Network Working Group Eiji Oki
Internet Draft NTT
Category: Informational Jean-Louis Le Roux
Expires: September 2007 France Telecom
Adrian Farrel
Old Dog Consulting
March 2007
Framework for PCE-Based Inter-Layer MPLS and GMPLS Traffic
Engineering
draft-ietf-pce-inter-layer-frwk-03.txt
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of 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.
Abstract
A network may comprise multiple layers. It is important to globally
optimize network resource utilization, taking into account all
layers, rather than optimizing resource utilization at each layer
independently. This allows better network efficiency to be achieved
through a process that we call inter-layer traffic engineering. The
Path Computation Element (PCE) can be a powerful tool to achieve
inter-layer traffic engineering.
This document describes a framework for applying the PCE-based
architecture to inter-layer Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and
Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) traffic engineering. It provides
suggestions for the deployment of PCE in support of multi-layer
networks. This document also describes network models where PCE
performs inter-layer traffic engineering, and the relationship
between PCE and a functional component called the Virtual Network
Topology Manager (VNTM).
Table of Contents
1. Terminology.....................................................2
2. Introduction....................................................2
Oki et al. Expires September 2007 [Page 1]
draft-ietf-pce-inter-layer-frwk-03.txt March 2007
3. Inter-Layer Path Computation....................................3
4. Inter-layer Path Computation Models.............................5
4.1. Single PCE Inter-Layer Path Computation......................5
4.2. Multiple PCE Inter-Layer Path Computation....................5
4.3. General Observations.........................................6
5. Inter-Layer Path Control........................................7
5.1. VNT Management...............................................7
5.2. Inter-Layer Path Control Models..............................7
5.2.1. Cooperation Model Between PCE and VNTM.....................7
5.2.2. Higher-Layer Signaling Trigger Model.......................9
5.2.3. Examples of Multi-Layer ERO...............................11
6. Choosing Between Inter-Layer Path Control Models...............11
6.1. VNTM Functions:.............................................11
6.2. Border LSR Functions:.......................................12
6.3. Complete Inter-Layer LSP Setup Time:........................12
6.4. Network Complexity..........................................12
6.5. Separation of Layer Management..............................13
7. Security Considerations........................................13
8. Acknowledgment.................................................14
9. References.....................................................14
9.1. Normative Reference.........................................14
9.2. Informative Reference.......................................14
10. Authors' Addresses...........................................15
11. Intellectual Property Statement..............................15
1. Terminology
This document uses terminology from the PCE-based path computation
architecture [RFC4655] and also common terminology from Multi
Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) [RFC3031], Generalized MPLS (GMPLS)
[RFC3945] and Multi-Layer Networks [MLN-REQ].
2. Introduction
A network may comprise multiple layers. These layers may represent
separations of technologies (e.g., packet switch capable (PSC), time
division multiplex (TDM), or lambda switch capable (LSC)) [RFC3945],
separation of data plane switching granularity levels (e.g., PSC-1,
PSC-2, VC4, or VC12) [MLN-REQ], or a distinction between client and
server networking roles. In this multi-layer network, Label Switched
Paths (LSPs) in a lower layer are used to carry higher-layer LSPs
across the lower-layer network. The network topology formed by
lower-layer LSPs and advertised to the higher layer is called a
Virtual Network Topology (VNT) [MLN-REQ].
It may be effective to optimize network resource utilization
globally, i.e., taking into account all layers, rather than
optimizing resource utilization at each layer independently. This
allows better network efficiency to be achieved and is what we call
inter-layer traffic engineering. This includes mechanisms allowing
the computation of end-to-end paths across layers (known as inter-
layer path computation), and mechanisms for control and management
of the Virtual Network Topology (VNT) by setting up and releasing
LSPs in the lower layers [MLN-REQ].
Oki et al Expires September 2007 2
draft-ietf-pce-inter-layer-frwk-03.txt March 2007
Inter-layer traffic engineering is included in the scope of the Path
Computation Element (PCE)-based architecture [RFC4655], and PCE can
provide a suitable mechanism for resolving inter-layer path
computation issues.
PCE Communication Protocol requirements for inter-layer traffic
engineering are set forth in [PCE-INTER-LAYER-REQ].
