PCE Working Group D. Dhody
Internet-Draft U. Palle
Intended status: Experimental V. Kondreddy
Expires: April 2, 2015 Huawei Technologies
September 29, 2014
Supporting Explicit Inclusion or Exclusion of Abstract Nodes for a
Subset of P2MP Destinations in Path Computation Element Communication
Protocol (PCEP).
draft-dhody-pce-pcep-p2mp-per-destination-07
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). The RFC 6006 and
RFC 7334 describes these mechanisms for intra and inter domain path
computation via PCE(s).
This document describes the motivation and PCEP extension for
explicitly specifying abstract nodes for inclusion or exclusion for a
subset of destinations during P2MP path computation via PCE(s).
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/.
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 2, 2015.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Dhody, et al. Expires April 2, 2015 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft EXPLICIT-INC-EXC-ABSTRACT-NODES September 2014
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Domain Sequence Tree in Inter Domain P2MP Path
Computation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1.1. PCE-sequence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. Explicit inclusion or exclusion of abstract nodes . . . . 5
4. Detailed Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2. Request Message Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.3. Backward Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7.4. Verify Correct Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
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
1. Introduction
The PCE architecture is defined in [RFC4655]. [RFC5862] lay out the
requirements for PCEP to support P2MP path computation. [RFC6006]
describe an extension to PCEP to compute optimal constrained intra-
domain (G)MPLS P2MP TE LSPs. [RFC7334] describes the mechanism for
inter-domain P2MP path computation.
Further [RFC6006] describes mechanism to specify a list of nodes that
can be used as branch nodes or a list of nodes that cannot be used as
Dhody, et al. Expires April 2, 2015 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft EXPLICIT-INC-EXC-ABSTRACT-NODES September 2014
branch nodes via Branch Node Capability (BNC) object. The BNC object
is used to specify which nodes have the capability to act as a branch
nodes or which nodes lack the capabilty. It supports IPv4 and IPv6
prefix sub-objects only.
This document explains the need to add the capability to explicitly
specify any abstract nodes (not just nodes with branch node
capabiltiy) for inclusion or exclusion for a subset of destinations.
[RFC7334] describes the core-tree procedure to compute inter-domain
P2MP tree. It assumes that, due to deployment and commercial
limitations, the sequence of domains for a path (the path domain
tree) will be known in advance. For a group of destination which
belong to a particular destination domain, the domain-sequence needs
to be encoded separately as described in [DOMAIN-SEQ]. The
mechanism, as described in this document, of explicitly specifying
abstract nodes for inclusion or exclusion for a subset of
destinations can be used for this purpose, where abstract nodes are
domains.
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.
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.
PCEP: Path Computation Element Protocol.
P2MP: Point-to-Multipoint
P2P: Point-to-Point
RRO: Record Route Object
Dhody, et al. Expires April 2, 2015 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft EXPLICIT-INC-EXC-ABSTRACT-NODES September 2014
RSVP: Resource Reservation Protocol
TE LSP: Traffic Engineering Label Switched Path.
XRO: Exclude Route Object.
3. Motivation
3.1. Domain Sequence Tree in Inter Domain P2MP Path Computation
[RFC7334] describes the core-tree procedure for inter-domain path
computation. The procedure assumes that the sequence of domains for
a path (the path domain tree) will be known in advance due to
deployment and commercial limitations (e.g., inter-AS peering
agreements).
In the Figure 1 below, D1 is the root domain; D5 and D6 are the
destination domains. The ingress is A in domain D1; egresses are X,
Y in Domain D6 and Z in Domain D5.
----------- ----------
| Domain D3 | | Domain D6|
| | |*** *** |
/| | |*X* *Y* |
/ | | |*** *** |
/ -----------\ /----------
/ \ /
/ \ /
/ \ /
------------/ \------------/
| Domain D1 | | Domain D4 |
| *** | | |
| *A* | | |
| *** | | |
------------\ /------------\
\ / \
\ / \
\ / \
\ -----------/ \----------
\ | Domain D2 | | Domain D5|
\| | |*** |
| | |*Z* |
| | |*** |
----------- ----------
Figure 1: Domain Topology Example
Dhody, et al. Expires April 2, 2015 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft EXPLICIT-INC-EXC-ABSTRACT-NODES September 2014
In the Figure 2 below, the P2MP tree spans 5 domains. Destination in
D6 (X and Y) would use the domain-sequence: D1-D3-D4-D6; and
destination in D5 (Z) would use the domain-sequence: D1-D3-D4-D5.
