCEs in ASON
RCs in an ASON environment can use the hierarchical PCE model to
fully match the ASON hierarchical routing model, so the hierarchical
PCE mechanisms can be applied to fully satisfy the architecture and
requirements of [G-7715-2] without any changes. If the hierarchical
PCE mechanism is applied in ASON, it can be used to determine end-to-
end optimized paths across subnetworks and RAs before initiating
signaling to create the connection. It can also improve the
efficiency of connection setup to avoid crankback.
6. A Note on BGP-TE
The concept of exchange of TE information between Autonomous Systems
(ASes) is discussed in [BGP-TE]. The information exchanged in this
way could be the full TE information from the AS, an aggregation of
that information, or a representation of the potential connectivity
across the AS. Furthermore, that information could be updated
frequently (for example, for every new LSP that is set up across the
AS) or only at threshold-crossing events.
There are a number of discussion points associated with the use of
[BGP-TE] concerning the volume of information, the rate of churn of
information, the confidentiality of information, the accuracy of
aggregated or potential-connectivity information, and the processing
required to generate aggregated information. The PCE architecture
King & Farrel Informational PAGE 26
RFC 6805 PCE Hierarchy Framework November 2012
and the architecture enabled by [BGP-TE] make different assumptions
about the operational objectives of the networks, and this document
does not attempt to make one of the approaches "right" and the other
"wrong". Instead, this work assumes that a decision has been made to
utilize the PCE architecture.
6.1. Use of BGP for TED Synchronization
Indeed, [BGP-TE] may have some uses within the PCE model. For
example, [BGP-TE] could be used as a "northbound" TE advertisement
such that a PCE does not need to listen to an IGP in its domain, but
has its TED populated by messages received (for example) from a Route
Reflector. Furthermore, the inter-domain connectivity and
capabilities that are required information for a parent PCE could be
obtained as a filtered subset of the information available in
[BGP-TE]. This scenario is discussed further in [PCE-AREA-AS].
7. Management Considerations
General PCE management considerations are discussed in [RFC 4655]. In
the case of the hierarchical PCE architecture, there are additional
management considerations.
The administrative entity responsible for the management of the
parent PCEs must be determined. In the case of multi-domains (e.g.,
IGP areas or multiple ASes) within a single service provider network,
the management responsibility for the parent PCE would most likely be
handled by the service provider. In the case of multiple ASes within
different service provider networks, it may be necessary for a third
party to manage the parent PCEs according to commercial and policy
agreements from each of the participating service providers.
7.1. Control of Function and Policy
7.1.1. Child PCE
Support of the hierarchical procedure will be controlled by the
management organization responsible for each child PCE. A child PCE
must be configured with the address of its parent PCE in order for it
to interact with its parent PCE. The child PCE must also be
authorized to peer with the parent PCE.
7.1.2. Parent PCE
The parent PCE must only accept path computation requests from
authorized child PCEs. If a parent PCE receives requests from an
unauthorized child PCE, the request should be dropped.
King & Farrel Informational PAGE 27
RFC 6805 PCE Hierarchy Framework November 2012
This means that a parent PCE must be configured with the identities
and security credentials of all of its child PCEs, or there must be
some form of shared secret that allows an unknown child PCE to be
authorized by the parent PCE.
7.1.3. Policy Control
It may be necessary to maintain a policy module on the parent PCE
[RFC 5394]. This would allow the parent PCE to apply commercially
relevant constraints such as SLAs, security, peering preferences, and
monetary costs.
It may also be necessary for the parent PCE to limit end-to-end path
selection by including or excluding specific domains based on
commercial relationships, security implications, and reliability.
7.2. Information and Data Models
A PCEP MIB module is defined in [PCEP-MIB] that describes managed
objects for modeling of PCEP communication. An additional PCEP MIB
will be required to report parent PCE and child PCE information,
including:
o parent PCE configuration and status,
o child PCE configuration and information,
o notifications to indicate session changes between parent PCEs and
child PCEs, and
o notification of parent PCE TED updates and changes.
