Network Working Group I. Nishioka
Internet Draft NEC
Intended status: Informational Daniel King
Expires: February 2010 Old Dog Consulting
August 28, 2009
The use of SVEC (Synchronization VECtor) list for Synchronized
dependent path computations
draft-ietf-pce-pcep-svec-list-02.txt
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with
the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six
months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents
at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as
reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
This Internet-Draft will expire on February 28, 2009.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2009 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 in effect on the date of
publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
Nishioka & King Expires February 28, 2010 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-pce-pcep-svec-list-02 August 2009
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your
rights and restrictions with respect to this document.
Abstract
A Path Computation Element (PCE) performing dependent path
computations, for instance calculating a diverse working and
protected path do not share common network points, would need to
synchronize the computations in order to increase the probability of
meeting the working and protected path disjoint objective and
network resource optimization objective. When a PCE computes
multiple sets of dependent path computation requests concurrently,
it is required to use Synchronization VECtor (SVEC) list for
association among the sets of dependent path computation requests.
SVEC is also applicable to end-to-end diverse path computation
across multiple domains. This document describes the usage of SVECs
in the SVEC list and diverse path computation guideline, for the
synchronized computation of dependent paths.
Table of Contents
1. Terminology...................................................3
2. Introduction..................................................3
3. SVEC association scenarios....................................5
3.1. Synchronized computation for diverse path requests.......5
3.2. Synchronized computation for point-to-multipoint path
requests......................................................6
4. SVEC association..............................................6
4.1. Associated SVECs.........................................7
4.2. Non-associated SVECs.....................................7
5. Processing of SVEC list.......................................8
5.1. Single PCE, single domain environments...................8
5.2. Multi-PCE, single domain environments....................8
5.3. Single PCE, multi-domain environments....................9
6. End-to-end diverse path computation...........................9
6.1. Disjoint VSPT............................................9
6.2. Disjoint VSPT encoding..................................11
6.3. Path computation procedure..............................11
7. Manageability considerations.................................12
7.1. Control of Function and Policy..........................12
7.2. Information and Data Models, e.g. MIB modules...........12
7.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring.......................12
7.4. Verifying Correct Operation.............................12
7.5. Requirements on Other Protocols and Functional Components12
7.6. Impact on Network Operation.............................13
8. Security Considerations......................................13
Nishioka & King Expires February 28, 2010 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-pce-pcep-svec-list-02 August 2009
9. IANA Considerations..........................................13
10. References..................................................13
10.1. Normative References...................................13
10.2. Informative References.................................14
1. Terminology
This document uses PCE terminology defined in [RFC4655],[RFC4875],
and [RFC5440].
GCO (Global Concurrent Optimization): A concurrent path computation
application, defined in [RFC5557], where a set of TE paths is
computed concurrently in order to efficiently utilize network
resources.
Associated SVECs: A group of multiple SVECs (Synchronization
VECtors), defined in this document, to indicate a set of
synchronized or concurrent path computations.
VSPT: Virtual Shortest Path Tree defined in [RFC5441].
Disjoint VSPT : A set of VSPTs, defined in this document, to
indicate a set of virtual diverse path tree.
2. Introduction
[RFC5440] describes the specifications for PCEP (Path Computation
Element communication Protocol). PCEP facilitates the communication
between a Path Computation Client(PCC) and a Path Computation
Element (PCE), or between two PCEs based on PCE architecture
[RFC4655]. PCEP interactions include path computation requests and
path computation replies.
[RFC5557] specifies the Global Concurrent (GCO) path computation
mechanism. The GCO application provides the capability to re-
optimize a set of service within the network, in order to maximize
efficient use of network resources. A single or set of objective
functions (OFs) can be applied to a GCO. To compute a set of such
traffic-engineered paths for the GCO application, PCEP supports the
synchronous and dependent path computation requests required in
[RFC4657]. When a PCC or PCE sends such path computation requests to
a PCE, Synchronization VECtor (SVEC) allows the PCC or PCE to
specify a list of multiple path computation requests that must be
Nishioka & King Expires February 28, 2010 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-pce-pcep-svec-list-02 August 2009
synchronized along with a potential dependency. [RFC5440] defines
two synchronous path computation modes using SVEC.
o Bundle of a set of independent and synchronized path computation
requests,
o Bundle of a set of dependent and synchronized path computation
requests.
