PCE Working Group Z. Li
Internet-Draft S. Peng
Intended status: Standards Track Huawei Technologies
Expires: June 18, 2021 M. Negi
RtBrick Inc
Q. Zhao
Etheric Networks
C. Zhou
HPE
December 15, 2020
PCEP Procedures and Protocol Extensions for Using PCE as a Central
Controller (PCECC) for Segment Routing (SR) MPLS Segment Identifier
(SID) Allocation and Distribution.
draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-sr-00
Abstract
The Path Computation Element (PCE) is a core component of Software-
Defined Networking (SDN) systems. It can compute optimal paths for
traffic across a network and can also update the paths to reflect
changes in the network or traffic demands.
PCE was developed to derive paths for MPLS Label Switched Paths
(LSPs), which are supplied to the head end of the LSP using the Path
Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP). But SDN has a
broader applicability than signaled (G)MPLS traffic-engineered (TE)
networks, and the PCE may be used to determine paths in a range of
use cases. PCEP has been proposed as a control protocol for use in
these environments to allow the PCE to be fully enabled as a central
controller.
A PCE-based Central Controller (PCECC) can simplify the processing of
a distributed control plane by blending it with elements of SDN and
without necessarily completely replacing it. Thus, the LSP can be
calculated/set up/initiated and the label forwarding entries can also
be downloaded through a centralized PCE server to each network device
along the path while leveraging the existing PCE technologies as much
as possible.
This document specifies the procedures and PCEP extensions when a
PCE-based controller is also responsible for configuring the
forwarding actions on the routers, in addition to computing the paths
for packet flows in a segment routing (SR) network and telling the
edge routers what instructions to attach to packets as they enter the
network. PCECC is further enhanced for SR SID (Segment Identifier)
allocation and distribution.
Li, et al. Expires June 18, 2021 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft PCECC-SR December 2020
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 June 18, 2021.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2020 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. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. PCECC SR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. PCEP Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Procedures for Using the PCE as a Central Controller (PCECC)
in Segment Routing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.1. Stateful PCE Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.2. New LSP Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.3. PCECC Capability Advertisement . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.4. PCEP session IP address and TED Router ID . . . . . . . . 7
5.5. LSP Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.5.1. PCECC Segment Routing (SR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.5.1.1. PCECC SR Node/Prefix SID allocation . . . . . . . 8
Li, et al. Expires June 18, 2021 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft PCECC-SR December 2020
5.5.1.2. PCECC SR Adjacency Label allocation . . . . . . . 10
5.5.1.3. Redundant PCEs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.5.1.4. Re Delegation and Clean up . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.5.1.5. Synchronization of Label Allocations . . . . . . 13
5.5.1.6. PCC-Based Allocations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.5.1.7. Binding SID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6. PCEP Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6.1. Central Control Instructions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6.1.1. The PCInitiate Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6.1.2. The PCRpt message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7. PCEP Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
7.1. OPEN Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
7.1.1. PCECC Capability sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
7.2. SR-TE Path Setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
7.3. CCI Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
7.4. FEC Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
8. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
8.1. Huawei's Proof of Concept based on ONOS . . . . . . . . . 22
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
10. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
10.1. Control of Function and Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
10.2. Information and Data Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
10.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . 23
10.4. Verify Correct Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
10.5. Requirements On Other Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
10.6. Impact On Network Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
11. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
11.1. PCECC-CAPABILITY sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
11.2. PCEP Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
11.3. PCEP-Error Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
11.4. CCI Object Flag Field for SR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
12. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
13. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
13.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
13.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Appendix A. Contributor Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
1. Introduction
The Path Computation Element (PCE) [RFC4655] was developed to offload
the path computation function from routers in an MPLS traffic-
engineered network. Since then, the role and function of the PCE has
grown to cover a number of other uses (such as GMPLS [RFC7025]) and
to allow delegated control [RFC8231] and PCE-initiated use of network
resources [RFC8281].
Li, et al. Expires June 18, 2021 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft PCECC-SR December 2020
According to [RFC7399], Software-Defined Networking (SDN) refers to a
separation between the control elements and the forwarding components
so that software running in a centralized system, called a
controller, can act to program the devices in the network to behave
in specific ways. A required element in an SDN architecture is a
component that plans how the network resources will be used and how
the devices will be programmed. It is possible to view this
component as performing specific computations to place traffic flows
within the network given knowledge of the availability of network
resources, how other forwarding devices are programmed, and the way
that other flows are routed. This is the function and purpose of a
PCE, and the way that a PCE integrates into a wider network control
system (including an SDN system) is presented in [RFC7491].
In early PCE implementations, where the PCE was used to derive paths
for MPLS Label Switched Paths (LSPs), paths were requested by network
elements (known as Path Computation Clients (PCCs)), and the results
of the path computations were supplied to network elements using the
Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) [RFC5440].
This protocol was later extended to allow a PCE to send unsolicited
requests to the network for LSP establishment [RFC8281].
[RFC8283] introduces the architecture for PCE as a central controller
as an extension of the architecture described in [RFC4655] and
assumes the continued use of PCEP as the protocol used between PCE
and PCC. [RFC8283] further examines the motivations and
applicability for PCEP as a Southbound Interface (SBI), and
introduces the implications for the protocol.
[I-D.ietf-teas-pcecc-use-cases] describes the use cases for the PCE-
based Central Controller (PCECC) architecture.
[I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller] specify the
procedures and PCEP extensions for using the PCE as the central
controller for static LSPs, where LSPs can be provisioned as explicit
label instructions at each hop on the end-to-end path.
Segment Routing (SR) technology leverages the source routing and
tunneling paradigms. A source node can choose a path without relying
on hop-by-hop signaling protocols such as LDP or RSVP-TE. Each path
is specified as a set of "segments" advertised by link-state routing
protocols (IS-IS or OSPF). [RFC8402] provides an introduction to SR
architecture. The corresponding IS-IS and OSPF extensions are
specified in [RFC8667] and [RFC8665] , respectively. It relies on a
series of forwarding instructions being placed in the header of a
packet. The segment routing architecture supports operations that
can be used to steer packet flows in a network, thus providing a form
of traffic engineering. [RFC8664] specify the SR specific PCEP
extensions.
