BGP Extensions for Path Computation Element (PCE) Discovery
draft-dong-pce-discovery-proto-bgp-04

The information below is for an old version of the document
Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Last updated 2016-03-09
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 10, 2016                          Huawei Technologies
                                                             J. Tantsura
                                                                Ericsson
                                                           March 9, 2016

      BGP Extensions for Path Computation Element (PCE) Discovery
                 draft-dong-pce-discovery-proto-bgp-04

Abstract

   In networks where Path Computation Element (PCE) is used for
   centralized path computation, it is desirable for the 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.  In such scenarios, BGP might be suitable, thus this
   document specifies the BGP extensions for PCE discovery.  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 10, 2016.

Dong, et al.           Expires September 10, 2016               [Page 1]
Internet-Draft      BGP Extensions for PCE Discovery          March 2016

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2016 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   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 the 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 the PCE discovery mechanisms based on
   Interior Gateway Protocols (IGP).

   The IGP based discovery mechanism requires the PCE participate in the
   IGP network, which usually requires that the PCE is directly adjacent
   to at least one of the IGP routers in the network.  In some scenarios
   such requirement cannot be satisfied.  For example, a PCE may need to
   provide path computation service to some subsidiary networks of an
   operator, which typically locate in different geographical region
   (and not IGP adjacent).  Also when PCE function is implemented in a
   central server running IGP on individual interfaces to each IGP area
Show full document text