PCE Working Group F. Zhang
Internet-Draft Q. Zhao
Intended status: Standards Track Huawei
Expires: September 6, 2018 O. Gonzalez de Dios
Telefonica I+D
R. Casellas
CTTC
D. King
Old Dog Consulting
March 5, 2018
Extensions to Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) for
Hierarchical Path Computation Elements (PCE)
draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-extensions-04
Abstract
The Hierarchical Path Computation Element (H-PCE) architecture RFC
6805, provides a mechanism to allow the optimum sequence of domains
to be selected, and the optimum end-to-end path to be derived through
the use of a hierarchical relationship between domains.
This document defines the Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP)
extensions for the purpose of implementing necessary Hierarchical PCE
procedures and protocol extensions.
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 September 6, 2018.
Zhang, et al. Expires September 6, 2018 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extensions for H-PCE March 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. Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.3. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2. Requirements for H-PCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1. Path Computation Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1.1. Qualification of PCEP Requests . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1.2. Multi-domain Objective Functions . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.1.3. Multi-domain Metrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.2. Parent PCE Capability Advertisement . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.3. PCE Domain Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.4. Domain Diversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3. PCEP Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.1. OPEN object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.1.1. H-PCE capability TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.1.2. Domain-ID TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.2. RP object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.2.1. H-PCE-FLAG TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.2.2. Domain-ID TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.3. Objective Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.3.1. OF Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.3.2. OF Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.4. Metric Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.5. SVEC Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.6. PCEP-ERROR object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.6.1. Hierarchy PCE Error-Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.7. NO-PATH Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4. H-PCE Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.1. OPEN Procedure between Child PCE and Parent PCE . . . . . 14
4.2. Procedure to obtain Domain Sequence . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5. Error Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Zhang, et al. Expires September 6, 2018 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extensions for H-PCE March 2018
6. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6.1. Control of Function and Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6.1.1. Child PCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
6.1.2. Parent PCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
6.1.3. Policy Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
6.2. Information and Data Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
6.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
6.4. Verify Correct Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
6.5. Requirements On Other Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
6.6. Impact On Network Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
7.1. PCEP TLV Type Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
7.2. H-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
7.3. Domain-ID TLV Domain type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
7.4. H-PCE-FLAG TLV Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
7.5. OF Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
7.6. METRIC Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
7.7. New PCEP Error-Types and Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
7.8. New NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV Bit Flag . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
7.9. SVEC Flag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
9. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
9.1. Inter-layer traffic engineering with H-PCE . . . . . . . 23
9.2. Telefonica Netphony (Open Source PCE) . . . . . . . . . . 24
9.3. Implementation 3: H-PCE Proof of Concept developed by
Huawei . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
10. Contributing Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
1. Introduction
[RFC6805] describes a Hierarchical PCE (H-PCE) architecture which can
be used for computing end-to-end paths for inter-domain MPLS Traffic
Engineering (TE) and GMPLS Label Switched Paths (LSPs).
Within the hierarchical PCE architecture, the parent PCE is used to
compute a multi-domain path based on the domain connectivity
information . A child PCE may be responsible for a single domain or
multiple domains, it is used to compute the intra-domain path based
on its own domain topology information.
The H-PCE end-to-end domain path computation procedure is described
below:
Zhang, et al. Expires September 6, 2018 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extensions for H-PCE March 2018
o A path computation client (PCC) sends the inter-domain path
computation requests to the child PCE responsible for its domain;
o The child PCE forwards the request to the parent PCE;
o The parent PCE computes the likely domain paths from the ingress
domain to the egress domain;
o The parent PCE sends the intra-domain path computation requests
(between the domain border nodes) to the child PCEs which are
responsible for the domains along the domain path;
o The child PCEs return the intra-domain paths to the parent PCE;
o The parent PCE constructs the end-to-end inter-domain path based
on the intra-domain paths;
o The parent PCE returns the inter-domain path to the child PCE;
o The child PCE forwards the inter-domain path to the PCC.
In addition, the parent PCE may be requested to provide only the
sequence of domains to a child PCE so that alternative inter-domain
path computation procedures, including Per Domain (PD) [RFC5152] and
Backwards Recursive Path Computation (BRPC) [RFC5441] may be used.
This document defines the PCEP extensions for the purpose of
implementing Hierarchical PCE procedures, which are described in
[RFC6805].
1.1. Scope
The following functions are out of scope of this document.
o Determination of Destination Domain (section 4.5 of [RFC6805])
* via collection of reachability information from child domain;
* via requests to the child PCEs to discover if they contain the
destination node;
* or any other methods.
o Parent Traffic Engineering Database (TED) methods (section 4.4 of
[RFC6805])
o Learning of Domain connectivity and boundary nodes (BN) addresses.
Zhang, et al. Expires September 6, 2018 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extensions for H-PCE March 2018
1.2. Terminology
This document uses the terminology defined in [RFC4655], [RFC5440]
and the additional terms defined in section 1.4 of [RFC6805].
1.3. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
2. Requirements for H-PCE
This section compiles the set of requirements of the PCEP protocol to
support the H-PCE architecture and procedures.
[RFC6805] identifies high-level requirements of PCEP extensions
required to support the hierarchical PCE model.
2.1. Path Computation Request
The Path Computation Request (PCReq) messages are used by a PCC or
PCE to make a path computation request to a PCE. In order to achieve
the full functionality of the H-PCE procedures, the PCReq message
needs to include:
o Qualification of PCE Requests;
o Multi-domain Objective Functions (OF);
o Multi-domain Metrics.
