TEAS Working Group Y. Zhuang
Internet-Draft Q. Wu
Intended status: Standards Track H. Chen
Expires: December 28, 2017 Huawei
A. Farrel
Juniper Networks
June 26, 2017
Architecture for Scheduled Use of Resources
draft-ietf-teas-scheduled-resources-03
Abstract
Time-scheduled reservation of traffic engineering (TE) resources can
be used to provide resource booking for TE Label Switched Paths so as
to better guarantee services for customers and to improve the
efficiency of network resource usage into the future. This document
provides a framework that describes and discusses the architecture
for the scheduled reservation of TE resources. This document does
not describe specific protocols or protocol extensions needed to
realize this service.
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 http://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 December 28, 2017.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2017 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
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
Zhuang, et al. Expires December 28, 2017 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Scheduled Use of Resources June 2017
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Provisioning TE-LSPs and TE Resources . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. Selecting the Path of an LSP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.3. Planning Future LSPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.4. Looking at Future Demands on TE Resources . . . . . . . . 5
2.5. Requisite State Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Architectural Concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1. Where is Scheduling State Held? . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2. What State is Held? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4. Architecture Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.1. Service Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.2. Initialization and Recovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.3. Synchronization Between PCEs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5. Multi-Domain Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
9. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
10. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
1. Introduction
Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths (TE-LSPs) are connection
oriented tunnels in packet and non-packet networks [RFC3209],
[RFC3945]. TE-LSPs may reserve network resources for use by the
traffic they carry, thus providing some guarantees of service
delivery and allowing a network operator to plan the use of the
resources across the whole network.
In some technologies (such as wavelength switched optical networks)
the resource is synonymous with the label that is switched on the
path of the LSP so that it is not possible to establish an LSP that
can carry traffic without assigning a concrete resource to the LSP.
In other technologies (such as packet switched networks) the
resources assigned to an LSP are a measure of the capacity of a link
that is dedicated for use by the traffic on the LSP.
Zhuang, et al. Expires December 28, 2017 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Scheduled Use of Resources June 2017
In all cases, network planning consists of selecting paths for LSPs
through the network so that there will be no contention for
resources. LSP establishment is the act of setting up an LSP and
reserving resources within the network. Network optimization or re-
optimization is the process of re-positioning LSPs in the network to
make the unreserved network resources more useful for potential
future LSPs while ensuring that the established LSPs continue to
fulfill their objectives.
It is often the case that it is known that an LSP will be needed at
some time in the future. While a path for that LSP could be computed
using knowledge of the currently established LSPs and the currently
available resources, this does not give any degree of certainty that
the necessary resources will be available when it is time to set up
the new LSP. Yet setting up the LSP ahead of the time when it is
needed (which would guarantee the availability of the resources) is
wasteful since the network resources could be used for some other
purpose in the meantime.
Similarly, it may be known that an LSP will no longer be needed after
some future time and that it will be torn down releasing the network
resources that were assigned to it. This information can be helpful
in planning how a future LSP is placed in the network.
Time-Scheduled (TS) reservation of TE resources can be used to
provide resource booking for TE-LSPs so as to better guarantee
services for customers and to improve the efficiency of network
resource usage into the future. This document provides a framework
that describes and discusses the architecture for the scheduled
reservation of TE resources. This document does not describe
specific protocols or protocol extensions needed to realize this
service.
2. Problem Statement
2.1. Provisioning TE-LSPs and TE Resources
TE-LSPs in existing networks are provisioned using RSVP-TE as a
signaling protocol [RFC3209] [RFC3473], by direct control of network
elements such as in the Software Defined Networking (SDN) paradigm,
and using the PCE Communication Protocol (PCEP) [RFC5440] as a
control protocol.
TE resources are reserved at the point of use. That is, the
resources (wavelengths, timeslots, bandwidth, etc.) are reserved for
use on a specific link and are tracked by the Label Switching Routers
(LSRs) at the end points of the link. Those LSRs learn which
resources to reserve during the LSP setup process.
Zhuang, et al. Expires December 28, 2017 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Scheduled Use of Resources June 2017
The use of TE resources can be varied by changing the parameters of
the LSP that uses them, and the resources can be released by tearing
down the LSP.
