Enhancing redundant stateful PCE architecture to support LSP association constraint based computation
draft-litkowski-pce-state-sync-00
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft whose latest revision state is "Replaced".
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Stephane Litkowski , Siva Sivabalan | ||
| Last updated | 2016-10-26 | ||
| Replaced by | draft-ietf-pce-state-sync | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-litkowski-pce-state-sync-00
PCE Working Group S. Litkowski
Internet-Draft Orange
Intended status: Standards Track S. Sivabalan
Expires: April 29, 2017 Cisco
October 26, 2016
Enhancing redundant stateful PCE architecture to support LSP association
constraint based computation
draft-litkowski-pce-state-sync-00
Abstract
[I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] defines stateful extensions for Path
Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP). A Path
Computation Client (PCC) can synchronize an LSP state information to
a Path Computation Element (PCE). [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] allows
for PCE redundancy where a PCC can have redundant PCEP sessions
towards multiple PCEs. In such a case, a PCC gives control on a LSP
to only a single PCE, and only one PCE is responsible for path
computation for this delegated LSP. There are some use cases where
path computation for a particular LSP is linked to another: the most
common use case is path disjointness. The set of LSPs that are
dependant to each other may start from different head-ends. In such
a case, we cannot guarantee that at any time all the head-ends
(acting as PCCs) will delegate their LSP to the same PCE. This
scenario where a group of dependant LSPs are delegated to multiple
PCEs is called a split-brain scenario. This split-brain scenario may
lead to computation loops between PCEs. This document proposes a
solution to enhance redundant stateful PCE architecture to overcome
those issues.
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 [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/.
Litkowski & Sivabalan Expires April 29, 2017 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft state-sync October 2016
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 April 29, 2017.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 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. Introduction and problem statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Proposed solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.1. State-sync session . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.2. Master/slave computation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3. Procedures and protocol extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.1. Opening a state-sync session . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.1.1. TCP session opening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.1.2. Capability advertisement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.2. State synchronization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.3. Maintaining LSP states from different sources . . . . . . 14
3.4. Incremental updates and report forwarding rules . . . . . 15
3.5. Computation priority between PCEs and sub-delegation . . 15
4. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.1. Example 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.2. Example 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4.3. Example 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
5. Using master/slave computation and state-sync sessions to
increase scaling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
8.1. PCEP-Error Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
8.2. STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
8.3. PCEP TLV Type Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Litkowski & Sivabalan Expires April 29, 2017 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft state-sync October 2016
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
1. Introduction and problem statement
When using stateful PCE ([I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce]), a Path
Computation Client (PCC) can synchronize LSP state information to a
Path Computation Element (PCE). In a resiliency case, PCC can may
redundant PCEP sessions towards multiple PCEs. In such a case, a PCC
gives control on a LSP to only a single PCE, and only one PCE is
responsible for the path computation for this delegated LSP: PCC
achieves this by setting the D flag only to the active PCE. The
election of the active PCE is controlled on a per PCC basis. The PCC
usually elects the active PCE by a local configured policy (by
setting a priority). Upon PCEP session failure, or active PCE
failure, PCC may decide to elect a new active PCE by sending new
PCRpt with D flag set to this new active PCE. When the failed PCE or
PCEP session comes back online, it will be up to the vendor to
implement preemption. Doing preemption may lead to some traffic
disruption on the existing path if path results from both PCEs are
not exactly the same. By considering a network with multiple PCCs
and implementing multiple stateful PCEs for redundancy purpose, there
is no guarantee that at any time all the PCCs delegate their LSPs to
the same PCE.
+----------+
| PCC1 | LSP1
+----------+
/ \
/ \
+---------+ +---------+
| PCE1 | | PCE2 |
+---------+ +---------+
\ /
\ /
+----------+
| PCC2 | LSP2
+----------+
In the example above, we consider that by configuration, both PCCs
will firstly delegate their LSP to PCE1. So PCE1 is responsible for
computing a path for LSP1 and LSP2. If the PCEP session between PCC2
and PCE1 fails, PCC2 will delegate LSP2 to PCE2. So PCE1 becomes
responsible only for LSP1 path computation while PCE2 is responsible
for the path computation of LSP2. When the PCC2-PCE1 session is back
Litkowski & Sivabalan Expires April 29, 2017 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft state-sync October 2016
online, PCC2 will keep using PCE2 as active PCE (no preemption in
this example). So the result is a permanent situation where each PCE
is responsible for a subset of path computation.
We call this situation a split-brain scenario as there are multiple
computation brains running at the same time while a central
computation unit was required.