2.1.1. Qualification of PCEP Requests
As described in section 4.8.1 of [RFC6805], the H-PCE architecture
introduces new request qualifications, which are:
o It MUST be possible for a child PCE to indicate that a request it
sends to a parent PCE should be satisfied by a domain sequence
only, that is, not by a full end-to-end path. This allows the
child PCE to initiate a per-domain (PD) [RFC5152] or a backward
recursive path computation (BRPC) [RFC5441].
o As stated in [RFC6805], section 4.5, if a PCC knows the egress
domain, it can supply this information as the path computation
Zhang, et al. Expires September 6, 2018 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extensions for H-PCE March 2018
request. It SHOULD be possible to specify the destination domain
information in a PCEP request, if it is known.
o It MAY be possible to indicate that the inter domain path computed
by parent PCE should disallow domain re-entry.
2.1.2. Multi-domain Objective Functions
For inter-domain path computation, there is one new objective
Function which is defined in section 1.3.1 and 4.1 of [RFC6805]:
o Minimize the number of domains crossed. A domain can be either an
Autonomous System (AS) or an Internal Gateway Protocol (IGP) area
depending on the type of multi-domain network hierarchical PCE is
applied to.
Another objective Function to minimize the number of border nodes is
also defined in this document.
During the PCEP session establishment procedure, the parent PCE needs
to be capable of indicating the Objective Functions (OF) [RFC5541]
capability in the Open message. This capability information may then
be announced by child PCEs, and used for selecting the PCE when a PCC
wants a path that satisfies one or multiple inter-domain objective
functions.
When a PCC requests a PCE to compute an inter-domain path, the PCC
needs also to be capable of indicating the new objective functions
for inter-domain path. Note that a given child PCE may also act as a
parent PCE.
For the reasons described previously, new OF codes need to be defined
for the new inter-domain objective functions. Then the PCE can
notify its new inter-domain objective functions to the PCC by
carrying them in the OF-list TLV which is carried in the OPEN object.
The PCC can specify which objective function code to use, which is
carried in the OF object when requesting a PCE to compute an inter-
domain path.
A parent PCE MUST be capable of ensuring homogeneity, across domains,
when applying OF codes for strict OF intra-domain requests.
2.1.3. Multi-domain Metrics
For inter-domain path computation, there are several path metrics of
interest.
o Domain count (number of domains crossed);
Zhang, et al. Expires September 6, 2018 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extensions for H-PCE March 2018
o Border Node count.
A PCC may be able to limit the number of domains crossed by applying
a limit on these metrics. Details in section 3.3.
2.2. Parent PCE Capability Advertisement
Parent and child PCE relationships are likely to be configured.
However, as mentioned in [RFC6805], it would assist network operators
if the child and parent PCEs could indicate their H-PCE capabilities.
During the PCEP session establishment procedure, the child PCE needs
to be capable of indicating to the parent PCE whether it requests the
parent PCE capability or not. Also, during the PCEP session
establishment procedure, the parent PCE needs to be capable of
indicating whether its parent capability can be provided or not.
A PCEP Speaker (Parent PCE or Child PCE or PCC) includes the "H-PCE
Capability" TLV, described in Section 3.1.1, in the OPEN Object to
advertise its support for PCEP extensions for H-PCE Capability.
2.3. PCE Domain Discovery
A PCE domain is a single domain with an associated PCE. Although it
is possible for a PCE to manage multiple domains. The PCE domain may
be an IGP area or AS.
The PCE domain identifiers may be provided during the PCEP session
establishment procedure.
2.4. Domain Diversity
In a multi-domain environment, Domain Diversity is defined in
[RFC6805]. A pair of paths are domain-diverse if they do not
traverse any of the same transit domains. Domain diversity may be
maximized for a pair of paths by selecting paths that have the
smallest number of shared domains. Path computation should
facilitate the selection of domain diverse paths as a way to reduce
the risk of shared failure and automatically helps to ensure path
diversity for most of the route of a pair of LSPs.
The main motivation behind domain diversity is to avoid fate sharing,
but it can also be because of some geo-political reasons and
commercial relationships that would require domain diversity. for
example, a pair of paths should choose different transit Autonomous
System (AS) because of some policy considerations.
Zhang, et al. Expires September 6, 2018 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extensions for H-PCE March 2018
In case when full domain diversity could not be achieved, it is
helpful to minimize the common shared domains. Also it is
interesting to note that other scope of diversity (node, link, SRLG
etc) can still be applied inside the common shared domains.
3. PCEP Extensions
This section defines PCEP extensions to ([RFC5440]) so as to support
the H-PCE procedures.
3.1. OPEN object
Two new TLVs are defined in this document to be carried within an
OPEN object. This way, during PCEP session establishment, the H-PCE
capability and Domain information can be advertised.
3.1.1. H-PCE capability TLV
The H-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV is an optional TLV associated with the OPEN
Object [RFC5440] to exchange H-PCE capability of PCEP speakers.
Its format 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= TBD1 | Length=4 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Flags |I|R|
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
Figure 1: H-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV format
The type of the TLV is TBD1 (to be assigned by IANA) and it has a
fixed length of 4 octets.
The value comprises a single field - Flags (32 bits):
R (Parent PCE Request bit): if set, will signal that the child PCE
wishes to use the peer PCE as a parent PCE.
I (Parent PCE Indication bit): if set, will signal that the PCE
can be used as a parent PCE by the peer PCE.
The inclusion of this TLV in an OPEN object indicate that the H-PCE
extensions are supported by the PCEP speaker. The PCC MAY include
this TLV to indicate that it understands the H-PCE extensions. The
Child PCE MUST include this TLV and set the R flag (and unset the I
Zhang, et al. Expires September 6, 2018 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extensions for H-PCE March 2018
flag) on the PCEP session towards the Parent PCE. The Parent PCE
MUST include this TLV and set the I flag and unset the R flag on the
PCEP session towards the child PCE. The parent-child PCEP session is
set to be established only when this capability is advertised.