This document describes a framework for applying the PCE-based
architecture to inter-layer traffic engineering. It provides
suggestions for the deployment of PCE in support of multi-layer
networks. This document also describes network models where PCE
performs inter-layer traffic engineering, and the relationship
between PCE and a functional component in charge of the control and
management of the VNT, and called the Virtual Network Topology
Manager (VNTM).
3. Inter-Layer Path Computation
This section describes key topics of inter-layer path computation in
MPLS and GMPLS networks.
[RFC4206] defines a way to signal a higher-layer LSP, whose explicit
route includes hops traversed by LSPs in lower layers. The
computation of end-to-end paths across layers is called Inter-Layer
Path Computation.
A Label Switching Router (LSR) in the higher-layer might not have
information on the topology of the lower-layer, particularly in an
overlay or augmented model deployment, and hence may not be able to
compute an end-to-end path across layers.
PCE-based inter-layer path computation, consists of using one or
more PCEs to compute an end-to-end path across layers. This could be
achieved by a single PCE path computation where the PCE has topology
information about multiple layers and can directly compute an end-
to-end path across layers considering the topology of all of the
layers. Alternatively, the inter-layer path computation could be
performed as a multiple PCE computation where each member of a set
of PCEs has information about the topology of one or more layers
(but not all layers), and the PCEs collaborate to compute an end-to-
end path.
Consider, for instance, a two-layer network where the higher-layer
network is a packet-based IP/MPLS or GMPLS network, and the lower-
layer network is a GMPLS optical network. An ingress LSR in the
higher-layer network tries to set up an LSP to an egress LSR also in
the higher-layer network across the lower-layer network, and needs a
path in the higher-layer network. However, suppose that there is no
Traffic Engineering (TE) link in the higher-layer network between
border LSRs, which are located on the boundary between the higher-
layer and lower-layer networks, and that the ingress LSR does not
have topology visibility into the lower layer. If a single-layer
path computation is applied for the higher-layer, the path
computation fails because of the missing TE link. On the other hand,
inter-layer path computation is able to provide a route in the
higher-layer and a suggestion that a lower-layer LSP be set up
between border LSRs.
Oki et al Expires September 2007 3
draft-ietf-pce-inter-layer-frwk-03.txt March 2007
Lower-layer LSPs that are advertised as TE links into the higher-
layer network form a Virtual Network Topology (VNT), which can be
used for routing higher-layer LSPs. Inter-layer path computation for
end-to-end LSPs in the higher-layer network that span the lower-
layer network may utilize the VNT, and PCE is a candidate for
computing the paths of such higher-layer LSPs within the higher-
layer network. Alternatively, the PCE-based path computation model
can:
- Perform a single computation on behalf of the ingress LSR using
information gathered from more than one layer. This mode is referred
to as Single PCE Computation in [RFC4655].
- Compute a path on behalf of the ingress LSR through cooperation
with PCEs responsible for each layer. This mode is referred to as
Multiple PCE Computation with inter-PCE communication in [RFC4655].
- Perform separate path computations on behalf of the TE-LSP head-
end and each transit border LSR that is the entry point to a new
layer. This mode is referred to as Multiple PCE Computation (without
inter-PCE communication) in [RFC4655]. This option utilizes per-
layer path computation performed independently by successive PCEs.
The PCE invoked by the head-end LSR computes a path that the LSR can
use to signal an MPLS-TE or GMPLS LSP once the path information has
been converted to an Explicit Route Object (ERO) for use in RSVP-TE
signaling. There are two options.
- Option 1: Mono-layer path.
The PCE computes a "mono-layer" path, i.e., a path that includes
only TE links from the same layer. There are two cases for this
option. In the first case the PCE computes a path that includes
already established lower-layer LSPs or lower-layer LSPs to be
established on demand. That is, the resulting ERO includes sub-
object(s) corresponding to lower-layer hierarchical LSPs expressed
as the TE link identifiers of the hierarchical LSPs when advertised
as TE links in the higher-layer network. The TE link may be a
regular TE link that is actually established, or a virtual TE link
that is not established yet (see [MLN-REQ]). If it is a virtual TE
link, this triggers a setup attempt for a new lower-layer LSP when
signaling reaches the head-end of the lower-layer LSP. Note that the
path of a virtual TE link is not necessarily known in advance, and
this may require a further (lower-layer) path computation.