There are use cases where a particular LSP path computation is linked
to another LSP path computation: the most common use case is path
disjointness. The set of LSPs that are dependant to each other may
start from a different head-end.
Litkowski & Sivabalan Expires April 29, 2017 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft state-sync October 2016
_________________________________________
/ \
/ +------+ +------+ \
| | PCE1 | | PCE2 | |
| +------+ +------+ |
| |
| +------+ +------+ |
| | PCC1 | ----------------------> | PCC2 | |
| +------+ +------+ |
| |
| |
| +------+ +------+ |
| | PCC3 | ----------------------> | PCC4 | |
| +------+ +------+ |
| |
\ /
\_________________________________________/
_________________________________________
/ \
/ +------+ +------+ \
| | PCE1 | | PCE2 | |
| +------+ +------+ |
| |
| +------+ 10 +------+ |
| | PCC1 | ----- R1 ---- R2 ------- | PCC2 | |
| +------+ | | +------+ |
| | | |
| | | |
| +------+ | | +------+ |
| | PCC3 | ----- R3 ---- R4 ------- | PCC4 | |
| +------+ +------+ |
| |
\ /
\_________________________________________/
In the figure above, we want to create two link-disjoint LSPs:
PCC1->PCC2 and PCC3->PCC4. In the topology, all link metrics are
equal to 1 except the link R1-R2 which has a metric of 10. The PCEs
are responsible for the path computation and PCE1 is the active PCE
for all PCCs in the nominal case.
Scenario 1:
Litkowski & Sivabalan Expires April 29, 2017 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft state-sync October 2016
In the nominal case (PCE1 as active PCE), we first configure
PCC1->PCC2 LSP, as the only constraint is path disjointness, PCE1
sends a PCUpdate message to PCC1 with the ERO: R1->R3->R4->R2->PCC2
(shortest path). PCC1 signals and installs the path. When
PCC3->PCC4 is configured, the PCE already knows the path of
PCC1->PCC2 and can compute a link-disjoint path : the solution
requires to move PCC1->PCC2 onto a new path to let room for the new
LSP. PCE1 sends a PCUpdate message to PCC1 with the new ERO:
R1->R2->PCC2 and a PCUpdate to PCC3 with the following ERO:
R3->R4->PCC4. In the nominal case, there is no issue for PCE1 to
compute a link-disjoint path.
Scenario 2:
Now we consider that PCC1 losts its PCEP session with PCE1 (all other
PCEP sessions are UP). PCC1 delegates its LSP to PCE2.
+----------+
| PCC1 | LSP: PCC1->PCC2
+----------+
\
\ D=1
+---------+ +---------+
| PCE1 | | PCE2 |
+---------+ +---------+
D=1 \ / D=0
\ /
+----------+
| PCC3 | LSP: PCC3->PCC4
+----------+
We first configure PCC1->PCC2 LSP, as the only constraint is path
disjointness, PCE2 (which is the new active PCE for PCC1) sends a
PCUpdate message to PCC1 with the ERO: R1->32->R4->R2->PCC2 (shortest
path). When PCC3->PCC4 is configured, PCE1 is not aware anymore of
LSPs from PCC1, so it cannot compute a disjoint path for PCC3->PCC4
and will send a PCUpdate message to PCC2 with a shortest path ERO:
R3->R4->PCC4. When PCC3->PCC4 LSP will be reported to PCE2 by PCC2,
PCE2 will ensure disjointness computation and will correctly move
PCC1->PCC2 (as it owns delegation for this LSP) on the following
path: R1->R2->PCC2. With this sequence of event and this PCEP
session topology, disjointness is ensured.
Scenario 3:
Litkowski & Sivabalan Expires April 29, 2017 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft state-sync October 2016
+----------+
| PCC1 | LSP: PCC1->PCC2
+----------+
/ \
D=1 / \ D=0
+---------+ +---------+
| PCE1 | | PCE2 |
+---------+ +---------+
/ D=1
/
+----------+
| PCC3 | LSP: PCC3->PCC4
+----------+
With this new PCEP session topology, we first configure PCC1->PCC2,
PCE1 computes the shortest path as it is the only LSP in the
disjoint-group that it is aware of: R1->R3->R4->R2->PCC2 (shortest
path). When PCC3->PCC4 is configured, PCE2 must compute a disjoint
path for this LSP. The only solution found is to move PCC1->PCC2 LSP
on another path, but PCE2 cannot do it as it does not have delegation
for this LSP. In this setup, PCEs are not able to find a disjoint
path.
