Network Working Group X. Fu
Internet-Draft X. Lin
Intended status: Standards Track G. Xie
Expires: September 2, 2010 ZTE Corporation
March 1, 2010
A Framework for Explicit Control of Region Boundary in PCE-Based Inter-
Layer Architecture
draft-fuxh-pce-boundary-explicit-control-framework-00
Abstract
This document defines the framework for explicit control of region
boundary in PCE-based inter-layer architecture.
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 [RFC2119].
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 September 2, 2010.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
Fu, et al. Expires September 2, 2010 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Framework for Region Boundary Control March 2010
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 BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Explicit Control of Region Boundary . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Explicit Control Model of Region Boundary . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1. Explicit Region Control in Single PCE Inter-Layer . . . . 3
3.2. Explicit Region Control in Multiple PCE Inter-Layer . . . 6
4. Protocol Extension Requirements for Explicit Control of
Region Boundary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Fu, et al. Expires September 2, 2010 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Framework for Region Boundary Control March 2010
1. Introduction
PCE can determine regions' boundaries. Without cooperating with VNTM
or policy configuration, a intermediate LSR has to determine regions'
boundaries by using the IGP database and ERO as described in
[RFC4206] in order to trigger the lower layer signaling. A
centralized routing and distributed signaling application is foreseen
in the PCE architecture. Without any or enough TED within the
intermediate LSR, it could not determine regions' boundaries during
the signaling.
This document defines the framework for explicit control of region
boundary in PCE-based inter-layer architecture.
2. Explicit Control of Region Boundary
PCE can determine regions' boundaries. After PCE compute an end-to-
end paths across multi-layer, multi-layer EROs must be carried in
PCRep and Path message in terms of RFC5623. In order to explicit
control of regions' boundaries, a new object (ERBO- Explicit Region
Boundary Object) could be introduced to be carried in PCRep and Path
message. Regions' boundaries should be carried in ERBO.
[draft-fuxh-ccamp-region-boundary-explicit-control-rsvp-ext-00]
defines the RSVP-TE signaling extension for explicit control of
region boundary during the signaling procedure.
[draft-fuxh-pce-region-boundary-explicit-control-pcep-ext-00] deinfes
the PCEP protocol extension for explicit control of region boundary
in PCE-based inter-layer architecture.
3. Explicit Control Model of Region Boundary
3.1. Explicit Region Control in Single PCE Inter-Layer
The process of creating a LSP from H1 to H6 is as follows:
1. H1 sends a route request to PCE,and PCE responses to H1 with ERO
= {H1,H2,L3,L4,H5, H6} and ERBO = {H2,H5}.
2. H1 Sends Path to H2 with ERO = {H2,L3,L4,H5,H6} and ERBO = {H2,
H5}.
3. After H2 receivs the Path message, H2 confirm that it is the
initiator of lower layer LSP in terms of the ERBO, and extracts
the complete route of the lower layer LSP in terms of the other
end of the region.
Fu, et al. Expires September 2, 2010 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Framework for Region Boundary Control March 2010
4. Then H2 starts the creation of lower layer LSP, the route is
H2,L3,L4,H5.
5. After the creation of the lower layer LSP, the Higher-Layer LSP's
creation is to be continued. And the ERO and ERBO in the Path
message is cut out.
Fu, et al. Expires September 2, 2010 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Framework for Region Boundary Control March 2010
-----
| PCE |
-----
^ |
| 2:PCRep
| | (ERO) (ERBO)
| | ---- ----
| | | H1 | | H2 |
| | ---- ----
| | | H2 | | H5 |
| | ---- ----
| | | L3 |
| | ----
| | | L4 |
| | ----
| | | H5 |
| | ----
| | | H6 |
| | ----
| |
1:PCReq |
| v
----- ----- ----- -----
| LSR |--| LSR |................| LSR |--| LSR |
| H1 | | H2 | | H5 | | H6 |
----- -----\ /----- -----
\----- -----/
| LSR |--| LSR |
| L3 | | L4 |
----- -----
---------------> --------------->
3:Path 4:Path
(ERO) (ERBO) (ERO)
---- ---- ----
| H2 | | H2 | | H2 |
---- ---- ----
| L3 | | H5 |
---- ----
| L4 |
----
| H5 |
----
| H6 |
----
Fu, et al. Expires September 2, 2010 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Framework for Region Boundary Control March 2010
3.2. Explicit Region Control in Multiple PCE Inter-Layer
The process of creating a LSP from H1 to H10 is as follows:
1. H1 sends a route request to PCE Ho. PCE Ho computes a multi-
layer path with inter-communication with PCE Lo, and responses
to H1 with ERO = {H1,H2,L3,M1,M2,L4,H5,H6,L7,L8,H9,H10} and ERBO
={H2,H5,L3,L4,H6,H9}.
2. H1 Sends Path to H2 with ERO =
{H2,L3,M1,M2,L4,H5,H6,L7,L8,H9,H10}, ERBO = {H2,H5,L3,L4,H6,H9}
3. After H2 receives the Path, H2 is to create lower layer LSP with
ERO = {H2,L3,M1,M2,L4,H5}.
4. H2 Sends Path to L3 with ERO = {L3,M1,M2,L4,H5} and ERBO =
{L3,L4}.
5. After L3 receives the Path, L3 is to create lower layer LSP with
ERO = {L3,M1,M2,L4}.
6. L3 Sends Path to M1 with ERO = {M1,M2,L4} and ERBO = NULL.
7. After the creation of the lower layer LSP between L3 and L4, L3
continues to send Path to L4 with ERO = {L4,H5} and ERBO = NULL.
