A Backward Recursive PCE-initiated inter-domain LSP Setup
draft-dugeon-brpc-stateful-00

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Last updated 2017-03-13
Stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text xml 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)
Path Computation Element Working Group                         O. Dugeon
Internet-Draft                                                 J. Meuric
Intended status: Standards Track                                  Orange
Expires: September 14, 2017                               March 13, 2017

       A Backward Recursive PCE-initiated inter-domain LSP Setup
                     draft-dugeon-brpc-stateful-00

Abstract

   The Path Computation Element (PCE) working group (WG) has produced a
   set of RFCs to standardize the behavior of the Path Computation
   Element as a tool to help MPLS-TE, GMPLS LSP tunnels and Segment
   Routing paths placement.  This also include the ability to compute
   inter-domain LSPs or Segment Routing path following a distributed or
   hierarchical approach.  In complement to the original stateless mode,
   a stateful mode has been added.  In particular, the new PCInitiate
   message allows a PCE to directly ask a PCC to setup an MPLS-TE, GMPLS
   LSP tunnels or a Segment Routing path.  However, once computed, the
   inter-domain LSPs or Segment Routing path are hard to setup in the
   underlying network.  Especially, in operational network, RSVP-TE
   signaling is not enable between BGP border routers.  But, such RSVP-
   TE signaling is mandatory to setup contiguous LSP tunnels or to
   stitch or nest independent LSP tunnels to form the end-to-end inter-
   domain LSP tunnels.  This draft propose to combine a Backward
   Recursive method with PCInitiate message to setup independent LSP
   tunnels per domain and stitch or nest the different LSP tunnels to
   setup end-to-end inter-domain LSP tunnels without the need of inter-
   domain signaling between BGP border routers.  A new Stitching Label
   definition and new LSP-TYPE code points are proposed for that
   purpose.

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/.

Dugeon & Meuric        Expires September 14, 2017               [Page 1]
Internet-Draft                BRPC Stateful                   March 2017

   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 14, 2017.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2017 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.  Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.1.  General assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     1.2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   2.  Stitching Label . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     2.1.  Definition  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     2.2.  Inter-domain LSP-TYPE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   3.  Inter-domain LSP tunnels setup procedure  . . . . . . . . . .   8
     3.1.  Mode of operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     3.2.  Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     3.3.  Inter-domain LSP setup procedure completion failure . . .  11
     3.4.  Inter-domain LSP management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   4.  Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   5.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     5.1.  LSP-TYPE values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     5.2.  PCEP-Error Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
Show full document text