Scenario 4:
+----------+
| PCC1 | LSP: PCC1->PCC2
+----------+
/ \
D=1 / \ D=0
+---------+ +---------+
| PCE1 | | PCE2 |
+---------+ +---------+
D=0 \ / D=1
\ /
+----------+
| PCC3 | LSP: PCC3->PCC4
+----------+
With this new PCEP session topology, we consider that PCEs are
configured to fallback to shortest path if disjointness cannot be
found. We first configure PCC1->PCC2, PCE1 computes shortest path as
it is the only LSP in the disjoint-group that it is aware of:
R1->R3->R4->R2->PCC2 (shortest path). When PCC3->PCC4 is configured,
PCE2 must compute a disjoint path for this LSP. The only solution
found is to move PCC1->PCC2 LSP on another path, but PCE2 cannot do
it as it does not have delegation for this LSP. PCE2 then provides
Litkowski & Sivabalan Expires April 29, 2017 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft state-sync October 2016
shortest path for PCC3->PCC4: R3->R4->PCC4. When PCC3 receives the
ERO, it reports it back to both PCEs. When PCE1 becomes aware of
PCC3->PCC4 path, it recomputes the CSPF and provides a new path for
PCC1->PCC2: R1->R2->PCC2. The new path is reported back to all PCEs
by PCC1. PCE2 recomputes also CSPF to take into account the new
reported path. The new computation does not lead to any path update.
Scenario 5:
_____________________________________
/ \
/ +------+ +------+ \
| | PCE1 | | PCE2 | |
| +------+ +------+ |
| |
| +------+ 100 +------+ |
| | | -------------------- | | |
| | PCC1 | ----- R1 ----------- | PCC2 | |
| +------+ | +------+ |
| | | | |
| 6 | | 2 | 2 |
| | | | |
| +------+ | +------+ |
| | PCC3 | ----- R3 ----------- | PCC4 | |
| +------+ 10 +------+ |
| |
\ /
\_____________________________________/
Now we consider a new network topology with the same PCEP session
topology as the previous example. We configure both LSPs almost at
the same time. PCE1 will compute a path for PCC1->PCC2 while PCE2
will compute a path for PCC3->PCC4. As each other is not aware of
the path of the second LSP in the group (not reported yet), each PCE
is computing shortest path for the LSP. PCE1 computes ERO: R1->PCC2
for PCC1->PCC2 and PCE2 computes ERO: R3->R1->PCC2->PCC4 for
PCC3->PCC4. When these shortest paths will be reported to each PCE.
Each PCE will recompute disjointness. PCE1 will provide a new path
for PCC1->PCC2 with ERO: PCC1->PCC2. PCE2 will provide also a new
path for PCC3->PCC4 with ERO: R3->PCC4. When those new paths will be
reported to both PCEs, this will trigger CSPF again. PCE1 will
provide a new more optimal path for PCC1->PCC2 with ERO: R1->PCC2 and
PCE2 will also provide a more optimal path for PCC3->PCC4 with ERO:
R3->R1->PCC2->PCC4. So we come back to the initial state. When
those paths will be reported to both PCEs, this will trigger CSPF
Litkowski & Sivabalan Expires April 29, 2017 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft state-sync October 2016
again. An infinite loop of CSPF computation is then happening with a
permanent flap of paths because of the split-brain situation.
This permanent computation loop comes from the inconsistency between
the state of the LSPs as seen by each PCE due to the split-brain:
each PCE is trying to modify at the same time its delegated path
based on the last received path information which defacto invalidates
this receives path information.
Scenario 6: multi-domain
Domain/Area 1 Domain/Area 2
________________ ________________
/ \ / \
/ +------+ | | +------+ \
| | PCE1 | | | | PCE3 | |
| +------+ | | +------+ |
| | | |
| +------+ | | +------+ |
| | PCE2 | | | | PCE4 | |
| +------+ | | +------+ |
| | | |
| +------+ | | +------+ |
| | PCC1 | | | | PCC2 | |
| +------+ | | +------+ |
| | | |
| | | |
| +------+ | | +------+ |
| | PCC3 | | | | PCC4 | |
| +------+ | | +------+ |
\ | | |
\_______________/ \________________/
In the example above, we want to create disjoint LSPs from PCC1 to
PCC2 and from PCC4 to PCC3. All the PCEs have the knowledge of both
domain topologies (e.g. using BGP-LS). For operation/management
reason, each domain uses its own group of redundant PCEs. PCE1/PCE2
in domain 1 have PCEP sessions with PCC1 and PCC3 while PCE3/PCE4 in
domain 2 have PCEP sessions with PCC2 and PCC4. As PCE1/2 do not
know about LSPs from PCC2/4 and PCE3/4 do not know about LSPs from
PCC1/3, there is no possibility to compute the disjointness
constraint. This scenario can also be seen as a split-brain
scenario. This multi-domain architecture (with multiple groups of
PCEs) can also be used in a single domain, where an operator wants to
limit the failure domain by creating multiple groups of PCEs
maintaining a subset of PCCs. As for the multi-domain example, there
Litkowski & Sivabalan Expires April 29, 2017 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft state-sync October 2016
will be no possibility to compute disjoint path starting from head-
ends managed by different PCE groups.