7.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring
The hierarchical procedure requires interaction with multiple PCEs.
Once a child PCE requests an end-to-end path, a sequence of events
occurs that requires interaction between the parent PCE and each
child PCE. If a child PCE is not operational, and an alternate
transit domain is not available, then a failure must be reported.
7.4. Verifying Correct Operation
Verifying the correct operation of a parent PCE can be performed by
monitoring a set of parameters. The parent PCE implementation should
provide the following parameters monitored by the parent PCE:
King & Farrel Informational PAGE 28
RFC 6805 PCE Hierarchy Framework November 2012
o number of child PCE requests,
o number of successful hierarchical PCE procedures completions on a
per-PCE-peer basis,
o number of hierarchical PCE procedure completion failures on a per-
PCE-peer basis, and
o number of hierarchical PCE procedure requests from unauthorized
child PCEs.
7.5. Impact on Network Operation
The hierarchical PCE procedure is a multiple-PCE path computation
scheme. Subsequent requests to and from the child and parent PCEs do
not differ from other path computation requests and should not have
any significant impact on network operations.
8. Security Considerations
The hierarchical PCE procedure relies on PCEP and inherits the
security requirements defined in [RFC 5440]. As noted in Section 7,
there is a security relationship between child and parent PCEs. This
relationship, like any PCEP relationship, assumes pre-configuration
of identities, authority, and keys, or can operate through any key
distribution mechanism outside the scope of PCEP. As PCEP operates
over TCP, it may make use of any TCP security mechanism.
The hierarchical PCE architecture makes use of PCE policy [RFC 5394]
and the security aspects of the PCE Communication Protocol documented
in [RFC 5440]. It is expected that the parent PCE will require all
child PCEs to use full security when communicating with the parent
and that security will be maintained by not supporting the discovery
by a parent of child PCEs.
PCE operation also relies on information used to build the TED.
Attacks on a PCE system may be achieved by falsifying or impeding
this flow of information. The child PCE TEDs are constructed as
described in [RFC 4655] and are unchanged in this document: if the PCE
listens to the IGP for this information, then normal IGP security
measures may be applied, and it should be noted that an IGP routing
system is generally assumed to be a trusted domain such that router
subversion is not a risk. The parent PCE TED is constructed as
described in this document and may involve:
King & Farrel Informational PAGE 29
RFC 6805 PCE Hierarchy Framework November 2012
- multiple parent-child relationships using PCEP (as already
described)
- the parent PCE listening to child domain IGPs (with the same
security features as a child PCE listening to its IGP)
- an external mechanism (such as [BGP-TE]), which will need to be
authorized and secured.
Any multi-domain operation necessarily involves the exchange of
information across domain boundaries. This is bound to represent a
significant security and confidentiality risk especially when the
child domains are controlled by different commercial concerns. PCEP
allows individual PCEs to maintain confidentiality of their domain
path information using path-keys [RFC 5520], and the hierarchical PCE
architecture is specifically designed to enable as much isolation of
domain topology and capabilities information as is possible.
For further considerations of the security issues related to inter-AS
path computation, see [RFC 5376].
9. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank David Amzallag, Oscar Gonzalez de
Dios, Franz Rambach, Ramon Casellas, Olivier Dugeon, Filippo Cugini,
Dhruv Dhody, and Julien Meuric for their comments and suggestions.
10. References
10.1. Normative References
[RFC 4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J.-P., and J. Ash, "A Path
Computation Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC
4655, August 2006.
[RFC 5152] Vasseur, JP., Ed., Ayyangar, A., Ed., and R. Zhang, "A
Per-Domain Path Computation Method for Establishing
Inter-Domain Traffic Engineering (TE) Label Switched
Paths (LSPs)", RFC 5152, February 2008.
[RFC 5394] Bryskin, I., Papadimitriou, D., Berger, L., and J. Ash,
"Policy-Enabled Path Computation Framework", RFC 5394,
December 2008.
[RFC 5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed., and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path
Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol
(PCEP)", RFC 5440, March 2009.