Li, et al. Expires June 18, 2021 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft PCECC-SR December 2020
PCECC may further use PCEP for SR SID (Segment Identifier) allocation
and distribution on the SR nodes with some benefits.
This document specifies the procedures and PCEP extensions when a
PCE-based controller is also responsible for configuring the
forwarding actions on the routers (SR SID allocation and distribution
in this case), in addition to computing the paths for packet flows in
a segment routing network and telling the edge routers what
instructions to attach to packets as they enter the network.
Only SR using MPLS dataplane (SR-MPLS) is in the scope of this
document. Refer [I-D.dhody-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-srv6]
for use of PCECC technique for SR in IPv6 (SRv6) dataplane.
1.1. 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. Terminology
Terminologies used in this document is the same as described in the
draft [RFC8283] and [I-D.ietf-teas-pcecc-use-cases].
3. PCECC SR
[RFC8664] specifies extensions to PCEP that allow a stateful PCE to
compute, update, or initiate SR-TE paths. An ingress node of an SR-
TE path appends all outgoing packets with a list of MPLS labels
(SIDs). This is encoded in SR-ERO subobject, capable of carrying a
label (SID) as well as the identity of the node/adjacency label
(SID).
The notion of segment and SID is defined in [RFC8402], which fits the
MPLS architecture [RFC3031] as the label which is managed by a local
allocation process of LSR (similarly to other MPLS signaling
protocols) [RFC8660]. The SR information such as node/adjacency
label (SID) is flooded via IGP as specified in [RFC8667] and
[RFC8665].
As per [RFC8283], PCE as a central controller can allocate and
provision the node/prefix/adjacency label (SID) via PCEP.
The rest of the processing is similar to existing stateful PCE with
SR mechanism.
Li, et al. Expires June 18, 2021 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft PCECC-SR December 2020
For the purpose of this document, it is assumed that the label range
to be used by a PCE is set on both PCEP peers. Further, a global
label range is assumed to be set on all PCEP peers in the SR domain.
This document also allows a case where the label space is maintained
by PCC itself, and the labels are allocated by the PCC, in this case,
the PCE should request the allocation from PCC as described in
Section 5.5.1.6.
4. PCEP Requirements
Following key requirements for PCECC-SR should be considered when`
designing the PCECC-based solution:
o A PCEP speaker supporting this draft needs to have the capability
to advertise its PCECC-SR capability to its peers.
o PCEP procedures need to allow for PCC-based label/SID allocations.
o PCEP procedures need means to update (or clean up) the label-map
entry to the PCC.
o PCEP procedures need to provide a mean to synchronize the SR
labels allocations between the PCE to the PCC via PCEP messages.
5. Procedures for Using the PCE as a Central Controller (PCECC) in
Segment Routing
5.1. Stateful PCE Model
Active stateful PCE is described in [RFC8231]. PCE as a Central
Controller (PCECC) reuses the existing active stateful PCE mechanism
as much as possible to control the LSPs.
5.2. New LSP Functions
Several new functions are required in PCEP to support PCECC as
described in [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller]. This
document reuses the existing messages to support PCECC-SR.
The PCEP messages PCRpt, PCInitiate, PCUpd are used to send LSP
Reports, LSP setup, and LSP update respectively. The extended
PCInitiate message described in
[I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller] is used to download
or clean up central controller's instructions (CCIs) (SR SID in the
scope of this document). The extended PCRpt message described in
[I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller] is also used to
report the CCIs (SR SIDs) from PCC to PCE.
Li, et al. Expires June 18, 2021 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft PCECC-SR December 2020
[I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller] specify an object
called CCI for the encoding of the central controller's instructions.
This document extends the CCI by defining a new object-type for
segment routing. The PCEP messages are extended in this document to
handle the PCECC operations for SR.
5.3. PCECC Capability Advertisement
During PCEP Initialization Phase, PCEP Speakers (PCE or PCC)
advertise their support of PCECC extensions. A PCEP Speaker includes
the "PCECC Capability" sub-TLV, described in
[I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller].
A new S-bit is added in the PCECC-CAPABILITY sub-TLV to indicate
support for PCECC-SR. A PCC MUST set the S-bit in the PCECC-
CAPABILITY sub-TLV and include the SR-PCE-CAPABILITY sub-TLV
([RFC8664]) in the OPEN Object (inside the PATH-SETUP-TYPE-CAPABILITY
TLV) to support the PCECC SR extensions defined in this document. If
the S-bit is set in the PCECC-CAPABILITY sub-TLV and the SR-PCE-
CAPABILITY sub-TLV is not advertised in the OPEN Object, PCE SHOULD
send a PCErr message with Error-Type=19 (Invalid Operation) and
Error-value=TBD4 (SR capability was not advertised) and terminate the
session.
The rest of the processing is as per
[I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller].
5.4. PCEP session IP address and TED Router ID
A PCE may construct its Traffic Engineering Database (TED) by
participating in the IGP ([RFC3630] and [RFC5305] for MPLS-TE;
[RFC4203] and [RFC5307] for GMPLS). An alternative is offered by
BGP-LS [RFC7752] and [I-D.dhodylee-pce-pcep-ls].
A PCEP [RFC5440] speaker could use any local IP address while
creating a TCP session. It is important to link the session IP
address with the Router ID in TED for successful PCECC operations.
During PCEP Initialization Phase, the PCC SHOULD advertise the TE
mapping information by including the "Node Attributes TLV"
[I-D.dhodylee-pce-pcep-ls] with "IPv4/IPv6 Router-ID of Local Node",
in the OPEN Object for this purpose. [RFC7752] describes the usage
as auxiliary Router-IDs that the IGP might be using, e.g., for TE
purposes. If there are more than one auxiliary Router-ID of a given
type, then multiple TLVs are used to encode them.
