PCE Working Group D. Dhody
Internet-Draft U. Palle
Intended status: Standard Huawei Technologies India Pvt Ltd
Expires: December 31, 2011 June 29, 2011
Supporting explicit-path per destination in Path Computation Element
Communication Protocol (PCEP) - P2MP Path Request.
draft-dhody-pce-pcep-p2mp-per-destination-00
Abstract
The ability to determine paths of point-to-multipoint (P2MP)
Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS)
Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths (TE LSPs) is one the key
requirements for Path Computation Element (PCE). [RFC 6006] and
[PCE-P2MP-PROCEDURES] describes these mechanisms for intra and inter
domain environment.
Explicit Path in this document refers to the configured list of
network elements that MUST be traversed or MUST be excluded in the
final path computation. This should not be confused with the RSVP
terminology. Network elements can further be strict or loose hop.
This document describes extensions to the PCE communication Protocol
(PCEP) to define explicit-path per destination in P2MP context.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and 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.
This Internet-Draft will expire on December 31, 2011.
Dhody & Palle Expires December 31, 2011 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft PER-DEST June 2011
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2010 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.
This Internet-Draft will expire on December 31, 2011.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Need to Define Explicit Path Per Destination . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Detailed Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.1. Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.2. Request Message Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.3. Ordering Destinations in END-POINTS Objects . . . . . . . . 5
4.3.1. Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7.1. Control of Function and Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7.2. Information and Data Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7.4. Verify Correct Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7.5. Requirements On Other Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7.6. Impact On Network Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Dhody & Palle Expires December 31, 2011 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft PER-DEST June 2011
1. Introduction
The Path Computation Element (PCE) architecture is defined in
[RFC4655]. [RFC 6006] describe a PCE-based path computation
procedure to compute optimal constrained (G)MPLS P2MP TE LSPs. It
also defines the format of path request message used in P2MP, which
limits explicit path in form of <IRO> / <XRO> to be applied to full
P2MP tunnel and thus to only the common path to all leaves.
This document describes the need for supporting explicit-path per
destination in intra and inter-domain P2MP scenario. It further
lists the path request format and mode of operations
1.1. 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.
2. Terminology
The following terminology is used in this document.
Explicit-Path: Set of network elements configured by the
administrator that MUST be traversed or MUST be excluded.
IRO: Include Route Object.
PCC: Path Computation Client: any client application requesting a
path computation to be performed by a Path Computation Element.
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.
P2MP: Point-to-Multipoint
P2P: Point-to-Point
RRO: Record Route Object
RSVP: Resource Reservation Protocol
TE LSP: Traffic Engineering Label Switched Path.
Dhody & Palle Expires December 31, 2011 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft PER-DEST June 2011
XRO: Exclude Route Object.
3. Need to Define Explicit Path Per Destination
o [PCE-P2MP-PROCEDURES] defines inter-domain P2MP path computation
procedure, since different destinations will have different domain
paths within the domain tree, it requires domain-sequence encoded
in form of <IRO> to be attached per destination. It cannot be
encoded for all destinations.
o Administrator at the source can exert stronger control by
providing explicit path (include, exclude, loose etc) per
destination.
o Compatibility: Basic MPLS TE P2MP Tunnel configurations for
various operators support the configuration of explicit-path per
destination.
4. Detailed Description
4.1. Objective
[RFC 6006] defines Request Message Format and Objects, along with
<end-point-rro-pair-list>. This section introduce the concept of
<iro-list>, <xro-list> and <metric-list> which are added to the <end-
point-rro-pair-list> to support 'per destination'.
Use of <iro-list>, <xro-list> to carry explicit-path per destination.
Use of <iro-list> to carry domain-sequence per destination in inter-
domain scenario.
Use of <metric-list> to carry metric value of each calculated path
encoded in <rro-list>.
4.2. Request Message Format
To carry explicit path for each destination, <END-POINTS> objects
need to be ordered and grouped in a way such that IRO object, XRO
object, RRO object and METRIC object can be associated with each
destination.
Dhody & Palle Expires December 31, 2011 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft PER-DEST June 2011
The format of PCReq message is modified as follows:
<PCReq Message>::= <Common Header>
<request>
where:
<request>::= <RP>
<end-point-iro-xro-rro-metric-list>
[<OF>]
[<LSPA>]
[<BANDWIDTH>]
[<metric-list>]
[<IRO>]
[<LOAD-BALANCING>]
where:
<end-point-iro-xro-rro-metric-list> ::=
<END-POINTS>
[<IRO-List>]
[<XRO-List>]
[<RRO-List>]
[<metric-list>]
[<end-point-iro-xro-rro-metric-list >]
<RRO-List>::=<RRO>[<BANDWIDTH>][<RRO-List>]
<metric-list>::=<METRIC>[<metric-list>]
<IRO-List>::=<IRO>[<IRO-List>]
<XRO-List>::=<XRO>[<XRO-List>]
From [RFC 6006] usage of <end-point-rro-pair-list> is changed to
<end-point-iro-xro-rro-metric-list> in this document.
Note that the new format is backward compatible to [RFC 6006] format.
4.3. Ordering Destinations in END-POINTS Objects
Multiple destinations are encoded into a single ENDPOINTS object,
Each Endpoint maybe followed by multiple lists of IROs, XROs, RROs or
METRICs. The first <IRO> object would belong to the first
destination, the second <IRO> object to the second destination and
hence forth. The first <XRO> object would belong to the first
destination, the second <XRO> object to the second destination and
hence forth...
Note that a destination (P2MP tree leaf) MAY have
Dhody & Palle Expires December 31, 2011 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft PER-DEST June 2011
o both <IRO> and <XRO>
o <IRO> only
o <XRO> only
o No explicit path
To maintain the ordering between the destination and objects in the
list, there MAYBE a need to divide a set of destinations into
multiple ENDPOINTS, this explained in below example.