If such capability is not exchanged and the parent PCE receive a "H-
PCE path computation request", it MUST send a PCErr message with
Error-Type=TBD8 (H-PCE error) and Error-Value=1 (Parent PCE
Capability not advertised).
3.1.2. Domain-ID TLV
The Domain-ID TLV when used in OPEN object identify the domain(s)
served by the PCE. The child PCE uses this mechanism to inform the
domain information to the parent PCE.
The Domain-ID TLV is defined below:
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= TBD2 | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Domain Type | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Domain ID |
// //
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: Domain-ID TLV format
The type of the TLV is TBD2 (to be assigned by IANA) and it has a
variable Length of the value portion. The value part comprises of -
Domain Type (8 bits): Indicates the domain type. Four types of
domain are currently defined:
* Type=1: the Domain ID field carries a 2-byte AS number. Padded
with trailing zeroes to a 4-byte boundary.
* Type=2: the Domain ID field carries a 4-byte AS number.
* Type=3: the Domain ID field carries an 4-byte OSPF area ID.
* Type=4: the Domain ID field carries [2-byte Area-Len, variable
length IS-IS area ID]. Padded with trailing zeroes to a 4-byte
boundary.
Zhang, et al. Expires September 6, 2018 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extensions for H-PCE March 2018
Reserved: Zero at transmission; ignored at receipt.
Domain ID (variable): Indicates an IGP Area ID or AS number. It
can be 2 bytes, 4 bytes or variable length depending on the domain
identifier used. It is padded with trailing zeroes to a 4-byte
boundary.
In case a PCE serves more than one domain, multiple Domain-ID TLV is
included for each domain it serves.
3.2. RP object
3.2.1. H-PCE-FLAG TLV
The H-PCE-FLAG TLV is an optional TLV associated with the RP Object
[RFC5440] to indicate the H-PCE path computation request and options.
Its format 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= TBD3 | Length=4 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Flags |D|S|
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
Figure 3: H-PCE-FLAG TLV format
The type of the TLV is TBD3 (to be assigned by IANA) and it has a
fixed length of 4 octets.
The value comprises a single field - Flags (32 bits):
S (Domain Sequence bit): if set, will signal that the child PCE
wishes to get only the domain sequence in the path computation
reply. Refer section 3.7 of [RFC7897] for details.
D (Disallow Domain Re-entry bit): if set, will signal that the
computed path does not enter a domain more than once.
3.2.2. Domain-ID TLV
The usage of Domain-ID TLV carried in an OPEN object is used to
indicate a (list of) managed domains and is described in section
3.1.2. This TLV when carried in a RP object, indicates the
destination domain ID. If a PCC knows the egress domain, it can
Zhang, et al. Expires September 6, 2018 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extensions for H-PCE March 2018
supply this information in the PCReq message. The format of this TLV
is defined in Section 3.1.2.
3.3. Objective Functions
3.3.1. OF Codes
[RFC5541] defines a mechanism to specify an objective function that
is used by a PCE when it computes a path. Two new objective
functions are defined for the H-PCE experiment.
o MTD
* Name: Minimize the number of Transit Domains (MTD)
* Objective Function Code - TBD4 (to be assigned by IANA)
* Description: Find a path P such that it passes through the
least number of transit domains.
* Objective functions are formulated using the following
terminology:
+ A network comprises a set of N domains {Di, (i=1...N)}.
+ A path P passes through K domains {Dpi,(i=1...K)}.
+ Find a path P such that the value of K is minimized.
o MBN
* Name: Minimize the number of border nodes.
* Objective Function Code - TBD5 (to be assigned by IANA)
* Description: Find a path P such that it passes through the
least number of border nodes.
* Objective functions are formulated using the following
terminology:
+ A network comprises a set of N nodes {Ni, (i=1...N)}.
+ A path P is a list of K nodes {Npi,(i=1...K)}.
+ B(N) if a function that determine if the node is a border
node. B(Ni) = 1 if Ni is border node; B(Nk) = 0 if Nk is
not a border node.
Zhang, et al. Expires September 6, 2018 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extensions for H-PCE March 2018
+ The number of border node in a path P is denoted by B(P),
where B(P) = sum{B(Npi),(i=1...K)}.
+ Find a path P such that B(P) is minimized.
MCTD
o Name: Minimize the number of Common Transit Domains.
o Objective Function Code: TBD13
o Description: Find a set of paths such that it passes through the
least number of common transit domains.
3.3.2. OF Object
The OF (Objective Function) object [RFC5541] is carried within a
PCReq message so as to indicate the desired/required objective
function to be applied by the PCE during path computation. As per
section 3.2 of [RFC5541] a single OF object may be included in a path
computation request.
The new OF code described in section 3.3.1 are applicable at the
inter-domain level (parent), it is also necessary to specify the OF
code that may be applied at the intra-domain (child) path computation
level. To accommodate this, the OF-List TLV (described in section
2.1. of [RFC5541]) is included in the OF object as an optional TLV.
OF-List TLV allow encoding of multiple OF codes. When this TLV is
included inside the OF object, only the first OF-code in the OF-LIST
TLV is considered. The parent PCE would use this OF code in the OF
object when sending the intra domain path computation request to the
child PCE.
If the objective functions defined in this document are unknown/
unsupported by a PCE, then the procedure as defined in [RFC5541] is
followed.