8. After the creation of the lower layer LSP between H2 and H5, H2
continues to send Path to H5 with ERO = {H5,H6,L7,L8,H9,H10} and
ERBO = {H6,H9}.
9. After H6 receives the Path, H6 create the lower layer LSP with
ERO = {H6,L7,L8,H9} and ERBO = NULL.
10. After the creation of the lower layer LSP between H6 and H9, the
higher layer LSP's creation is to be continued.
Fu, et al. Expires September 2, 2010 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Framework for Region Boundary Control March 2010
-----
| PCE |
| Hi | <----------------------
----- |
^ | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| v |
----- ----- | ----- ----- ----- -----
| LSR |--| LSR |.............|...............| LSR |--| LSR | .............| LSR |--| LSR |
| H1 | | H2 | v | H5 | | H6 | | H9 | | H10 |
----- -----\ ----- /----- -----\ /----- -----
| | PCE | | | |
| | Lo | | | |
| ----- | | |
\----- -----/ \----- -----/
| LSR |................| LSR | | LSR |..| LSR |
| L3 | | L4 | | L7 | | L8 |
-----\ /----- ----- -----
| |
| |
| |
\----- -----/
| LSR |..| LSR |
| M1 | | M2 |
----- -----
The process of creating a LSP from H1 to H10 is as follows:
1. H1 sends a route request to PCE Ho. PCE Ho computes a multi-
layer path without inter-communication with PCE Lo, and
responses to H1 with ERO = {H1,H2,M3,M8,H9,H10} and ERBO
={H2,H9}.
2. H1 Sends Path to H2 with ERO = {H2,M3,M8,H9,H10} and ERBO =
{H2,H9}.
3. After H2 receives the Path, H2 is to create lower layer LSP with
ERO = {H2,M3,M8,H9}.
4. H2 Sends Path to M3,with ERO = {M3,M8,H9} and ERBO = NULL.
5. M3 consults the PCE Lo with responsibility for the lower-layers
network. PCE Lo computes the route to expand the loose hop
route (i.e., M3 and M8) in the higher-layer LSP and responses to
M3 with ERO = {M3,L4,L5,L6,L7,M8}, ERBO ={L4,L7}.
Fu, et al. Expires September 2, 2010 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Framework for Region Boundary Control March 2010
6. M3 Sends Path to L4, with ERO = {L4,L5,L6,L7,M8}, ERBO =
{L4,L7}.
7. L4 Sends Path to L5, with ERO = {L5,L6,L7} and ERBO = NULL.
8. After the creation of the lower layer LSP between L4 and L7, L4
continues to send Path to L7 with ERO = {L7,M8} and ERBO = NULL.
9. After the creation of the lower layer LSP between M3 and M8, M3
continues to send Path to M8 with ERO = {M8,H9} and ERBO = NULL.
10. After the creation of the lower layer LSP between H2 and H9, H2
continues to send Path to H9 with ERO = {H9,H10} and ERBO = NUL.
Fu, et al. Expires September 2, 2010 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Framework for Region Boundary Control March 2010
-----
| PCE |
| Hi |
-----
^ |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| v
----- ----- ----- -----
| LSR |--| LSR |..........................................| LSR |--| LSR |
| H1 | | H2 | | H9 | | H10 |
----- -----\ /----- -----
| |
| |
| |
\----- -----/
| LSR |............................ | LSR |
| M3 |<------------- | M8 |
-----\ | /-----
| v |
| ----- |
| | PCE | |
| | Lo | |
| ----- |
\----- -----/
| LSR |...............| LSR |
| L4 | | L7 |
-----\ /-----
| |
| |
| |
\----- -----/
| LSR |..| LSR |
| L4 | | L7 |
----- -----
4. Protocol Extension Requirements for Explicit Control of Region
Boundary
A requirements for PCRep (RFC5440) extensions to support explicit
control of region boundary is foreseen. A requirements for Path
(RFC3473) extensions to support explicit control of region boundary
is also foreseen. A new object could be introduced in PCRep and Path
message. The format of new object is the same as an ERO.
[draft-fuxh-pce-region-boundary-explicit-control-pcep-ext-00] deinfes
Fu, et al. Expires September 2, 2010 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Framework for Region Boundary Control March 2010
the PCEP protocol extension for explicit control of region boundary
in PCE-based inter-layer architecture.
5. Security Considerations
TBD
6. IANA Considerations
TBD
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC4206] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Label Switched Paths (LSP)
Hierarchy with Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE)", RFC 4206, October 2005.
7.2. Informative References
Authors' Addresses
Xihua Fu
ZTE Corporation
West District,ZTE Plaza,No.10,Tangyan South Road,Gaoxin District
Xi An 710065
P.R.China
Phone: +8613798412242
Email: fu.xihua@zte.com.cn
URI: http://wwwen.zte.com.cn/
Fu, et al. Expires September 2, 2010 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Framework for Region Boundary Control March 2010
Xuefeng Lin
ZTE Corporation
12F,ZTE Plaza,No.19,Huayuan East Road,Haidian District
Beijing 100191
P.R.China
Phone: +8615901011821
Email: lin.xuefeng@zte.com.cn
URI: http://www.zte.com.cn/
Gang Xie
ZTE Corporation
12F,ZTE Plaza,No.19,Huayuan East Road,Haidian District
Beijing 100191
P.R.China
Phone: +8613691280432
Email: xie.gang@zte.com.cn
Fu, et al. Expires September 2, 2010 [Page 11]