If "IPv4/IPv6 Router-ID" TLV is not present, the TCP session IP
address is directly used for mapping purpose.
Li, et al. Expires June 18, 2021 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft PCECC-SR December 2020
5.5. LSP Operations
[RFC8664] specify the PCEP extension to allow a stateful PCE to
compute and initiate SR-TE paths, as well as a PCC to request a path
subject to certain constraint(s) and optimization criteria in SR
networks.
The Path Setup Type for segment routing (PST=1) is used on the PCEP
session with the Ingress as per [RFC8664].
5.5.1. PCECC Segment Routing (SR)
Segment Routing (SR) as described in [RFC8402] depends on "segments"
that are advertised by Interior Gateway Protocols (IGPs). The SR-
node allocates and advertises the SID (node, adj, etc) and flood them
via the IGP. This document proposes a new mechanism where PCE
allocates the SID (label/index/SID) centrally and uses PCEP to
advertise them. In some deployments, PCE (and PCEP) are better
suited than IGP because of the centralized nature of PCE and direct
TCP based PCEP sessions to the node.
5.5.1.1. PCECC SR Node/Prefix SID allocation
Each node (PCC) is allocated a node-SID by the PCECC. The PCECC
sends PCInitiate message to update the label map of each node to all
the nodes in the domain. The TE router ID is determined from the TED
or from "IPv4/IPv6 Router-ID" Sub-TLV [I-D.dhodylee-pce-pcep-ls], in
the OPEN Object Section 5.4.
It is RECOMMENDED that PCEP session with PCECC-SR capability to use a
different session IP address during TCP session establishment than
the node Router ID in TEDB, to make sure that the PCEP session does
not get impacted by the SR Node/Prefix Label maps (Section 5.4).
If a node (PCC) receives a PCInitiate message with a CCI encoding a
SID, out of the range set aside for the SR Global Block (SRGB), it
MUST send a PCErr message with Error-type=TBD (PCECC failure) and
Error-value=TBD (Label out of range) (defined in
[I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller]) and MUST include
the SRP object to specify the error is for the corresponding central
control instruction via the PCInitiate message.
On receiving the label map, each node (PCC) uses the local routing
information to determine the next-hop and download the label
forwarding instructions accordingly. The PCInitiate message in this
case does not use the LSP object but uses a new FEC object defined in
this document.
Li, et al. Expires June 18, 2021 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft PCECC-SR December 2020
+---------+ +-------+
|PCC | | PCE |
|192.0.2.3| +-------+
+------| | |
| PCC +---------+ |
| 192.0.2.2| | |
+------| | | |
|PCC +----------+ | |
|192.0.2.1| | | |
+---------+ | | |
| | | |
|<--------PCInitiate,FEC=192.0.2.1------------------| Label Map
| | | CC-ID=X | update
|--------PCRpt,CC-ID=X----------------------------->| CCI
|Find | | |
|Nexthop|<--------PCInitiate,FEC=192.0.2.1----------| Label Map
|locally| | CC-ID=Y | update
| |-------PCRpt,CC-ID=Y---------------------->| CCI
| | | |
| | |<----PCInitiate,FEC=192.0.2.1------| Label Map
| | | CC-ID=Z | update
| | |-----PCRpt,CC-ID=Z---------------->| CCI
| | | |
The forwarding behavior and the end result is similar to IGP based
"Node-SID" in SR. Thus, from anywhere in the domain, it enforces the
ECMP-aware shortest-path forwarding of the packet towards the related
node as per [RFC8402].
PCE relies on the Node/Prefix Label clean up using the same
PCInitiate message as per [RFC8281].
The above example Figure 1 depicts the FEC and PCEP speakers that
uses IPv4 address. Similarly an IPv6 address (such as 2001:DB8::1)
can be used during PCEP session establishment in the FEC object as
described in this specification.
In the case where the label/SID allocation is made by the PCC itself
(see Section 5.5.1.6), the PCE could request an allocation to be made
by the PCC, and where the PCC would send a PCRpt with the allocated
label/SID encoded in the CC-ID object as shown in Figure 2.
Li, et al. Expires June 18, 2021 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft PCECC-SR December 2020
+---------+ +-------+
|PCC | | PCE |
|192.0.2.3| +-------+
+------| | |
| PCC +---------+ |
| 192.0.2.2| | |
+------| | | |
|PCC +----------+ | |
|192.0.2.1| | | |
+---------+ | | |
| | | |
|<--------PCInitiate,FEC=192.0.2.1------------------| Label Map
| | | CC-ID=X,C=1 | request
|--------PCRpt,CC-ID=X,Label----------------------->| CCI
|Find | | |
|Nexthop|<--------PCInitiate,FEC=192.0.2.1----------| Label Map
|locally| | CC-ID=Y,C=0,Label | update
| |-------PCRpt,CC-ID=Y---------------------->| CCI
| | | |
| | |<----PCInitiate,FEC=192.0.2.1------| Label Map
| | | CC-ID=Z,C=0,Label | update
| | |-----PCRpt,CC-ID=Z---------------->| CCI
| | | |
It should be noted that in this example, the request is made to the
node 192.0.2.1 with C bit set in the CCI object to indicate that the
allocation needs to be done by this PCC and it responds with the
allocated label/SID to the PCE. The PCE would further inform the
other PCCs in the network about the label-map allocation without
setting the C bit.
5.5.1.2. PCECC SR Adjacency Label allocation
For PCECC-SR, apart from node-SID, Adj-SID is used where each
adjacency is allocated an Adj-SID by the PCECC. The PCECC sends the
PCInitiate message to update the label map of each adjacency to the
corresponding nodes in the domain. Each node (PCC) download the
label forwarding instructions accordingly. Similar to SR Node/Prefix
Label allocation, the PCInitiate message in this case does not use
the LSP object but uses the new FEC object defined in this document.
