Networking Working Group JP. Vasseur, Ed.
Internet-Draft Cisco Systems, Inc
Intended status: Standards Track JL. Le Roux
Expires: March 6, 2009 France Telecom
Y. Ikejiri
NTT Communications Corporation
September 2, 2008
A set of monitoring tools for Path Computation Element based
Architecture
draft-ietf-pce-monitoring-02.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.
This Internet-Draft will expire on March 6, 2009.
Abstract
A Path Computation Element (PCE) based architecture has been
specified for the computation of Traffic Engineering (TE) Label
Switched Paths (LSPs) in Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and
Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) networks in the context of single or
multiple domains (where a domain refers to a collection of network
elements within a common sphere of address management or path
computational responsibility such as IGP areas and Autonomous
Systems). In PCE-based environments, it is thus critical to monitor
Vasseur, et al. Expires March 6, 2009 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-pce-monitoring-02.txt September 2008
the state of the path computation chain for troubleshooting and
performance monitoring purposes: liveness of each element (PCE)
involved in the PCE chain, detection of potential resource contention
states and statistics in term of path computation times are examples
of such metrics of interest. This document specifies procedures and
extensions to the Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) in order
to gather such information.
Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Path Computation Monitoring messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Path Computation Monitoring Request message (PCMonReq) . . 5
3.2. Path Monitoring Reply message (PCMonRep) . . . . . . . . . 7
4. Path Computation Monitoring Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1. MONITORING Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.2. PCEP-ID Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.3. PROC-TIME Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.4. CONGESTION Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5. Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6. Elements of Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 19
Vasseur, et al. Expires March 6, 2009 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-pce-monitoring-02.txt September 2008
1. Introduction
The Path Computation Element (PCE) based architecture has been
specified in [RFC4655] for the computation of Traffic Engineering
(TE) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) in Multiprotocol Label Switching
(MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) networks in the context of single
or multiple domains where a domain refers to a collection of network
elements within a common sphere of address management or path
computational responsibility such as IGP areas and Autonomous
Systems.
As defined in [RFC4655], there are circumstances where more than one
PCE is involved in the computation of a TE LSP. A typical example is
when the PCC requires the computation of a TE LSP where the head-end
and the tail-end of the TE LSP do not reside in adjacent domains and
there is no single PCE with the visibility of both the head-end and
tail-end domain. We call the set of PCEs involved in the computation
of a TE LSP a "path computation chain". As further discussed in
Section 3.1, the PCE chain may either be static (pre-configured) or
dynamically determined during the path computation process.
In PCE-based environments, it is critical to monitor the state of the
path computation chain for troubeshooting and performance monitoring
purposes: liveness of each element (PCE) involved in the PCE chain,
detection of potential resource contention states and statistics in
term of path computation times are examples of such metrics of
interest. This document specifies procedures and extensions to the
Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) ([I-D.ietf-pce-pcep]) in
order to monitor the path computation chain and gather various
performance metrics.
As discussed in [RFC4655], a TE LSP may be computed by one PCE
(referred to as single PCE path computation) or several PCEs
(referred to as multiple PCE path computation). In the former case,
the PCC may be able to use IGP extensions to check the liveness of
the PCE (see [RFC5088] and [RFC5089]) or PCEP using Keepalive
messages. In contrast, when multiple PCEs are involved in the path
computation chain an example of which is the BRPC procedure defined
in [I-D.ietf-pce-brpc], the PCC's visibility may be limited to the
first PCE involved in the path computation chain. Thus, it is
critical to define mechanisms in order to monitor the state of the
path computation chain.
This document specifies PCEP extensions in order to gather various
state metrics along the path computation chain. In this document we
call a "state metric" a metric that characterizes a PCE state. For
example, such metric can have a form of a bolean (PCE is alive or
not, PCE is congested or not) or a performance metric (path
Vasseur, et al. Expires March 6, 2009 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-pce-monitoring-02.txt September 2008
computation time at each PCE).
PCE state metrics can be gathered in two different contexts: in band
or out of band. By "In band" we refer to the situation whereby a PCC
requests to gather metrics in the context of a path computation
request. For example, a PCC may send a path computation request to a
PCE and may want to know the processing time of that request in
addition to the computed path. Conversely, if the request is "out of
band", PCE state metric collection is performed as a standalone
request (e.g. check the liveness of a specific PCE chain, collect the
average processing time computed over the last 5mn period on one or
more PCEs").
