PCEP Extensions for Associating Working and Protection LSPs with Stateful PCE
draft-ietf-pce-stateful-path-protection-02

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (pce WG)
Last updated 2018-06-20 (latest revision 2018-06-19)
Replaces draft-ananthakrishnan-pce-stateful-path-protection
Stream IETF
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text xml pdf html bibtex
Stream WG state WG Document
Document shepherd No shepherd assigned
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
PCE Working Group                                     H. Ananthakrishnan
Internet-Draft                                             Packet Design
Intended status: Standards Track                            S. Sivabalan
Expires: December 21, 2018                                         Cisco
                                                                C. Barth
                                                                R. Torvi
                                                        Juniper Networks
                                                                I. Minei
                                                             Google, Inc
                                                               E. Crabbe
                                                  Individual Contributor
                                                                D. Dhody
                                                     Huawei Technologies
                                                           June 19, 2018

    PCEP Extensions for Associating Working and Protection LSPs with
                              Stateful PCE
               draft-ietf-pce-stateful-path-protection-02

Abstract

   A stateful Path Computation Element (PCE) is capable of computing as
   well as controlling via Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP)
   Multiprotocol Label Switching Traffic Engineering Label Switched
   Paths (MPLS LSP).  Furthermore, it is also possible for a stateful
   PCE to create, maintain, and delete LSPs.  This document describes
   PCEP extension to associate two or more LSPs to provide end-to-end
   path protection.

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 December 21, 2018.

Ananthakrishnan, et al. Expires December 21, 2018               [Page 1]
Internet-Draft      Stateful PCE LSP Path Protection           June 2018

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2018 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
   (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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  PCEP Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.1.  Path Protection Association Type  . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.2.  Path Protection Association TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   4.  Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     4.1.  State Synchronization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     4.2.  PCC Initiated LSPs  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     4.3.  PCE Initiated LSPs  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     4.4.  Session Termination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     4.5.  Error Handling  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   5.  Other considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   6.  IANA considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     6.1.  Association Type  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     6.2.  PPAG TLV  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     6.3.  PCEP Errors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   7.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   8.  Manageability Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     8.1.  Control of Function and Policy  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     8.2.  Information and Data Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     8.3.  Liveness Detection and Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     8.4.  Verify Correct Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     8.5.  Requirements On Other Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     8.6.  Impact On Network Operations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
Show full document text