Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extension for LSP Diversity Constraint Signaling
draft-ietf-pce-association-diversity-10
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type | Active Internet-Draft (pce WG) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Stephane Litkowski , Siva Sivabalan , Colby Barth , Mahendra Singh Negi | ||
| Last updated | 2019-10-22 (Latest revision 2019-08-31) | ||
| Replaces | draft-litkowski-pce-association-diversity, draft-dhody-pce-of-diverse | ||
| Stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | plain text xml htmlized pdfized bibtex | ||
| Reviews |
GENART Last Call review
Ready with Issues
SECDIR Last Call review
Ready
RTGDIR Last Call review
(of
-08)
Has Issues
|
||
| Stream | WG state | Submitted to IESG for Publication | |
| Document shepherd | Julien Meuric | ||
| Shepherd write-up | Show Last changed 2019-07-05 | ||
| IESG | IESG state | IESG Evaluation | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Yes | ||
| Telechat date |
(None)
Needs a YES. Needs 6 more YES or NO OBJECTION positions to pass. |
||
| Responsible AD | Deborah Brungard | ||
| Send notices to | Julien Meuric <julien.meuric@orange.com> | ||
| IANA | IANA review state | IANA OK - Actions Needed |
draft-ietf-pce-association-diversity-10
PCE Working Group S. Litkowski
Internet-Draft Orange
Intended status: Standards Track S. Sivabalan
Expires: March 2, 2020 Cisco Systems, Inc.
C. Barth
Juniper Networks
M. Negi
Huawei Technologies
August 30, 2019
Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extension for LSP
Diversity Constraint Signaling
draft-ietf-pce-association-diversity-10
Abstract
This document introduces a simple mechanism to associate a group of
Label Switched Paths (LSPs) via an extension to the Path Computation
Element (PCE) communication Protocol (PCEP) with the purpose of
computing diverse paths for those LSPs. The proposed extension
allows a Path Computation Client (PCC) to advertise to a PCE that a
particular LSP belongs to a disjoint-group, thus the PCE knows that
the LSPs in the same group need to be disjoint from each other.
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 https://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 March 2, 2020.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Litkowski, et al. Expires March 2, 2020 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft ASSOC-DISJOINT August 2019
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. Protocol Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.1. Association Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.2. Disjoint TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.3. Relationship to SVEC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.4. Disjointness Objective functions . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.5. P Flag Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.6. Disjointness Computation Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
7.1. Association Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
7.2. PCEP TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
7.3. Objective Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
7.4. NO-PATH-VECTOR Bit Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
7.5. PCEP-ERROR Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
8. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
8.1. Control of Function and Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
8.2. Information and Data Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
8.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
8.4. Verify Correct Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
8.5. Requirements On Other Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
8.6. Impact On Network Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
9. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Appendix A. Contributor Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Litkowski, et al. Expires March 2, 2020 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft ASSOC-DISJOINT August 2019
1. Introduction
[RFC5440] describes the Path Computation Element communication
Protocol (PCEP) which enables the communication between a Path
Computation Client (PCC) and a Path Control Element (PCE), or between
two PCEs based on the PCE architecture [RFC4655].
PCEP Extensions for Stateful PCE Model [RFC8231] describes a set of
extensions to PCEP to enable active control of MPLS-TE and GMPLS
tunnels. [RFC8281] describes the setup and teardown of PCE-initiated
LSPs under the active stateful PCE model, without the need for local
configuration on the PCC, thus allowing for a dynamic network.
[I-D.ietf-pce-association-group] introduces a generic mechanism to
create a grouping of LSPs in the context of a PCE which can then be
used to define associations between a set of LSPs and a set of
attributes (such as configuration parameters or behaviors) and is
equally applicable to the active and passive modes of a stateful PCE
[RFC8231] or a stateless PCE [RFC5440].
This document specifies a PCEP extension to signal that a particular
group of LSPs should use diverse paths including the requested type
of diversity. A PCC can use this extension to signal to a PCE that a
particular LSP belongs to a disjoint-group. When a PCE receives LSP
states belonging to the same disjoint-group from some PCCs, the PCE
should ensure that the LSPs within the group are disjoint from each
other.
1.1. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
2. Terminology
The following terminology is used in this document.
DAG: Disjoint Association Group.
MPLS: Multiprotocol Label Switching.
OF: Objective Function.
PCC: Path Computation Client. Any client application requesting a
path computation to be performed by a Path Computation Element.
Litkowski, et al. Expires March 2, 2020 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft ASSOC-DISJOINT August 2019
PCE: Path Computation Element. An entity (component, application,
or network node) that is capable of computing a network path or
route based on a network graph and applying computational
constraints.