In this document, we will propose a solution that address the
possibility to compute LSP association based constraints (like
disjointness) in split-brain scenarios while preventing computation
loops.
2. Proposed solution
Our solution is based on :
o The creation of the inter-PCE stateful PCEP session.
o A master/slave mechanism between PCEs.
2.1. State-sync session
We propose to create a PCEP session between the PCEs. Creating such
session is already authorized by multiple scenarios like the one
described in [RFC4655] (multiple PCEs that are handling part of the
path computation) and [RFC6805] (hierarchical PCE) but was mainly
focused on stateless PCEP sessions. As stateful PCE brings
additional features (LSP state synchronization, path update ...),
some new behaviors need to be defined.
This inter-PCE PCEP session will allow exchange of LSP states between
PCEs that would help some scenario where PCEP sessions are lost
between PCC and PCE. This inter-PCE PCEP session is called a state-
sync session.
For example, in the scenario below, there is no possibility to
compute disjointness as there is no PCE aware of both LSPs.
+----------+
| PCC1 | LSP: PCC1->PCC2
+----------+
/
D=1 /
+---------+ +---------+
| PCE1 | | PCE2 |
+---------+ +---------+
/ D=1
/
+----------+
| PCC3 | LSP: PCC3->PCC4
+----------+
Litkowski & Sivabalan Expires April 29, 2017 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft state-sync October 2016
If we add a state-sync session, PCE1 will be able to forward some
PCRpt for its LSP to PCE2 and PCE2 will do the same. All the PCEs
will be aware of all LSPs even if PCC->PCE session are down. PCEs
will then be able to compute disjoint paths.
+----------+
| PCC1 | LSP : PCC1->PCC2
+----------+
/
D=1 /
+---------+ PCEP +---------+
| PCE1 | ----- | PCE2 |
+---------+ +---------+
/ D=1
/
+----------+
| PCC3 | LSP : PCC3->PCC4
+----------+
The procedures associated with this state-sync session are defined in
Section 3.
Adding this state-sync session does not ensure that path with LSP
association based constraints can always been computed and does not
prevent computation loop, but it increases resiliency and ensures
that PCEs will have the state information for all LSPs in the group.
2.2. Master/slave computation
As seen in Section 1, performing computation in a split-brain
scenario (multiple PCEs responsible for computation) may provide less
optimal LSP placement, no solution or computation loops. To provide
the best efficiency, LSP association constraint based computation
requires that a single PCE performs the path computation for all LSPs
in the association group.
We propose to add a priority mechanism. Using this priority
mechanism, PCEs can agree on the PCE that will be responsible for the
computation for a particular association group, or set of LSPs.
When a single PCE is performing computation for a particular
association group, no computation loop can happen. The other PCEs
will only act as state collectors and forwarders.
In the scenario described in Section 2.1, PCE1 and PCE2 will decide
that PCE1 will be responsible for the path computation of both LSPs.
If we first configure PCC1->PCC2, PCE1 computes shortest path at it
Litkowski & Sivabalan Expires April 29, 2017 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft state-sync October 2016
is the only LSP in the disjoint-group that it is aware of:
R1->R3->R4->R2->PCC2 (shortest path). When PCC3->PCC4 is configured,
PCE2 will not perform computation even if it has delegation but
forwards the PCRpt to PCE1 through the state-sync session. PCE1 will
then perform disjointness computation and will move PCC1->PCC2 onto
R1->R2->PCC2 and provides an ERO to PCE2 for PCC3->PCC4:
R3->R4->PCC4.
3. Procedures and protocol extensions
3.1. Opening a state-sync session
3.1.1. TCP session opening
The state-sync session follows the initialization phase as described
in [RFC5440], except that :
o Both PCEs are acting as TCP client and TCP servers.
o The TCP session that uses the highest IP client source address
will be kept while the other will be rejected. This allows to
solve TCP session setup collision.
When the TCP session is opened, initialization phase follows with
OPEN message exchange as usual.