D3 D6
/ \ /
D1 D4
\
D5
Figure 2: Domain Sequence Tree
Since destinations in different destination domain will have
different domain sequence within the domain tree, it requires
following encoding-
o Destination X and Y: D1-D3-D4-D6
o Destination Z : D1-D3-D4-D5
An extension in P2MP Path Computation request is needed to support
this. (Refer Section 4.2)
The abstract nodes MAY include (but not limited to) domain subobjects
AS number and IGP Area as described in [DOMAIN-SEQ].
3.1.1. PCE-sequence
[RFC7334] also mentions PCE-sequence (i.e. list of PCE for each
domain in the path domain tree). [RFC5886] specify PCE-ID object
(used to specify a PCE's IP address) and <pce-list> (list of PCE or
PCE-sequence). Like domain-sequence as explained above, PCE-sequence
will be different for different destinations and thus should be
encoded per subset of destinations.
3.2. Explicit inclusion or exclusion of abstract nodes
[RFC6006] describes four possible types of leaves in a P2MP request
encoded in P2MP END-POINTS object.
o New leaves to add
o Old leaves to remove
o Old leaves whose path can be modified/reoptimized
o Old leaves whose path must be left unchanged
Dhody, et al. Expires April 2, 2015 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft EXPLICIT-INC-EXC-ABSTRACT-NODES September 2014
[RFC6006] only allows to encode a list of nodes that have (or have
not) the branch node capability by using the Branch Node Capability
(BNC) Object. This object apply to all destinations (old and new) in
the P2MP tree.
For an existing P2MP tree with an overloaded branch node, when adding
a set of new leaves, administrator may want to exclude that
particular branch node to balance the final P2MP tree. This cannot
be achieved via the BNC object but by explicitly excluding a
particular node or including a different node, for the P2MP END-
POINTS object for new leaves only.
Administrator at the Ingress can exert stronger control by providing
explicit inclusion or exclusion of any abstract nodes (not limited to
specifying nodes with branch node capability) for a group (subset) of
destinations and not all destinations.
4. Detailed Description
4.1. Objective
[RFC6006] defines Request Message Format and Objects, along with
<end-point-rro-pair-list>. This section introduce the use of <pce-
list>, <IRO> and <XRO> which are added to the <end-point-rro-pair-
list>.
To allow abstract nodes to be explicitly included or excluded for a
subset of destinations (encoded in one <END-POINTS> object), changes
are made as shown below.
The abstract node (encoded as subobject in <IRO> and <XRO>) MAY be an
absolute hop, IP-Prefix, AS or IGP Area. The subobjects are
described in [RFC3209], [RFC3477], [RFC4874] and [DOMAIN-SEQ].
Note that one P2MP Path request can have multiple <END-POINTS>
objects and each P2MP <END-POINTS> object may have multiple
destinations, the <pce-list>, <IRO> and <XRO> is applied for all
destinations in one such P2MP <END-POINTS> object.
4.2. Request Message Format
The format of PCReq message is modified as follows:
Dhody, et al. Expires April 2, 2015 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft EXPLICIT-INC-EXC-ABSTRACT-NODES September 2014
<PCReq Message>::= <Common Header>
<request>
where:
<request>::= <RP>
<end-point-pce-iro-xro-rro-pair-list>
[<OF>]
[<LSPA>]
[<BANDWIDTH>]
[<metric-list>]
[<IRO>]
[<LOAD-BALANCING>]
where:
<end-point-pce-iro-xro-rro-pair-list>::=
<END-POINTS>
[<pce-list>]
[<IRO>]
[<XRO>]
[<RRO-List>][<BANDWIDTH>]
[<end-point-pce-iro-xro-rro-pair-list>]
<pce-list>::=<PCE-ID>[<pce-list>]
<RRO-List>::=<RRO>[<BANDWIDTH>][<RRO-List>]
<metric-list>::=<METRIC>[<metric-list>]
From [RFC6006] usage of <end-point-rro-pair-list> is changed to <end-
point-pce-iro-xro-rro-pair-list> in this document.