4.3.1. Example
Destination 1 has include IRO1 and exclude XRO1
Destination 2 has only include IRO2
Destination 3 has only exclude XRO3
Destination 4 has only exclude XRO4
Destination 5 has none
Here if we try to encode all destinations in one <ENDPOINT> and
objects in list, we will not map XRO3 to destination 3, the rule is
to map sequentially and thus XRO3 will belong to destination 2.
To avoid this we must break the set of destinations into two sets as
shown below
Dhody & Palle Expires December 31, 2011 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft PER-DEST June 2011
+-----------------------------+
| Leaf Type |
+-----------------------------+
| Source IP |
+-----------------------------+
+------> | Destination 1 | <ENDPOINT>
| +-----------------------------+
| +-> | Destination 2 |
| * +-----------------------------+
| * | Destination 5 |
| * +-----------------------------+
| *
| * +-----------------------------+
+----*-> | IRO1 |
| * +-----------------------------+
| * | HOPI 1-1 |
| * +-----------------------------+
| * | .... | <IRO-List>
| * +-----------------------------+ with 2 IRO1, IRO2
| +-> | IRO2 |
| +-----------------------------+
| | HOPI 2-1 |
| +-----------------------------+
| | .... |
| +-----------------------------+
|
| +-----------------------------+
+-----> | XRO1 |
+-----------------------------+ <XRO-List>
| HOPX 1-1 | with 1 XRO1
+-----------------------------+
| .... |
+-----------------------------+
ENDPOINT1 carries destination 1, 2 and 5 and corresponding <iro-list>
and <xro-list>. Here Destination 1 has IRO1 and XRO1; Destination 2
has IRO2; and Destination 5 has none.
Dhody & Palle Expires December 31, 2011 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft PER-DEST June 2011
+-----------------------------+
| Leaf Type |
+-----------------------------+
| Source IP |
+-----------------------------+
+------> | Destination 3 | <ENDPOINT>
| +-----------------------------+
| +-> | Destination 4 |
| * +-----------------------------+
| *
| * +-----------------------------+
+----*-> | XRO3 |
* +-----------------------------+
* | HOPX 3-1 |
* +-----------------------------+
* | .... | <XRO-List>
* +-----------------------------+ with 2 XRO3, XRO4
+-> | XRO4 |
+-----------------------------+
| HOPX 4-1 |
+-----------------------------+
| .... |
+-----------------------------+
ENDPOINT2 carries destination 3 and 4 and corresponding <xro-list>
only. Here destination 3 maps to XRO3 and Destination 4 to XRO4.
5. IANA Considerations
TBD
6. Security Considerations
PCEP security mechanisms as described in [RFC6006] and [PCE-P2MP-
PROCEDURES] are applicable for this document. This document does not
add any new security threat.
7. Manageability Considerations
7.1. Control of Function and Policy
Mechanisms defined in this document do not add any new control
function/policy requirements in addition to those already listed in
[RFC6006].
Dhody & Palle Expires December 31, 2011 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft PER-DEST June 2011
7.2. Information and Data Models
Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new MIB
requirements in addition to those already listed in [PCE-P2MP-MIB].
7.3. 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 [RFC6006].
7.4. Verify Correct Operations
Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new operation
verification requirements in addition to those already listed in
[RFC6006].
7.5. Requirements On Other Protocols
Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any requirements on
other protocols in addition to those already listed in [RFC6006].
7.6. Impact On Network Operations
Mechanisms defined in this document do not have any impact on network
operations in addition to those already listed in [RFC6006].
8. Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Pradeep Shastry, Suresh babu, Quintin Zhao and
Chen Huaimo for their useful comments and suggestions.
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to
Indicate Requirement Levels", March 1997.
9.2. Informative References
[PCE-P2MP-MIB] Zhao, Q., Dhody, D., Palle, U., and D. King,
"Management Information Base for the PCE
Communications Protocol (PCEP) When Requesting
Point-to-Multipoint Services", March 2011.
[PCE-P2MP-PROCEDURES] Zhao, Q., Ali, Z., Saad,, T., and D. King,
"PCE-based Computation Procedure To Compute
Dhody & Palle Expires December 31, 2011 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft PER-DEST June 2011
Shortest Constrained P2MP Inter-domain Traffic
Engineering Label Switched Paths",
January 2011.
[RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J., and J. Ash, "A Path
Computation Element (PCE)-Based Architecture",
August 2006.
[RFC4657] Ash, J. and J. Le Roux, "Path Computation
Element (PCE) Communication Protocol Generic
Requirements", September 2006.
[RFC5440] Ayyangar, A ., Farrel, A ., Oki, E., Atlas,
A., Dolganow, A., Ikejiri, Y., Kumaki, K.,
Vasseur, J., and J. Roux, "Path Computation
Element (PCE) communication Protocol (PCEP)",
March 2009.
[RFC6006] Zhao, Q., Verhaeghe, F., Takeda, T., Ali, Z.,
Meuric , J., and D. King, "Extensions to the
Path Computation Element Communication
Protocol (PCEP) for Point-to-Multipoint
Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths",
September 2010.
Authors' Addresses
Dhruv Dhody
Huawei Technologies India Pvt Ltd
Leela Palace
Bangalore, Karnataka 560008
INDIA
EMail: dhruvd@huawei.com
Udayasree Palle
Huawei Technologies India Pvt Ltd
Leela Palace
Bangalore, Karnataka 560008
INDIA
EMail: udayasreepalle@huawei.com
Dhody & Palle Expires December 31, 2011 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft PER-DEST June 2011