These are exclusive modes in a single SVEC. If one of the dependency
flags (i.e. Node, Link or Shared Risk Link Groups (SRLG) diverse
flags) in a SVEC is set, the SVEC indicates a set of synchronous
path computation requests with a dependency. In order to be
synchronized among multiple sets of path computation requests with a
dependency, it is necessary to use other SVECs.
It is important for the PCE, when performing path computations, to
synchronize any path computation requests with a dependency. For
example, consider a protected end-to-end service. Two diverse path
computation requests are needed to compute the disjointed working
and protected paths. If the diverse path requests are computed
sequentially, fulfillment of the initial diverse path computation
without consideration of the second diverse path computation and
disjoint constraint may result in the PCE providing sub-optimal
results for the second one, or may fail to meet the disjoint
requirement altogether.
Additionally, SVEC can be applied to end-to-end diverse path
computation that traverses multiple domains. [RFC5441] describes two
approaches, synchronous (i.e. simultaneous) and 2-step approaches,
for the end-to-end diverse path computation across a chain of
domains. The path computation procedure is specified for the 2-step
approaches in [RFC5521], but no guidelines are provided for a
synchronous approach.
This document defines the handling of synchronous path computation
for PCE and multiple set of path computation request with a
dependency, based on the PCE architecture [RFC4655]. The following
scenarios are specifically described:
o Single domain, single PCE, dependent and synchronized path
computation request.
o Single domain, multiple-PCE, dependent and synchronized path
computation request.
Nishioka & King Expires February 28, 2010 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-pce-pcep-svec-list-02 August 2009
o Multi-domain, dependent and synchronized path computation
request, including end-to-end diverse path computation.
The association among multiple SVECs for multiple sets of
synchronized dependent path computation and disjoint VSPT encoding
rule for end-to-end diverse path computation across domains are also
described in this document. Path computation algorithms for these
path computation scenarios are out of scope in this document.
The SVEC association and the disjoint VSPT described in this
document do not require any extension to PCEP message and object
formats, when computing a GCO for multiple or end-to-end diverse
paths. In addition, the use of multiple SVECs is not restricted to
only SRLG, Node and Link diversity currently defined in the SVEC
object [RFC5440], but is also available for other dependent path
computation requests.
The SVEC association and disjoint VSPT are available to both
multiple PCE path computations as well as a single PCE path
computation.
3. SVEC association scenarios
This section clarifies several path computation scenarios, in which
SVEC association can be applied. Also, any combination of scenarios
described in this section could be applicable.
3.1. Synchronized computation for diverse path requests
When computing two or more point-to-point diverse paths, a PCE may
compute these diverse paths concurrently, in order to increase the
probability of meeting primary and secondary path disjoint objective
and network resource optimization objective.
Two scenarios can be considered for the SVEC association of point-
to-point diverse paths.
o Two or more end-to-end diverse paths
When concurrent path computation of two or more end-to-end diverse
paths is requested, SVEC association is needed among diverse path
requests. Note here that each diverse path request consists of
primary, secondary, and tertiary and beyond path requests, in which
all path requests are grouped with one SVEC association.
Nishioka & King Expires February 28, 2010 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-pce-pcep-svec-list-02 August 2009
Example of this scenario: When there are two associated end-to-end
diverse path requests with primary and secondary, all requests must
be computed in a synchronized manner.
o End-to-end primary path and its segmented secondary paths
When concurrent path computation of an end-to-end primary path and
several segmented secondary paths is requested, SVEC association is
needed among primary/segmented secondary-1 request,
primary/segmented secondary-2 request, and etc.
In this scenario, we assume that the primary path may be pre-
computed, which is used for specifying the segment for secondary
paths. Otherwise, segment for secondary path requests are specified
in advance, by using XRO and/or IOR constraints in the primary
request.
3.2. Synchronized computation for point-to-multipoint path requests
For point-to-multipoint path requests,SVEC association can be
applied.
o Two or more point-to-multipoint paths
If a point-to-multipoint paths request is represented as a set of
point-to-point paths [ID.pce-p2mp-ext], two or more point-to-
multipoint path computation requests can be associated for
concurrent path computation, in order to optimize network resources.
o point-to-multipoint paths and its secondary paths
When concurrent path computation of a point-to-multipoint path and
its point-to-point secondary paths [RFC4875], or a point-to-
multipoint path and its point-to-multipoint secondary paths is
requested, SVEC association is needed among these requests. In
this scenario, we use the same assumption as "end-to-end primary
path and its segmented secondary paths scenario" in section 3.1
4. SVEC association
This section describes the associations among SVECs in a SVEC list.