PCEP: Path Computation Element communication Protocol.
SRLG: Shared Risk Link Group.
3. Motivation
Path diversity is a very common use case in today's IP/MPLS networks
especially for layer 2 transport over MPLS. A customer may request
that the operator provide two end-to-end disjoint paths across the
IP/MPLS core. The customer may use those paths as primary/backup or
active/active.
Different level of disjointness may be offered:
o Link disjointness: the paths of the associated LSPs should transit
different links (but may use common nodes or different links that
may have some shared fate).
o Node disjointness: the paths of the associated LSPs should transit
different nodes (but may use different links that may have some
shared fate).
o SRLG disjointness: the paths of the associated LSPs should transit
different links that do not share fate (but may use common transit
nodes).
o Node+SRLG disjointness: the paths of the associated LSPs should
transit different links that do not have any common shared fate
and should transit different nodes.
The associated LSPs may originate from the same or from different
head-end(s) and may terminate at the same or different tail-end(s).
4. Applicability
Litkowski, et al. Expires March 2, 2020 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft ASSOC-DISJOINT August 2019
_________________________________________
/ \
/ +------+ \
| | PCE | |
| +------+ |
| |
| ***********************> |
| +------+ 10 +------+ |
CE1 ****| PE 1 | ----- R1 ---- R2 ------- | PE 2 |**** CE2
| +------+ | | +------+ |
| | | |
| | | |
| +------+ | | +------+ |
CE3 ****| PE 3 | ----- R3 ---- R4 ------- | PE 4 |**** CE4
| +------+ ***********************> +------+ |
| |
\ /
\_________________________________________/
Figure 1 - Disjoint paths with different head-ends and tail-ends
In the figure above, let us consider that the customer wants to have
two disjoint paths between CE1/CE2 and CE3/CE4. From an IP/MPLS
network point view, in this example, the CEs are connected to
different PEs to maximize their disjointness. When LSPs originate
from different head-ends, distributed computation of diverse paths
can be difficult, whereas, computation via a centralized PCE ensures
path disjointness, correctness and simplicity.
Section 5.3 describes the relationship between the disjoint
association group and Synchronization VECtor (SVEC) object.
The PCEP extension for stateful PCE [RFC8231] defined new PCEP
messages - Path Computation Report (PCRpt), Path Computation Update
(PCUpd) and Path Computation Initiate (PCInitiate) [RFC8281]. These
messages use PLSP-ID in the LSP object for identification. Moreover
to allow diversity between LSPs originating from different PCCs, the
generic mechanism to create a grouping of LSPs is described in
[I-D.ietf-pce-association-group] (that is equally applicable to the
active and passive modes of a stateful PCE).
Using PCEP, the PCC could indicate that a disjoint path computation
is required, such indication should include disjointness parameters
such as the type of disjointness, the disjoint group identifiers, and
any customization parameters according to the configured local
policy. As mentioned previously, the extension described in
Litkowski, et al. Expires March 2, 2020 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft ASSOC-DISJOINT August 2019
[I-D.ietf-pce-association-group] is well suited to associate a set of
LSPs with a particular disjoint-group.
The management of the disjoint group IDs will be a key point for the
operator as the Association ID field is limited to 65535. The local
configuration of IPv4/IPv6 association source, or Global Association
Source/Extended Association ID allows to overcome this limitation as
described in [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group]. When a PCC or PCE
initiates all the LSPs in a particular disjoint-group, it can set the
IPv4/IPv6 association source as one of its own IP address. When
disjoint LSPs are initiated from different head-ends, the association
source could be the PCE address or any other unique value to identify
the disjoint association group.
Initiate Disjoint LSPs
|
| PCReq/PCRpt
V {Disjoint-group Y}
+-----+ ----------------> +-----+
_ _ _ _ _ _| PCE | | | PCE |
| +-----+ | ----------> +-----+
| PCInitiate | | PCReq/PCRpt
|{Disjoint-group X} | | {Disjoint-group Y}
| | |
| .-----. | | .-----.
| ( ) | +----+ ( )
| .--( )--. | |PE 1|--.--( )--.
V ( ) | +----+ ( )
+---+ ( ) | ( )
|PCC|----( (G)MPLS network ) +----+ ( (G)MPLS network )
+---+ ( ) |PE 3|-----( )
Disjoint-group X ) +----+ ( )
'--( )--' '--( )--'
( ) ( )
'-----' '-----'
Case 1: Disjointness initiated by Case 2: Disjointness initiated by
PCE and enforced by PCC PCC and enforced by PCE
Figure 2 - Sample use-cases for carrying disjoint-group over PCEP
session
Using the disjoint-group within a PCEP messages may have two purpose:
Litkowski, et al. Expires March 2, 2020 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft ASSOC-DISJOINT August 2019
o Configuration: Used to communicate the configured disjoint
requirement to a PCEP peer.
o Status: Used to communicate the status of the computed
disjointness.