In this document we define two monitoring request types: general and
specific. A general monitoring request relates to the collection of
a PCE state metrics that is not coupled to a particular path
computation request (e.g. average CPU load on a PCE). Conversely, a
specific monitoring request relates to a particular path computation
request (processing time to complete the path computation for a TE
LSP).
2. Terminology
PCC (Path Computation Client): any client application requesting a
path computation to be performed by a Path Computation Element.
PCE (Path Computation Element): an entity (component, application or
network node) that is capable of computing a network path or route
based on a network graph and applying computational constraints.
TE LSP: Traffic Engineering Label Switched Path.
3. Path Computation Monitoring messages
As defined in [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep], a PCEP message consists of a
common header followed by a variable length body made of a set of
objects that can either be mandatory or optional. As a reminder, an
object is said to be mandatory in a PCEP message when the object must
be included for the message to be considered as valid. The P flag
(defined in [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep]) is located in the common header of
each PCEP object and can be set by a PCEP peer to require a PCE to
take into account the related information during the path
computation. Because the P flag exclusively relates to a path
computation request, it MUST be cleared in the two PCEP messages
(PCEMonReq and PCMonRep message) defined in this document.
Vasseur, et al. Expires March 6, 2009 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-pce-monitoring-02.txt September 2008
For each PCEP message type a set of rules is defined that specify the
set of objects that the message can carry. We use the Backus-Naur
Form (BNF) to specify such rules. Square brackets refer to optional
sub-sequences. An implementation MUST form the PCEP messages using
the object ordering specified in this document.
In this document we define two PCEP messages referred to as the Path
Computation Monitoring request (PCMonReq) and Path Computation
Monitoring Reply (PCMonRep) messages so as to handle "out of band"
monitoring request. The aim of the PCMonReq message sent by a PCC to
a PCE is to gather one or more PCE state metrics on a set of PCEs
involved in a path computation chain. The PCMonRep message sent by a
PCE to a PCC is used to provide such data.
3.1. Path Computation Monitoring Request message (PCMonReq)
The Message-Type field of the PCEP common header for the PCMonReq
message is set to 8 (To be confirmed by IANA).
There is one mandatory object that MUST be included within a PCMonReq
message: the Monitoring object (see section Section 4.1). If the
Monitoring object is missing, the receiving PCE MUST send a PCErr
message with Error-type=6 (Mandatory Object missing) and Error-
value=4 (MONITORING Object missing). Other objects are optional.
Vasseur, et al. Expires March 6, 2009 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-pce-monitoring-02.txt September 2008
The format of a PCMonReq message is as follows:
<PCMonReq Message>::= <Common Header>
<MONITORING>
[<pce-list>]
[<svec-list>]
[<request-list>]
where:
<svec-list>::=<SVEC>
[<OF>]
[<svec-list>]
<request-list>::=<request>[<request-list>]
<request>::= <RP>
<END-POINTS>
[<LSPA>]
[<BANDWIDTH>]
[<metric-list>]
[<RRO>]
[<IRO>]
[<LOAD-BALANCING>]
[<XRO>]
<metric-list>::=<METRIC>[<metric-list>]
<pce-list>::=<PCE-ID>[<pce-list>]
The SVEC, RP, END-POINTS, LSPA, BANDWIDTH, METRIC, ERO, IRO and LOAD-
BALANCING objects are defined in [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep]. The XRO object
is defined in [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-xro] and the OF object is defined in
[I-D.ietf-pce-of].
The PCMonReq message is used to gather various PCE state metrics
along a path computation chain. The path computation chain may be
determined by the PCC (in the form of a series of a series of PCE-ID
objects defined in Section 4.2.) or may alternatively be determined
by the path computation procedure. For example, if the BRPC
procedure ([I-D.ietf-pce-brpc]) is used to compute an inter-domain TE
LSP, the PCE chain may be determined dynamically. In that case, the
PCC sends a PCMonReq message that contains the PCEP objects that
charaterize the TE LSP attributes along with the monitoring objects
(see Section 4.1) that list the set of metric(s) of interest.
Several PCE state metrics may be requested that are specified by a
set of objects defined in Section 4. Note that this set of objects
may be extended in the future.
Vasseur, et al. Expires March 6, 2009 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-pce-monitoring-02.txt September 2008
For the sake of illustraion, consider the three following examples:
Example 1: PCC1 requests to check the path computation chain that
would be used should it request a path computation for a specific TE
LSP named T1. A PCMonReq message is sent that contains a MONITORING
object specifying a path computation check, along with the
appropriate set of objects (e.g. RP, END-POINTS, ...) that would be
included in a PCReq message for T1.