[RFC6006] describes Branch Node Capability (BNC) Object which is
different from the use of <IRO> and <XRO> to specify inclusion/
exclusion of abstract nodes for a subset of destinations as described
here.
<pce-list> can be used to specify the Pce-sequence instead of domain-
sequence.
4.3. Backward Compatibility
A legacy implementation that does not support explicit inclusion or
exclusion of abstract nodes for a subset of P2MP destinations will
act according to the procedures set out in [RFC5440], that is it will
find the P2MP Path Request message out of order with respect to the
format specified in [RFC6006].
Dhody, et al. Expires April 2, 2015 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft EXPLICIT-INC-EXC-ABSTRACT-NODES September 2014
5. IANA Considerations
There are no new IANA allocation in this document.
6. Security Considerations
PCEP security mechanisms as described in [RFC5440], [RFC6006] and
[RFC7334] are applicable for this document.
The new explicit inclusion or exclusion of abstract nodes for a
subset of P2MP destination defined in this document allow finer and
more specific control of the path computed by a PCE. Such control
increases the risk if a PCEP message is intercepted, modified, or
spoofed because it allows the attacker to exert control over the path
that the PCE will compute or to make the path computation impossible.
Therefore, the security techniques described in [RFC5440], [RFC6006]
and [RFC7334] are considered more important.
Note, however, that the route exclusion mechanisms also provide the
operator with the ability to route around vulnerable parts of the
network and may be used to increase overall network security.
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].
7.2. Information and Data Models
Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new MIB
requirements.
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].
Dhody, et al. Expires April 2, 2015 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft EXPLICIT-INC-EXC-ABSTRACT-NODES September 2014
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,
Daniel King 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", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC5440] Vasseur, JP. and JL. Le Roux, "Path Computation Element
(PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440, March
2009.
[RFC6006] Zhao, Q., King, D., Verhaeghe, F., Takeda, T., Ali, Z.,
and J. Meuric, "Extensions to the Path Computation Element
Communication Protocol (PCEP) for Point-to-Multipoint
Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths", RFC 6006,
September 2010.
9.2. Informative References
[RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.,
and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001.
[RFC3477] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Signalling Unnumbered Links
in Resource ReSerVation Protocol - Traffic Engineering
(RSVP-TE)", RFC 3477, January 2003.
[RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J., and J. Ash, "A Path Computation
Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655, August 2006.
Dhody, et al. Expires April 2, 2015 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft EXPLICIT-INC-EXC-ABSTRACT-NODES September 2014
[RFC4874] Lee, CY., Farrel, A., and S. De Cnodder, "Exclude Routes -
Extension to Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic
Engineering (RSVP-TE)", RFC 4874, April 2007.
[RFC5862] Yasukawa, S. and A. Farrel, "Path Computation Clients
(PCC) - Path Computation Element (PCE) Requirements for
Point-to-Multipoint MPLS-TE", RFC 5862, June 2010.
[RFC5886] Vasseur, JP., Le Roux, JL., and Y. Ikejiri, "A Set of
Monitoring Tools for Path Computation Element (PCE)-Based
Architecture", RFC 5886, June 2010.
[RFC7334] Zhao, Q., Dhody, D., King, D., Ali, Z., and R. Casellas,
"PCE-Based Computation Procedure to Compute Shortest
Constrained Point-to-Multipoint (P2MP) Inter-Domain
Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths", RFC 7334,
August 2014.
[DOMAIN-SEQ]
Dhody, D., Palle, U., and R. Casellas, "Standard
Representation Of Domain Sequence (draft-ietf-pce-pcep-
domain-sequence)", July 2014.
Authors' Addresses
Dhruv Dhody
Huawei Technologies
Leela Palace
Bangalore, Karnataka 560008
INDIA
EMail: dhruv.ietf@gmail.com
Udayasree Palle
Huawei Technologies
Leela Palace
Bangalore, Karnataka 560008
INDIA
EMail: udayasree.palle@huawei.com
Dhody, et al. Expires April 2, 2015 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft EXPLICIT-INC-EXC-ABSTRACT-NODES September 2014
Venugopal Reddy Kondreddy
Huawei Technologies
Leela Palace
Bangalore, Karnataka 560008
INDIA
EMail: venugopalreddyk@huawei.com
Dhody, et al. Expires April 2, 2015 [Page 11]