King & Farrel Informational PAGE 30
RFC 6805 PCE Hierarchy Framework November 2012
[RFC 5441] 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, April 2009.
[RFC 5520] Bradford, R., Ed., Vasseur, JP., and A. Farrel,
"Preserving Topology Confidentiality in Inter-Domain
Path Computation Using a Path-Key-Based Mechanism", RFC
5520, April 2009.
10.2. Informative References
[RFC 4105] Le Roux, J.-L., Ed., Vasseur, J.-P., Ed., and J. Boyle,
Ed., "Requirements for Inter-Area MPLS Traffic
Engineering", RFC 4105, June 2005.
[RFC 4216] Zhang, R., Ed., and J.-P. Vasseur, Ed., "MPLS Inter-
Autonomous System (AS) Traffic Engineering (TE)
Requirements", RFC 4216, November 2005.
[RFC 4726] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J.-P., and A. Ayyangar, "A
Framework for Inter-Domain Multiprotocol Label
Switching Traffic Engineering", RFC 4726, November
2006.
[RFC 5316] Chen, M., Zhang, R., and X. Duan, "ISIS Extensions in
Support of Inter-Autonomous System (AS) MPLS and GMPLS
Traffic Engineering", RFC 5316, December 2008.
[RFC 5376] Bitar, N., Zhang, R., and K. Kumaki, "Inter-AS
Requirements for the Path Computation Element
Communication Protocol (PCECP)", RFC 5376, November
2008.
[RFC 5392] Chen, M., Zhang, R., and X. Duan, "OSPF Extensions in
Support of Inter-Autonomous System (AS) MPLS and GMPLS
Traffic Engineering", RFC 5392, January 2009.
[RFC 5541] Le Roux, JL., Vasseur, JP., and Y. Lee, "Encoding of
Objective Functions in the Path Computation Element
Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5541, June 2009.
[G-8080] ITU-T Recommendation G.8080/Y.1304, Architecture for
the automatically switched optical network (ASON).
King & Farrel Informational PAGE 31
RFC 6805 PCE Hierarchy Framework November 2012
[G-7715] ITU-T Recommendation G.7715 (2002), Architecture and
Requirements for the Automatically Switched Optical
Network (ASON).
[G-7715-2] ITU-T Recommendation G.7715.2 (2007), ASON routing
architecture and requirements for remote route query.
[BGP-TE] Gredler, H., Medved, J., Previdi, S., Farrel, A., and
S. Ray, "North-Bound Distribution of Link-State and TE
Information using BGP", Work in Progress, October 2012.
[PCE-AREA-AS] King, D., Meuric, J., Dugeon, O., Zhao, Q., Gonzalez de
Dios, O., and F. Chico, "Applicability of the Path
Computation Element to Inter-Area and Inter-AS MPLS and
GMPLS Traffic Engineering", Work in Progress, January
2012.
[PCEP-MIB] Koushik, A., Emile, S., Zhao, Q., King, D., and J.
Hardwick, "PCE communication protocol (PCEP) Management
Information Base", Work in Progress, July 2012.
11. Contributors
Quintin Zhao
Huawei Technology
125 Nagog Technology Park
Acton, MA 01719
US
EMail: qzhao@huawei.com
Fatai Zhang
Huawei Technologies
F3-5-B R&D Center, Huawei Base
Bantian, Longgang District
Shenzhen 518129
P.R. China
EMail: zhangfatai@huawei.com
King & Farrel Informational PAGE 32
RFC 6805 PCE Hierarchy Framework November 2012
Authors' Addresses
Daniel King
Old Dog Consulting
UK
EMail: daniel@olddog.co.uk
Adrian Farrel
Old Dog Consulting
UK
EMail: adrian@olddog.co.uk
King & Farrel Informational PAGE 33
RFC TOTAL SIZE: 77669 bytes
PUBLICATION DATE: Wednesday, November 21st, 2012
LEGAL RIGHTS: The IETF Trust (see BCP 78)
|