5. Protocol Extension
5.1. Association Group
As per [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group], LSPs are associated with
other LSPs with which they interact by adding them to a common
association group. The Association parameters, as described in
[I-D.ietf-pce-association-group] as the combination of the mandatory
fields Association type, Association ID and Association Source in the
ASSOCIATION object, that uniquely identify the association group
belonging to this association. If the optional TLVs - Global
Association Source or Extended Association ID - are included, then
they are included in combination with mandatory fields to uniquely
identify the association group. This document defines a new
Association type, based on the generic Association object:
o Association type = TBD1 ("Disjointness Association Type") for
Disjoint Association Group (DAG).
[I-D.ietf-pce-association-group] specifies the mechanism for the
capability advertisement of the association types supported by a PCEP
speaker by defining a ASSOC-Type-List TLV to be carried within an
OPEN object. This capability exchange for the association type
described in this document (i.e. Disjointness Association Type) MUST
be done before using the disjointness association. Thus the PCEP
speaker MUST include the Disjointness Association Type (TBD1) in the
ASSOC-Type-List TLV before using the disjoint association group (DAG)
in PCEP messages.
This association type is considered to be both dynamic and operator-
configured in nature. The association group could be created by the
operator manually on the PCEP peers and the LSPs belonging to this
associations is conveyed via PCEP messages to the PCEP peer; or the
association group could be created dynamically by the PCEP speaker
and both the association group information and the LSPs belonging to
the association group is conveyed to the PCEP peer. The Operator-
configured Association Range MUST be set for this association-type to
mark a range of association identifiers that are used for operator-
configured associations to avoid any association identifier clash
within the scope of the association source. (Refer to
[I-D.ietf-pce-association-group].)
Litkowski, et al. Expires March 2, 2020 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft ASSOC-DISJOINT August 2019
A disjoint group can have two or more LSPs, but a PCE may be limited
in the number of LSPs it can take into account when computing
disjointness. If a PCE receives more LSPs in the group than it can
handle in its computation algorithm, it SHOULD apply disjointness
computation to only a subset of LSPs in the group. The subset of
disjoint LSPs will be decided by PCE as a local policy. Local
polices MAY define the computational behavior for the other LSPs in
the group. For example, the PCE may provide no path, a shortest
path, or a constrained path based on relaxing disjointness, etc. The
disjoint status is informed to the PCC.
Associating a particular LSP to multiple disjoint groups is
authorized from a protocol perspective, however there is no assurance
that the PCE will be able to compute properly the multi-disjointness
constraint.
5.2. Disjoint TLVs
The disjoint group MUST carry the following TLV:
o DISJOINTNESS-CONFIGURATION-TLV: Used to communicate some
disjointness configuration parameters.
In addition, the disjoint group MAY carry the following TLV:
o DISJOINTNESS-STATUS-TLV: Used to communicate the status of the
computed disjointness. This is applicable for messages from PCE
to PCC (PCUpd, PCInitiate or PCRep message).
o VENDOR-INFORMATION-TLV: Used to communicate arbitrary vendor-
specific behavioral information, described in [RFC7470].
o OF-List TLV: Used to communicate the disjointness objective
function. See Section 5.4.
The DISJOINTNESS-CONFIGURATION-TLV is shown in the following figure:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type = TBD2 | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Flags |T|P|S|N|L|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type: TBD2.
Length: Fixed value of 4 bytes.
Litkowski, et al. Expires March 2, 2020 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft ASSOC-DISJOINT August 2019
Flags:
* L (Link diverse) bit: when set, this indicates that the
computed paths within the disjoint group MUST NOT have any link
in common.
* N (Node diverse) bit: when set, this indicates that the
computed paths within the disjoint group MUST NOT have any node
in common.
* S (SRLG diverse) bit: when set, this indicates that the
computed paths within the disjoint group MUST NOT share any
SRLG (Shared Risk Link Group).
* P (Shortest path) bit: when set, this indicates that the
computed path of the LSP SHOULD satisfy all the constraints and
objective functions first without considering the diversity
constraint. This means that an LSP with P flag set should be
placed as if the disjointness constraint has not been
configured, while the other LSP in the association with P flag
unset should be placed by taking into account the disjointness
constraint. Setting P flag changes the relationship between
LSPs to a one-sided relationship (LSP 1 with P=0 depends of LSP
2 with P=1, but LSP 2 with P=1 does not depend of LSP 1 with
P=0). Multiple LSPs in the same disjoint group may have the P
flag set. In such a case, those LSPs may not be disjoint from
each other but will be disjoint from others LSPs in the group
that have the P flag unset.