The second case is that the PCE computes a path that includes a
loose hop that spans the lower-layer network. The higher layer path
computation selects which lower layer network to use, and selects
the entry and exit points from that lower-layer network, but does
not select the path across the lower-layer network. A transit LSR
that is the entry point to the lower-layer network is expected to
expand the loose hop (either itself or relying on the services of a
PCE). The path expansion process on the border LSR may result either
in the selection of an existing lower-layer LSP, or in the
computation and setup of a new lower-layer LSP.
- Option 2: Multi-layer path. The PCE computes a "multi-layer" path,
i.e., a path that includes TE links from distinct layers [RFC4206].
Such a path can include the complete path of one or more lower-layer
LSPs that already exist or are not yet established. In the latter
Oki et al Expires September 2007 4
draft-ietf-pce-inter-layer-frwk-03.txt March 2007
case, the signaling of the higher-layer LSP will trigger the
establishment of the lower-layer LSPs.
4. Inter-layer Path Computation Models
As stated in Section 3, two PCE modes defined in the PCE
architecture can be used to perform inter-layer path computation.
They are discussed below.
4.1. Single PCE Inter-Layer Path Computation
In this model Inter-layer path computation is performed by a single
PCE that has topology visibility into all layers. Such a PCE is
called a multi-layer PCE.
In Figure 1, the network is comprised of two layers. LSRs H1, H2, H3,
and H4 belong to the higher layer, and LSRs H2, H3, L1, and L2
belong to the lower layer. The PCE is a multi-layer PCE that has
visibility into both layers. It can perform end-to-end path
computation across layers (single PCE path computation). For
instance, it can compute an optimal path H1-H2-L1-L2-H3-H4, for a
higher layer LSP from H1 to H4. This path includes the path of a
lower layer LSP from H2 to H3, already in existence or not yet
established.
-----
| PCE |
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
| LSR |--| LSR |................| LSR |--| LSR |
| H1 | | H2 | | H3 | | H4 |
----- -----\ /----- -----
\----- -----/
| LSR |--| LSR |
| L1 | | L2 |
----- -----
Figure 1 : Multi-Layer PCE -
- A single PCE with multi-layer
visibility
4.2. Multiple PCE Inter-Layer Path Computation
In this model there is at least one PCE per layer, and each PCE has
topology visibility restricted to its own layer. Some providers may
want to keep the layer boundaries due to factors such as
organizational and/or service management issues. The choice for
multiple PCE computation instead of single PCE computation may also
be driven by scalability considerations, as in this mode a PCE only
needs to maintain topology information for one layer (resulting in a
size reduction for the Traffic Engineering Database (TED)).
These PCEs are called mono-layer PCEs. Mono-layer PCEs collaborate
to compute an end-to-end optimal path across layers.
Oki et al Expires September 2007 5
draft-ietf-pce-inter-layer-frwk-03.txt March 2007
In Figure 2, there is one PCE in each layer. The PCEs from each
layer collaborate to compute an end-to-end path across layers. PCE
Hi is responsible for computations in the higher layer and may
"consult" with PCE Lo to compute paths across the lower layer. PCE
Lo is responsible for path computation in the lower layer. A simple
example of cooperation between the PCEs could be as follows:
- LSR H1 sends a request for a path H1-H4 to PCE Hi
- PCE Hi selects H2 as the entry point to the lower layer, and H3 as
the exit point.
- PCE Hi requests a path H2-H3 from PCE Lo.
- PCE Lo returns H2-L1-L2-H3 to PCE Hi.
- PEC Hi is able to compute the full path (H1-H2-L1-L2-H3-H4) and
return it to H1.
Of course more complex cooperation may be required if an optimal
end-to-end path is desired.
-----
| PCE |
| Hi |
--+--
|
----- ----- | ----- -----
| LSR |--| LSR |............|...........| LSR |--| LSR |
| H1 | | H2 | | | H3 | | H4 |
----- -----\ --+-- /----- -----
\ | PCE | /
\ | Lo | /
\ ----- /
\ /
\----- -----/
| LSR |--| LSR |
| L1 | | L2 |
----- -----
Figure 2 : Cooperating Mono-Layer PCEs - Multiple PCEs with single-
layer visibility
4.3. General Observations
- Depending on implementation details, inter-layer path computation
time in the Single PCE inter-layer path computation model may be
Oki et al Expires September 2007 6
draft-ietf-pce-inter-layer-frwk-03.txt March 2007
less than that of the Multiple PCE model with cooperating mono-layer
PCEs, because there is no requirement to exchange messages between
cooperating PCEs.