3.4. Metric Object
The METRIC object is defined in section 7.8 of [RFC5440], comprising
metric-value, metric-type (T field) and flags. This document defines
the following types for the METRIC object for H-PCE:
o T=TBD6: Domain count metric (number of domains crossed);
o T=TBD7: Border Node count metric (number of border nodes crossed).
Zhang, et al. Expires September 6, 2018 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extensions for H-PCE March 2018
The domain count metric type of the METRIC object encodes the number
of domain crossed in the path. The border node count metric type of
the METRIC object encodes the number of border nodes in the path.
A PCC or child PCE MAY use these metric in PCReq message an inter-
domain path meeting the number of domain or border nodes requirement.
In this case, the B bit MUST be set to suggest a bound (a maximum)
for the metric that must not be exceeded for the PCC to consider the
computed path as acceptable.
A PCC or child PCE MAY also use this metric to ask the PCE to
optimize the metric during inter-domain path computation. In this
case, the B flag MUST be cleared.
The Parent PCE MAY use these metric in a PCRep message along with a
NO-PATH object in the case where the PCE cannot compute a path
meeting this constraint. A PCE MAY also use this metric to send the
computed end to end metric in a reply message.
3.5. SVEC Object
[RFC5440] defines SVEC object which includes flags for the potential
dependency between the set of path computation requests (Link, Node
and SRLG diverse). This document proposes a new flag O for domain
diversity.
Following new bit is added in the Flags field:
o O (Domain diverse) bit - TBD12 : when set, this indicates that the
computed paths corresponding to the requests specified by the
following RP objects MUST NOT have any transit domain(s) in
common.
The Domain Diverse O-bit can be used in Hierarchical PCE path
computation to compute synchronized domain diverse end to end path or
diverse domain sequences.
When domain diverse O bit is set, it is applied to the transit
domains. The other bit in SVEC object (N, L, S etc) is set, SHOULD
still be applied in the ingress and egress shared domain.
3.6. PCEP-ERROR object
3.6.1. Hierarchy PCE Error-Type
A new PCEP Error-Type is used for this H-PCE experiment and is
defined below:
Zhang, et al. Expires September 6, 2018 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extensions for H-PCE March 2018
+------------+------------------------------------------------------+
| Error-Type | Meaning |
+------------+------------------------------------------------------+
| TBD8 | H-PCE error |
| | Error-value=1: parent PCE capability |
| | was not advertised |
| | Error-value=2: parent PCE capability |
| | cannot be provided |
+------------+------------------------------------------------------+
Figure 4: H-PCE error
3.7. NO-PATH Object
To communicate the reason(s) for not being able to find a multi-
domain path or domain sequence, the NO-PATH object can be used in the
PCRep message. [RFC5440] defines the format of the NO-PATH object.
The object may contain a NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV to provide additional
information about why a path computation has failed.
Three new bit flags are defined to be carried in the Flags field in
the NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV carried in the NO-PATH Object.
o Bit number TBD9: When set, the parent PCE indicates that
destination domain unknown;
o Bit number TBD10: When set, the parent PCE indicates unresponsive
child PCE(s);
o Bit number TBD11: When set, the parent PCE indicates no available
resource available in one or more domain(s).
4. H-PCE Procedures
4.1. OPEN Procedure between Child PCE and Parent PCE
If a child PCE wants to use the peer PCE as a parent, it can set the
R (parent PCE request flag) in the H-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV inside the
OPEN object carried in the Open message during the PCEP session
creation procedure.
If the parent PCE can provide the parent function to the peer PCE, it
may set the I (parent PCE indication flag) in the H-PCE-CAPABILITY
TLV inside the OPEN object carried in the Open message during the
PCEP session creation procedure.
Zhang, et al. Expires September 6, 2018 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extensions for H-PCE March 2018
The PCE may also report its list of domain IDs to the peer PCE by
specifying them in the Domain-ID TLVs in the OPEN object carried in
the Open message during the PCEP session creation procedure.
The OF codes defined in this document can be carried in the OF-list
TLV of the OPEN object. If the OF-list TLV carries the OF codes, it
means that the PCE is capable of implementing the corresponding
objective functions. This information can be used for selecting a
proper parent PCE when a child PCE wants to get a path that satisfies
a certain objective function.
When a specific child PCE sends a PCReq to a peer PCE that requires
parental activity and H-PCE capability flags were not set in the
session establishment procedure as described above, the peer PCE
should send a PCErr message to the child PCE and specify the error-
type=TBD (H-PCE error) and error-value=1 (parent PCE capability was
not advertised) in the PCEP-ERROR object.
When a specific child PCE sends a PCReq to a peer PCE that requires
parental activity and the peer PCE does not want to act as the parent
for it, the peer PCE should send a PCErr message to the child PCE and
specify the error-type=TBD (H-PCE error) and error-value=2 (parent
PCE capability cannot be provided) in the PCEP-ERROR object.
4.2. Procedure to obtain Domain Sequence
If a child PCE only wants to get the domain sequence for a multi-
domain path computation from a parent PCE, it can set the Domain Path
Request bit in the H-PCE-FLAG TLV in the RP object carried in a PCReq
message. The parent PCE which receives the PCReq message tries to
compute a domain sequence for it (instead for E2E path). If the
domain path computation succeeds the parent PCE sends a PCRep message
which carries the domain sequence in the ERO to the child PCE. Refer
[RFC7897] for more details about domain sub-objects in the ERO.
Otherwise it sends a PCReq message which carries the NO-PATH object
to the child PCE.
5. Error Handling
A PCE that is capable of acting as a parent PCE might not be
configured or willing to act as the parent for a specific child PCE.