2.2. Selecting the Path of an LSP
Although TE-LSPs can determine their paths hop-by-hop using the
shortest path toward the destination to route the signaling protocol
messages [RFC3209], in practice this option is not applied because it
does not look far enough ahead into the network to verify that the
desired resources are available. Instead, the full length of the
path of an LSP is computed ahead of time either by the head-end LSR
of a signaled LSP, or by Path Computation Element (PCE) functionality
in a dedicated server or built into network management software
[RFC4655].
Such full-path computation is applied in order that an end-to-end
view of the available resources in the network can be used to
determine the best likelihood of establishing a viable LSP that meets
the service requirements. Even in this situation, however, it is
possible that two LSPs being set up at the same time will compete for
scarce network resources meaning that one or both of them will fail
to be established. This situation is avoided by using a centralized
PCE that is aware of the LSP setup requests that are in progress.
2.3. Planning Future LSPs
LSPs may be established "on demand" when the requester determines
that a new LSP is needed. In this case, the path of the LSP is
computed as described in Section 2.2.
However, in many situations, the requester knows in advance that an
LSP will be needed at a particular time in the future. For example,
the requester may be aware of a large traffic flow that will start at
a well-known time, perhaps for a database synchronization or for the
exchange of content between streaming sites. Furthermore, the
requester may also know for how long the LSP is required before it
can be torn down.
The set of requests for future LSPs could be collected and held in a
central database (such as at a Network Management System - NMS): when
the time comes for each LSP to be set up the NMS can ask the PCE to
compute a path and can then request the LSP to be provisioned. This
approach has a number of drawbacks because it is not possible to
determine in advance whether it will be possible to deliver the LSP
since the resources it needs might be used by other LSPs in the
network. Thus, at the time the requester asks for the future LSP,
Zhuang, et al. Expires December 28, 2017 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Scheduled Use of Resources June 2017
the NMS can only make a best-effort guarantee that the LSP will be
set up at the desired time.
A better solution, therefore, is for the requests for future LSPs to
be serviced at once. The paths of the LSPs can be computed ahead of
time and converted into reservations of network resources during
specific windows in the future.
2.4. Looking at Future Demands on TE Resources
While path computation as described in Section 2.2 takes account of
the currently available network resources, and can act to place LSPs
in the network so that there is the best possibility of future LSPs
being accommodated, it cannot handle all eventualities. It is simple
to construct scenarios where LSPs that are placed one at a time lead
to future LSPs being blocked, but where foreknowledge of all of the
LSPs would have made it possible for them all to be set up.
If, therefore, we were able to know in advance what LSPs were going
to be requested we could plan for them and ensure resources were
available. Furthermore, such an approach enables a commitment to be
made to a service user that an LSP will be set up and available at a
specific time.
This service can be achieved by tracking the current use of network
resources and also a future view of the resource usage. We call this
Time-Scheduled TE (TS-TE) resource reservation.
2.5. Requisite State Information
In order to achieve the TS-TE resource reservation, the use of
resources on the path needs to be scheduled. Scheduling state is
used to indicate when resources are reserved and when they are
available for use.
A simple information model for one piece of scheduling state is as
follows:
{
link id;
resource id or reserved capacity;
reservation start time;
reservation end time
}
The resource that is scheduled can be link capacity, physical
resources on a link, CPU utilization, memory, buffers on an
interfaces, etc. The resource might also be the maximal unreserved
Zhuang, et al. Expires December 28, 2017 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Scheduled Use of Resources June 2017
bandwidth of the link over a time interval. For any one resource
there could be multiple pieces of scheduling state, and for any one
link, the timing windows might overlap.
There are multiple ways to realize this information model and
different ways to store the data. The resource state could be
expressed as a start time and an end time as shown above, or could be
expressed as a start time and a duration. Multiple periods, possibly
of different lengths, may be associated with one reservation request,
and a reservation might repeat on a regular cycle. Furthermore, the
current state of network reservation could be kept separate from the
scheduled usage, or everything could be merged into a single TS
database.
This scheduling state information can be used by applications to book
resources for future or now, so as to maximize chance of services
being delivered. Also, it can avoid contention for resources of
LSPs.