- When TE topology for all layer networks is visible within one
routing domain, the single PCE inter-layer path computation model
may be adopted because a PCE is able to collect all layers' TE
topologies by participating in only one routing domain.
- As the single PCE inter-layer path computation model uses more TE
topology information than is used by PCEs in the Multiple PCE path
computation model, it requires more computation power and memory.
When there are multiple candidate layer border nodes (we may say
that the higher layer is multi-homed), optimal path computation
requires that all the possible paths transiting different layer
border nodes or links be examined. This is relatively simple in the
single PCE inter-layer path computation model because the PCE has
full visibility -
- the computation is similar to the computation
within a single domain of a single layer. In the multiple PCE inter-
layer path computation model, backward recursive techniques
described in [BRPC] could be used, by considering layers as separate
domains.
5. Inter-Layer Path Control
5.1. VNT Management
As a result of inter-layer path computation, a PCE may determine
that there is insufficient bandwidth available in the higher-layer
network to support this or future higher-layer LSPs. The problem
might be resolved if new LSPs were provisioned across the lower-
layer network. Further, the modification, re-organization and new
provisioning of lower-layer LSPs may enable better utilization of
lower-layer network resources given the demands of the higher-layer
network. In other words, the VNT needs to be controlled or managed
in cooperation with inter-layer path computation.
A VNT Manager (VNTM) is defined as a network element that manages
and controls the VNT. PCE and VNT Managemer are distinct functional
elements that may or may not be co-located.
5.2. Inter-Layer Path Control Models
5.2.1. Cooperation Model Between PCE and VNTM
----- ------
| PCE |--->| VNTM |
----- ------
^ :
: :
: :
v V
----- ----- ----- -----
| LSR |----| LSR |................| LSR |----| LSR |
| H1 | | H2 | | H3 | | H4 |
----- -----\ /----- -----
\----- -----/
| LSR |--| LSR |
| L1 | | L2 |
Oki et al Expires September 2007 7
draft-ietf-pce-inter-layer-frwk-03.txt March 2007
----- -----
Figure 3: Cooperation Model Between PCE and VNTM
A multi-layer network consists of higher-layer and lower-layer
networks. LSRs H1, H2, H3, and H4 belong to the higher-layer network,
LSRs H2, L1, L2, and H3 belong to the lower-layer network, as shown
in Figure 3. Consider that H1 requests PCE to compute an inter-layer
path between H1 and H4. There is no TE link in the higher-layer
between H2 and H3 before the path computation request fails. But the
PCE may provide information to the VNT Manager responsible for the
lower layer network that may help resolve the situation for future
higher-layer LSP setup.
The roles of PCE and VNTM are as follows. PCE performs inter-layer
path computation and is unable to supply a path because there is no
TE link between H2 and H3. The computation fails, but PCE suggests
to VNTM that a lower-layer LSP (H2-H3) could be established to
support future LSP requests. Messages from PCE to VNTM contain
information about the higher-layer demand (from H2 to H3). VNTM uses
local policy and possibly management/configuration input to
determine how to process the suggestion from PCE, and may request an
ingress LSR (e.g. H2) to establish a lower-layer LSP. VNTM or the
ingress LSR (H2) may themselves use a PCE with visibility into the
lower layer to compute the path of this new LSP.
When the higher-layer PCE fails to compute a path and notifies VNTM,
it may wait for the lower-layer LSP to be set up and advertised as a
TE link. It could then compute the complete end-to-end path for the
higher-layer LSP and return the result to the PCC. In this case, the
PCC may be kept waiting for some time, and it is important that the
PCC understands this. It is also important that the PCE and VNTM
have an agreement that the lower-layer LSP will be set up in a
timely manner, or that the PCE will be notified by VNTM that no new
LSP will become available. In any case, if the PCE decides to wait,
it must operates a timeout. An example of such a cooperative
procedure between PCE and VNTM is as follows using the exmaple
network in Figure 3.