Li, et al. Expires June 18, 2021 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft PCECC-SR December 2020
+---------+ +-------+
|PCC | | PCE |
|192.0.2.3| +-------+
+------| | |
| PCC +---------+ |
| 192.0.2.2| | |
+------| | | |
|PCC +----------+ | |
|192.0.2.1| | | |
+---------+ | | |
| | | |
|<-------PCInitiate,FEC=198.51.100.1--------------| Label Map
| | | 198.51.100.2 | update
| | | CC-ID=A | CCI
|--------PCRpt,CC-ID=A--------------------------->|
| | | |
| |<------PCInitiate,FEC=198.51.100.2------| Label Map
| | | 198.51.100.1 | update
| | | CC-ID=B | CCI
| |-------PCRpt,CC-ID=B------------------->|
| | | |
The forwarding behavior and the end result is similar to IGP based
"Adj-SID" in SR.
PCE relies on the Adj label clean up using the same PCInitiate
message as per [RFC8281].
The above example Figure 3 depicts FEC object and PCEP speakers that
uses an IPv4 address. Similarly an IPv6 address (such as
2001:DB8::1, 2001:DB8::2) can be used during the PCEP session
establishment in the FEC object as described in this specification.
The handling of adjacencies on the LAN subnetworks is specified in
[RFC8402]. PCECC MUST assign Adj-SID for every pair of routers in
the LAN. The rest of the protocol mechanism remains the same.
In the case where the label/SID map allocation is made by the PCC
itself (see Section 5.5.1.6), the PCE could request an allocation to
be made by the PCC, and where the PCC would send a PCRpt with the
allocated label/SID encoded in the CC-ID object as shown in Figure 4.
Li, et al. Expires June 18, 2021 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft PCECC-SR December 2020
+---------+ +-------+
|PCC | | PCE |
|192.0.2.3| +-------+
+------| | |
| PCC +---------+ |
| 192.0.2.2| | |
+------| | | |
|PCC +----------+ | |
|192.0.2.1| | | |
+---------+ | | |
| | | |
|<-------PCInitiate,FEC=198.51.100.1--------------| Label Map
| | | 198.51.100.2 | request
| | | CC-ID=A,C=1 | CCI
|--------PCRpt,CC-ID=A,Label1-------------------->|
| | | |
| |<------PCInitiate,FEC=198.51.100.2------| Label Map
| | | 198.51.100.1 | request
| | | CC-ID=B,C=1 | CCI
| |-------PCRpt,CC-ID=B,Label2------------>|
| | | |
In this example, the request is made to the node 192.0.2.1 with the C
bit set in the CCI object to indicate that the allocation needs to be
done by this PCC for the adjacency (198.51.100.1 - 198.51.100.2) and
it responds with the allocated label/SID to the PCE. Similarly,
another request is made to the node 192.0.2.2 with the C bit set in
the CCI object to indicate that the allocation needs to be done by
this PCC for the adjacency (198.51.100.2 - 198.51.100.1).
5.5.1.3. Redundant PCEs
[I-D.litkowski-pce-state-sync] describes the synchronization
mechanism between the stateful PCEs. The SR SIDs allocated by a PCE
MUST also be synchronized among PCEs for PCECC SR state
synchronization. Note that the SR SIDs are independent of the SR-TE
LSPs, and remains intact till any topology change. The redundant
PCEs MUST have a common view of all SR SIDs allocated in the domain.
5.5.1.4. Re Delegation and Clean up
[I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller] describes the action
needed for CCIs for the static LSPs on a terminated session. Same
holds true for the CCI for SR SID as well.
Li, et al. Expires June 18, 2021 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft PCECC-SR December 2020
5.5.1.5. Synchronization of Label Allocations
[I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller] describes the
synchronization of Central Controller's Instructions (CCI) via LSP
state synchronization as described in [RFC8231] and [RFC8232]. Same
procedures are applied for the CCI for SR SID as well.
5.5.1.6. PCC-Based Allocations
The PCE can request the PCC to allocate the label/SID using the
PCInitiate message. The C flag in the CCI object is set to 1 to
indicate that the allocation needs to be done by the PCC. The PCC
would allocate the SID/Label/Index and would report to the PCE using
the PCRpt message.
If the value of the SID/Label/Index is 0 and the C flag is set to 1,
it indicates that the PCE is requesting the allocation to be done by
the PCC. If the SID/Label/Index is 'n' and the C flag is set to 1 in
the CCI object, it indicates that the PCE requests a specific value
'n' for the SID/Label/Index. If the allocation is successful, the
PCC should report via PCRpt message with the CCI object. Else, it
MUST send a PCErr message with Error-Type = TBD ("PCECC failure") and
Error Value = TBD ("Invalid CCI") (defined in
[I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller]). If the value of
the SID/Label/Index in the CCI object is valid, but the PCC is unable
to allocate it, it MUST send a PCErr message with Error-Type = TBD
("PCECC failure") and Error Value = TBD ("Unable to allocate the
specified CCI") (defined in
[I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller]).
If the PCC wishes to withdraw or modify the previously assigned
label/SID, it MUST send a PCRpt message without any SID/Label/Index
or with the SID/Label/Index containing the new value respectively in
the CCI object. The PCE would further trigger the removal of the
central controller instruction as per this document.
5.5.1.7. Binding SID
A PCECC can allocate and provision the node/prefix/adjacency label
(SID) via PCEP. Another SID called binding SID is described in
[I-D.ietf-pce-binding-label-sid], the PCECC mechanism can also be
used to allocate the binding SID.
A procedure for binding label/SID allocation is described in
[I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller] and is applicable
for all path setup types (including SR paths).
Li, et al. Expires June 18, 2021 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft PCECC-SR December 2020
6. PCEP Messages
As defined in [RFC5440], a PCEP message consists of a common header
followed by a variable-length body made of a set of objects that can
be either mandatory or optional. An object is said to be mandatory
in a PCEP message when the object must be included for the message to
be considered valid. For each PCEP message type, a set of rules is
defined that specify the set of objects that the message can carry.
