Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCECP) Specific Requirements for Inter-Area MPLS and GMPLS Traffic Engineering
draft-ietf-pce-pcecp-interarea-reqs-05

The information below is for an old version of the document that is already published as an RFC
Document Type RFC Internet-Draft (pce WG)
Author Jean-Louis Le Roux 
Last updated 2015-10-14 (latest revision 2006-12-29)
Stream Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
Formats pdf htmlized (tools) htmlized bibtex
Reviews
Stream WG state (None)
Document shepherd No shepherd assigned
IESG IESG state RFC 4927 (Informational)
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
Telechat date
Responsible AD Ross Callon
Send notices to (None)
Network Working Group                             J.-L. Le Roux (Editor) 
Internet Draft                                            France Telecom 
                                                  
                                                 
                                                 
                                              
                                              
                                                                         
Category: Informational                                                  
Expires: June 2007                                                       
                                                           December 2006 
 
 
 PCE Communication Protocol (PCECP) Specific Requirements for Inter-Area 
    Multi Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) 
                           Traffic Engineering 
 
              
             draft-ietf-pce-pcecp-interarea-reqs-05.txt 
 
 
Status of this Memo 
 
   By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any 
   applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware 
   have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes 
   aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. 
    
   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other 
   groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.  
    
   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." 
    
   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. 
    
   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Le Roux et al.                                                  [Page 1] 
  

Internet Draft draft-ietf-pce-pcecp-interarea-reqs-05.txt  December 2006 

 
Abstract 
    
   For scalability purposes a network may comprise multiple Interior 
   Gateway Protocol (IGP) areas. An inter-area Traffic Engineered-Label 
   Switched Path (TE-LSP) is an LSP that transits through at least two 
   IGP areas. In a multi-area network, topology visibility remains local 
   to a given area, and a head-end Label Switching Router (LSR) cannot 
   compute an inter-area shortest constrained path. One key application 
   of the Path Computation Element (PCE) based architecture is the 
   computation of inter-area TE-LSP paths. The PCE Communication 
   Protocol (PCECP) is used to communicate computation requests from 
   Path Computation Clients (PCC) to PCEs, and to return computed paths 
   in responses. This document lists a detailed set of PCECP specific 
   requirements for support of inter-area TE-LSP path computation. It 
   complements the generic requirements for a PCE Communication 
   Protocol. 
 
Conventions used in this document 
 
   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. 
 
Table of Contents 
    
   1.      Terminology.................................................3 
   2.      Introduction................................................3 
   3.      Motivations for PCE-based Inter-Area Path Computation.......4 
   4.      Detailed Inter-Area Specific Requirements on PCECP..........5 
   4.1.    Control and Recording of Area Crossing......................5 
   4.2.    Area Recording..............................................5 
   4.3.    Strict Explicit Path and Loose Path.........................6 
   4.4.    PCE-list Enforcement and Recording in Multiple PCE 
             Computation...............................................6 
   4.5.    Inclusion of Area IDs in Request............................6 
   4.6.    Area Inclusion/Exclusion....................................7 
   4.7.    Inter-area Diverse Path computation.........................7 
   4.8.    Inter-area Policies.........................................8 
   4.9.    Loop Avoidance..............................................8 
   5.      Manageability Considerations................................8 
   6.      Security Considerations.....................................8 
   7.      Acknowledgments.............................................9 
   8.      IANA Considerations.........................................9 
   9.      References..................................................9 
   9.1.    Normative References........................................9 
   9.2.    Informative References......................................9 
   10.     Editor Address:.............................................9 
   11.     Contributors' Addresses....................................10 
   12.     Intellectual Property Statement............................11 
    
    
 
Le Roux et al.                                                [Page 2] 
  

Internet Draft draft-ietf-pce-pcecp-interarea-reqs-05.txt  December 2006 

 
 
1. Terminology 
    
      LSR: Label Switching Router. 
    
      LSP: MPLS Label Switched Path. 
    
      TE-LSP: Traffic Engineering Label Switched Path. 
    
      IGP area: OSPF Area or IS-IS level. 
    
      ABR: IGP Area Border Router, a router that is attached to more  
      than one IGP areas (ABR in OSPF or L1/L2 router in IS-IS). 
    
      Inter-Area TE LSP: TE LSP that traverses more than one IGP area. 
    
      CSPF: Constrained Shortest Path First. 
 
      SRLG: Shared Risk Link Group. 
 
      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. 
 