This fact could be determined when the child sends a PCReq that
requires parental activity, and could result in a negative response
in a PCEP Error (PCErr) message and indicate the hierarchy PCE error-
type=TBD8 (H-PCE error) and suitable error-value. (section 3.5.1)
Zhang, et al. Expires September 6, 2018 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extensions for H-PCE March 2018
Additionally, the parent PCE may fail to find the multi-domain path
or domain sequence due to one or more of the following reasons:
o A child PCE cannot find a suitable path to the egress;
o The parent PCE do not hear from a child PCE for a specified time;
o The objective functions specified in the path request cannot be
met.
In this case, the parent PCE MAY need to send a negative path
computation reply specifying the reason. This can be achieved by
including NO-PATH object in the PCRep message. Extension to NO-PATH
object is needed to include the aforementioned reasons described in
section 3.6.
6. Manageability Considerations
General PCE and PCEP management considerations are discussed in
[RFC4655] and [RFC5440]. There are additional management
considerations for H-PCE which are described in [RFC6805], and
repeated in this section.
The administrative entity responsible for the management of the
parent PCEs must be determined for the following cases:
o multi-domains (e.g., IGP areas or multiple ASes) within a single
service provider network, the management responsibility for the
parent PCE would most likely be handled by the service provider,
o multiple ASes within different service provider networks, it may
be necessary for a third party to manage the parent PCEs according
to commercial and policy agreements from each of the participating
service providers.
6.1. Control of Function and Policy
Control and function will need to be carefully managed in a H-PCE
network. A child PCE will need to be configured with the address of
its parent PCE. It is expected that there will only be one or two
parents of any child.
The parent PCE also needs to be aware of the child PCEs for all child
domains that it can see. This information is most likely to be
configured (as part of the administrative definition of each domain).
Discovery of the relationships between parent PCEs and child PCEs
does not form part of the hierarchical PCE architecture. Mechanisms
Zhang, et al. Expires September 6, 2018 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extensions for H-PCE March 2018
that rely on advertising or querying PCE locations across domain or
provider boundaries are undesirable for security, scaling,
commercial, and confidentiality reasons. Specific behavior of the
child and parent PCE are described in the following sub-sections.
6.1.1. Child PCE
Support of the hierarchical procedure will be controlled by the
management organization responsible for each child PCE. A child PCE
must be configured with the address of its parent PCE in order for it
to interact with its parent PCE. The child PCE must also be
authorized to peer with the parent PCE.
6.1.2. Parent PCE
The parent PCE must only accept path computation requests from
authorized child PCEs. If a parent PCE receives requests from an
unauthorized child PCE, the request should be dropped. This means
that a parent PCE must be configured with the identities and security
credentials of all of its child PCEs, or there must be some form of
shared secret that allows an unknown child PCE to be authorized by
the parent PCE.
6.1.3. Policy Control
It may be necessary to maintain a policy module on the parent PCE
[RFC5394]. This would allow the parent PCE to apply commercially
relevant constraints such as SLAs, security, peering preferences, and
monetary costs.
It may also be necessary for the parent PCE to limit end-to-end path
selection by including or excluding specific domains based on
commercial relationships, security implications, and reliability.
6.2. Information and Data Models
A MIB module for PCEP was published as RFC 7420 [RFC7420] that
describes managed objects for modeling of PCEP communication. A YANG
module for PCEP has also been proposed [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang].
A H-PCE MIB module, or additional data model, will be required to
report parent PCE and child PCE information, including:
o parent PCE configuration and status,
o child PCE configuration and information,
Zhang, et al. Expires September 6, 2018 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extensions for H-PCE March 2018
o notifications to indicate session changes between parent PCEs and
child PCEs, and
o notification of parent PCE TED updates and changes.
6.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring
The hierarchical procedure requires interaction with multiple PCEs.
Once a child PCE requests an end-to-end path, a sequence of events
occurs that requires interaction between the parent PCE and each
child PCE. If a child PCE is not operational, and an alternate
transit domain is not available, then a failure must be reported.
6.4. Verify Correct Operations
Verifying the correct operation of a parent PCE can be performed by
monitoring a set of parameters. The parent PCE implementation should
provide the following parameters monitored by the parent PCE:
o number of child PCE requests,
o number of successful hierarchical PCE procedures completions on a
per-PCE-peer basis,
o number of hierarchical PCE procedure completion failures on a per-
PCE-peer basis, and
o number of hierarchical PCE procedure requests from unauthorized
child PCEs.
6.5. Requirements On Other Protocols
Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new requirements
on other protocols.
6.6. Impact On Network Operations
The hierarchical PCE procedure is a multiple-PCE path computation
scheme. Subsequent requests to and from the child and parent PCEs do
not differ from other path computation requests and should not have
any significant impact on network operations.
7. IANA Considerations
Zhang, et al. Expires September 6, 2018 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extensions for H-PCE March 2018
7.1. PCEP TLV Type Indicators
IANA Manages the PCEP TLV code point registry (see [RFC5440]). This
is maintained as the "PCEP TLV Type Indicators" sub-registry of the
"Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry.
This document defines three new PCEP TLVs. IANA is requested to make
the following allocation:
Type TLV name References
-----------------------------------------------
TBD1 H-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV This I-D
TBD2 Domain-ID TLV This I-D
TBD3 H-PCE-FLAG TLV This I-D
7.2. H-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV Flags
This document requests that a new sub-registry, named " H-PCE-
CAPABILITY TLV Flag Field", is created within the "Path Computation
Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry to manage the Flag field in
the H-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV of the PCEP OPEN object (class = 1).