3.1.2. Capability advertisement
A PCE indicates its support of state-sync during the PCEP
Initialization phase. The Open object in the Open message MUST
contains the "Stateful PCE Capability" TLV defined in
[I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce]. A new R (STATE-SYNC-CAPABILITY) flag is
introduced to indicate the support of state-sync.
The format of the STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY 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 | Length=4 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Flags |R|F|D|T|I|S|U|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
This document only updates the Flags field with :
Litkowski & Sivabalan Expires April 29, 2017 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft state-sync October 2016
R (STATE-SYNC-CAPABILITY - 1 bit): If set to 1 by a PCEP Speaker,
the PCEP speaker indicates that the session MUST follow the state-
sync procedures. The R bit MUST be set by the two speakers: if a
PCEP Speaker receives a STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV with R=0 while
it advertised R=1, it MUST consider the Open parameters as
unacceptable and follow the procedures described in [RFC5440].
Unassigned bits are considered reserved. They MUST be set to 0 on
transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt.
The U flag MUST be set when sending the STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV
with the R flag set. S flag can be set if optimized synchronization
is required as per [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations].
3.2. State synchronization
When STATE-SYNC-CAPABILITY has been negotiated, each PCEP speaker
will behave as a PCE and PCC at the same time regarding the state
synchronization as defined in [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce]. This
means that each PCEP Speaker:
o MUST generate a PCReport message with S flag set for each LSP in
its LSP database learned from a PCC and for which it has
delegation and send it to its neighbor. (PCC role)
o MUST generate the End Of Synchronization Marker when all delegated
LSPs have been reported and send it to its neighbor. (PCC role)
o MUST wait for LSP states with S=1 and the End Of Synchronization
Marker from its neighbor. (PCE role)
Optimized synchronization can be used as defined in
[I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations].
Two new TLVs are added in the LSP Object
([I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce]). These TLV are called IPV4-STANDBY-
SYNC-TLV, IPV6-STANDBY-SYNC-TLV and have the following format :
Litkowski & Sivabalan Expires April 29, 2017 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft state-sync October 2016
IPV4-STANDBY-SYNC-TLV :
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=[TBD] | Length=8 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv4 original PCC address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Flags |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
IPV6-STANDBY-SYNC-TLV :
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=[TBD] | Length=8 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv6 original PCC address (16 bytes) |
| |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Flags |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
IPv[4|6] original PCC address: MUST be set to the address of the
PCC the LSP state was learned from.
Flags: reserved, MUST be set to 0 on transmission and MUST be
ignored on receipt.
When a PCEP Speaker sends a PCReport on a state-sync session, it MUST
add the IPV4-STANDBY-SYNC-TLV or IPV6-STANDBY-SYNC-TLV. If a PCEP
Speaker receives a PCReport on a state-sync session without those
TLVs, it MUST discard the PCReport and it MUST reply with a PCError
message using error type 6 (Mandatory Object missing) and error-value
[TBD] (STANDBY-SYNC-TLV missing).
3.3. Maintaining LSP states from different sources
When a PCEP Speaker receives a PCReport on a state-sync session, it
MUST store the LSP information into the original PCC address context
(as the LSP belongs to the PCC, not the neighboring PCE that reported
it).
Litkowski & Sivabalan Expires April 29, 2017 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft state-sync October 2016
A PCEP Speaker may receive a state information for a particular LSP
from different sources : the PCC that owns the LSP (through a regular
PCEP session) and one other PCE (through PCEP state-sync session). A
PCEP Speaker MUST always keep the last received state information in
its LSP database, overriding the previously received information.
For example, a PCE first receives a report for a LSP1 from a PCC, and
it then receives a report for LSP1 through a PCEP state-sync session.
The last information received from the state-sync session will so
override the state that was previously received from the PCC.
3.4. Incremental updates and report forwarding rules
During the life of an LSP, its state may change (path, constraints,
operational state ...) and a PCC will advertise a new PCReport to the
PCE.
When a PCE receives a new PCReport from a PCC with D flag set for an
existing LSP, if the LSP state information has changed compared to
the previous information, the PCE MUST forward the PCReport to all
its state-sync sessions and MUST add the appropriate STANDBY-SYNC-TLV
in the PCReport.
When a PCE receives a new PCReport from a PCC with D flag unset for a
previously delegated LSP, the PCE MUST forward the PCReport to all
its state-sync sessions with the R flag set (Remove) and MUST add the
appropriate STANDBY-SYNC-TLV in the PCReport.
When a PCE receives a new PCReport from a PCC with R flag set for
delegated LSP, the PCE MUST forward the PCReport to all its state-
sync sessions keeping the R flag set (Remove) and MUST add the
appropriate STANDBY-SYNC-TLV in the PCReport.