Example 2: PCC1 requests a path computation for a TE LSP and also
request to gather the processing time along the path computation
chain selected for the computation of T1. A PCReq message is sent
that also contains a MONITORING object that specifies the performance
metric of interest. The PCRep message also carries a PROC-TIME
object defined in section Section 4.1 that reports the computed
metrics.
Example 3: PCC2 requests to gather performance metrics along the
specific path computation chain <pce1, pce2, pce3, pce7>. A PCMonreq
message is sent to PCE1 that contains a sequence of PCE-ID objects
that identify PCE1, PCE2, PCE3 and PCE7 respectively.
3.2. Path Monitoring Reply message (PCMonRep)
The PCMonRep message is used to provide PCE state metrics back to the
requester for "out of band" monitoring requests. The Message-Type
field of the PCEP common header for the PCMonRep message is set to 9
(To be confirmed by IANA).
There is one mandatory object that MUST be included within a PCMonRep
message: the Monitoring object (see Section 4.1). If the Monitoring
object is missing, the receiving PCE MUST send a PCErr message with
Error-type=6 (Mandatory Object missing) and Error-value=4 (MONITORING
Object missing).
Other objects are optional.
Vasseur, et al. Expires March 6, 2009 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-pce-monitoring-02.txt September 2008
The format of a PCReq message is as follows:
<PCMonRep Message>::= <Common Header>
<MONITORING>
[<RP>]
[<metric-pce-list>]
where:
<metric-pce-list>::=<metric-pce>[<metric-pce-list>]
<metric-pce>::=[<PCE-ID>]
[<PROC-TIME>]
[<TIME-STAMP>]
[<CONGESTION>]
4. Path Computation Monitoring Objects
The PCEP objects defined in the document are compliant with the PCEP
object format defined in [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep], with the P flag and the
I flag cleared since these flags are exclusively related to path
computation requests.
Several objects are defined in this section that can be carried
within the PCEP PCReq or PCRep messages defined in
[I-D.ietf-pce-pcep] in case of "in band" monitoring requests. In
case of "out of band" monitoring requests, the objects defined in
this section are carried within PCMonReq and PCMonRep messages.
Conversely, if the PCC requests the computation of the TE LSP in
addition to gathering PCE state metrics (i.e. "In band" requests),
these objects are carried within PCReq and PCRep messages.
4.1. MONITORING Object
The MONITORING object MUST be present within PCMonReq and PCMonRep
messages ("out of band" monitoring requests) and MAY be carried
within PCRep and PCReq messages ("in band" monitoring requests). The
MONITORING object MUST be present within PCMonReq and PCMonRep
messages ("out of band" monitoring requests) and MAY be carried
within PCERep and PCReq messages ("in band" monitoring requests).
There SHOULD NOT be more than one instance of the MONITORING object:
if more than one instance of the MONITORING object is present, the
recipient MUST process the first instance and MUST ignore other
instances.
The MONITORING object is used to specify the set of requested PCE
state metrics.
Vasseur, et al. Expires March 6, 2009 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-pce-monitoring-02.txt September 2008
The MONITORING Object-Class is to be assigned by IANA (recommended
value=19)
The MONITORING Object-Type is to be assigned by IANA (recommended
value=1)
The format of the MONITORING object body is as follows:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved | Flags |I|C|P|G|L|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Monitoring-id-number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
// Optional TLV(s) //
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Flags: 24 bits
The following flags are currently defined:
L (Liveness) - 1 bit: when set, this indicates that the state metric
of interest is the PCE's liveness and thus the PCE MUST include a
PCE-ID object in the corresponding reply. The L bit MUST always be
ignored in a PCMonRep or PCRep message.
G (General) - 1 bit: when set, this indicates that the monitoring
request is a general monitoring request. When the requested
performance metric is specific, the G bit MUST be cleared. The G bit
MUST always be ignored in a PCMonRep or PCRep message.
P (Processing Time) - 1 bit: the P bit of the MONITORING object
carried in a PCMonReq or a PCReq message is set to indicate that the
processing times is a metric of interest, in which case a PROC-TIME
object MUST be inserted in the corresponding PCMonRep or PCRep
message. The P bit MUST always be ignored in a PCMonRep or PCRep
message.
