Extensions to Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) for Backup Ingress of a Traffic Engineering Label Switched Path
draft-chen-pce-compute-backup-ingress-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 Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) for
      Backup Ingress of a Traffic Engineering Label Switched Path
              draft-chen-pce-compute-backup-ingress-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 ingress for an MPLS TE P2MP LSP or an MPLS TE P2P
   LSP to a PCE and for a PCE to compute the backup ingress and reply to
   the PCC with a computation result for the backup ingress.

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 Ingress                 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 Ingress Capability Advertisement . . . . . . . . .   4
       4.1.1.  Capability TLV in Existing PCE Discovery Protocol . .   4
       4.1.2.  Open Message Extension  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     4.2.  Request and Reply Message Extension . . . . . . . . . . .   6
       4.2.1.  RP Object Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
       4.2.2.  External Source Node  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
       4.2.3.  Constraints between Ingress and Backup Ingress  . . .   8
       4.2.4.  Constraints for Backup Path . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
       4.2.5.  Backup Ingress Node . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
       4.2.6.  Backup Ingress PCEP Error Objects and Types . . . . .   9
       4.2.7.  Request Message Format  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
       4.2.8.  Reply Message Format  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   5.  Security  Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     6.1.  Backup Ingress Capability Flag  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     6.2.  Backup Ingress Capability TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     6.3.  Request Parameter Bit Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     6.4.  PCEP Objects  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   7.  Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   8.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     8.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     8.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13

1.  Introduction

   RFC4090 "Fast Reroute Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP Tunnels"
   describes two methods to protect P2P LSP tunnels or paths at local
   repair points.  The local repair points may comprise a number of
   intermediate nodes between an ingress node and an egress node along
   the path.  The first method is a one-to-one backup method, where a
   detour backup P2P LSP for each protected P2P LSP is created at each
   potential point of local repair.  The second method is a facility
   bypass backup protection method, where a bypass backup P2P LSP tunnel
   is created using MPLS label stacking to protect a potential failure
   point for a set of P2P LSP tunnels.  The bypass backup tunnel can
   protect a set of P2P LSPs that have similar backup constraints.
Show full document text