Step 1: H1 (PCC) requests PCE to compute a path between H1 and H4.
Step 2: The path computation fails because there is no TE link
across the lower-layer network.
Step 3: PCE suggests to VNTM that a new TE link connecting H2 and H3
would be useful. VNTM considers whether lower-layer LSPs should be
established if necessary and if acceptable within VNTM's policy
constraints. The PCE notifies VNTM that it will be waiting for the
TE link to be created.
Step 4: VNTM requests an ingress LSR in the lower-layer network
(e.g., H2) to establish a lower-layer LSP. The request message may
include a lower-layer LSP route obtained from the PCE responsible
for the lower-layer network.
Step 5: The ingress LSR signals to establish the lower-layer LSP.
Step 6: If the lower-layer LSP setup is successful, the ingress LSR
notifies VNTM that the LSP is complete and supplies the tunnel
information.
Oki et al Expires September 2007 8
draft-ietf-pce-inter-layer-frwk-03.txt March 2007
Step 7: The ingress LSR (H2) advertises the new LSP as a TE link in
the higher-layer network routing instance.
Step 8: PCE notices the new TE link advertisement and recomputes the
requested path.
Step 9: PCE replies to H1 (PCC) with a computed higher-layer LSP
route. The computed path is categorized as a mono-layer path that
includes the already-established lower layer-LSP as a single hop in
the higher layer. The higher-layer route is specified as H1-H2-H3-H4,
where all hops are strict.
Step 9: H1 initiates signaling with the computed path H2-H3-H4 to
establish the higher-layer LSP.
5.2.2. Higher-Layer Signaling Trigger Model
-----
| PCE |
-----
^
:
:
v
----- ----- ----- -----
| LSR |----| LSR |................| LSR |--| LSR |
| H1 | | H2 | | H3 | | H4 |
----- -----\ /----- -----
\----- -----/
| LSR |--| LSR |
| L1 | | L2 |
----- -----
Figure 4: Higher-layer Signaling Trigger Model
Figure 4 shows the higher-layer signaling trigger model. As in the
case described in Section 5.2.1, consider that H1 requests PCE to
compute a path between H1 and H4. There is no TE link in the higher-
layer between H2 and H3 before the path computation request.
PCE is unable to compute a mono-layer path, but may judge that the
establishment of a lower-layer LSP between H2 and H3 would provide
adequate connectivity. If the PCE has inter-layer visibility it may
return a path that includes hops in the lower layer (H1-H2-L1-L2-H3-
H4), but if it has no visiblity into the lower layer, it may return
a path with a loose hop from H2 to H3 (H1-H2-H3(loose)-H4). The
former is a multi-layer path, and the latter a mono-layer path that
includes loose hops.
In the higher-layer signaling trigger model with a multi-layer path,
the LSP route supplied by the PCE includes the route of a lower-
layer LSP that is not yet established. A border LSR that is located
at the boundary between the higher-layer and lower-layer networks
(H2 in this example) receives a higher-layer signaling message,
notices that the next hop is in the lower-layer network, starts to
setup the lower-layer LSP as described in [RFC4206]. Note that these
actions depends on a policy at the border LSR. An example procedure
of the signaling trigger model with a multi-layer path is as follows.
Oki et al Expires September 2007 9
draft-ietf-pce-inter-layer-frwk-03.txt March 2007
Step 1: H1 (PCC) requests PCE to compute a path between H1 and H4.
The request indicates that inter-layer path computation is allowed.
Step 2: As a result of the inter-layer path computation, PCE judges
that a new lower-layer LSP needs to be established.
Step 3: PCE replies to H1 (PCC) with a computed multi-layer route
including higher-layer and lower-layer LSP routes. The route may be
specified as H1-H2-L1-L2-H3-H4, where all hops are strict.
Step 4: H1 initiates higher-layer signaling using the computed
explicit router of H2-L1-L2-H3-H4.
Step 5: The border LSR (H2) that receives the higher-layer signaling
message starts lower-layer signaling to establish a lower-layer LSP
along the specified lower-layer route of H2-L1-L2-H3. That is, the
border LSR recognizes the hops within the explicit route that apply
to the lower-layer network, verifies with local policy that a new
LSP is acceptable, and establishes the required lower-layer LSP.