New values are to be assigned by Standards Action [RFC5226]. Each
bit should be tracked with the following qualities:
o Bit number (counting from bit 0 as the most significant bit)
o Capability description
o Defining RFC
The following values are defined in this document:
Bit Description Reference
--------------------------------------------------
31 R (Parent PCE Request bit) This I.D.
30 I (Parent PCE Indication bit) This I.D.
7.3. Domain-ID TLV Domain type
This document requests that a new sub-registry, named " Domain-ID TLV
Domain type", is created within the "Path Computation Element
Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry to manage the Domain-Type field of
the Domain-ID TLV.
Zhang, et al. Expires September 6, 2018 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extensions for H-PCE March 2018
Value Meaning
-----------------------------------------------
1 2-byte AS number
2 4-byte AS number
3 4-byte OSPF area ID
4 Variable length IS-IS area ID
7.4. H-PCE-FLAG TLV Flags
This document requests that a new sub-registry, named "H-PCE-FLAGS
TLV Flag Field", is created within the "Path Computation Element
Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry to manage the Flag field in the H-
PCE-FLAGS TLV of the PCEP OPEN object (class = 1). New values are to
be assigned by Standards Action [RFC5226]. Each bit should be
tracked with the following qualities:
o Bit number (counting from bit 0 as the most significant bit)
o Capability description
o Defining RFC
The following values are defined in this document:
Bit Description Reference
-----------------------------------------------
31 S (Domain This I.D.
Sequence bit)
30 D (Disallow Domain This I.D.
Re-entry bit)
7.5. OF Codes
IANA maintains registry of Objective Function (described in
[RFC5541]) at the sub-registry "Objective Function". Two new
Objective Functions have been defined in this document.
IANA is requested to make the following allocations:
Zhang, et al. Expires September 6, 2018 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extensions for H-PCE March 2018
Code
Point Name Reference
------------------------------------------------------
TBD4 Minimum number of Transit This I.D.
Domains (MTD)
TBD5 Minimize number of Border This I.D.
Nodes (MBN)
TBD13 Minimize the number of This I.D.
Common Transit Domains.
(MCTD)
7.6. METRIC Types
IANA maintains one sub-registry for "METRIC object T field". Two new
metric types are defined in this document for the METRIC object
(specified in [RFC5440]).
IANA is requested to make the following allocations:
Value Description Reference
----------------------------------------------------------
TBD6 Domain Count metric This I.D.
TBD7 Border Node Count metric This I.D.
7.7. New PCEP Error-Types and Values
IANA maintains a registry of Error-Types and Error-values for use in
PCEP messages. This is maintained as the "PCEP-ERROR Object Error
Types and Values" sub-registry of the "Path Computation Element
Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry.
IANA is requested to make the following allocations:
Error-Type Meaning and error values Reference
------------------------------------------------------
TBD8 H-PCE Error This I.D.
Error-value=1 Parent PCE
Capability not advertised
Error-value=2 Parent PCE
Capability not supported
Zhang, et al. Expires September 6, 2018 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extensions for H-PCE March 2018
7.8. New NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV Bit Flag
IANA maintains a registry of bit flags carried in the PCEP NO-PATH-
VECTOR TLV in the PCEP NO-PATH object as defined in [RFC5440]. IANA
Is requested to assign three new bit flag as follows:
Bit Number Name Flag Reference
------------------------------------------------------
TBD9 Destination Domain unknown This I.D.
TBD10 Unresponsive child PCE(s) This I.D.
TBD11 No available resource in This I.D.
one or more domain
7.9. SVEC Flag
IANA maintains a registry of bit flags carried in the PCEP SVEC
object as defined in [RFC5440]. IANA Is requested to assign one new
bit flag as follows:
Bit Number Name Flag Reference
------------------------------------------------------
TBD13 Domain Diverse This I.D.
8. Security Considerations
The hierarchical PCE procedure relies on PCEP and inherits the
security requirements defined in [RFC5440]. As PCEP operates over
TCP, it may also make use of TCP security mechanisms, such as TCP-AO
or [RFC8253].
H-PCE operation also relies on information used to build the TED.
Attacks on a parent or child PCE may be achieved by falsifying or
impeding this flow of information. If the child PCE listens to the
IGP or BGP-LS for populating the TED, then normal IGP or BGP-LS
security measures may be applied, and it should be noted that an IGP
routing system is generally assumed to be a trusted domain such that
router subversion is not a risk. The parent PCE TED is constructed
as described in this document and may involve:
o multiple parent-child relationships using PCEP
o the parent PCE listening to child domain IGPs (with the same
security features as a child PCE listening to its IGP)
o an external mechanism (such as [RFC7752]), which will need to be
authorized and secured.
Zhang, et al. Expires September 6, 2018 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extensions for H-PCE March 2018
Any multi-domain operation necessarily involves the exchange of
information across domain boundaries. This is bound to represent a
significant security and confidentiality risk especially when the
child domains are controlled by different commercial concerns. PCEP
allows individual PCEs to maintain confidentiality of their domain
path information using path-keys [RFC5520], and the H-PCE
architecture is specifically designed to enable as much isolation of
domain topology and capabilities information as is possible.
For further considerations of the security issues related to inter-AS
path computation, see [RFC5376].
9. Implementation Status
The H-PCE architecture and protocol procedures describe in this I-D
were implemented and tested for a variety of optical research
applications.
9.1. Inter-layer traffic engineering with H-PCE
This work was led by:
o Ramon Casellas [ramon.casellas@cttc.es]
o Centre Tecnologic de Telecomunicacions de Catalunya (CTTC)
The H-PCE instances (parent and child) were multi-threaded
asynchronous processes. Implemented in C++11, using C++ Boost
Libraries. The targeted system used to deploy and run H-PCE
applications was a POSIX system (Debian GNU/Linux operating system).