An implementation MUST form the PCEP messages using the object
ordering specified in this document.
6.1. Central Control Instructions
6.1.1. The PCInitiate Message
The PCInitiate message defined in [RFC8281] and extended in
[I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller] is further extended
to support SR based central control instructions.
The format of the extended PCInitiate message is as follows:
Li, et al. Expires June 18, 2021 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft PCECC-SR December 2020
<PCInitiate Message> ::= <Common Header>
<PCE-initiated-lsp-list>
Where:
<Common Header> is defined in [RFC5440]
<PCE-initiated-lsp-list> ::= <PCE-initiated-lsp-request>
[<PCE-initiated-lsp-list>]
<PCE-initiated-lsp-request> ::=
(<PCE-initiated-lsp-instantiation>|
<PCE-initiated-lsp-deletion>|
<PCE-initiated-lsp-central-control>)
<PCE-initiated-lsp-central-control> ::= <SRP>
(<LSP>
<cci-list>)|
(<FEC>
<CCI>)
<cci-list> ::= <CCI>
[<cci-list>]
Where:
<PCE-initiated-lsp-instantiation> and
<PCE-initiated-lsp-deletion> are as per
[RFC8281].
The LSP and SRP object is defined in [RFC8231].
When the PCInitiate message is used to distribute SR SIDs, the SRP,
the FEC and the CCI objects MUST be present. The error handling for
missing SRP or CCI object is as per
[I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller]. If the FEC object
is missing, the receiving PCC MUST send a PCErr message with Error-
type=6 (Mandatory Object missing) and Error-value=TBD5 (FEC object
missing).
To clean up, the R (remove) bit in the SRP object and the
corresponding FEC and the CCI object are included.
6.1.2. The PCRpt message
The PCRpt message can be used to report the SR central controller
instructions received from the PCECC during the state synchronization
phase or as an acknowledgment to the PCInitiate message.
The format of the PCRpt message is as follows:
Li, et al. Expires June 18, 2021 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft PCECC-SR December 2020
<PCRpt Message> ::= <Common Header>
<state-report-list>
Where:
<state-report-list> ::= <state-report>[<state-report-list>]
<state-report> ::= (<lsp-state-report>|
<central-control-report>)
<lsp-state-report> ::= [<SRP>]
<LSP>
<path>
<central-control-report> ::= [<SRP>]
(<LSP>
<cci-list>)|
(<FEC>
<CCI>)
<cci-list> ::= <CCI>
[<cci-list>]
Where:
<path> is as per [RFC8231] and the LSP and SRP object are
also defined in [RFC8231].
When PCRpt message is used to report the label map allocations, the
FEC and CCI objects MUST be present. The error handling for the
missing CCI object is as per
[I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller]. If the FEC object
is missing, the receiving PCE MUST send a PCErr message with Error-
type=6 (Mandatory Object missing) and Error-value=TBD5 (FEC object
missing).
7. PCEP Objects
7.1. OPEN Object
7.1.1. PCECC Capability sub-TLV
[I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller] defined the PCECC-
CAPABILITY sub-TLV.
A new S-bit is defined in PCECC-CAPABILITY sub-TLV for PCECC-SR:
Li, et al. Expires June 18, 2021 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft PCECC-SR December 2020
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=TBD | Length=4 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Flags |S|L|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
[Editor's Note - The above figure is included for ease of the reader
but should be removed before publication.]
S (PCECC-SR-CAPABILITY - 1 bit - TBD1): If set to 1 by a PCEP
speaker, it indicates that the PCEP speaker is capable of PCECC-SR
capability and the PCE allocates the Node and Adj label/SID on this
session.
7.2. SR-TE Path Setup
The PATH-SETUP-TYPE TLV is defined in [RFC8408]. A PST value of 1 is
used when Path is setup via SR mode as per [RFC8664]. The procedure
for SR-TE path setup as specified in [RFC8664] remians unchanged.
7.3. CCI Object
The Central Control Instructions (CCI) Object used by the PCE to
specify the controller instructions is defined in
[I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller]. This document
defines another object-type for SR-MPLS purpose.
CCI Object-Type is TBD6 for SR-MPLS as 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| CC-ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MT-ID | Algorithm | Flags |B|P|G|C|N|E|V|L|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// SID/Label/Index (variable) //
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| |
// Optional TLV //
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Li, et al. Expires June 18, 2021 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft PCECC-SR December 2020
The field CC-ID is as described in
[I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller]. Following new
fields are defined for CCI Object-Type TBD6 -
MT-ID: Multi-Topology ID (as defined in [RFC4915]).
Algorithm: Single octet identifying the algorithm the SID is
associated with. See [RFC8665].
Flags: is used to carry any additional information pertaining to the
CCI. The following bits are defined -
* L-Bit (Local/Global): If set, then the value/index carried by
the CCI object has local significance. If not set, then the
value/index carried by this object has global significance.
* V-Bit (Value/Index): If set, then the CCI carries an absolute
value. If not set, then the CCI carries an index.
* E-Bit (Explicit-Null): If set, any upstream neighbor of the
node that advertised the SID MUST replace the SID with the
Explicit-NULL label (0 for IPv4) before forwarding the packet.
* N-Bit (No-PHP): If set, then the penultimate hop MUST NOT pop
the SID before delivering packets to the node that advertised
the SID.
* C-Bit (PCC Allocation): If the bit is set to 1, it indicates
that the allocation needs to be done by the PCC for this
central controller instruction. A PCE set this bit to request
the PCC to make an allocation from its SR label/ID space. A
PCC would set this bit to indicate that it has allocated the
CC-ID and report it to the PCE.