C (Congestion) - 1 bit: The C bit of the MONITORING object carried in
a PCMonReq or a PCReq message is set to indicate that the congestion
status is a metric of interest, in which case a CONGESTION object
MUST be inserted in the corresponding PCMonRep or PCRep message. The
C bit MUST always be ignored in a PCMonRep or PCRep message.
I (Incomplete) - 1 bit: If a PCE supports a received PCMonReq message
Vasseur, et al. Expires March 6, 2009 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-pce-monitoring-02.txt September 2008
and that message does not trigger any policy violation, but the PCE
cannot provide any of the set of requested performance metrics for
unspecified reasons, the PCE MUST set the I bit. The I bit has no
meaning in a request and SHOULD be ignored on receipt.
Monitoring-id-number (32 bits): The monitoring-id-number value
combined with the PCEP-ID of the PCC identifies the monitoring
request context. The monitoring-id-number MUST start at a non-zero
value and MUST be incremented each time a new monitoring request is
sent to a PCE. Each increment SHOULD have a value of 1 and may cause
a wrap back to one. If no reply to a monitoring request is received
from the PCE, and the PCC wishes to resend its path computation
monitoring request, the same monitoring-id-number MUST be used.
Conversely, a different monitoring-id-number MUST be used for
different requests sent to a PCE. The path computation monitoring
reply is unambiguously identified by the monitoring-id-number and the
PCEP-ID of the replying PCE. A PCEP implementation SHOULD checkpoint
the Monitoring-id-number of pending monitoring requests in case of
restart thus avoiding the re-use of a Monitoring-id-number of an in-
process monitoring request.
Unassigned bits are considered as reserved and MUST be set to zero on
transmission and ignored on reception.
No optional TLVs are currently defined.
4.2. PCEP-ID Object
The PCEP-ID Object is used to specify a PCE's IP address.
A set of PCEP-ID objects may be inserted within a PCReq or a PCMonReq
message to specify the PCE for which PCE state metrics are requested
and in a PCMonRep or a PCRep message to record the IP address of the
PCE reporting PCE state metrics or that was involved in the path
computation chain.
Two PCEP-ID objects (for IPv4 and IPv6) are defined. PCEP-ID Object-
Class is to be assigned by IANA (recommended value=20) PCEP-ID
Object-Type is to be assigned by IANA (recommended value=1 for IPv4
and 2 for IPv6)
The format of the PCEP-ID Object is as follows:
Vasseur, et al. Expires March 6, 2009 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-pce-monitoring-02.txt September 2008
The format of the PCEP-ID object body for IPv4 and IPv6 are as
follows:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv4 Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| IPv6 Address |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The PCEP-ID object body has a fixed length of 4 octets for IPv4 and
16 octets for IPv6.
When a dynamic discovery mechanism is used for PCE discovery, a PCE
advertises its PCE address in the PCE-ADDRESS sub-TLV defined in
[RFC5088] and [RFC5089]. A PCC MUST use this address in PCReq and
PCMonReq messages and a PCE MUST also use this address in PCRep and
PCMonRep messages.
4.3. PROC-TIME Object
If allowed by policy, the PCE includes a PROC-TIME object within a
PCMonRep or a PCRep message if the P bit of the MONITORING object
carried within the corresponding PCMonReq or PCReq message is set.
The PROC-TIME object is used to report various processing time
related metrics.
1) Case of general monitoring requests
A PCC may request processing time metrics for general monitoring
requests (e.g. the PCC may want to know the minimum, maximum and
average processing times on a particular PCE). In this case, general
requests can only be made by using PCMonReq/PCMonRep messages. The
processing-time field (as explained below) is exclusively used for
specific monitoring requests and MUST be cleared for general
monitoring requests. The algorithm(s) used by a PCE to compute the
Min, Average, Max and Variance of the processing times are out of the
scope of this document (A PCE may decide to compute the minimum
processing time over a period of times, for the last N path
computation requests, ...).
Vasseur, et al. Expires March 6, 2009 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-pce-monitoring-02.txt September 2008
2) Case of specific monitoring requests
In the case of a specific request, the algorithm(s) used by a PCE to
compute the Procesing-time metrics are out of the scope of this
document but a flag is specified that is used to indicate to the
requester whether the processing time value was estimated or
computed. The PCE may either (1) estimate the processing time
without performing an actual path computation or (2) effectively
perform the computation to report the processing time. In the former
case, the E bit of the PROC-TIME object MUST be set. The G bit MUST
be cleared and the Min-processing-time, Max-processing-time, Average-
processing-time and Variance-processing-time MUST be set to
0x00000000.
