BGP Extensions for Path Computation Element (PCE) Discovery
draft-dong-pce-discovery-proto-bgp-01

The information below is for an old version of the document
Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Last updated 2014-10-26
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)
Network Working Group                                            J. Dong
Internet-Draft                                                   M. Chen
Intended status: Standards Track                                D. Dhody
Expires: April 28, 2015                              Huawei Technologies
                                                             J. Tantsura
                                                                Ericsson
                                                        October 25, 2014

      BGP Extensions for Path Computation Element (PCE) Discovery
                 draft-dong-pce-discovery-proto-bgp-01

Abstract

   In network scenarios where Path Computation Element (PCE) is used for
   centralized path computation, it is desirable for Path Computation
   Clients (PCCs) to automatically discover a set of PCEs.  As BGP can
   be used for north-bound distribution of routing and Label Switched
   Path (LSP) information to PCE, the PCEs may not participate in
   Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) for collecting the routing
   information, thus the IGP based PCE discovery cannot be used directly
   in these scenarios.  This document specifies the BGP extensions for
   PCE discovery.

Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted 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 http://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 April 28, 2015.

Dong, et al.             Expires April 28, 2015                 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft      BGP Extensions for PCE Discovery        October 2014

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2014 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.  Carrying PCE Discovery Information in BGP . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.1.  PCE Address Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.2.  PCE Discovery TLVs  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   3.  Operational Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   4.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   6.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   7.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     7.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     7.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8

1.  Introduction

   In network scenarios where Path Computation Element (PCE) is used for
   centralized path computation, it is desirable for Path Computation
   Clients (PCCs) to automatically discover a set of PCEs.  [RFC5088]
   and [RFC5089] define PCE discovery mechanism based on Interior
   Gateway Protocol (IGP).  The IGP based mechanisms may not work well
   in scenarios where the PCEs do not participate in the IGP, and it is
   difficult for PCE to participate in IGP of multiple domains where PCE
   discovery is needed.

   For example, Backward Recursive Path Computation (BRPC) [RFC5441] may
   be used by cooperating PCEs to compute inter-domain path, in which
   case these cooperating PCEs should be known to other PCEs.  In case
   of inter-AS network where the PCEs do not participate in a common
   IGP, the existing IGP discovery mechanism cannot be used to discover
   the PCEs in other domains.  Also in the Hierarchical PCE scenario,
   the child PCEs need to know the address of the parent PCE.  This

Dong, et al.             Expires April 28, 2015                 [Page 2]
Show full document text