Note that it is possible that a suitable lower-layer LSP has already
been established (or become available) between the time that the
computation was performed and the moment when the higher-layer
signaling message reached the border LSR. In this case, the border
LSR may select such a lower-layer LSP without the need to signal a
new LSP provided that the lower-layer LSP satisfies the explicit
route in the higher-layer signaling request.
Step 6: After the lower-layer LSP is established, the higher-layer
signaling continues along the specified higher-layer route of H2-H3-
H4 using hierarchical signaling [RFC4206].
On the other hand, in the signaling trigger model with a mono-layer
path, a higher-layer LSP route includes a loose hop to traverse the
lower-layer network between the two border LSRs. A border LSR that
receives a higher-layer signaling message needs to determine a path
for a new lower-layer LSP. It applies local policy to verify that a
new LSP is acceptable and then either consults a PCE with
responsibility for the lower-layer network or computes the path by
itself, and initiates signaling to establish the lower-layer LSP.
Again, it is possible that a suitable lower-layer LSP has already
been established (or become available). In this case, the border LSR
may select such a lower-layer LSP without the need to signal a new
LSP provided that the lower-layer LSP satisfies the explicit route
in the higher-layer signaling request. Since the higher-layer
signaling request used a loose hop without specifying any specifics
of the path within the lower-layer network, the border LSR has
greater freedom to choose a lower-layer LSP than in the previous
example.
The difference between procedures of the signaling trigger model
with a multi-layer path and a mono-layer path is Step 5. Step 5 of
the signaling trigger model with a mono layer path is as follows:
Step 5': The border LSR (H2) that receives the higher-layer
signaling message applies local policy to verify that a new LSP is
acceptable and then initiates establishment of a lower-layer LSP. It
either consults a PCE with responsibility for the lower-layer
network or computes the route by itself to expand the loose hop
route in the higher-layer path.
Oki et al Expires September 2007 10
draft-ietf-pce-inter-layer-frwk-03.txt March 2007
Finally, note that a virtual TE link may have been advertised into
the higher-layer network. This causes the PCE to return a path H1-
H2-H3-H4 where all the hops are strict. But when the higher-layer
signaling message reaches the layer border node H2 (that was
responsible for advertising the virtual TE link) it realizes that
the TE link does not exist yet, and signals the necessary LSP across
the lower-layer network using its own path determination (just as
for a loose hop in the higher layer) before continuing with the
higher-layer signaling.
5.2.3. Examples of Multi-Layer ERO
PCE
^
:
:
V
H1--H2 H3--H4
\ /
L1==L2==L3--L4--L5
|
|
L6--L7
\
H5--H6
Figure 5: Example of a Multi-Layer Network
This section describes how lower-layer LSP setup is performed in the
higher-layer signaling trigger model using an ERO that can include
subobjects in both the higher and lower layers. It gives rise to
several options for the ERO when it reaches the last LSR in the
higher layer network (H2).
1. The next subobject is a loose hop to H3 (mono layer ERO).
2. The next subobject is a strict hop to L1 followed by a loose hop
to H3.
3. The next subobjects are a series of hops (strict or loose) in the
lower-layer network followed by H3. For example, {L1(strict),
L3(loose), L5(loose), H3(strict)}
In the first example, the lower layer can utilize any LSP tunnel
that will deliver the end-to-end LSP to H3. In the third case, the
lower layer must select an LSP tunnel that traverses L3 and L5.
However, this does not mean that the lower layer can or should use
an LSP from L1 to L3 and another from L3 to L5.
6. Choosing Between Inter-Layer Path Control Models
This section compares the cooperation model between PCE and VNTM,
and the higher-layer signaling trigger model, in terms of VNTM
functions, border LSR functions, higher-layer signaling time, and
complexity (in terms of number of states and messages). An
appropriate model may be chosen by a network operator in different
deployment scenarios taking all these considerations into account.
6.1. VNTM Functions:
In the cooperation model, VNTM functions are required. In this model,
communications are required between PCE and VNTM, and between VNTM
and a border LSR. VNTM-LSR communication can rely on existing
GMPLS-TE MIB modules. PCE-VNTM communication will be detailed in
further revisions of this document.
Oki et al Expires September 2007 11
draft-ietf-pce-inter-layer-frwk-03.txt March 2007
In the higher-layer signaling trigger model, no VNTM functions are
required, and no such communications are required.