When the processing time is requested in addition to a path
computation (case where the MONITORING object is carried within a
PCReq message), the PROC-TIME object always reports the actual
processing time for that request and thus the E bit MUST be cleared.
The PROC-TIME Object-Class is to be assigned by IANA (recommended
value=21)
The PROC-TIME Object-Type is to be assigned by IANA (recommended
value=1)
The format of the PROC-TIME object body is as follows:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved | Flags |E|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Current-processing-time |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Min-processing-time |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Max-processing-time |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Average-processing time |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Variance-processing-time |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Flags: 18 bits - No Flags are currently defined:
E (Estimated) - 1 bit: when set, this indicates that the reported
metric value is based on estimated processing time as opposed to
actual computation(s).
Vasseur, et al. Expires March 6, 2009 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-pce-monitoring-02.txt September 2008
Current-processing-time: This field indicates in milliseconds the
processing time for the path computation of interest characterized in
the corresponding PCMonReq message.
Min-processing-time: This field indicates in milliseconds the minimum
processing time.
Max-processing-time: This field indicates in milliseconds the maximum
processing time.
Average-processing-time: This field indicates in milliseconds the
average processing time.
Variance-processing-time: This field indicates in milliseconds the
variance of the processing times.
Unassigned bits are considered as reserved and MUST be set to zero on
transmission.
More granularity may be introduced in further revision of this
document to get a monitoring metric for a general request of a
particular class (e.g. all PCReq of priority X).
4.4. CONGESTION Object
The CONGESTION object MUST be present within a PCMonRep or a PCRep
message if the C bit of the MONITORING object carried within the
corresponding PCMonReq or PCReq message is set. The CONGESTION
object is used to report a PCE processing congestion state. The
CONGESTION Object-Class is to be assigned by IANA (recommended
value=22) The CONGESTION Object-Type is to be assigned by IANA
(recommended value=1)
The format of the CONGESTION object body is as follows:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|C| Reserved | Congestion Duration |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
C (Congestion) - 1 bit: when set, this indicates that PCE is
congested, in which case the congestion duration may be non nul.
When cleared this indicates that the PCE is not congested and the
"Congestion Duration" field MUST be set to 0x0000.
Congestion duration - 16 bits: This field indicates in seconds the
estimated congestion duration.
Vasseur, et al. Expires March 6, 2009 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-pce-monitoring-02.txt September 2008
5. Policy
The receipt of a PCMonReq message may trigger a policy violation on
some PCE in which case the PCE MUST send a PCErr message with Error-
Type=5 and Error-value=3 (To be Confirmed by IANA).
6. Elements of Procedure
I bit processing: as indicated in section Section 4.1, if a PCE
supports a received PCMonReq message and that message does not
trigger any policy violation, but the PCE cannot provide any of the
set of requested performance metrics for unspecified reasons, the PCE
MUST set the I bit. Once set, the I bit MUST NOT be changed by a
receiving PCE.
Reception of a PCMonReq message: upon receiving a PCMonReq message:
1) As specified in [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep], if the PCE does not support
the PCMonReq message, the PCE peer must send a PCErr message with
Error-value=2 (capability not supported).
2) If the PCE supports the PCMonReq message but the request is
prohibited by policy, the PCE MUST send a PCErr message with Error-
Type=5 and Error-value=3.
3) If the PCE supports the PCMonReq and the monitoring request is not
prohibited by policy, the receiving PCE MUST first determine whether
it is the last PCE of the path computation chain. If the PCE is not
the last element of the path computation chain, the PCMonReq message
is relayed to the next hop PCE: such next-hop may either be specified
by means of a PCEP-ID object present in the PCMonReq message or
dynamically determined by means of a procedure outside of the scope
of this document. Conversely, if the PCE is the last PCE of the path
computation chain, the PCE originates a PCMonRep message that
contains the requested objects according to the set of requested PCE
states metrics listed in the MONITORING object carried in the
corresponding PCMonReq message.
Upon receiving a PCMonRep message: upon receiving a PCMonRep message,
the PCE processes the request, adds the relevant objects to the
PCMonRep message and forwards the PCMonRep message to the upstream
requesting PCE or PCC.
Special case of Multi-destination monitoring: monitoring request
related to more than one destinations may involve a set of path
computation chains. In that case, a PCE sends each copy of the
PCMonReq message to each downstream PCE of each path computation
Vasseur, et al. Expires March 6, 2009 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-pce-monitoring-02.txt September 2008
chain.