      PCC: Path Computation Client, any application that request path  
      computation to be performed by a PCE. 
 
      PCECP: PCE Communication Protocol, a protocol for communication  
      between PCCs and PCEs, and between PCEs. 
 
      ERO: RSVP-TE Explicit Route Object. It encodes the explicit path   
      followed by a TE-LSP. 
 
 
2. Introduction 
 
   [RFC4105] lists a set of motivations and requirements for setting up 
   TE-LSPs across IGP area boundaries. These LSPs are called inter-area 
   TE-LSPs. These requirements include the computation of inter- 
   area shortest constrained paths with key guideline being to respect 
   the IGP hierarchy concept, and particularly the containment of 
   topology information. The main challenge with inter-area MPLS-TE lies 
   in path computation. Indeed the head-end LSR cannot compute an 
   explicit path across areas, as its topology visibility is limited to 
   its own area.  
 
   Inter-area path computation is one of the key applications of the PCE 
   based architecture [RFC4655]. The computation of optimal inter-area 
   paths may be achieved using the services of one or more PCEs.  

 
Le Roux et al.                                                [Page 3] 
  

Internet Draft draft-ietf-pce-pcecp-interarea-reqs-05.txt  December 2006 

   Such PCE-based inter-area path computation could rely for instance on 
   a single multi-area PCE that has the TE database of all the areas in 
   the IGP domain and can directly compute an end-to-end constrained 
   shortest path.  Alternatively, this could rely on the cooperation 
   between PCEs whereby each PCE covers one or more IGP areas and the 
   full set of PCEs covers all areas. 
 
   The generic requirements for a PCE Communication Protocol (PCECP), 
   which allows a PCC to send path computation requests to a PCE and the 
   PCE to send path computation responses to a PCC, are set forth in 
   [RFC4657]. The use of a PCE-based approach for inter-area path 
   computation implies specific requirements on a PCE Communication 
   Protocol, in addition to the generic requirements already listed in 
   [RFC4657]. This document complements these generic requirements by 
   listing a detailed set of PCECP requirements specific to inter-area 
   path computation.  
 
   It is expected that PCECP procedures be defined to satisfy these 
   requirements.  
    
   Note that PCE-based inter-area path computation may require a 
   mechanism for automatic PCE discovery across areas, which is out of 
   the scope of this document. Detailed requirements for such a 
   mechanism are discussed in [RFC4674]. 
 
3. Motivations for PCE-based Inter-Area Path Computation 
    
   IGP hierarchy enables improved IGP scalability, by dividing the IGP 
   domain into areas and limiting the flooding scope of topology 
   information to within area boundaries. A router in an area has full 
   topology information for its own area but only information about 
   reachability to destinations in other areas._ Thus, a head-end LSR 
   cannot compute an end-to-end path that crosses the boundary of its 
   IGP area(s).  
    
   A current solution for computing inter-area TE-LSP path relies on a 
   per domain path computation ([PD-COMP]). It is based on loose hop 
   routing with an ERO expansion on each ABR. This allows an LSP to be 
   set up following a constrained path, but faces two major limitations:  
   - This does guarantee the use of an optimal constrained path; 
   - This may lead to several crankback signaling messages and hence        
     delay the LSP setup, and may also invoke possible alternate routing     
     activities. 
    
   Note that, here, by optimal constrained path we mean the shortest 
   constrained path across multiple areas, taking into account either 
   the IGP or TE metric [METRIC]. In other words, such a path is the 
   path that would have been computed by making use of some CSPF 
   algorithm in the absence of multiple IGP areas.  
    
   The PCE based architecture [RFC4655] is well suited to inter-area 
   path computation, as it allows the path computation limitations 
 
Le Roux et al.                                                [Page 4] 
  

Internet Draft draft-ietf-pce-pcecp-interarea-reqs-05.txt  December 2006 

   resulting from the limited topology visibility to be overcome by 
   introducing path computation entities with more topology visibility, 
   or by allowing cooperation between path computation entities in each 
   area. 
    
   There are two main approaches for the computation of an inter-area 
   optimal path: 
   - Single PCE computation: The path is computed by a single PCE that  
     has topology visibility in all areas and can compute an end- 
     to-end optimal constrained path on its own. 
   - Multiple PCE computation with inter-PCE communication: The path  
     computation is distributed on multiple PCEs, which have partial  
     topology visibility. They compute path segments in their domains of  
     visibility and collaborate with each other so as to arrive at an  
     end-to-end optimal constrained path. Such collaboration is ensured   
     thanks to inter-PCE communication. 
    
