BGP Extensions for Path Computation Element (PCE) Discovery
draft-dong-pce-discovery-proto-bgp-02

The information below is for an old version of the document
Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Last updated 2015-03-04
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: September 6, 2015                           Huawei Technologies
                                                             J. Tantsura
                                                                Ericsson
                                                           March 5, 2015

      BGP Extensions for Path Computation Element (PCE) Discovery
                 draft-dong-pce-discovery-proto-bgp-02

Abstract

   In networks 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 and select the
   suitable ones to establish the PCEP session.  RFC 5088 and RFC 5089
   define the PCE discovery mechanisms based on Interior Gateway
   Protocols (IGP).  This document describes several scenarios in which
   the IGP based PCE discovery mechanisms cannot be used directly.  This
   document specifies the BGP extensions for PCE discovery in these
   scenarios.  The BGP based PCE discovery mechanism is complementary to
   the existing IGP based mechanisms.

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 September 6, 2015.

Dong, et al.            Expires September 6, 2015               [Page 1]
Internet-Draft      BGP Extensions for PCE Discovery          March 2015

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2015 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 and select the
   suitable ones to establish the PCEP session.  [RFC5088] and [RFC5089]
   define PCE discovery mechanism based on Interior Gateway Protocol
   (IGP).  Those IGP based mechanisms may not work in scenarios where
   the PCEs do not participate in the IGP, and it is difficult for PCEs
   to participate in IGP of multiple domains where PCE discovery is
   needed.

   In some other scenarios, Backward Recursive Path Computation (BRPC)
   [RFC5441] can be used by cooperating PCEs to compute inter-domain
   path, in which case these cooperating PCEs should be known to each
   other.  In case of inter-AS network where the PCEs do not participate
Show full document text