|
|
|
|
|
|
IETF RFC 7025
Last modified on Wednesday, September 18th, 2013
 Permanent link to RFC 7025
 Search GitHub Wiki for RFC 7025
 Show other RFCs mentioning RFC 7025
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) T. Otani
Request for Comments: 7025 K. Ogaki
Category: Informational KDDI
ISSN: 2070-1721 D. Caviglia
Ericsson
F. Zhang
Huawei Technologies
C. Margaria
Coriant R&D GmbH
September 2013
Requirements for GMPLS Applications of PCE
 Abstract
The initial effort of the PCE (Path Computation Element) WG focused
mainly on MPLS. As a next step, this document describes functional
requirements for GMPLS applications of PCE.
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.
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 7025.
Otani, et al. Informational PAGE 1 
RFC 7025 Reqs for GMPLS Apps of PCE September 2013
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2013 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. GMPLS Applications of PCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Path Computation in GMPLS Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. Unnumbered Interface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.3. Asymmetric Bandwidth Path Computation . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Requirements for GMPLS Applications of PCE . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1. Requirements on Path Computation Request . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2. Requirements on Path Computation Reply . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.3. GMPLS PCE Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5. Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1. Introduction
The initial effort of the PCE (Path Computation Element) WG focused
mainly on solving the path computation problem within a domain or
over different domains in MPLS networks. As with MPLS, service
providers (SPs) have also come up with requirements for path
computation in GMPLS-controlled networks [RFC 3945], such as those
based on Wavelength Division Multiplexing (WDM), Time Division
Multiplexing (TDM), or Ethernet.
[RFC 4655] and [RFC 4657] discuss the framework and requirements for
PCE on both packet MPLS networks and GMPLS-controlled networks. This
document complements those RFCs by providing considerations of GMPLS
applications in the intradomain and interdomain networking
environments and indicating a set of requirements for the extended
definition of PCE-related protocols.
Otani, et al. Informational PAGE 2
RFC 7025 Reqs for GMPLS Apps of PCE September 2013
Note that the requirements for interlayer and inter-area traffic
engineering (TE) described in [RFC 6457] and [RFC 4927] are outside of
the scope of this document.
Constrained Shortest Path First (CSPF) computation within a domain or
over domains for signaling GMPLS Label Switched Paths (LSPs) is
usually more stringent than that of MPLS TE LSPs [RFC 4216], because
the additional constraints, e.g., interface switching capability,
link encoding, link protection capability, Shared Risk Link Group
(SRLG) [RFC 4202], and so forth, need to be considered to establish
GMPLS LSPs. The GMPLS signaling protocol [RFC 3473] is designed
taking into account bidirectionality, switching type, encoding type,
and protection attributes of the TE links spanned by the path, as
well as LSP encoding and switching type of the endpoints,
appropriately.
This document provides requirements for GMPLS applications of PCE in
support of GMPLS path computation, included are requirements for both
intradomain and interdomain environments.
2. GMPLS Applications of PCE
2.1. Path Computation in GMPLS Networks
Figure 1 depicts a model GMPLS network, consisting of an ingress
link, a transit link, as well as an egress link. We will use this
model to investigate consistent guidelines for GMPLS path
computation. Each link at each interface has its own switching
capability, encoding type, and bandwidth.
Ingress Transit Egress
+-----+ link1-2 +-----+ link2-3 +-----+ link3-4 +-----+
|Node1|------------>|Node2|------------>|Node3|------------>|Node4|
| |<------------| |<------------| |<------------| |
+-----+ link2-1 +-----+ link3-2 +-----+ link4-3 +-----+
Figure 1: Path Computation in GMPLS Networks
For the simplicity in consideration, the following basic assumptions
are made when the LSP is created.
(1) Switching capabilities of outgoing links from the ingress and
egress nodes (link1-2 and link4-3 in Figure 1) are consistent
with each other.
(2) Switching capabilities of all transit links, including incoming
links to the ingress and egress nodes (link2-1 and link3-4) are
consistent with switching type of an LSP to be created.