   Note that the use of a PCE-based approach, to perform inter-area path 
   computation implies specific functional requirements in a PCECP, in 
   addition to the generic requirements listed in [RFC4657]. These 
   specific requirements are discussed in next section. 
 
4. Detailed Inter-Area Specific Requirements on PCECP 
 
   This section lists a set of additional requirements for the PCECP 
   that complement requirements listed in [RFC4657] and are specific to 
   inter-area (G)MPLS TE path computation. 
    
4.1. Control and Recording of Area Crossing 
    
   In addition to the path constraints specified in [RFC4657], the 
   request message MUST allow indicating whether area crossing is 
   allowed or not. Indeed, when the source and destination reside in the 
   same IGP area, there may be intra-area and inter-area feasible paths. 
   As set forth in [RFC4105], if the shortest path is an inter-area 
   path, an operator either may want to avoid, as far as possible, 
   crossing areas and thus may prefer selecting a sub-optimal intra-area 
   path or, conversely, may prefer to use a shortest path, even if it 
   crosses areas.   
    
   Also, when the source and destination reside in the same area it may 
   be useful to know whether the returned path is an inter-area path. 
   Hence the response message MUST allow indicating whether the computed 
   path is crossing areas. 
 
4.2. Area Recording 
     
   It may be useful for the PCC to know the set of areas crossed by an 
   inter-area path and the corresponding path segments. Hence the 
   response message MUST allow identifying the crossed areas. Also the 
   response message MUST allow segmenting the returned path and marking 

 
Le Roux et al.                                                [Page 5] 
  

Internet Draft draft-ietf-pce-pcecp-interarea-reqs-05.txt  December 2006 

   each segment so that it is possible to tell which piece of the path 
   lie within which area. 
 
4.3. Strict Explicit Path and Loose Path 
    
   A Strict Explicit Path is defined as a set of strict hops, while a 
   Loose Path is defined as a set of at least one loose hop and zero, 
   one or more strict hops. An inter-area path may be strictly explicit 
   or loose (e.g. a list of ABRs as loose hops). It may be useful to 
   indicate to the PCE if a Strict Explicit path is required or not. 
   Hence the PCECP request message MUST allow indicating whether a 
   Strict Explicit Path is required/desired. 
 
4.4. PCE-list Enforcement and Recording in Multiple PCE Computation 
 
   In case of multiple-PCE inter-area path computation, a PCC may want 
   to indicate a preferred list of PCEs to be used, one per area.  
   In each area the preferred PCE should be tried before another PCE be 
   selected. Note that if there is no preferred PCE indicated for an 
   area, any PCE in that area may be used. 
    
   Hence the PCECP request message MUST support the inclusion of a list 
   of preferred PCEs per area. Note that this requires that a PCC in one 
   area have knowledge of PCEs in other areas. This could rely on 
   configuration or on a PCE discovery mechanism, allowing discovery 
   across area boundaries (see [RFC4674]). 
    
   Also it would be useful to know the list of PCEs which effectively 
   participated in the computation. Hence the request message MUST 
   support a request for PCE recording and the response message MUST 
   support the recording of the set of one or more PCEs that took part 
   in the computation. 
    
   It may also be useful to know the path segments computed by each PCE. 
   Hence the request message SHOULD allow a request for the 
   identification of path segments computed by a PCE, and the response 
   message SHOULD allow identifying the path segments computed by each 
   PCE. 
 
4.5. Inclusion of Area IDs in Request 
    
   The knowledge of the areas in which the source and destination lie 
   would allow a PCE to select an appropriate downstream PCE. This would 
   be useful when the area ID(s) of a PCE (i.e. the area(s) where it has 
   visibility) is/are known, which can be achieved by the PCE Discovery 
   Protocol (see [RFC4674]) or any other mean. 
    
   A PCE may not have any visibility of the source/destination area and 
   hence may not be able to determine the area of the 
   source/destination. In such a situation it would be useful that a PCC 
   indicates the source and destination area IDs in its request message.  
    
 
Le Roux et al.                                                [Page 6] 
  

Internet Draft draft-ietf-pce-pcecp-interarea-reqs-05.txt  December 2006 

   For that purpose the request message MUST support the inclusion of  
   the source and destination area IDs. Note that this information could  
   be learned by the PCC through configuration. 
 