Nishioka & King Expires February 28, 2010 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-pce-pcep-svec-list-02 August 2009
4.1. Associated SVECs
Associated SVECs mean that there are relationships among multiple
SVECs. Request-IDs in the SVEC objects are used to indicate the
association among SVEC objects. If the same request-IDs exist in
more than two SVECs, this indicates associated SVECs. When
associating among SVECs, only one request-ID may in the SVEC object
may be contained in the other SVEC object. This contributes to
reducing the message size of PCEP request. Even in this case, all of
the path computation requests are synchronized.
Below is an example of associated SVECs. In this example, the first
SVEC is associating the other SVECs, and path computation requests
from Request-ID#1 to Request-ID#Z must be synchronized.
<SVEC-list>
<SVEC> without dependency flags
Request-ID #1, Request-ID #3, ..., Request-ID #X
<SVEC> with one or more dependency flags
Request-ID #1, Request-ID #2
<SVEC> with one or more dependency flags
Request-ID #3, Request-ID #4
........
<SVEC> without dependency flag
Request-ID #X, Request-ID #Y, Request-ID #Z
4.2. Non-associated SVECs
Non-associated SVECs mean that there are no relationships among
SVECs. If SVEC objects in PECP request messages do not have the same
request-ID, the relationship among these SVECs is not associated.
Below is an example of non-associated SVECs that does not contain
any same request-IDs.
<SVEC-list>
<SVEC> with one or more dependency flags
Nishioka & King Expires February 28, 2010 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-pce-pcep-svec-list-02 August 2009
Request-ID #1, Request-ID #2
<SVEC> with one or more dependency flags
Request-ID #3, Request-ID #4
........
<SVEC> without dependency flags
Request-ID #X, Request-ID #Y, Request-ID #Z
5. Processing of SVEC list
5.1. Single PCE, single domain environments
When PCEP receives PCReq messages with more than two SVEC objects in
the SVEC list, PCEP has to first check the request-IDs in all SVEC
objects in order to identify any associations among them. The SVEC
objects may be received in a single or multiple PCReq message(s). In
the latter case, the PCE may start a SyncTimer as recommended in
[RFC5440]. After receiving the whole path computation requests, the
analysis for associated SVECs has to be started.
If there are no matching request-IDs in the different SVEC objects,
these SVEC objects are not associated, and then each set of path
computation requests in the non-associated SVEC objects has to be
computed separately.
If there are matching request-IDs in the different SVEC objects,
these SVEC objects are associated, and then all path computation
requests in the associated SVEC objects are treated in a synchronous
manner for GCO application.
If the PCE does not have capability to handle the associated SVEC
objects, it may send a PCErr message with Error-Type="Capability not
supported".
5.2. Multi-PCE, single domain environments
Currently no mechanisms exist to manage co-ordination of dependent
SVEC requests between multiple PCE`s in the same domain. If a PCC
sends a path computation request to a PCE and then sends a second
service path computation request, which is required to be disjoint
from the first service, and this request is sent to a different PCE
in the domain, no SVEC object correlation function between the PCEs
Nishioka & King Expires February 28, 2010 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-pce-pcep-svec-list-02 August 2009
is currently available. Equally, associated SVECs are not sent to
the different PCEs in the domain.
5.3. Single PCE, multi-domain environments
When multiple PCEs located in separate domains are used to
concurrently compute an end-to-end diverse path across multiple
domains, additional processing may be required. The path computation
process for the end-to-end diverse path is described in Section 6.
Furthermore, if the PCReq message contains multiple associated SVEC
objects and these SVEC objects contain path computation requests
that will be sent to the next PCE along the path computation chain.
Intermediate PCEs receiving such PCReq messages may re-construct
associations among SVEC objects, and then send PCReq messages to
corresponding PCEs located in neighboring domains. If the associated
SVECs are re-constructed at the intermediate PCE, the PCE must not
start path computation until all PCRep messages have been received
from neighbor PCEs. In addition, it is not recommended that SVEC
objects coming from different PCReq messages are re-constructed.
This may contribute to resource optimization from network operator`s
point of view, but it is unrealistic in the case of multiple PCE
path computation scenarios.
6. End-to-end diverse path computation
End-to-end diverse path is a set of primary path and secondary paths,
which do not share common network resources across domains. To
compute the end-to-end diverse path, the BRPC procedure can be used.