Some parts of the software may require a Linux Kernel, the
availability of a Routing Controller running collocated in the same
host and the usage of libnetfilter / libipq and GNU/Linux firewalling
capabilities. Most of the functionality, including algorithms is
done by means of plugins (e.g., as shared libraries or .so files in
Unix systems).
The CTTC PCE supports the H-PCE architecture, but also supports
stateful PCE with active capabilities, as an OpenFlow controller, and
has dedicated plugins to support monitoring, BRPC, P2MP, path keys,
back end PCEs. Management of the H-PCE entities was supported via
HTTP and CLI via Telnet.
Further details of the H-PCE prototyping and experimentation can be
found in the following scientific papers:
Zhang, et al. Expires September 6, 2018 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extensions for H-PCE March 2018
R. Casellas, R. Martinez, R. Munoz, L. Liu, T. Tsuritani, I.
Morita, "Inter-layer traffic engineering with hierarchical-PCE in
MPLS-TP over wavelength switched optical networks" , Optics
Express, Vol. 20, No. 28, December 2012.
R. Casellas, R. Martinez, R. Munoz, L. Liu, T. Tsuritani, I.
Morita, M. Msurusawa, "Dynamic virtual link mesh topology
aggregation in multi-domain translucent WSON with hierarchical-
PCE", Optics Express Journal, Vol. 19, No. 26, December 2011.
R. Casellas, R. Munoz, R. Martinez, R. Vilalta, L. Liu, T.
Tsuritani, I. Morita, V. Lopez, O. Gonzalez de Dios, J. P.
Fernandez-Palacios, "SDN based Provisioning Orchestration of
OpenFlow/GMPLS Flexi-grid Networks with a Stateful Hierarchical
PCE", in Proceedings of Optical Fiber Communication Conference and
Exposition (OFC), 9-13 March, 2014, San Francisco (EEUU).
Extended Version to appear in Journal Of Optical Communications
and Networking January 2015
F. Paolucci, O. Gonzalez de Dios, R. Casellas, S. Duhovnikov,
P. Castoldi, R. Munoz, R. Martinez, "Experimenting Hierarchical
PCE Architecture in a Distributed Multi-Platform Control Plane
Testbed" , in Proceedings of Optical Fiber Communication
Conference and Exposition (OFC) and The National Fiber Optic
Engineers Conference (NFOEC), 4-8 March, 2012, Los Angeles,
California (USA).
R. Casellas, R. Martinez, R. Munoz, L. Liu, T. Tsuritani, I.
Morita, M. Tsurusawa, "Dynamic Virtual Link Mesh Topology
Aggregation in Multi-Domain Translucent WSON with Hierarchical-
PCE", in Proceedings of 37th European Conference and Exhibition on
Optical Communication (ECOC 2011), 18-22 September 2011, Geneve (
Switzerland).
R. Casellas, R. Munoz, R. Martinez, "Lab Trial of Multi-Domain
Path Computation in GMPLS Controlled WSON Using a Hierarchical
PCE", in Proceedings of OFC/NFOEC Conference (OFC2011), 10 March
2011, Los Angeles (USA).
9.2. Telefonica Netphony (Open Source PCE)
The Telefonica Netphony PCE is an open source Java-based
implementation of a Path Computation Element, with several flavours,
and a Path Computation Client. The PCE follows a modular
architecture and allows to add customized algorithms. The PCE has
also stateful and remote initiation capabilities. In current
version, three components can be built, a domain PCE (aka child PCE),
Zhang, et al. Expires September 6, 2018 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extensions for H-PCE March 2018
a parent PCE (ready for the H-PCE architecture) and a PCC (path
computation client).
This work was led by:
o Oscar Gonzalez de Dios [oscar.gonzalezdedios@telefonica.com]
o Victor Lopez Alvarez [victor.lopezalvarez@telefonica.com]
o Telefonica I+D, Madrid, Spain
The PCE code is publicly available in a GitHub repository:
o https://github.com/telefonicaid/netphony-pce
The PCEP protocol encodings are located in the following repository:
o https://github.com/telefonicaid/netphony-network protocols
The traffic engineering database and a BGP-LS speaker to fill the
database is located in:
o https://github.com/telefonicaid/netphony-topology
The parent and child PCE are multi-threaded java applications. The
path computation uses the jgrapht free Java class library (0.9.1)
that provides mathematical graph-theory objects and algorithms.
Current version of netphony PCE runs on java 1.7 and 1.8, and has
been tested in GNU/Linux, Mac OS-X and Windows environments. The
management of the parent and domain PCEs is supported though CLI via
Telnet, and configured via XML files.
Further details of the netphony H-PCE prototyping and experimentation
can be found in the following research papers:
o O. Gonzalez de Dios, R. Casellas, F. Paolucci, A. Napoli, L.
Gifre, A. Dupas, E, Hugues-Salas, R. Morro, S. Belotti, G.
Meloni, T. Rahman, V.P Lopez, R. Martinez, F. Fresi, M. Bohn,
S. Yan, L. Velasco, . Layec and J. P. Fernandez-Palacios:
Experimental Demonstration of Multivendor and Multidomain EON With
Data and Control Interoperability Over a Pan-European Test Bed, in
Journal of Lightwave Technology, Dec. 2016, Vol. 34, Issue 7, pp.
1610-1617.
o O. Gonzalez de Dios, R. Casellas, R. Morro, F. Paolucci, V.