4.6. Area Inclusion/Exclusion 
    
   In some situations, it may be useful that the request message  
   indicate one or more area(s) that must be followed by the path to be  
   computed. It may also be useful that the request message indicate one 
   or more area(s) that must be avoided by the path to be computed (e.g. 
   request for a path between LSRs in two stub areas connected to the 
   same ABR(s), which must not cross the backbone area). Hence the 
   request message MUST allow indicating a set of one or more area(s) 
   that must be explicitly included in the path, and a set of one or 
   more area(s) that must be explicitly excluded from the path. 
 
4.7. Inter-area Diverse Path computation 
    
   For various reasons, including protection and load balancing, the 
   computation of diverse inter-area paths may be required.  
   There are various levels of diversity in an inter-area context:  
        -Per-area diversity (intra-area path segments are link, node or  
         SRLG disjoint) 
        -Inter-area diversity (end-to-end inter-area paths are link,  
         node or SRLG disjoint) 
    
   Note that two paths may be disjoint in the backbone area but non-
   disjoint in peripheral areas. Also two paths may be node disjoint 
   within areas but may share ABRs, in which case path segments within 
   an area are node disjoint but end-to-end paths are not node-disjoint. 
 
   The request message MUST allow requesting the computation of a set of 
   inter-area diverse paths between the same node pair or between 
   distinct node pairs. It MUST allow indicating the required level of 
   diversity of a set of inter-area paths (link, node, SRLG diversity), 
   as well as the required level of diversity of a set of intra-area 
   segments of inter-area paths (link, node, SRLG diversity) on a per-
   area basis. 
    
   The response message MUST allow indicating the level of diversity of 
   a set of computed inter-area loose paths (link, node, SRLG 
   diversity), globally, and on a per-area basis (link, node, SRLG 
   diversity of intra-area path segments). 
    
   Note that, in order to ensure SRLG consistency, SRLG identifiers 
   within the IGP domain should be assigned and allocated by the same 
   entity. 
    
 
   Note that specific objective functions may be requested for diverse 
   path computation, such as minimizing the cumulated cost of a set of 
   diverse paths as set forth in [RFC4657]. 
 
Le Roux et al.                                                [Page 7] 
  

Internet Draft draft-ietf-pce-pcecp-interarea-reqs-05.txt  December 2006 

    
    
 
4.8. Inter-area Policies 
    
   In addition to the policy requirements discussed in [RFC4657], the 
   application of inter-area path computation policies requires some 
   additional information to be carried in the PCECP request messages. 
   The request message MUST allow for the inclusion of the address of   
   the originating PCC. This may be useful in a multiple PCE       
   computation, so as to apply policies not only based on the PCECP peer  
   but also based on the originating PCC. 
 
   Note that work on supported policy models and the corresponding 
   requirements/implications is being undertaken as a separate work item 
   in the PCE working group ([PCE-POL-FMWK]). 
    
4.9. Loop Avoidance 
    
   In case of multiple-PCE inter-area path computation, there may be 
   risks of PCECP request loops. A mechanism MUST be defined to detect 
   and correct PCECP request message loops. This may rely, for instance, 
   on the recording, in the request message, of the set of traversed 
   PCEs.  
    
   Also the returned path in a response message MUST be loop free. 
    
 
5. Manageability Considerations 
    
   The inter-area application implies some new manageability 
   requirements in addition to those already listed in [RFC4657]. The 
   PCECP PCC and PCE MIB modules MUST allow recording the proportion of 
   inter-area requests and the success rate of inter-area requests. The 
   PCEP PCC MIB module MUST also allow recording the performances of a 
   PCE chain (minimum, maximum and average response time), in case of 
   multiple-PCE inter-area path computation. 
    
   A built in diagnostic tool MUST be defined to monitor the 
   performances of a PCE chain, in case of multiple-PCE inter-area path 
   computation. It MUST allow determining the minimum maximum and 
   average response time globally for the chain, and on a per PCE basis. 
 
6. Security Considerations 
    
   IGP areas are administrated by the same entity. Hence the inter-area 
   application does not imply a new trust model, or new security issues 
   beyond those already defined in [RFC4657]. 
    
    
    

 
Le Roux et al.                                                [Page 8] 
  

Internet Draft draft-ietf-pce-pcecp-interarea-reqs-05.txt  December 2006 

7. Acknowledgments 
 
   We would also like to thank Adrian Farrel, Jean-Philippe Vasseur, 
   Bruno Decraene, Yannick Le Louedec, Dimitri Papadimitriou and Lou  
   Berger for their useful comments and suggestions. 
 