[RFC5441] describes two approaches, synchronous (i.e. simultaneous)
and 2-step approaches, for the end-to-end diverse path computation
across a chain of domains. The 2-step approach is described in
[RFC5521]. This section provides how to compute end-to-end diverse
path in the synchronous approach.
6.1. Disjoint VSPT
The BRPC procedure constructs a VSPT (virtual shortest path tree) to
inform the enquiring PCE of potential paths to the destination node.
In the end-to-end diverse path computation, disjoint information
among the potential paths must be preserved in the VSPT to ensure
end-to-end disjoint path. In order to preserve disjoint information,
disjoint VSPTs are sent in the PCEP PCRep message.
Nishioka & King Expires February 28, 2010 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-pce-pcep-svec-list-02 August 2009
A definition of the disjoint VSPT is a collection of VSPTs, in which
each VSPT contains a potential set of primary and secondary paths.
Figure-1 shows an example network. Here, transit nodes in domains
are not depicted, and PCE1 and PCE2 may be located in boarder nodes.
In this network, there are three VSPTs for the potential set of
diverse paths shown in Figure 2, when the primary path and secondary
path are requested from S1 to D1. These VSPTs consist of a disjoint
VSPT, which is replied to PCE1. When receiving the disjoint VSPT,
PCE1 recognizes the disjoint request and disjoint VSPT information.
PCE1 will then continue to process the request and compute the
diverse path using the BRPC procedure [RFC5441]. The detail encoding
for the disjoint VSPT is described in Section 6.2.
Domain1 Domain2
+----------+ +----------+
| PCE1 | | PCE2 | S1: Source node
| BN1---BN4 | D1: Destination node
| S1 BN2---BR5 D1 | BN1-BN6: Border nodes
| BN3---BN6 |
+----------+ +----------+
Figure-1; Example network for diverse path computation
VSPT1; VSPT2; VSPT3;
D1 D1 D1
/ \ / \ / \
BR4 BR5 BR4 BR6 BR5 BR6
Figure-2; Disjoint VSPT from PCE2 to PCE1
Nishioka & King Expires February 28, 2010 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-pce-pcep-svec-list-02 August 2009
6.2. Disjoint VSPT encoding
Encoding for disjoint VSPT follows the definition of PCEP message
encoding in [RFC5440].
PCEP PCRep message returns a disjoint VSPT as <path list> for each
RP object. The order of <path> in <path list> among <responses>
implies a set of primary EROs and secondary EROs.
A PCE sending PCRep with a disjoint VSPT can reply with a partial
disjoint VSPT based on its network operation policy, but the order
of <path> in <path list> must be aligned correctly.
If confidentiality is required between domains, path key mechanism
defined in [RFC5520] is used for a disjoint VSPT.
Detail disjoint VSPT encoding in Figure-2 is shown below, when a
primary path and a secondary path are requested from S1 to D1.
o Request ID #1 (Primary)
- ERO1 BR4(TE route ID)- ...-D1(TE-Router ID) [for VSPT1]
- ERO2 BR4(TE route ID)- ...-D1(TE-Router ID) [for VSPT2]
- ERO3 BR5(TE route ID)- ...-D1(TE-Router ID) [for VSPT3]
O Request ID #2 (Secondary)
- ERO4 BR5(TE route ID)- ...-D1(TE-Router ID) [for VSPT1]
- ERO5 BR6(TE route ID)- ...-D1(TE-Router ID) [for VSPT2]
- ERO6 BR6(TE route ID)- ...-D1(TE-Router ID) [for VSPT2]
6.3. Path computation procedure
For end-to-end diverse path computation, the same mode of operation
as BRPC procedure can be applied (i.e. Step 1 to Step n in Section
4.2 [RFC5441]). During this procedure, a question is how to
recognize disjoint VSPTs.
The recognition of disjoint VSPT is achieved by the PCE sending
PCreq to its neighbor PCE which maintains the path computation
Nishioka & King Expires February 28, 2010 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-pce-pcep-svec-list-02 August 2009
request (PCReq) information. If PCreq has one or more SVEC object(s)
with the appropriate diverse flags, the received PCrep will contain
the disjoint VSPT. If not, the received VSTP is a normal VSPT based
on the shortest path computation.
Note that the PCE will apply a suitable algorithm for computing
disjoint VSPT. The selection and application of the appropriate
algorithm is out of scope in this draft.