* T (Strict disjointness) bit: when set, if disjoint paths cannot
be found, PCE SHOULD return no path for LSPs that could not be
be disjoint. When unset, the PCE is allowed to relax
disjointness by either applying a requested objective function
(cf. Section 5.4 below) or using any other behavior if no
objective function is requested (e.g. using a lower disjoint
type (link instead of node) or fully relaxing disjointness
constraint). Further see Section 5.6 for details.
* Unassigned bits are considered reserved. They MUST be set to 0
on transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt.
If a PCEP speaker receives a disjoint-group without DISJOINTNESS-
CONFIGURATION-TLV, it SHOULD reply with a PCErr Error-type=6
(Mandatory Object missing) and Error-value=TBD8 (DISJOINTNESS-
CONFIGURATION-TLV missing).
The DISJOINTNESS-STATUS-TLV uses the same format as the DISJOINTNESS-
CONFIGURATION-TLV with a different type TBD3 (in the TLV). The L, N,
Litkowski, et al. Expires March 2, 2020 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft ASSOC-DISJOINT August 2019
and S flags are set based if the computed path meet the disjointness
criteria. The P flag is set to indicate that the computed path is
the shortest and the T flag has no meaning in the DISJOINTNESS-
STATUS-TLV and MUST NOT be set while sending and ignored on receipt.
Any new flag defined for the DISJOINTNESS-CONFIGURATION-TLV is be
automatically applicable to the DISJOINTNESS-STATUS-TLV.
5.3. Relationship to SVEC
[RFC5440] defines a mechanism for the synchronization of a set of
path computation requests by using the SVEC object, that specifies
the list of synchronized requests that can either be dependent or
independent. The SVEC object identify the relationship between the
set of path computation requests, identified by 'Request-ID-number'
in RP (Request Parameters) object. [RFC6007] further clarified the
use of the SVEC list for synchronized path computations when
computing dependent requests as well as described a number of usage
scenarios for SVEC lists within single-domain and multi-domain
environments.
The SVEC object includes a Flags field that indicates the potential
dependency between the set of path computation request in a similar
way as the Flags field in the TLVs defined in this document. The
path computation request in the PCReq message MAY use both the SVEC
and ASSOCIATION objects to identify the related path computation
request as well as the diversity association group. The PCE MUST try
to find a path that meets both the constraints. It is possible that
the diversity requirement in the association group is different from
the one in the SVEC object. The PCE would consider both the objects
as per the processing rules and aim to find a path that meets both of
these constraints. In case no such path is possible (or the
constraints are incompatible), the PCE MUST send a path computation
reply (PCRep) with a NO-PATH object indicating path computation
failure as per [RFC5440].
5.4. Disjointness Objective functions
An objective function (OF) MAY be applied to the disjointness
computation to drive the PCE computation behavior. In this case, the
OF-List TLV (defined in ([RFC5541]) is used as an optional TLV in the
Association Group Object. Whereas the PCEP OF-List TLV allows
multiple OF-codes inside the TLV, a sender SHOULD include a single
OF-code in the OF-List TLV when included in the Association Group,
and the receiver MUST consider the first OF-code only and ignore
others if included.
Litkowski, et al. Expires March 2, 2020 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft ASSOC-DISJOINT August 2019
To minimize the common shared resources (Node, Link or SRLG) between
a set of paths during path computation three new OF-codes are
proposed:
MSL
* Name: Minimize the number of shared (common) Links.
* Objective Function Code: TBD4
* Description: Find a set of paths such that it passes through the
least number of shared (common) links.
MSS
* Name: Minimize the number of shared (common) SRLGs.
* Objective Function Code: TBD5
* Description: Find a set of paths such that it passes through the
least number of shared (common) SRLGs.
MSN
* Name: Minimize the number of shared (common) Nodes.
* Objective Function Code: TBD6
* Description: Find a set of paths such that it passes through the
least number of shared (common) nodes.
If the OF-list TLV is included in the Association Object, the OF-code
inside the OF Object MUST include one of the disjoint OFs defined in
this document. If this condition is not met, the PCEP speaker MUST
respond with a PCErr message with Error-Type=10 (Reception of an
invalid object) and Error-Value=TBD9 (Incompatible OF code).
[RFC5440] uses SVEC diversity flag for node, link or SRLG to describe
the potential disjointness between the set of path computation
requests used in PCEP protocol.