8. IANA Considerations 
    
      This document makes no requests for IANA action. 
 
9. References 
    
9.1. Normative References 
    
   [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 
   Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 
    
   [RFC4105] Le Roux J.L., Vasseur J.P., Boyle, J., et al. "Requirements 
   for inter-area MPLS-TE" RFC 4105, June 2005. 
    
   [RFC4655] A. Farrel, JP. Vasseur and J. Ash, "Path Computation 
   Element (PCE) Based Architecture", RFC4655, August 2006. 
    
   [RFC4657] J. Ash, J.L Le Roux et. al., "PCE Communication Protocol 
   Generic Requirements", RFC4657, September 2006. 
 
9.2. Informative References 
    
   [RFC4674] J.L. Le Roux et. al., "Requirements for Path Computation 
   Element (PCE) Discovery", RFC4674, October 2006. 
 
   [PD-COMP] Vasseur, J.P., Ayyangar, A., Zhang, R., "A Per-domain path 
   computation method for computing Inter-domain Traffic Engineering 
   (TE) Label Switched Path (LSP)", work in progress. 
             
   [PCE-POL-FMWK] I. Bryskin, D. Papadimitriou, L. Berger "Policy-
   Enabled Path Computation Framework", draft-ietf-pce-policy-enabled-
   path-comp, work in progress. 
    
   [METRIC] Le Faucheur et al., "Use of Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP)  
   Metric as a second MPLS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric", RFC3785, 
   May 2004. 
 
10. Editor Address:  
     
   Jean-Louis Le Roux  
   France Telecom  
   2, avenue Pierre-Marzin  
   22307 Lannion Cedex  
   FRANCE 
   Email: jeanlouis.leroux@orange-ftgroup.com 
  
 
Le Roux et al.                                                [Page 9] 
  

Internet Draft draft-ietf-pce-pcecp-interarea-reqs-05.txt  December 2006 

11. Contributors' Addresses 
 
   Jerry Ash 
   AT&T 
   Room MT D5-2A01 
   200 Laurel Avenue 
   Middletown, NJ 07748, USA 
   Phone: +1-(732)-420-4578 
   Email: gash@att.com 
 
   Nabil Bitar 
   Verizon 
   40 Sylvan Road 
   Waltham, MA 02145 
   Email: nabil.bitar@verizon.com 
 
   Dean Cheng 
   Cisco Systems Inc. 
   3700 Cisco Way 
   San Jose CA 95134 USA 
   Phone: +1 408 527 0677 
   Email: dcheng@cisco.com 
 
   Kenji Kumaki 
   KDDI Corporation 
   Garden Air Tower 
   Iidabashi, Chiyoda-ku, 
   Tokyo 102-8460, JAPAN 
   Phone: +81-3-6678-3103 
   Email: ke-kumaki@kddi.com 
 
   Eiji Oki 
   NTT 
   Midori-cho 3-9-11 
   Musashino-shi, Tokyo 180-8585, JAPAN 
   Email: oki.eiji@lab.ntt.co.jp 
 
   Raymond Zhang 
   BT 
   2160 E. Grand Ave. 
   El Segundo, CA 90245 
   USA 
   raymond.zhang@bt.com 
    
   Renhai Zhang 
   Huawei Technologies 
   No. 3 Xinxi Road, Shangdi,  
   Haidian District,  
   Beijing City,  
   P. R. China 
   Email: zhangrenhai@huawei.com  
 
 
Le Roux et al.                                               [Page 10] 
  

Internet Draft draft-ietf-pce-pcecp-interarea-reqs-05.txt  December 2006 

12. Intellectual Property Statement 
 
   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any 
   Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to 
   pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in 
   this document or the extent to which any license under such rights 
   might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has 
   made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information 
   on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be 
   found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. 
    
   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any 
   assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an 
   attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of 
   such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this 
   specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at 
   http://www.ietf.org/ipr. 
    
   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any 
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary 
   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement 
   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at  
   ietf-ipr@ietf.org. 
    
   Disclaimer of Validity 
    
   This document and the information contained herein are provided 
   on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE 
   REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE  
   IETF TRUST AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL 
   WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY 
   WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE 
   ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS 
   FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 
 
   Copyright Statement 
    
   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2006). This document is subject to the 
   rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and except as 
   set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. 
    
 

 
Le Roux et al.                                               [Page 11]