Otani, et al. Informational PAGE 3
RFC 7025 Reqs for GMPLS Apps of PCE September 2013
(3) Encoding types of all transit links are consistent with the
encoding type of an LSP to be created.
GMPLS-controlled networks (e.g., GMPLS-based TDM networks) are
usually responsible for transmitting data for the client layer.
These GMPLS-controlled networks can provide different types of
connections for customer services based on different service
bandwidth requests.
The applications and the corresponding additional requirements for
applying PCE to GMPLS-based TDM networks are described in this
section. In order to simplify the description, this document only
discusses the scenario in Synchronous Digital Hierarchy (SDH)
networks as an example (see Figure 2). The scenarios in Synchronous
Optical Network (SONET) or Optical Transport Network (OTN) are
similar.
N1 N2
+-----+ +------+ +------+
| |-------| |--------------| | +-------+
+-----+ | |---| | | | |
A1 +------+ | +------+ | |
| | | +-------+
| | | PCE
| | |
| +------+ |
| | | |
| | |-----| |
| +------+ | |
| N5 | |
| | |
+------+ +------+
| | | | +-----+
| |--------------| |--------| |
+------+ +------+ +-----+
N3 N4 A2
Figure 2: A Simple TDM (SDH) Network
Figure 2 shows a simple TDM (SDH) network topology, where N1, N2, N3,
N4, and N5 are all SDH switches; A1 and A2 are client devices (e.g.,
Ethernet switches). Assume that one Ethernet service with 100 Mbit/s
bandwidth is required from A1 to A2 over this network. The client
Ethernet service could be provided by a Virtual Container 4 (VC-4)
container from N1 to N4; it could also be provided by three
concatenated VC-3s (contiguous or virtual concatenation) from N1 to
N4.
Otani, et al. Informational PAGE 4
RFC 7025 Reqs for GMPLS Apps of PCE September 2013
In this scenario, when the ingress node (e.g., N1) receives a client
service transmitting request, the type of containers (one VC-4 or
three concatenated VC-3s) could be determined by the PCC (Path
Computation Client), e.g., N1 or Network Management System (NMS).
However, it could also be determined automatically by the PCE based
on policy [RFC 5394]. If it is determined by the PCC, then the PCC
should be capable of specifying the ingress node and egress node,
signal type, the type of the concatenation, and the number of the
concatenation in a PCReq (Path Computation Request) message. The PCE
should consider those parameters during path computation. The route
information (co-routing or diverse routing) should be specified in a
PCRep (Path Computation Reply) message if path computation is
performed successfully.
As described above, the PCC should be capable of specifying TE
attributes defined in the next section, and the PCE should compute a
path accordingly.
Where a GMPLS network consists of interdomain (e.g., inter-AS or
inter-area) GMPLS-controlled networks, requirements on the path
computation follow [RFC 5376] and [RFC 4726].
2.2. Unnumbered Interface
GMPLS supports unnumbered interface IDs as defined in [RFC 3477]; this
means that the endpoints of the path may be unnumbered. It should
also be possible to request a path consisting of the mixture of
numbered links and unnumbered links, or a P2MP (Point-to-Multipoint)
path with different types of endpoints. Therefore, the PCC should be
capable of indicating the unnumbered interface ID of the endpoints in
the PCReq message.
2.3. Asymmetric Bandwidth Path Computation
Per [RFC 6387], GMPLS signaling can be used for setting up an
asymmetric bandwidth bidirectional LSP. If a PCE is responsible for
path computation, it should be capable of computing a path for the
bidirectional LSP with asymmetric bandwidth. This means that the PCC
should be able to indicate the asymmetric bandwidth requirements in
forward and reverse directions in the PCReq message.