This document defines three new OF-codes to maximize diversity as
much as possible, in other words, minimize the common shared
resources (Node, Link or SRLG) between a set of paths.
It may be interesting to note that the diversity flags in the SVEC
object and OF for diversity can be used together. Some examples of
usage are listed below:
Litkowski, et al. Expires March 2, 2020 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft ASSOC-DISJOINT August 2019
o SVEC object with node-diverse bit=1 - ensure full node-diversity.
o SVEC object with node-diverse bit=1 and OF=MSS - full node diverse
with as much as SRLG-diversity as possible.
o SVEC object with domain-diverse bit=1;link diverse bit=1 and
OF=MSS - full domain and node diverse path with as much as SRLG-
diversity as possible.
o SVEC object with node-diverse bit=1 and OF=MSN - ensure full node-
diversity.
In the last example above, it is interesting to note that "OF"
becomes redundant as "SVEC object" ensures full node-diversity,
however this specification does not prohibit redundant constraints
while using "SVEC object" and "OF" together for diversity.
5.5. P Flag Considerations
As mentioned in Section 5.2, the P flag (when set) indicates that the
computed path of the LSP SHOULD satisfies all constraints and
objective functions first without considering the diversity
constraint. This could be required in some primary/backup scenarios
where the primary path should use the more optimal path available
(taking into account the other constraints). When disjointness is
computed, it is important for the algorithm to know that it should
try to optimize the path of one or more LSPs in the disjoint group
(for instance the primary path) while other paths are allowed to be
costlier (compared to a similar path without the disjointness
constraint). Without such a hint, the disjointness algorithm may set
a path for all LSPs that may not completely fulfill the customer's
requirement.
Litkowski, et al. Expires March 2, 2020 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft ASSOC-DISJOINT August 2019
_________________________________________
/ \
/ +------+ \
| | PCE | |
| +------+ |
| |
| |
| +------+ 10 +------+ |
CE1 ****| PE 1 | ----- R1 ---- R2 ------- | PE 2 |**** CE2
| +------+ | | +------+ |
| | | |
| | | |
| +------+ | | +------+ |
CE3 ****| PE 3 | ----- R3 ---- R4 ------- | PE 4 |**** CE4
| +------+ \ | / +------+ |
| \ | 10 / |
\ +-- R5 --------- R6 /
\_________________________________________/
Cost of all the links is 1, unless explicitly marked otherwise.
Figure 3
In the figure above, a customer has two dual homed sites (CE1/CE3 and
CE2/CE4). Let us consider that this customer wants two disjoint
paths between the two sites. Due to physical meshing, the customer
wants to use CE1 and CE2 as primary (and CE3 and CE4 are hosted in a
remote site for redundancy purpose).
Without any hint (constraint) provided, the PCE may compute the two
disjoint LSPs together, leading to PE1->PE2 using a path
PE1->R1->R2->PE2 and PE3->PE4 using PE3->R3->R4->PE4. In this case,
even if the disjointness constraint is fulfilled, the path from PE1
to PE2 does not use the best optimal path available in the network
(path delay may be higher): the customer requirement is thus not
completely fulfilled.
The usage of the P flag allows the PCE to know that a particular LSP
should be tied to the best path as if the disjointness constraint was
not requested.
In our example, if the P flag is set to the LSP PE1->PE2, the PCE
should use the path PE1->R1->R3->R4->R2->PE2 for this LSP, while the
other LSP should be disjoint from this path. The second LSP will be
placed on PE3->R5->R6->PE4 as it is allowed to be costlier.
Litkowski, et al. Expires March 2, 2020 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft ASSOC-DISJOINT August 2019
Driving the PCE disjointness computation may be done in other ways,
for instance setting a metric boundary reflecting an path delay
boundary. Other constraints may also be used.
The P flag allows to simply express that the disjointness constraint
should not make the LSP worst.
Any constraint added to a path disjointness computation may reduce
the chance to find suitable paths. The usage of the P flag, as any
other constraint, may prevent to find a disjoint path. In the
example above, if we consider that the router R5 is down, if PE1->PE2
has the P flag set, there is no room available to place PE3->PE4 (the
disjointness constraint cannot be fulfilled). If PE1->PE2 has the P
flag unset, the algorithm may be able to place PE1->PE2 on R1->R2
link leaving a room for PE3->PE4 using the R3->R4 link. When using P
flag or any additional constraint on top of the disjointness
constraint, the user should be aware that there is less chance to
fulfill the disjointness constraint.