7. Manageability considerations
This section describes manageability considerations specified in
[ID.pce-mngabl-reqs].
7.1. Control of Function and Policy
In addition to [RFC5440], PCEP implementation should allow the
configuration of association among SVECs on PCCs.
o the capability to configure SVEC association.
7.2. Information and Data Models, e.g. MIB modules
There are no additional parameters for MIB modules.
7.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring
The associated SVEC in this document allows PCEs to compute optimal
sets of diverse path. This type of path computation may require more
time to obtain its results. Therefore, it is recommended for PCEP to
support PCE monitoring mechanism specified in [ID.pce-monitor].
7.4. Verifying Correct Operation
[RFC5440] provides the sufficient descriptions for this document. So,
there are no additional considerations.
7.5. Requirements on Other Protocols and Functional Components
This document does not require any other protocol and functional
components.
Nishioka & King Expires February 28, 2010 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-pce-pcep-svec-list-02 August 2009
7.6. Impact on Network Operation
[RFC5440] provides the sufficient descriptions for this document. So,
there are no additional considerations.
8. Security Considerations
This document defines the usage of SVEC list, and does not have any
extensions for PCEP protocol. Therefore the security of this
document depends on that of PCEP protocol.
9. IANA Considerations
This document has no specific extension for PCEP messages, objects
and its parameters and does not require any registry assignment.
10. References
10.1. Normative References
[RFC4655] A. Farrel, JP. Vasseur and J. Ash, "A Path Computation
Element (PCE)-Based Architecture," RFC 4655, September
2006.
[RFC4657] J. Ash and J.L. Le Roux, "Path Computation Element (PCE)
Communication Protocol Generic Requirements," RFC 4757,
September 2006.
[RFC4875] R. Aggarwal, D. Papadimitriou, and S. Yasukawa,
"Extensions to Resource Reservation Protocol - Traffic
Engineering (RSVP-TE) for Point-to-Multipoint TE Label
Switched Paths (LSPs)," RFC4875, May 2007.
[RFC5440] 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),"
RFC5440, March. 2009.
[RFC5441] JP. Vasseur, R. Zhang, N. Bitar and JL. Le Roux, "A
Backward Recursive PCE-based Computation (BRPC) Procedure
to Compute Shortest Constrained Inter-domain Traffic
Engineering Label Switched Paths," RFC5441, April 2009.
Nishioka & King Expires February 28, 2010 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-pce-pcep-svec-list-02 August 2009
[RFC5520] R. Bradford, JP. Vasseur, and A. Farrel, "Preserving
Topology Confidentiality in Inter-Domain Path Computations
Using a Path-Key-Based mechanism," RFC5520, April 2009.
[RFC5521] E. Oki, T. Takeda and A. Farrel, "Extensions to the Path
Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) for
Route Exclusions," RFC5521, April 2009.
[RFC5557] Y. Lee, JL. Le Roux, D. King and E. Oki, "Path Computation
Element Communication Protocol (PCECP) Requirements and
Protocol Extensions In Support of Global Concurrent
Optimization," RFC5557, July 2009.
10.2. Informative References
[ID.pce-p2mp-ext] Takeda, T., Chaitou M., Le Roux, J.L., Ali Z.,Zhao,
Q., King, D., "Extensions to the Path Computation Element
Communication Protocol (PCEP) for Point-to-Multipoint
Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths," draft-ietf-pce-
pcep-p2mp-extensions, work in progress, August, 2009.
[ID.pce-mngabl-reqs] A. Farrel, "Inclusion of Manageability Sections
in PCE Working Group Drafts," draft-ietf-pce-
manageability-requirements, work in progress, July. 2009.
[ID.pce-monitor] JP. Vasseur, JL. Le Roux and Y. Ikejiri, "A set of
monitoring tools for Path Computation Element based
Architecture," draft-ietf-pce-monitoring, work in
progress.txt, July. 2009.
Nishioka & King Expires February 28, 2010 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-pce-pcep-svec-list-02 August 2009
Authors' Addresses
Itaru Nishioka
NEC Corp.
1753 Shimonumabe,
Kawasaki, 211-8555,
Japan
Phone: +81 44 396 3287
Email: i-nishioka@cb.jp.nec.com
Daniel King
Old Dog Consulting
UK
Phone: +44 7790 775187
Email: daniel@olddog.co.uk
Nishioka & King Expires February 28, 2010 [Page 15]