When a PCE receives a PCReport from a state-sync session, it MUST NOT
forward the PCReport to other state-sync sessions.
When a PCReport is forwarded, all the original objects and values are
kept. As an example, the PLSP-ID used in the forwarded PCReport will
be the same as the original one used by the PCC.
3.5. Computation priority between PCEs and sub-delegation
Computation priority is necessary to ensure that a single PCE will
perform the computation for all the LSPs in an association group:
this will allow for more optimized LSP placement and computation loop
prevention mechanism.
All PCEs in the network that are handling LSPs in a common LSP
association group SHOULD be aware of each other including the
Litkowski & Sivabalan Expires April 29, 2017 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft state-sync October 2016
computation priority of each PCE. The computation priority is a
number (1 byte) and the PCE having the highest priority SHOULD be
responsible for the computation. If several PCEs have the same
priority value, their IP address SHOULD be used as a tie-breaker to
rank PCEs: highest IP address as more priority. How PCEs are aware
of the priority of each other is out of scope of this document, but
as example learning priorities could be done through IGP informations
or local configuration.
The definition of the priority MAY be global so the highest priority
PCE will handle all path computations or more granular, so a PCE may
have highest priority for only a subset of LSPs or association-
groups.
A PCEP Speaker receiving a PCReport from a PCC with D flag set that
does not have the highest computation priority, SHOULD forward the
PCReport on all state-sync sessions (as per Section 3.4) and SHOULD
set D flag on the state-sync session towards the highest priority
PCE, D flag will be unset to all other state-sync sessions. This
behavior is similar to the delegation behavior handled at PCC side
and can be seen as a sub-delegation. When a PCEP Speaker sub-
delegates a LSP to another PCE, it looses the control on the LSP and
cannot update it anymore by its own decision.
If the highest priority PCE is failing or if the state-sync session
between the local PCE and the highest priority PCE failed, the local
PCE MAY decide to delegate the LSP to the next highest priority PCE
or to take back control on the LSP.
When a PCE receives a PCReport with D flag set on a state-sync
session, as a regular PCE, it is authorized to update the LSP. When
it needs to update the LSP, it sends a PCUpdate on the state-sync
session towards the PCE that sub-delegated the LSP. The LSP Object
in the PCUpdate message MUST contain the STANDBY-SYNC-TLV (IPv4 or
IPv6). If a PCE receives a PCUpdate on a state-sync session without
the STANDBY-SYNC-TLV, it MUST discard the PCUpdate and MUST reply
with a PCError message using error type 6 (Mandatory Object missing)
and error-value [TBD] (STANDBY-SYNC-TLV missing).
When a PCE receives a valid PCUpdate on a state-sync session, it
SHOULD forward the PCUpdate to the appropriate PCC that delegated the
LSP originally and SHOULD remove the STANDBY-SYNC-TLV from the LSP
Object. Acknowlegment of the PCUpdate is done through a cascaded
mechanism, and the original PCC is the only responsible of triggering
the acknowledgment: when the PCC receives the PCUpdate from the local
PCE, it acknowledges it with a PCReport as per
[I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce]. When receiving the new PCReport from
the PCC, the local PCE uses the defined forwarding rules on the
Litkowski & Sivabalan Expires April 29, 2017 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft state-sync October 2016
state-sync session so the acknowledgment is relayed to the computing
PCE.
A PCE SHOULD NOT compute a path using an association-group constraint
if it has delegation for only a subset of LSPs in the group. In this
case, an implementation MAY use a local policy on PCE to decide if
PCE does not compute path at all for this set of LSP or if it can
compute a path by relaxing the association-group constraint.
4. Examples
4.1. Example 1
_________________________________________
/ \
/ +------+ +------+ \
| | PCE1 | | PCE2 | |
| +------+ +------+ |
| |
| +------+ 10 +------+ |
| | PCC1 | ----- R1 ---- R2 ------- | PCC2 | |
| +------+ | | +------+ |
| | | |
| | | |
| +------+ | | +------+ |
| | PCC3 | ----- R3 ---- R4 ------- | PCC4 | |
| +------+ +------+ |
| |
\ /
\_________________________________________/
+----------+
| PCC1 | LSP : PCC1->PCC2
+----------+
/
D=1 /
+---------+ +---------+
| PCE1 |----| PCE2 |
+---------+ +---------+
/ D=1
/
+----------+
| PCC3 | LSP : PCC3->PCC4
+----------+
PCE1 computation priority 100
PCE2 computation priority 200
Litkowski & Sivabalan Expires April 29, 2017 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft state-sync October 2016
With this PCEP session topology, we still want to have link disjoint
LSPs PCC1->PCC2 and PCC3->PCC4.