_________________________________________
/ \
/ +------+ \
| | PCE | |
| +------+ |
| |
| |
| +------+ 10 +------+ |
CE1 ****| PE 1 | ----- R1 ---- R2 ------- | PE 2 |**** CE2
| +------+ | \ | +------+ |
| | \2 | |
| | \ | |
| +------+ | \ | +------+ |
CE3 ****| PE 3 | ----- R3 ---- R4 ------- | PE 4 |**** CE4
| +------+ +------+ |
| |
\ /
\_________________________________________/
Cost of all the links is 1, unless explicitly marked otherwise.
Figure 4
In the figure above, we still consider the same previous
requirements, so PE1->PE2 LSP should be optimized (P flag set) while
PE3->PE4 should be disjoint and may use a costlier path.
Regarding PE1->PE2, there are two paths that are satisfying the
constraints (ECMP): PE1->R1->R4->R2->PE2 (path 1) and
Litkowski, et al. Expires March 2, 2020 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft ASSOC-DISJOINT August 2019
PE1->R1->R3->R4->R2->PE2 (path 2). An implementation may choose one
of the paths.
If the implementation elects only one path, there is a chance that
picking up one path may prevent disjointness. In our example, if
path 2 is used for PE1->PE2, there is no room left for PE3->PE4 while
if path 1 is used, PE3->PE4 can be placed on R3->R4 link.
When P flag is set for an LSP and when ECMPs are available, an
implementation should aim to select a path that allows disjointness.
5.6. Disjointness Computation Issues
There may be some cases where the PCE is not able to provide a set of
disjoint paths for one or more LSPs in the association.
When the T flag is set (Strict disjointness requested), if
disjointness cannot be ensured for one or more LSPs, the PCE MUST
reply to a Path Computation Request (PCReq) with a Path Computation
Reply (PCRep) message containing a NO-PATH object. In case of PCRpt
message, the PCE MUST return a PCErr message with Error-Type 26
"Association Error" and Error-Value 7 "Cannot join the association
group". Also, in case of network event leading to an impossible
strict disjointness, the PCE MUST send a PCUpd message containing an
empty ERO to the corresponding PCCs. In addition to the empty ERO
Object, the PCE MAY add the NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV ([RFC5440]) in the LSP
Object.
This document adds new bits in the NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV:
bit "TBD7": when set, the PCE indicates that it could not find a
disjoint path for this LSP.
bit "TBD8": when set, the PCE indicates that it does not support
the requested disjointness computation.
When the T flag is unset, the PCE is allowed to relax disjointness by
applying a requested objective function (Section 5.4) if specified.
Otherwise, if no objective function is specified, the PCE is allowed
to reduce the required level of disjointness as it deems fit. The
actual level of disjointness computed by the PCE can be reported
through the DISJOINTNESS-STATUS-TLV by setting the appropriate flags
in the TLV. While the DISJOINTNESS-CONFIGURATION-TLV defines the
expected level of disjointness required by configuration, the
DISJOINTNESS-STATUS-TLV defines the actual level of disjointness
computed.
Litkowski, et al. Expires March 2, 2020 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft ASSOC-DISJOINT August 2019
There are some cases where the PCE may need to completely relax the
disjointness constraint in order to provide a path to all the LSPs
that are part of the association. A mechanism that allows the PCE to
fully relax a constraint is considered by the authors as more global
to PCEP rather than linked to the disjointness use case. As a
consequence, it is considered as out of scope of the document.
All LSPs in a particular disjoint group MUST use the same combination
of T, S, N, L flags in the DISJOINTNESS-CONFIGURATION-TLV. If a PCEP
peer receives a PCEP messages for LSPs belonging to the same disjoint
group but having an inconsistent combination of T, S, N, L flags, the
PCEP peer SHOULD NOT try to add the LSPs in disjoint group and SHOULD
reply with a PCErr with Error-type 26 (Association Error) and Error-
Value 6 (Association information mismatch).
6. Security Considerations
This document defines one new type for association, which on itself
does not add any new security concerns beyond those discussed in
[RFC5440], [RFC8231] and [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group]. But,
adding of a spurious LSP into the disjointness association group
could lead to re-computation and set-up of all LSPs in the group,
that could be used to overwhelm the PCE and the network.
Also, as stated in [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group], much of the
information carried in the Disjointness Association object, as per
this document is not extra sensitive. It often reflects information
that can also be derived from the LSP Database, but association
provides a much easier grouping of related LSPs and messages. The
disjointness association could provide an adversary with the
opportunity to eavesdrop on the relationship between the LSPs.
Thus securing the PCEP session using Transport Layer Security (TLS)
[RFC8253], as per the recommendations and best current practices in
[RFC7525], is RECOMMENDED.