Lopez, R. Martinez, R. Munoz, R. Villalta, P. Castoldi:
"Multi-partner Demonstration of BGP-LS enabled multi-domain EON,
Zhang, et al. Expires September 6, 2018 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extensions for H-PCE March 2018
in Journal of Optical Communications and Networking, Dec. 2015,
Vol. 7, Issue 12, pp. B153-B162.
o F. Paolucci, O. Gonzalez de Dios, R. Casellas, S. Duhovnikov,
P. Castoldi, R. Munoz, R. Martinez, "Experimenting Hierarchical
PCE Architecture in a Distributed Multi-Platform Control Plane
Testbed" , in Proceedings of Optical Fiber Communication
Conference and Exposition (OFC) and The National Fiber Optic
Engineers Conference (NFOEC), 4-8 March, 2012, Los Angeles,
California (USA).
9.3. Implementation 3: H-PCE Proof of Concept developed by Huawei
Huawei developed this H-PCE on the Huawei Versatile Routing Platform
(VRP) to experiment with the hierarchy of PCE. Both end to end path
computation as well as computation for domain-sequence are supported.
This work was led by:
o Udayasree Pallee [udayasreereddy@gmail.com]
o Dhruv Dhody [dhruv.ietf@gmail.com]
o Huawei Technologies, Bangalore, India
Further work on stateful H-PCE [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-hpce] is being
carried out on ONOS.
10. Contributing Authors
Xian Zhang
Huawei
EMail: zhang.xian@huawei.com
Dhruv Dhody
Huawei Technologies
Divyashree Techno Park, Whitefield
Bangalore, Karnataka 560066
India
EMail: dhruv.ietf@gmail.com
11. References
Zhang, et al. Expires September 6, 2018 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extensions for H-PCE March 2018
11.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC5152] Vasseur, JP., Ed., Ayyangar, A., Ed., and R. Zhang, "A
Per-Domain Path Computation Method for Establishing Inter-
Domain Traffic Engineering (TE) Label Switched Paths
(LSPs)", RFC 5152, DOI 10.17487/RFC5152, February 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5152>.
[RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation
Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5440, March 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5440>.
[RFC5541] Le Roux, JL., Vasseur, JP., and Y. Lee, "Encoding of
Objective Functions in the Path Computation Element
Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5541,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5541, June 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5541>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
11.2. Informative References
[RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J., and J. Ash, "A Path Computation
Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4655, August 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4655>.
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", RFC 5226,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5226>.
[RFC5376] Bitar, N., Zhang, R., and K. Kumaki, "Inter-AS
Requirements for the Path Computation Element
Communication Protocol (PCECP)", RFC 5376,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5376, November 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5376>.
Zhang, et al. Expires September 6, 2018 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extensions for H-PCE March 2018
[RFC5394] Bryskin, I., Papadimitriou, D., Berger, L., and J. Ash,
"Policy-Enabled Path Computation Framework", RFC 5394,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5394, December 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5394>.
[RFC5520] Bradford, R., Ed., Vasseur, JP., and A. Farrel,
"Preserving Topology Confidentiality in Inter-Domain Path
Computation Using a Path-Key-Based Mechanism", RFC 5520,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5520, April 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5520>.
[RFC5441] Vasseur, JP., Ed., Zhang, R., Bitar, N., and JL. Le Roux,
"A Backward-Recursive PCE-Based Computation (BRPC)
Procedure to Compute Shortest Constrained Inter-Domain
Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths", RFC 5441,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5441, April 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5441>.
[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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6805>.
[RFC7470] Zhang, F. and A. Farrel, "Conveying Vendor-Specific
Constraints in the Path Computation Element Communication
Protocol", RFC 7470, DOI 10.17487/RFC7470, March 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7470>.
[RFC7752] Gredler, H., Ed., Medved, J., Previdi, S., Farrel, A., and
S. Ray, "North-Bound Distribution of Link-State and
Traffic Engineering (TE) Information Using BGP", RFC 7752,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7752, March 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7752>.
[RFC7897] Dhody, D., Palle, U., and R. Casellas, "Domain Subobjects
for the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol
(PCEP)", RFC 7897, DOI 10.17487/RFC7897, June 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7897>.
[RFC8253] Lopez, D., Gonzalez de Dios, O., Wu, Q., and D. Dhody,
"PCEPS: Usage of TLS to Provide a Secure Transport for the
Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)",
RFC 8253, DOI 10.17487/RFC8253, October 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8253>.
Zhang, et al. Expires September 6, 2018 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extensions for H-PCE March 2018
[I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang]
Dhody, D., Hardwick, J., Beeram, V., and J. Tantsura, "A
YANG Data Model for Path Computation Element
Communications Protocol (PCEP)", draft-ietf-pce-pcep-
yang-07 (work in progress), March 2018.
[I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-hpce]
Dhody, D., Lee, Y., Ceccarelli, D., Shin, J., King, D.,
and O. Dios, "Hierarchical Stateful Path Computation
Element (PCE).", draft-ietf-pce-stateful-hpce-04 (work in
progress), March 2018.
Authors' Addresses
Fatai Zhang
Huawei
Huawei Base, Bantian, Longgang District
Shenzhen 518129
China
EMail: zhangfatai@huawei.com
Quintin Zhao
Huawei
125 Nagog Technology Park
Acton, MA 01719
USA
EMail: quintin.zhao@huawei.com
Oscar Gonzalez de Dios
Telefonica I+D
Don Ramon de la Cruz 82-84
Madrid 28045
Spain
EMail: ogondio@tid.es
Ramon Casellas
CTTC
Av. Carl Friedrich Gauss n.7
Barcelona, Castelldefels
Spain
EMail: ramon.casellas@cttc.es
Zhang, et al. Expires September 6, 2018 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extensions for H-PCE March 2018
Daniel King
Old Dog Consulting
UK
EMail: daniel@olddog.co.uk
Zhang, et al. Expires September 6, 2018 [Page 30]