We first configure PCC1->PCC2, PCC1 delegates the LSP to PCE1, but as
PCE1 does not have the highest computation priority, it will sub-
delegate the LSP to PCE2 by sending a PCReport with D=1 and including
the STANDBY-SYNC-TLV on the state-sync session. PCE2 receives the
PCReport and as it has delegation for this LSP, it computes shortest
path: R1->R3->R4->R2->PCC2. It then sends a PCUpdate to PCE1
(including the STANDBY-SYNC-TLV) with the computed ERO. PCE1
forwards the PCUpdate to PCC1 (removing the STANDBY-SYNC-TLV). PCC1
acknowledges the PCUpdate by a PCReport to PCE1. PCE1 forwards the
PCReport to PCE2.
When PCC3->PCC4 is configured, PCC3 delegates the LSP to PCE2, PCE2
can compute a disjoint path as it has knowledge of both LSPs and has
delegation also for both. The only solution found is to move
PCC1->PCC2 LSP on another path, PCE2 can move PCC3->PCC4 as it has
delegation for it. It creates a new PCUpdate with new ERO:
R1->R2-PCC2 towards PCE1 which forwards to PCC1. PCE2 sends a
PCUpdate to PCC3 with the path: R3->R4->PCC4.
In this setup, PCEs are able to find a disjoint path while without
state-sync and computation priority they could not.
4.2. Example 2
Litkowski & Sivabalan Expires April 29, 2017 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft state-sync October 2016
_____________________________________
/ \
/ +------+ +------+ \
| | PCE1 | | PCE2 | |
| +------+ +------+ |
| |
| +------+ 100 +------+ |
| | | -------------------- | | |
| | PCC1 | ----- R1 ----------- | PCC2 | |
| +------+ | +------+ |
| | | | |
| 6 | | 2 | 2 |
| | | | |
| +------+ | +------+ |
| | PCC3 | ----- R3 ----------- | PCC4 | |
| +------+ 10 +------+ |
| |
\ /
\_____________________________________/
+----------+
| PCC1 | LSP : PCC1->PCC2
+----------+
/ \
D=1 / \ D=0
+---------+ +---------+
| PCE1 |----| PCE2 |
+---------+ +---------+
D=0 \ / D=1
\ /
+----------+
| PCC3 | LSP : PCC3->PCC4
+----------+
PCE1 computation priority 200
PCE2 computation priority 100
In this example, we configure both LSPs almost at the same time.
PCE1 sub-delegates PCC1->PCC2 to PCE2 while PCE2 keeps delegation for
PCC3->PCC4, PCE2 computes a path for PCC1->PCC2 and PCC3->PCC4 and
can achieve disjointness computation easily. No computation loop
happens in this case.
Litkowski & Sivabalan Expires April 29, 2017 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft state-sync October 2016
4.3. Example 3
_________________________________________
/ \
/ +------+ +------+ \
| | PCE1 | | PCE2 | |
| +------+ +------+ |
| |
| +------+ 10 +------+ |
| | PCC1 | ----- R1 ---- R2 ------- | PCC2 | |
| +------+ | | +------+ |
| | | |
| | | |
| +------+ | | +------+ |
| | PCC3 | ----- R3 ---- R4 ------- | PCC4 | |
| +------+ +------+ |
| |
\ /
\_________________________________________/
+----------+
| PCC1 | LSP : PCC1->PCC2
+----------+
/
D=1 /
+---------+ +---------+ +---------+
| PCE1 |----| PCE2 |----| PCE3 |
+---------+ +---------+ +---------+
/ D=1
/
+----------+
| PCC3 | LSP : PCC3->PCC4
+----------+
PCE1 computation priority 100
PCE2 computation priority 200
PCE2 computation priority 300
With this PCEP session topology, we still want to have link disjoint
LSPs PCC1->PCC2 and PCC3->PCC4.
We first configure PCC1->PCC2, PCC1 delegates the LSP to PCE1, but as
PCE1 does not have the highest computation priority, it will sub-
delegate the LSP to PCE2 (as it cannot reach PCE3 through a state-
sync session). PCE2 cannot compute a path for PCC1->PCC2 as it does
not have the highest priority and cannot sub-delegate the LSP again
towards PCE3.