Otani, et al. Informational PAGE 5
RFC 7025 Reqs for GMPLS Apps of PCE September 2013
3. Requirements for GMPLS Applications of PCE
3.1. Requirements on Path Computation Request
As for path computation in GMPLS-controlled networks as discussed in
Section 2, the PCE should appropriately consider the GMPLS TE
attributes listed below once a PCC or another PCE requests a path
computation. The path calculation request message from the PCC or
the PCE must contain the information specifying appropriate
attributes. According to [RFC 5440], [PCE-WSON-REQ], and RSVP
procedures such as explicit label control (ELC), the additional
attributes introduced are as follows:
(1) Switching capability/type: as defined in [RFC 3471], [RFC 4203],
and all current and future values.
(2) Encoding type: as defined in [RFC 3471], [RFC 4203], and all
current and future values.
(3) Signal type: as defined in [RFC 4606] and all current and future
values.
(4) Concatenation type: In SDH/SONET and OTN, two kinds of
concatenation modes are defined: contiguous concatenation,
which requires co-routing for each member signal and that all
the interfaces along the path support this capability, and
virtual concatenation, which allows diverse routing for member
signals and requires that only the ingress and egress
interfaces support this capability. Note that for the virtual
concatenation, it may also specify co-routing or diverse
routing. See [RFC 4606] and [RFC 4328] about concatenation
information.
(5) Concatenation number: Indicates the number of signals that are
requested to be contiguously or virtually concatenated. Also
see [RFC 4606] and [RFC 4328].
(6) Technology-specific label(s): as defined in [RFC 4606],
[RFC 6060], [RFC 6002], or [RFC 6205].
(7) End-to-End (E2E) path protection type: as defined in [RFC 4872],
e.g., 1+1 protection, 1:1 protection, (pre-planned) rerouting,
etc.
(8) Administrative group: as defined in [RFC 3630].
(9) Link protection type: as defined in [RFC 4203].
Otani, et al. Informational PAGE 6
RFC 7025 Reqs for GMPLS Apps of PCE September 2013
(10) Support for unnumbered interfaces: as defined in [RFC 3477].
(11) Support for asymmetric bandwidth requests: as defined in
[RFC 6387].
(12) Support for explicit label control during the path computation.
(13) Support of label restrictions in the requests/responses,
similar to RSVP-TE ERO (Explicit Route Object) and XRO (Exclude
Route Object), as defined in [RFC 3473] and [RFC 4874].
3.2. Requirements on Path Computation Reply
As described above, a PCE should compute the path that satisfies the
constraints specified in the PCReq message. Then, the PCE should
send a PCRep message, including the computation result, to the PCC.
For a Path Computation Reply message (PCRep) in GMPLS networks, there
are some additional requirements. The PCEP (PCE communication
protocol) PCRep message must be extended to meet the following
requirements.
(1) Path computation with concatenation
In the case of path computation involving concatenation, when a
PCE receives the PCReq message specifying the concatenation
constraints described in Section 3.1, the PCE should compute a
path accordingly.
For path computation involving contiguous concatenation, a
single route is required, and all the interfaces along the route
should support contiguous concatenation capability. Therefore,
the PCE should compute a path based on the contiguous
concatenation capability of each interface and only one ERO that
should carry the route information for the response.
For path computation involving virtual concatenation, only the
ingress/egress interfaces need to support virtual concatenation
capability, and there may be diverse routes for the different
member signals. Therefore, multiple EROs may be needed for the
response. Each ERO may represent the route of one or multiple
member signals. When one ERO represents multiple member
signals, the number must be specified.
Otani, et al. Informational PAGE 7
RFC 7025 Reqs for GMPLS Apps of PCE September 2013
(2) Label constraint
In the case that a PCC does not specify the exact label(s) when
requesting a label-restricted path and the PCE is capable of
performing the route computation and label assignment
computation procedure, the PCE needs to be able to specify the
label of the path in a PCRep message.
Wavelength restriction is a typical case of label restriction.
More generally, label switching and selection constraints may
apply in GMPLS-controlled networks, and a PCC may request a PCE
to take label constraint into account and return an ERO
containing the label or set of labels that fulfill the PCC
request.
(3) Roles of the routes
When a PCC specifies the protection type of an LSP, the PCE
should compute the working route and the corresponding
protection route(s). Therefore, the PCRep should allow to
distinguish the working (nominal) and the protection routes.