7. IANA Considerations
7.1. Association Type
This document defines a new Association type, originally described in
[I-D.ietf-pce-association-group]. IANA is requested to make the
assignment of a new value for the sub-registry "ASSOCIATION Type
Field" (request to be created in [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group]),
as follows:
Litkowski, et al. Expires March 2, 2020 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft ASSOC-DISJOINT August 2019
+------------------+-----------------------------+-------------+
| Association type | Association Name | Reference |
+------------------+-----------------------------+-------------+
| TBD1 | Disjoint-group Association | [This.I-D] |
+------------------+-----------------------------+-------------+
7.2. PCEP TLVs
This document defines the following new PCEP TLVs and the IANA is
requested to make the assignment of new values for the existing "PCEP
TLV Type Indicators" registry as follows:
+----------+---------------------------------+-------------+
| TLV Type | TLV Name | Reference |
+----------+---------------------------------+-------------+
| TBD2 | Disjointness Configuration TLV | [This.I-D] |
| TBD3 | Disjointness Status TLV | [This.I-D] |
+----------+---------------------------------+-------------+
This document requests that a new sub-registry, named "Disjointness
Configuration TLV Flag Field", is created within the "Path
Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry to manage the
Flag field in the Disjointness Configuration TLV. New values are to
be assigned by Standards Action [RFC8126]. Each bit should be
tracked with the following qualities:
o Bit number (count from 0 as the most significant bit)
o Flag Name
o Reference
+------------+-------------------------+-------------+
| Bit Number | Name | Reference |
+------------+-------------------------+-------------+
| 31 | L - Link Diverse | [This.I-D] |
| 30 | N - Node Diverse | [This.I-D] |
| 29 | S - SRLG Diverse | [This.I-D] |
| 28 | P - Shortest Path | [This.I-D] |
| 27 | T - Strict Disjointness | [This.I-D] |
+------------+-------------------------+-------------+
Table 1: Disjointness Configuration TLV
Litkowski, et al. Expires March 2, 2020 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft ASSOC-DISJOINT August 2019
7.3. Objective Functions
Three new Objective Functions have been defined in this document.
IANA is requested to make the following allocations from the PCEP
"Objective Function" sub-registry:
+------------+----------------------------------------+-------------+
| Code Point | Name | Reference |
+------------+----------------------------------------+-------------+
| TBD4 | Minimize the number of shared Links | [This.I-D] |
| | (MSL) | |
| TBD5 | Minimize the number of shared SRLGs | [This.I-D] |
| | (MSS) | |
| TBD6 | Minimize the number of shared Nodes | [This.I-D] |
| | (MSN) | |
+------------+----------------------------------------+-------------+
7.4. NO-PATH-VECTOR Bit Flags
This documents defines new bits for the NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV in the
"NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV Flag Field" sub-registry of the "Path Computation
Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry. IANA is requested to make
the following allocation:
+------------+-----------------------------------------+------------+
| Bit Number | Name | Reference |
+------------+-----------------------------------------+------------+
| TBD7 | Disjoint path not found | [This.I-D] |
| TBD8 | Requested disjoint computation not | [This.I-D] |
| | supported | |
+------------+-----------------------------------------+------------+
Table 2: NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV
7.5. PCEP-ERROR Codes
This document defines new Error-Value within existing Error-Type
related to path protection association. IANA is requested to
allocate new error values within the "PCEP-ERROR Object Error Types
and Values" sub-registry of the PCEP Numbers registry, as follows:
Litkowski, et al. Expires March 2, 2020 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft ASSOC-DISJOINT August 2019
+----------+-------------------------+------------------------------+
| Error- | Meaning | Reference |
| Type | | |
+----------+-------------------------+------------------------------+
| 6 | Mandatory Object | [I-D.ietf-pce-association-gr |
| | missing | oup] |
| | Error-value=TBD8: | [This.I-D] |
| | DISJOINTNESS- | |
| | CONFIGURATION TLV | |
| | missing | |
| 10 | Reception of an invalid | [RFC5440] |
| | object | |
| | Error-value=TBD9: | [This.I-D] |
| | Incompatible OF code | |
+----------+-------------------------+------------------------------+
8. Manageability Considerations
8.1. Control of Function and Policy
An operator SHOULD be allowed to configure the disjointness
association groups and disjoint parameters at the PCEP peers and
associate it with the LSPs. The Operator-configured Association
Range MUST be allowed to be set by the operator. Operator SHOULD be
allowed to set the local policies to define various disjoint
computational behavior at the PCE.
