Path Computation Element (PCE) Traffic Engineering Database (TED) Requirements
draft-dugeon-pce-ted-reqs-00

The information below is for an old version of the document
Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Last updated 2012-03-05
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)
Path Computation Element Working Group                         O. Dugeon
Internet-Draft                                                 J. Meuric
Intended status: Informational                               Orange Labs
Expires: September 6, 2012                                 March 5, 2012

   Path Computation Element (PCE) Traffic Engineering Database (TED)
                              Requirements
                      draft-dugeon-pce-ted-reqs-00

Abstract

   During the past 4 years, Path Computation Element (PCE) WG has
   produced a set of RFCs to standardize the behavior of the Path
   Computation Element as a tool to help MPLS-TE LSP tunnels placement.
   In the PCE architecture, a main assumption has been done concerning
   the information that the PCE needs to perform its computation: the
   Traffic Engineering Database (TED) contains all pertinent and
   suitable information regarding the networks that is in the scope of a
   PCE.  Nevertheless, requirements and inventory of TED information
   have not been formalized.  In addition, some recent RFC (like BRPC
   RFC 5441) or WG draft (like draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy ...) suffer from
   a lack of information coming from the TED resulting to a non optimal
   result or some difficulties to deploy them.  This memo tries to
   identity all TED requirements for the PCE as well as provides some
   helps to operators to fulfill the PCE TED.

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."

Dugeon & Meuric         Expires September 6, 2012               [Page 1]
Internet-Draft                PCE TED Req.                    March 2012

   This Internet-Draft will expire on September 6, 2012.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2012 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.

Dugeon & Meuric         Expires September 6, 2012               [Page 2]
Internet-Draft                PCE TED Req.                    March 2012

Table of Contents

   1.  Problem Statement  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     1.1.  PCE assumption and hypothesis  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     1.2.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   2.  TED Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     2.1.  MPLS Layer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
       2.1.1.  Intra-domain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
       2.1.2.  inter-domain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     2.2.  Optical Layer  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     2.3.  Operational Information  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   3.  TED Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     3.1.  MPLS layer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
       3.1.1.  Intra-domain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
       3.1.2.  inter-domain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     3.2.  Optical layer  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     3.3.  Operational information  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   4.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   5.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     5.1.  Intra-domain information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
Show full document text