Traffic Engineering Architecture and Signaling
|The information below is for an old version of the document
Traffic Engineering Architecture and Signaling WG
||Traffic Engineering Architecture and Signaling
||Charter Edit AD
||Send notices to
The Traffic Engineering Architecture and Signaling (TEAS) Working
Group is responsible for defining MPLS and GMPLS traffic
engineering architecture, standardizing the RSVP-TE signaling
protocol, and identifying required related control-protocol
functions, i.e., routing and path computation element functions.
Traffic Engineering (TE) is the term used to refer to techniques
that enable operators to control how specific traffic flows are
treated within their networks. TE is applied to packet networks
via MPLS TE tunnels and LSPs. The MPLS-TE control plane was
generalized to additionally support non-packet technologies via
GMPLS. RSVP-TE is the signaling protocol used for both MPLS-TE
The TEAS WG is responsible for:
a) Traffic-engineering architectures for generic applicability
across packet and non-packet networks. This includes both
networks that include the use of PCE and those that do not.
The PCE architecture itself is out of the WG scope.
b) Definition of protocol-independent metrics and parameters
(measurement and/or service attributes) for describing
links and tunnels/paths required for traffic engineering
(and related routing, signaling and path computation).
These will be developed in conjunction with requests and
requirements from other WGs to ensure overall usefulness.
c) Functional specification of extensions for routing (OSPF,
ISIS) and for path computation (PCE) to provide general
enablers of traffic-engineering systems that also use
RSVP-TE. Protocol formats and procedures that embody these
extensions will be done in coordination with the WGs
supervising those protocols.
d) Functional specification of generic (i.e., not data plane
technology-specific) extensions for RSVP-TE, and the
associated protocol formats and procedures that embody
e) Definition of control plane mechanisms and extensions to allow
the setup and maintenance of TE paths and TE tunnels that span
multiple domains and/or switching technologies, where a
domain may be an IGP area, an Autonomous System, or any other
region of topological visibility.
f) Definition and extension of management and security techniques
for RSVP-TE signaling. This includes configuring and monitoring
RSVP-TE as well as mechanisms used to configure, control, and
report OAM within TE networks. YANG and MIB modules may be
The TEAS working group is chartered to deliver the following:
1. Definition of additional abstract service, link, and path
properties such as jitter, delay, and diversity. Extensions
to IGPs to advertise these properties, and extensions to
RSVP-TE to request and to accumulate these properties. Work
with PCE WG to include these properties in computation
2. Specification of terminology, architecture, and protocol
requirements for abstraction and distribution of TE
information between interconnected TE domains/layers.
3. Specification and protocol extensions for a GMPLS External
Network-to-Network Interface (E-NNI), i.e., multi-domain
4. Protocol mechanisms to signal associated LSPs in particular
with different source nodes.
5. Requirements and protocol extensions for additional protection
mechanisms including end-point protection, protection of P2MP
LSPs, and inter-domain protection.
6. YANG models for a Traffic Engineering Database in coordination
with working groups working on YANG models for network
topology and for technology-specific network attributes.
Requirements may be documented in stand-alone RFCs, may be
folded into architecture or solutions RFCs, may be recorded on a
wiki, or may be documented in an Internet-Draft that is not
progressed to RFC.
The TEAS WG will coordinate with the following working groups:
- With the MPLS WG to maintain and extend MPLS-TE protocol
mechanisms and to determine whether they should be generalized.
- With the CCAMP WG to maintain and extend non-packet, data plane
technology-specific TE protocol mechanisms and to determine
whether they should be generalized.
- With the OSPF and ISIS WGs to maintain or extend TE routing
mechanisms for MPLS-TE and GMPLS.
- With the PCE WG on uses of a PCE in the traffic-engineering
architecture, on PCE extensions per the above, and on RSVP-TE
extensions to support PCE WG identified requirements.
- With the IDR WG on the use of BGP-LS in TE environments.
In doing this work, the WG will cooperate with external SDOs (such
as the ITU-T and the IEEE 802.1) as necessary.