* Following bits are applicable when the SID represents an Adj-
SID only, it MUST be ignored for others -
+ G-Bit (Group): When set, the G-Flag indicates that the Adj-
SID refers to a group of adjacencies (and therefore MAY be
assigned to other adjacencies as well).
+ P-Bit (Persistent): When set, the P-Flag indicates that the
Adj-SID is persistently allocated, i.e., the Adj-SID value
remains consistent across router restart and/or interface
flap.
+ B-Bit (Backup): If set, the Adj-SID refers to an adjacency
that is eligible for protection (e.g., using IP Fast Reroute
Li, et al. Expires June 18, 2021 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft PCECC-SR December 2020
or MPLS-FRR (MPLS-Fast Reroute) as described in Section 2.1
of [RFC8402].
+ All unassigned bits MUST be set to zero at transmission and
ignored at receipt.
SID/Label/Index: According to the V and L flags, it contains either:
A 32-bit index defining the offset in the SID/Label space
advertised by this router.
A 24-bit label where the 20 rightmost bits are used for
encoding the label value.
7.4. FEC Object
The FEC Object is used to specify the FEC information and MAY be
carried within PCInitiate or PCRpt message.
FEC Object-Class is TBD3.
FEC Object-Type is 1 'IPv4 Node ID'.
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 Node ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
FEC Object-Type is 2 'IPv6 Node ID'.
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 Node ID (16 bytes) //
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
FEC Object-Type is 3 'IPv4 Adjacency'.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Local IPv4 address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Li, et al. Expires June 18, 2021 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft PCECC-SR December 2020
| Remote IPv4 address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
FEC Object-Type is 4 'IPv6 Adjacency'.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
// Local IPv6 address (16 bytes) //
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
// Remote IPv6 address (16 bytes) //
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
FEC Object-Type is 5 'Unnumbered Adjacency with IPv4 NodeIDs'.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Local Node-ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Local Interface ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Remote Node-ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Remote Interface ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
FEC Object-Type is 6 'Linklocal IPv6 Adjacency'.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// Local IPv6 address (16 octets) //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Local Interface ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// Remote IPv6 address (16 octets) //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Remote Interface ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Li, et al. Expires June 18, 2021 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft PCECC-SR December 2020
The FEC objects are as follows:
IPv4 Node ID: where IPv4 Node ID is specified as an IPv4 address of
the Node. FEC Object-type is 1, and the Object-Length is 4 in this
case.
IPv6 Node ID: where IPv6 Node ID is specified as an IPv6 address of
the Node. FEC Object-type is 2, and the Object-Length is 16 in this
case.
IPv4 Adjacency: where Local and Remote IPv4 address is specified as
pair of IPv4 addresses of the adjacency. FEC Object-type is 3, and
the Object-Length is 8 in this case.
IPv6 Adjacency: where Local and Remote IPv6 address is specified as
pair of IPv6 addresses of the adjacency. FEC Object-type is 4, and
the Object-Length is 32 in this case.
Unnumbered Adjacency with IPv4 NodeID: where a pair of Node ID /
Interface ID tuple is used. FEC Object-type is 5, and the Object-
Length is 16 in this case.
Linklocal IPv6 Adjacency: where a pair of (global IPv6 address,
interface ID) tuple is used. FEC object-type is 6, and the Object-
Length is 40 in this case.
8. Implementation Status
[Note to the RFC Editor - remove this section before publication, as
well as remove the reference to RFC 7942.]
This section records the status of known implementations of the
protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of this
Internet-Draft, and is based on a proposal described in [RFC7942].
The description of implementations in this section is intended to
assist the IETF in its decision processes in progressing drafts to
RFCs. Please note that the listing of any individual implementation
here does not imply endorsement by the IETF. Furthermore, no effort
has been spent to verify the information presented here that was
supplied by IETF contributors. This is not intended as, and must not
be construed to be, a catalog of available implementations or their
features. Readers are advised to note that other implementations may
exist.
According to [RFC7942], "this will allow reviewers and working groups
to assign due consideration to documents that have the benefit of
running code, which may serve as evidence of valuable experimentation
and feedback that have made the implemented protocols more mature.
Li, et al. Expires June 18, 2021 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft PCECC-SR December 2020
It is up to the individual working groups to use this information as
they see fit".
8.1. Huawei's Proof of Concept based on ONOS
The PCE function was developed in the ONOS open source platform.
This extension was implemented on a private version as a proof of
concept for PCECC.
o Organization: Huawei
o Implementation: Huawei's PoC based on ONOS
o Description: PCEP as a southbound plugin was added to ONOS. To
support PCECC-SR, an earlier version of this I-D was implemented.
Refer https://wiki.onosproject.org/display/ONOS/PCEP+Protocol
o Maturity Level: Prototype
o Coverage: Partial
o Contact: satishk@huawei.com
9. Security Considerations
The security considerations described in
[I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller] apply to the
extensions described in this document.
As per [RFC8231], it is RECOMMENDED that these PCEP extensions only
be activated on authenticated and encrypted sessions across PCEs and
PCCs belonging to the same administrative authority, using Transport
Layer Security (TLS) [RFC8253] as per the recommendations and best
current practices in [RFC7525] (unless explicitly set aside in
[RFC8253]).
10. Manageability Considerations
10.1. Control of Function and Policy
A PCE or PCC implementation SHOULD allow to configure to enable/
disable PCECC SR capability as a global configuration. The
implementation SHOULD also allow setting the local IP address used by
the PCEP session.
Li, et al. Expires June 18, 2021 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft PCECC-SR December 2020
10.2. Information and Data Models
[RFC7420] describes the PCEP MIB, this MIB can be extended to get the
PCECC SR capability status.
The PCEP YANG module [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang] could be extended to
enable/disable PCECC SR capability.
10.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring
Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new liveness
detection and monitoring requirements in addition to those already
listed in [RFC5440].
10.4. Verify Correct Operations
Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new operation
verification requirements in addition to those already listed in
[RFC5440] and [RFC8231].