8.2. Information and Data Models
An implementation SHOULD allow the operator to view the disjoint
associations configured or created dynamically. Further
implementation SHOULD allow to view disjoint associations reported by
each peer, and the current set of LSPs in this association. The PCEP
YANG module [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang] includes association groups
information.
8.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring
Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new liveness
detection and monitoring requirements in addition to those already
listed in [RFC5440].
8.4. Verify Correct Operations
Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new operation
verification requirements in addition to those already listed in
[RFC5440].
Litkowski, et al. Expires March 2, 2020 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft ASSOC-DISJOINT August 2019
8.5. Requirements On Other Protocols
Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new requirements
on other protocols.
8.6. Impact On Network Operations
Mechanisms defined in [RFC5440], Section 8.6 also apply to PCEP
extensions defined in this document. Additionally, a PCEP
implementation SHOULD allow a limit to be placed on the number of
LSPs that can belong to a disjoint association group.
9. Acknowledgments
A special thanks to authors of [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group], this
document borrow some of the text from it. Authors would also like to
thank Adrian Farrel and Julien Meuric for the valuable comments.
Thanks to Emmanuel Baccelli for RTGDIR reviews.
10. References
10.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
[RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation
Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5440, March 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5440>.
[RFC5541] Le Roux, JL., Vasseur, JP., and Y. Lee, "Encoding of
Objective Functions in the Path Computation Element
Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5541,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5541, June 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5541>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
Litkowski, et al. Expires March 2, 2020 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft ASSOC-DISJOINT August 2019
[RFC8231] Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Medved, J., and R. Varga, "Path
Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)
Extensions for Stateful PCE", RFC 8231,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8231, September 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8231>.
[I-D.ietf-pce-association-group]
Minei, I., Crabbe, E., Sivabalan, S., Ananthakrishnan, H.,
Dhody, D., and Y. Tanaka, "Path Computation Element
Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for Establishing
Relationships Between Sets of Label Switched Paths
(LSPs)", draft-ietf-pce-association-group-10 (work in
progress), August 2019.
10.2. Informative References
[RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J., and J. Ash, "A Path Computation
Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4655, August 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4655>.
[RFC6007] Nishioka, I. and D. King, "Use of the Synchronization
VECtor (SVEC) List for Synchronized Dependent Path
Computations", RFC 6007, DOI 10.17487/RFC6007, September
2010, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6007>.
[RFC7470] Zhang, F. and A. Farrel, "Conveying Vendor-Specific
Constraints in the Path Computation Element Communication
Protocol", RFC 7470, DOI 10.17487/RFC7470, March 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7470>.
[RFC7525] Sheffer, Y., Holz, R., and P. Saint-Andre,
"Recommendations for Secure Use of Transport Layer
Security (TLS) and Datagram Transport Layer Security
(DTLS)", BCP 195, RFC 7525, DOI 10.17487/RFC7525, May
2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7525>.
[RFC8253] Lopez, D., Gonzalez de Dios, O., Wu, Q., and D. Dhody,
"PCEPS: Usage of TLS to Provide a Secure Transport for the
Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)",
RFC 8253, DOI 10.17487/RFC8253, October 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8253>.
[RFC8281] Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Sivabalan, S., and R. Varga, "Path
Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)
Extensions for PCE-Initiated LSP Setup in a Stateful PCE
Model", RFC 8281, DOI 10.17487/RFC8281, December 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8281>.
Litkowski, et al. Expires March 2, 2020 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft ASSOC-DISJOINT August 2019
[I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang]
Dhody, D., Hardwick, J., Beeram, V., and J. Tantsura, "A
YANG Data Model for Path Computation Element
Communications Protocol (PCEP)", draft-ietf-pce-pcep-
yang-12 (work in progress), July 2019.
Litkowski, et al. Expires March 2, 2020 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft ASSOC-DISJOINT August 2019
Appendix A. Contributor Addresses
Dhruv Dhody
Huawei Technologies
Divyashree Techno Park, Whitefield
Bangalore, Karnataka 560066
India
EMail: dhruv.ietf@gmail.com
Authors' Addresses
Stephane Litkowski
Orange
EMail: stephane.litkowski@orange.com
Siva Sivabalan
Cisco Systems, Inc.
2000 Innovation Drive
Kanata, Ontario K2K 3E8
Canada
EMail: msiva@cisco.com
Colby Barth
Juniper Networks
EMail: cbarth@juniper.net
Mahendra Singh Negi
Huawei Technologies
Divyashree Techno Park, Whitefield
Bangalore, Karnataka 560066
India
EMail: mahend.ietf@gmail.com
Litkowski, et al. Expires March 2, 2020 [Page 23]