Extensions to the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) for Backup Egress of a Traffic Engineering Label Switched Path
draft-chen-pce-compute-backup-egress-14

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Last updated 2019-07-07
Stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text pdf html bibtex
Stream Stream state (No stream defined)
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
RFC Editor Note (None)
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
Internet Engineering Task Force                                  H. Chen
Internet-Draft                                                 Futurewei
Intended status: Standards Track                            July 7, 2019
Expires: January 8, 2020

Extensions to the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)
     for Backup Egress of a Traffic Engineering Label Switched Path
              draft-chen-pce-compute-backup-egress-14.txt

Abstract

   This document presents extensions to the Path Computation Element
   Communication Protocol (PCEP) for a PCC to send a request for
   computing a backup egress for an MPLS TE P2MP LSP or an MPLS TE P2P
   LSP to a PCE and for a PCE to compute the backup egress and reply to
   the PCC with a computation result for the backup egress.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on January 8, 2020.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.

Chen                     Expires January 8, 2020                [Page 1]
Internet-Draft             Find Backup Egress                  July 2019

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   4.  Extensions to PCEP  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     4.1.  Backup Egress Capability Advertisement  . . . . . . . . .   3
       4.1.1.  Capability TLV in Existing PCE Discovery Protocol . .   3
       4.1.2.  Open Message Extension  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     4.2.  Request and Reply Message Extension . . . . . . . . . . .   5
       4.2.1.  RP Object Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
       4.2.2.  External Destination Nodes  . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
       4.2.3.  Constraints between Egress and Backup Egress  . . . .  11
       4.2.4.  Constraints for Backup Path . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
       4.2.5.  Backup Egress Node  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
       4.2.6.  Backup Egress PCEP Error Objects and Types  . . . . .  12
       4.2.7.  Request Message Format  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
       4.2.8.  Reply Message Format  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   5.  Security  Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     6.1.  Backup Egress Capability Flag . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     6.2.  Backup Egress Capability TLV  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     6.3.  Request Parameter Bit Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     6.4.  PCEP Objects  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   7.  Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   8.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     8.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     8.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15

1.  Introduction

   RFC 4655 "A Path Computation Element-(PCE) Based Architecture"
   describes a set of building blocks for constructing solutions to
   compute Point-to-Point (P2P) Traffic Engineering (TE) label switched
   paths across multiple areas or Autonomous System (AS) domains.  A
   typical PCE-based system comprises one or more path computation
   servers, traffic engineering databases (TED), and a number of path
   computation clients (PCC).  A routing protocol is used to exchange
   traffic engineering information from which the TED is constructed.  A
   PCC sends a Point-to-Point traffic engineering Label Switched Path
   (LSP) computation request to the path computation server, which uses
   the TED to compute the path and responses to the PCC with the
Show full document text