If VNTM functions are not supported in a multi-layer network, the
higher-layer signaling trigger model has to be chosen.
The inclusion of VNTM functionality allows better coordination of
cross-network LSP tunnels and application of network-wide policy
that is far harder to apply in the trigger model since it requires
the coordination of policy between multiple border LSRs.
6.2. Border LSR Functions:
In the higher-layer signaling trigger model, a border LSR must have
some additional functions. It needs to trigger lower-layer signaling
when a higher-layer path message suggests that lower-layer LSP setup
is necessary. Note that, if virtual TE links are used, the border
LSRs must be capable of triggered signaling.
If the ERO in the higher-layer Path message uses a mono-layer path
or specifies a loose hop, the border LSR receiving the Path message
must obtain a lower-layer route either by consulting a PCE or by
using its own computation engine. If the ERO in the higher-layer
Path message uses a multi-layer path, the border LSR must judge
whether lower-layer signaling is needed.
In the cooperation model, no additional function for triggered
signaling is required in border LSRs except when virtual TE links
are used. Therefore, if these additional functions are not supported
in border LSRs, where a border LSR is controlled by VNTM to set up a
lower-layer LSP, the cooperation model has to be chosen.
6.3. Complete Inter-Layer LSP Setup Time:
Complete inter-layer LSP setup time includes inter-layer path
computation, signaling, and communication time between PCC and PCE,
PCE and VNTM, and VNTM and LSR. In the cooperation model, the
additional communication steps are required compared with the
higher-layer signaling trigger model. On the other hand, the
cooperation model provides better control at the cost of a longer
service setup time.
Note that, in terms of higher-layer signaling time, in the higher-
layer signaling trigger model, the required time from when higher-
layer signaling starts to when it is completed, is more than that of
the cooperation model except when a virtual TE link is included.
This is because the former model requires lower-layer signaling to
take place during the higher-layer signaling. A higher-layer ingress
LSR has to wait for more time until the higher-layer signaling is
completed. A higher-layer ingress LSR is required to be tolerant of
longer path setup times.
6.4. Network Complexity
If the higher and lower layer networks have multiple interconnects
then optimal path computation for end-to-end LSPs that cross the
layer boundaries is non-trivial. The higher layer LSP must be routed
to the correct layer border nodes to achieve optimality in both
layers.
Oki et al Expires September 2007 12
draft-ietf-pce-inter-layer-frwk-03.txt March 2007
Where the lower layer LSPs are advertised into the higher layer
network as TE links, the computation can be resolved in the higher
layer network. Care needs to be taken in the allocation of TE
metrics (i.e., costs) to the lower layer LSPs as they are advertised
as TE links into the higher layer network, and this might be a
function for a VNT Manager component. Similarly, attention should be
given to the fact that the LSPs crossing the lower-layer network
might share points of common failure (e.g., they might traverse the
same link in the lower-layer network) and the shared risk link
groups (SRLGs) for the TE links advertised in the higher-layer must
be set accordingly.
In the single PCE model an end-to-end path can be found in a single
computation because there is full visibility into both layers and
all possible paths through all layer interconnects can be considered.
Where PCEs cooperate to determine a path, an iterative computation
model such as [BRPC] can be used to select an optimal path across
layers.
When non-cooperating mono-layer PCEs, each of which is in a separate
layer, are used with the triggered LSP model, it is not possible to
determine the best border LSRs, and connectivity cannot even be
guaranteed. In this case, signaling crankback techniques [CRANK] can
be used to eventually achieve connectivity, but optimality is far
harder to achieve. In this model, a PCE that is requested by an
ingress LSR to compute a path expects a border LSR to setup a lower-
layer path triggered by high-layer signaling when there is no TE
link between border LSRs.
6.5. Separation of Layer Management
Many network operators may want to provide a clear separation
between the management of the different layer networks. In some
cases, the lower layer network may come from a separate commercial
arm of an organization or from a different corporate body entirely.
In these cases, the policy applied to the establishment of LSPs in
the lower-layer network and to the advertisement of these LSPs as TE
links in the higher-layer network will reflect commercial agreements
and security concerns (see next section). Since the capacity of the
LSPs in the lower-layer network are likely to be significantly
larger than those in the client higher-layer network (multiplex-
server model), the administrator of the lower-layer network may want
to exercise caution before allowing a single small demand in the
higher layer to tie up valuable resources in the lower layer.