10.5. Requirements On Other Protocols
PCEP extensions defined in this document do not put new requirements
on other protocols.
10.6. Impact On Network Operations
PCEP implementation SHOULD allow a limit to be placed on the rate of
PCLabelUpd messages sent by PCE and processed by PCC. It SHOULD also
allow sending a notification when a rate threshold is reached.
11. IANA Considerations
11.1. PCECC-CAPABILITY sub-TLV
[I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller] defines the PCECC-
CAPABILITY sub-TLV and requests that IANA to create a new sub-
registry to manage the value of the PCECC-CAPABILITY sub-TLV's Flag
field.
IANA is requested to allocate a new bit in the PCECC-CAPABILITY sub-
TLV Flag Field sub-registry, as follows:
Bit Description Reference
TBD1 SR This document
Li, et al. Expires June 18, 2021 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft PCECC-SR December 2020
11.2. PCEP Object
IANA is requested to allocate new code-points for the new FEC object
and a new Object-Type for CCI object in "PCEP Objects" sub-registry
as follows:
Object-Class Name Object-Type Reference
Value
TBD3 FEC 1: IPv4 Node ID This document
2: IPv6 Node ID This document
3: IPv4 Adjacency This document
4: IPv6 Adjacency This document
5: Unnumbered Adjacency with This document
IPv4 NodeID
6: Linklocal IPv6 Adjacency This document
TBD CCI
TBD6: SR-MPLS This document
11.3. PCEP-Error Object
IANA is requested to allocate a new error-value within the "PCEP-
ERROR Object Error Types and Values" sub-registry of the PCEP Numbers
registry for the following errors:
Error-Type Meaning
---------- -------
6 Mandatory Object missing.
Error-value = TBD5 : FEC object missing
19 Invalid operation.
Error-value = TBD4 : SR capability was
not advertised
11.4. CCI Object Flag Field for SR
IANA is requested to create a new sub-registry to manage the Flag
field of the CCI Object-Type=TBD6 for SR called "CCI Object Flag
Field for SR". New values are to be assigned by Standards Action
[RFC8126]. 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
Following bits are defined for the CCI Object flag field for SR in
this document as follows:
Li, et al. Expires June 18, 2021 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft PCECC-SR December 2020
Bit Description Reference
0-7 Unassigned This document
8 B-Bit - Backup This document
9 P-Bit - Persistent This document
10 G-Bit - Group This document
11 C-Bit - PCC Allocation This document
12 N-Bit - No-PHP This document
13 E-Bit - Explicit-Null This document
14 V-Bit - Value/Index This document
15 L-Bit - Local/Global This document
12. Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Robert Tao, Changjing Yan, Tieying Huang,
Avantika, and Aijun Wang for their useful comments and suggestions.
13. References
13.1. 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>.
[RFC3630] Katz, D., Kompella, K., and D. Yeung, "Traffic Engineering
(TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC 3630,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3630, September 2003,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3630>.
[RFC4203] Kompella, K., Ed. and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "OSPF Extensions in
Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS)", RFC 4203, DOI 10.17487/RFC4203, October 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4203>.
[RFC4915] Psenak, P., Mirtorabi, S., Roy, A., Nguyen, L., and P.
Pillay-Esnault, "Multi-Topology (MT) Routing in OSPF",
RFC 4915, DOI 10.17487/RFC4915, June 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4915>.
[RFC5305] Li, T. and H. Smit, "IS-IS Extensions for Traffic
Engineering", RFC 5305, DOI 10.17487/RFC5305, October
2008, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5305>.
[RFC5307] Kompella, K., Ed. and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "IS-IS Extensions
in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS)", RFC 5307, DOI 10.17487/RFC5307, October 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5307>.
Li, et al. Expires June 18, 2021 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft PCECC-SR December 2020
[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>.
[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>.
[RFC7942] Sheffer, Y. and A. Farrel, "Improving Awareness of Running
Code: The Implementation Status Section", BCP 205,
RFC 7942, DOI 10.17487/RFC7942, July 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7942>.
[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>.
[RFC8231] Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Medved, J., and R. Varga, "Path
Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)
Extensions for Stateful PCE", RFC 8231,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8231, September 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8231>.
[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>.
[RFC8281] Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Sivabalan, S., and R. Varga, "Path
Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)
Extensions for PCE-Initiated LSP Setup in a Stateful PCE
Model", RFC 8281, DOI 10.17487/RFC8281, December 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8281>.
[RFC8408] Sivabalan, S., Tantsura, J., Minei, I., Varga, R., and J.
Hardwick, "Conveying Path Setup Type in PCE Communication
Protocol (PCEP) Messages", RFC 8408, DOI 10.17487/RFC8408,
July 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8408>.
[RFC8664] Sivabalan, S., Filsfils, C., Tantsura, J., Henderickx, W.,
and J. Hardwick, "Path Computation Element Communication
Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for Segment Routing", RFC 8664,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8664, December 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8664>.
Li, et al. Expires June 18, 2021 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft PCECC-SR December 2020
[I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller]
Li, Z., Peng, S., Negi, M., Zhao, Q., and C. Zhou, "PCEP
Procedures and Protocol Extensions for Using PCE as a
Central Controller (PCECC) of LSPs", draft-ietf-pce-pcep-
extension-for-pce-controller-09 (work in progress),
November 2020.
13.2. Informative References
[RFC3031] Rosen, E., Viswanathan, A., and R. Callon, "Multiprotocol
Label Switching Architecture", RFC 3031,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3031, January 2001,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3031>.
[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>.
[RFC7025] Otani, T., Ogaki, K., Caviglia, D., Zhang, F., and C.
Margaria, "Requirements for GMPLS Applications of PCE",
RFC 7025, DOI 10.17487/RFC7025, September 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7025>.
[RFC7399] Farrel, A. and D. King, "Unanswered Questions in the Path
Computation Element Architecture", RFC 7399,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7399, October 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7399>.