According to these routes, the RSVP-TE procedure appropriately
creates both the working and the protection LSPs, for example,
with the ASSOCIATION object [RFC 6689].
3.3. GMPLS PCE Management
This document does not change any of the management or operational
details for networks that utilize PCE. (Please refer to [RFC 4655]
for manageability considerations for a PCE-based architecture.)
However, this document proposes the introduction of several PCEP
objects and data for the better integration of PCE with GMPLS
networks. Those protocol elements will need to be visible in any
management tools that apply to the PCE, PCC, and PCEP. That
includes, but is not limited to, adding appropriate objects to
existing PCE MIB modules that are used for modeling and monitoring
PCEP deployments [PCEP-MIB]. Ideas for what objects are needed may
be guided by the relevant GMPLS extensions in GMPLS-TE-STD-MIB
[RFC 4802].
4. Security Considerations
PCEP extensions to support GMPLS should be considered under the same
security as current PCE work, and this extension will not change the
underlying security issues. Section 10 of [RFC 5440] describes the
list of security considerations in PCEP. At the time [RFC 5440] was
published, TCP Authentication Option (TCP-AO) had not been fully
Otani, et al. Informational PAGE 8
RFC 7025 Reqs for GMPLS Apps of PCE September 2013
specified for securing the TCP connections that underlie PCEP
sessions. TCP-AO [RFC 5925] has now been published, and PCEP
implementations should fully support TCP-AO according to [RFC 6952].
5. Acknowledgement
The authors would like to express thanks to Ramon Casellas, Julien
Meuric, Adrian Farrel, Yaron Sheffer, and Shuichi Okamoto for their
comments.
6. References
6.1. Normative References
[RFC 3471] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC 3471,
January 2003.
[RFC 3473] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic
Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473, January 2003.
[RFC 3477] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Signalling Unnumbered Links
in Resource ReSerVation Protocol - Traffic Engineering
(RSVP-TE)", RFC 3477, January 2003.
[RFC 3630] Katz, D., Kompella, K., and D. Yeung, "Traffic Engineering
(TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC 3630,
September 2003.
[RFC 3945] Mannie, E., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS) Architecture", RFC 3945, October 2004.
[RFC 4202] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Routing Extensions in
Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS)", RFC 4202, October 2005.
[RFC 4203] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "OSPF Extensions in Support
of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)",
RFC 4203, October 2005.
[RFC 4328] Papadimitriou, D., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Extensions for G.709 Optical
Transport Networks Control", RFC 4328, January 2006.
Otani, et al. Informational PAGE 9
RFC 7025 Reqs for GMPLS Apps of PCE September 2013
[RFC 4606] Mannie, E. and D. Papadimitriou, "Generalized Multi-
Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Extensions for
Synchronous Optical Network (SONET) and Synchronous
Digital Hierarchy (SDH) Control", RFC 4606, August 2006.
[RFC 4802] Nadeau, T. and A. Farrel, "Generalized Multiprotocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering Management
Information Base", RFC 4802, February 2007.
[RFC 4872] Lang, J., Rekhter, Y., and D. Papadimitriou, "RSVP-TE
Extensions in Support of End-to-End Generalized Multi-
Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Recovery", RFC 4872,
May 2007.
[RFC 4927] Le Roux, J., "Path Computation Element Communication
Protocol (PCECP) Specific Requirements for Inter-Area MPLS
and GMPLS Traffic Engineering", RFC 4927, June 2007.
[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 5440] Vasseur, JP. and JL. Le Roux, "Path Computation Element
(PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440,
March 2009.
[RFC 6002] Berger, L. and D. Fedyk, "Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Data
Channel Switching Capable (DCSC) and Channel Set Label
Extensions", RFC 6002, October 2010.
[RFC 6060] Fedyk, D., Shah, H., Bitar, N., and A. Takacs,
"Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Control
of Ethernet Provider Backbone Traffic Engineering
(PBB-TE)", RFC 6060, March 2011.