The necessary policy points for this separation of administration
and management are more easily achieved through the VNTM approach
than by using triggered signaling. In effect, the VNTM is the
coordination point for all lower layer LSPs and can be closely tied
to a human operator as well as to policy and billing. Such a model
can also be achieved using triggered signaling.
7. Security Considerations
Inter-layer traffic engineering with PCE raises new security issues
in both inter-layer path control models.
Oki et al Expires September 2007 13
draft-ietf-pce-inter-layer-frwk-03.txt March 2007
In the cooperation model between PCE and VNTM, when the PCE judges a
new lower-layer LSP, communications between PCE and VNTM and between
VNTM and a border LSR are needed. In this case, there are some
security concerns that need to be addressed for these communications.
These communications should have some security mechanisms to ensure
authenticity, privacy and integrity. In particular, it is important
to protect against false triggers for LSP setup in the lower-layer
network.
In the higher-layer signaling trigger model, there are several
security concerns. First, PCE may inform PCC, which is located in
the higher-layer network, of multi-layer path information that
includes an ERO in the lower-layer network, while the PCC may not
have TE topology visibility into the lower-layer network. This
raises a security concern, where lower-layer hop information is
known to transit LSRs supporting a higher-layer LSP. Some security
mechanisms to ensure authenticity, privacy and integrity may be used.
Security issues may also exist when a single PCE is granted full
visibility of TE information that applies to multiple layers.
8. Acknowledgment
We would like to thank Kohei Shiomoto, Ichiro Inoue, Julien Meuric,
Jean-Francois Peltier, Young Lee, and Ina Minei for their useful
comments.
9. References
9.1. Normative Reference
[RFC3031] Rosen, E., Viswanathan, A., and R. Callon, "Multiprotocol
Label Switching Architecture", RFC 3031, January 2001.
[RFC3945] Mannie, E., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
Architecture", RFC 3945, October 2004.
[RFC4206] Kompella, K., and Rekhter, Y., "Label Switched Paths (LSP)
Hierarchy with Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)
Traffic Engineering (TE)", RFC 4206, October 2005.
[RFC4655] A. Farrel, JP. Vasseur and J. Ash, "A Path Computation
Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655, August 2006.
9.2. Informative Reference
[MLN-REQ] K. Shiomoto et al., "Requirements for GMPLS-based multi-
region networks (MRN)", draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-mln-reqs (work in
progress).
[PCE-INTER-LAYER-REQ] E. Oki et al., "PCC-PCE Communication
Requirements for Inter-Layer Traffic Engineering", draft-ietf-pce-
inter-layer-req (work in progress).
[BRPC] JP. Vasseur et al., "A Backward Recursive PCE-based
Computation (BRPC) procedure to compute shortest inter-domain
Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths", draft-ietf-pce-brpc (work
in progress).
[CRANK] A. Farrel et al., "Crankback Signaling Extensions for MPLS
and GMPLS RSVP-TE", draft-ietf-ccamp-crankback (work in progress).
Oki et al Expires September 2007 14
draft-ietf-pce-inter-layer-frwk-03.txt March 2007
10. Authors' Addresses
Eiji Oki
NTT
3-9-11 Midori-cho,
Musashino-shi, Tokyo 180-8585, Japan
Email: oki.eiji@lab.ntt.co.jp
Jean-Louis Le Roux
France Telecom R&D,
Av Pierre Marzin,
22300 Lannion, France
Email: jeanlouis.leroux@orange-ftgroup.com
Adrian Farrel
Old Dog Consulting
Email: adrian@olddog.co.uk
11. Intellectual Property Statement
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed
to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described
in this document or the extent to which any license under such
rights might or might not be available; nor does it represent that
it has made any independent effort to identify any such rights.
Information on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC
documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use
of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository
at http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-
ipr@ietf.org.
Disclaimer of Validity
This document and the information contained herein are provided on
an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE
REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE
IETF TRUST AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL
WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY
WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE
ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS
FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
Oki et al Expires September 2007 15
draft-ietf-pce-inter-layer-frwk-03.txt March 2007
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
Oki et al Expires September 2007 16