Litkowski & Sivabalan Expires April 29, 2017 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft state-sync October 2016
When PCC3->PCC4 is configured, PCC3 delegates the LSP to PCE2 that
performs sub-delegation to PCE3. As PCE3 will have knowledge of only
one LSP in the group, it cannot compute disjointness and can decide
to fallback to a less constrained computation to provide a path for
PCC3->PCC4. In this case, it will send a PCUpdate to PCE2 that will
be forwarded to PCC3.
Disjointness cannot be achieved in this scenario because of lack of
state-sync session between PCE1 and PCE3, but no computation loop
happens.
5. Using master/slave computation and state-sync sessions to increase
scaling
The master/slave computation and state-sync sessions architecture can
be used to increase the scaling of the PCE architecture. If the
number of PCCs is really high, it may be too resource consuming for a
single PCE to maintain all the PCEP sessions while at the same time
performing all path computations. Using master/slave computation and
state-sync sessions may allow to create groups of PCEs that manage a
subset of the PCCs and some or no path computations. Decoupling PCEP
session maintenance and computation will allow to increase scaling of
the PCE architecture.
Litkowski & Sivabalan Expires April 29, 2017 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft state-sync October 2016
+----------+
| PCC500 |
+----------+-+
| PCC1 |
+----------+
/ \
/ \
+---------+ +---------+
| PCE1 |---| PCE2 |
+---------+ +---------+
| \ / |
| \/ |
| /\ |
| / \ |
+---------+ +---------+
| PCE3 |---| PCE4 |
+---------+ +---------+
\ /
\ /
+----------+
| PCC501 |
+----------+-+
| PCC1000 |
+----------+
In the figure above, two groups of PCEs are created: PCE1/2 maintain
PCEP sessions with PCC1 up to PCC500, while PCE3/4 maintain PCEP
sessions with PCC501 up to PCC1000. A granular master/slave policy
is setup as follows to loadshare computation between PCEs:
o PCE1 has priority 200 for association ID 1 up to 300, association
source 0.0.0.0. All other PCEs have a decreasing priority for
those associations.
o PCE3 has priority 200 for association ID 301 up to 500,
association source 0.0.0.0. All other PCEs have a decreasing
priority for those associations.
If some PCCs delegate LSPs with association ID 1 up to 300 and
association source 0.0.0.0, the receiving PCE (if not PCE1) will sub-
delegate the LSPs to PCE1. PCE1 becomes responsible for the
computation of these LSP associations while PCE3 is responsible for
the computation of another set of associations.
Litkowski & Sivabalan Expires April 29, 2017 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft state-sync October 2016
6. Security Considerations
TBD.
7. Acknowledgements
TBD.
8. IANA Considerations
This document requests IANA actions to allocate code points for the
protocol elements defined in this document.
8.1. PCEP-Error Object
IANA is requested to allocate a new Error Value for the Error Type 9.
Error-Type Meaning Reference
6 Mandatory Object Missing [RFC5440]
Error-value=TBD: STANDBY-SYNC-TLV missing This document
8.2. STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV
IANA is requested to allocate a new bit value in the STATEFUL-PCE-
CAPABILITY TLV Flag Field sub-registry.
Bit Description Reference
TBD(suggested value 25) STATE-SYNC-CAPABILITY This document
8.3. PCEP TLV Type Indicators
IANA is requested to allocate two new TLV Type Indicator values
within the "PCEP TLV Type Indicators" sub-registry of the PCEP
Numbers registry, as follows:
Value Description Reference
TBD IPV4-STANDBY-SYNC-TLV This document
TBD IPV6-STANDBY-SYNC-TLV This document
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce]
Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Medved, J., and R. Varga, "PCEP
Extensions for Stateful PCE", draft-ietf-pce-stateful-
pce-16 (work in progress), September 2016.
Litkowski & Sivabalan Expires April 29, 2017 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft state-sync October 2016
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J., and J. Ash, "A Path Computation
Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4655, August 2006,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4655>.
[RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation
Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5440, March 2009,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5440>.
9.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations]
Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Medved, J., Varga, R., Zhang, X.,
and D. Dhody, "Optimizations of Label Switched Path State
Synchronization Procedures for a Stateful PCE", draft-
ietf-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations-06 (work in
progress), October 2016.
[RFC6805] King, D., Ed. and A. Farrel, Ed., "The Application of the
Path Computation Element Architecture to the Determination
of a Sequence of Domains in MPLS and GMPLS", RFC 6805,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6805, November 2012,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6805>.
Authors' Addresses
Stephane Litkowski
Orange
Email: stephane.litkowski@orange.com
Siva Sivabalan
Cisco
Email: msiva@cisco.com
Litkowski & Sivabalan Expires April 29, 2017 [Page 24]