7. Manageability Considerations
To be addressed in a further revision of this document.
8. IANA Considerations
Each PCEP message has a message type value.
Two new PCEP (specified in [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep]) messages are defined
in this document:
Value Meaning
8 Path Computation Monitoring Request (PCMonReq)
9 Path Computation Monitoring Reply (PCMonRep)
Each PCEP object has an Object-Class and an Object-Type. The
following new PCEP objects are defined in this document.
Object-Class Name
19 MONITORING
Object-Type
1
20 PCEP-ID
Object-Type
1: IPv4 addresses
2: IPv6 addresses
21 PROC-TIME
Object-Type
1
22 CONGESTION
Object-Type
1
A registry has been created for the Error-type and Error-value of the
PCEP Error Object.
A new Error-value for the PCErr message Error-types=5 (Policy
Violation) (see [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep]) is defined in this document
(Error-Type and Error-value to be assigned by IANA).
Vasseur, et al. Expires March 6, 2009 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-pce-monitoring-02.txt September 2008
Error-type Meaning
5 Policy violation
Error-value=3 [This document]
Monitoring message supported but rejected
due to policy violation
A new Error-value for the PCErr message Error-types=6 (Mandatory
Object missing) (see [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep]) is defined in this document
(Error-Type and Error-value to be assigned by IANA).
Error-type Meaning
6 Mandatory Object missing
Error-value=4 [This document]
MONITORING Object missing
9. Security Considerations
To be addressed in a further revision of this document.
10. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Eiji Oki, Mach Chen and Dimitri
Papadimitriou for their useful comments. Special thank to Adrian
Farrel for his detailed review.
11. References
11.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-pce-pcep]
Ayyangar, A., Farrel, A., Oki, E., Atlas, A., Dolganow,
A., Ikejiri, Y., Kumaki, K., Vasseur, J., and J. Roux,
"Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol
(PCEP)", draft-ietf-pce-pcep-14 (work in progress),
September 2008.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J., and J. Ash, "A Path Computation
Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655, August 2006.
Vasseur, et al. Expires March 6, 2009 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-pce-monitoring-02.txt September 2008
11.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-pce-brpc]
Vasseur, J., Zhang, R., Bitar, N., and J. Roux, "A
Backward Recursive PCE-based Computation (BRPC) Procedure
To Compute Shortest Constrained Inter-domain Traffic
Engineering Label Switched Paths", draft-ietf-pce-brpc-09
(work in progress), April 2008.
[I-D.ietf-pce-disco-proto-isis]
Roux, J., "IS-IS Protocol Extensions for Path Computation
Element (PCE) Discovery",
draft-ietf-pce-disco-proto-isis-08 (work in progress),
September 2007.
[I-D.ietf-pce-of]
Roux, J., Vasseur, J., and Y. Lee, "Encoding of Objective
Functions in the Path Computation Element Communication
Protocol (PCEP)", draft-ietf-pce-of-04 (work in progress),
August 2008.
[I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-xro]
Takeda, T., Oki, E., and A. Farrel, "Extensions to the
Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) for
Route Exclusions", draft-ietf-pce-pcep-xro-06 (work in
progress), July 2008.
[RFC5088] Le Roux, JL., Vasseur, JP., Ikejiri, Y., and R. Zhang,
"OSPF Protocol Extensions for Path Computation Element
(PCE) Discovery", RFC 5088, January 2008.
[RFC5089] Le Roux, JL., Vasseur, JP., Ikejiri, Y., and R. Zhang,
"IS-IS Protocol Extensions for Path Computation Element
(PCE) Discovery", RFC 5089, January 2008.
Authors' Addresses
JP Vasseur (editor)
Cisco Systems, Inc
1414 Massachusetts Avenue
Boxborough, MA 01719
USA
Email: jpv@cisco.com
Vasseur, et al. Expires March 6, 2009 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-pce-monitoring-02.txt September 2008
JL Le Roux
France Telecom
2, Avenue Pierre-Marzin
Lannion, 22307
FRANCE
Email: jeanlouis.leroux@orange-ftgroup.com
Yuichi Ikejiri
NTT Communications Corporation
1-1-6, Uchisaiwai-cho, Chiyoda-ku
Tokyo, 100-8019
Japan
Email: : y.ikejiri@ntt.com
Vasseur, et al. Expires March 6, 2009 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-pce-monitoring-02.txt September 2008
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
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.
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.
Intellectual Property
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.
Vasseur, et al. Expires March 6, 2009 [Page 19]