[RFC 6205] Otani, T. and D. Li, "Generalized Labels for Lambda-
Switch-Capable (LSC) Label Switching Routers", RFC 6205,
March 2011.
[RFC 6387] Takacs, A., Berger, L., Caviglia, D., Fedyk, D., and J.
Meuric, "GMPLS Asymmetric Bandwidth Bidirectional Label
Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 6387, September 2011.
[RFC 6689] Berger, L., "Usage of the RSVP ASSOCIATION Object",
RFC 6689, July 2012.
Otani, et al. Informational PAGE 10
RFC 7025 Reqs for GMPLS Apps of PCE September 2013
6.2. Informative References
[PCE-WSON-REQ]
Lee, Y., Bernstein, G., Martensson, J., Takeda, T.,
Tsuritani, T., and O. Dios, "PCEP Requirements for WSON
Routing and Wavelength Assignment", Work in Progress,
June 2013.
[PCEP-MIB] Koushik, K., Stephan, E., Zhao, Q., King, D., and J.
Hardwick, "PCE communication protocol (PCEP) Management
Information Base", Work in Progress, July 2013.
[RFC 4216] Zhang, R. and J. Vasseur, "MPLS Inter-Autonomous System
(AS) Traffic Engineering (TE) Requirements", RFC 4216,
November 2005.
[RFC 4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J., and J. Ash, "A Path Computation
Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655, August 2006.
[RFC 4657] Ash, J. and J. Le Roux, "Path Computation Element (PCE)
Communication Protocol Generic Requirements", RFC 4657,
September 2006.
[RFC 4726] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J., and A. Ayyangar, "A Framework for
Inter-Domain Multiprotocol Label Switching Traffic
Engineering", RFC 4726, November 2006.
[RFC 4874] Lee, CY., Farrel, A., and S. De Cnodder, "Exclude Routes -
Extension to Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic
Engineering (RSVP-TE)", RFC 4874, April 2007.
[RFC 5394] Bryskin, I., Papadimitriou, D., Berger, L., and J. Ash,
"Policy-Enabled Path Computation Framework", RFC 5394,
December 2008.
[RFC 5925] Touch, J., Mankin, A., and R. Bonica, "The TCP
Authentication Option", RFC 5925, June 2010.
[RFC 6457] Takeda, T. and A. Farrel, "PCC-PCE Communication and PCE
Discovery Requirements for Inter-Layer Traffic
Engineering", RFC 6457, December 2011.
[RFC 6952] Jethanandani, M., Patel, K., and L. Zheng, "Analysis of
BGP, LDP, PCEP, and MSDP Issues According to the Keying
and Authentication for Routing Protocols (KARP) Design
Guide", RFC 6952, May 2013.
Otani, et al. Informational PAGE 11
RFC 7025 Reqs for GMPLS Apps of PCE September 2013
Authors' Addresses
Tomohiro Otani
KDDI Corporation
2-3-2 Nishi-shinjuku
Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo
Japan
Phone: +81-(3) 3347-6006
EMail: tm-otani@kddi.com
Kenichi Ogaki
KDDI Corporation
3-10-10 Iidabashi
Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo
Japan
Phone: +81-(3) 6678-0284
EMail: ke-oogaki@kddi.com
Diego Caviglia
Ericsson
16153 Genova Cornigliano
Italy
Phone: +390106003736
EMail: diego.caviglia@ericsson.com
Fatai Zhang
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.
F3-5-B R&D Center, Huawei Base
Bantian, Longgang District, Shenzhen 518129
P.R. China
Phone: +86-755-28972912
EMail: zhangfatai@huawei.com
Cyril Margaria
Coriant R&D GmbH
St Martin Strasse 76
Munich 81541
Germany
Phone: +49 89 5159 16934
EMail: cyril.margaria@coriant.com
Otani, et al. Informational PAGE 12
RFC TOTAL SIZE: 26498 bytes
PUBLICATION DATE: Wednesday, September 18th, 2013
LEGAL RIGHTS: The IETF Trust (see BCP 78)
|