[RFC7420] Koushik, A., Stephan, E., Zhao, Q., King, D., and J.
Hardwick, "Path Computation Element Communication Protocol
(PCEP) Management Information Base (MIB) Module",
RFC 7420, DOI 10.17487/RFC7420, December 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7420>.
[RFC7491] King, D. and A. Farrel, "A PCE-Based Architecture for
Application-Based Network Operations", RFC 7491,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7491, March 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7491>.
[RFC7525] Sheffer, Y., Holz, R., and P. Saint-Andre,
"Recommendations for Secure Use of Transport Layer
Security (TLS) and Datagram Transport Layer Security
(DTLS)", BCP 195, RFC 7525, DOI 10.17487/RFC7525, May
2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7525>.
Li, et al. Expires June 18, 2021 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft PCECC-SR December 2020
[RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
[RFC8232] Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Medved, J., Varga, R., Zhang, X.,
and D. Dhody, "Optimizations of Label Switched Path State
Synchronization Procedures for a Stateful PCE", RFC 8232,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8232, September 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8232>.
[RFC8283] Farrel, A., Ed., Zhao, Q., Ed., Li, Z., and C. Zhou, "An
Architecture for Use of PCE and the PCE Communication
Protocol (PCEP) in a Network with Central Control",
RFC 8283, DOI 10.17487/RFC8283, December 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8283>.
[RFC8402] Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Ginsberg, L.,
Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment
Routing Architecture", RFC 8402, DOI 10.17487/RFC8402,
July 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8402>.
[RFC8660] Bashandy, A., Ed., Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S.,
Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment
Routing with the MPLS Data Plane", RFC 8660,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8660, December 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8660>.
[RFC8665] Psenak, P., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Filsfils, C., Gredler,
H., Shakir, R., Henderickx, W., and J. Tantsura, "OSPF
Extensions for Segment Routing", RFC 8665,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8665, December 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8665>.
[RFC8667] Previdi, S., Ed., Ginsberg, L., Ed., Filsfils, C.,
Bashandy, A., Gredler, H., and B. Decraene, "IS-IS
Extensions for Segment Routing", RFC 8667,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8667, December 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8667>.
[I-D.ietf-teas-pcecc-use-cases]
Li, Z., Khasanov, B., Dhody, D., Zhao, Q., Ke, Z., Fang,
L., Zhou, C., Communications, T., Rachitskiy, A., and A.
Gulida, "The Use Cases for Path Computation Element (PCE)
as a Central Controller (PCECC).", draft-ietf-teas-pcecc-
use-cases-06 (work in progress), September 2020.
Li, et al. Expires June 18, 2021 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft PCECC-SR December 2020
[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-15 (work in progress), October 2020.
[I-D.ietf-pce-binding-label-sid]
Sivabalan, S., Filsfils, C., Tantsura, J., Hardwick, J.,
Previdi, S., and C. Li, "Carrying Binding Label/Segment-ID
in PCE-based Networks.", draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-
sid-05 (work in progress), October 2020.
[I-D.litkowski-pce-state-sync]
Litkowski, S., Sivabalan, S., Li, C., and H. Zheng, "Inter
Stateful Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication
Procedures.", draft-litkowski-pce-state-sync-09 (work in
progress), November 2020.
[I-D.dhodylee-pce-pcep-ls]
Dhody, D., Peng, S., Lee, Y., Ceccarelli, D., Wang, A.,
and G. Mishra, "PCEP extensions for Distribution of Link-
State and TE Information", draft-dhodylee-pce-pcep-ls-19
(work in progress), November 2020.
[I-D.dhody-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-srv6]
Li, Z., Peng, S., Geng, X., and M. Negi, "PCEP Procedures
and Protocol Extensions for Using PCE as a Central
Controller (PCECC) for SRv6", draft-dhody-pce-pcep-
extension-pce-controller-srv6-05 (work in progress),
November 2020.
Li, et al. Expires June 18, 2021 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft PCECC-SR December 2020
Appendix A. Contributor Addresses
Dhruv Dhody
Huawei Technologies
Divyashree Techno Park, Whitefield
Bangalore, Karnataka 560066
India
EMail: dhruv.ietf@gmail.com
Satish Karunanithi
Huawei Technologies
Divyashree Techno Park, Whitefield
Bangalore, Karnataka 560066
India
EMail: satishk@huawei.com
Adrian Farrel
Juniper Networks, Inc
UK
EMail: adrian@olddog.co.uk
Xuesong Geng
Huawei Technologies
China
Email: gengxuesong@huawei.com
Udayasree Palle
EMail: udayasreereddy@gmail.com
Katherine Zhao
Huawei Technologies
2330 Central Expressway
Santa Clara, CA 95050
USA
EMail: katherine.zhao@huawei.com
Boris Zhang
Telus Ltd.
Toronto
Canada
EMail: boris.zhang@telus.com
Li, et al. Expires June 18, 2021 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft PCECC-SR December 2020
Alex Tokar
Cisco Systems
Slovak Republic
EMail: atokar@cisco.com
Authors' Addresses
Zhenbin Li
Huawei Technologies
Huawei Bld., No.156 Beiqing Rd.
Beijing 100095
China
EMail: lizhenbin@huawei.com
Shuping Peng
Huawei Technologies
Huawei Bld., No.156 Beiqing Rd.
Beijing 100095
China
EMail: pengshuping@huawei.com
Mahendra Singh Negi
RtBrick Inc
N-17L, 18th Cross Rd, HSR Layout
Bangalore, Karnataka 560102
India
EMail: mahend.ietf@gmail.com
Quintin Zhao
Etheric Networks
1009 S CLAREMONT ST
SAN MATEO, CA 94402
USA
EMail: qzhao@ethericnetworks.com
Li, et al. Expires June 18, 2021 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft PCECC-SR December 2020
Chao Zhou
HPE
EMail: chaozhou_us@yahoo.com
Li, et al. Expires June 18, 2021 [Page 32]