Note that it is also necessary to store the information about future
LSPs. This information is held to allow the LSPs to be instantiated
when they are due and using the paths/resources that have been
computed for them, but also to provide correlation with the TS-TE
resource reservations so that it is clear why resources were reserved
allowing pre-emption and handling release of reserved resources in
the event of cancellation of future LSPs.
3. Architectural Concepts
This section examines several important architectural concepts that
lead to design decisions that will influence how networks can achieve
TS-TE in a scalable and robust manner.
3.1. Where is Scheduling State Held?
The scheduling state information described in Section 2.5 has to be
held somewhere. There are two places where this makes sense:
o In the network nodes where the resources exist;
o In a central scheduling controller where decisions about resource
allocation are made.
The first of these makes policing of resource allocation easier. It
means that many points in the network can request immediate or
scheduled LSPs with the associated resource reservation and that all
such requests can be correlated at the point where the resources are
Zhuang, et al. Expires December 28, 2017 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Scheduled Use of Resources June 2017
allocated. However, this approach has some scaling and technical
problems:
o The most obvious issue is that each network node must retain the
full time-based state for all of its resources. In a busy network
with a high arrival rate of new LSPs and a low hold time for each
LSP, this could be a lot of state. Yet network nodes are normally
implemented with minimal spare memory.
o In order that path computation can be performed, the computing
entity normally known as a Path Computation Element (PCE)
[RFC4655] needs access to a database of available links and nodes
in the network, and of the TE properties of the links. This
database is known as the Traffic Engineering Database (TED) and is
usually populated from information advertised in the IGP by each
of the network nodes or exported using BGP-LS [RFC7752]. To be
able to compute a path for a future LSP the PCE needs to populate
the TED with all of the future resource availability: if this
information is held on the network nodes it must also be
advertised in the IGP. This could be a significant scaling issue
for the IGP and the network nodes as all of the advertised
information is held at every network node and must be periodically
refreshed by the IGP.
o When a normal node restarts it can recover resource reservation
state from the forwarding hardware, from Non-Volatile Random-
Access Memory (NVRAM), or from adjacent nodes through the
signaling protocol [RFC5063]. If scheduling state is held at the
network nodes it must also be recovered after the restart of a
network node. This cannot be achieved from the forwarding
hardware because the reservation will not have been made, could
require additional expensive NVRAM, or might require that all
adjacent nodes also have the scheduling state in order to re-
install it on the restarting node. This is potentially complex
processing with scaling and cost implications.
Conversely, if the scheduling state is held centrally it is easily
available at the point of use. That is, the PCE can utilize the
state to plan future LSPs and can update that stored information with
the scheduled reservation of resources for those future LSPs. This
approach also has several issues:
o If there are multiple controllers then they must synchronize their
stored scheduling state as they each plan future LSPs, and must
have a mechanism to resolve resource contention. This is
relatively simple and is mitigated by the fact that there is ample
processing time to re-plan future LSPs in the case of resource
contention.
Zhuang, et al. Expires December 28, 2017 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Scheduled Use of Resources June 2017
o If other sources of immediate LSPs are allowed (for example, other
controllers or autonomous action by head-end LSRs) then the
changes in resource availability caused by the setup or tear down
of these LSPs must be reflected in the TED (by use of the IGP as
currently) and may have an impact of planned future LSPs. This
impact can be mitigated by re-planning future LSPs or through LSP
preemption.
o If other sources of planned LSPs are allowed, they can request
path computation and resource reservation from the centralized PCE
using PCEP [RFC5440].
o If the scheduling state is held centrally at a PCE, the state must
be held and restored after a system restart. This is relatively
easy to achieve on a central server that can have access to non-
volatile storage. The PCE could also synchronize the scheduling
state with other PCEs after restart. See Section 4.2 for details.
o Of course, a centralized system must store information about all
of the resources in the network. In a busy network with a high
arrival rate of new LSPs and a low hold time for each LSP, this
could be a lot of state. This is multiplied by the size of the
network measured both by the number of links and nodes, and by the
number of trackable resources on each link or at each node. The
challenge may be mitigated by the centralized server being
dedicated hardware, but the problem of collecting the information
from the network is only solved if the central server has full
control of the booking of resources and the establishment of new
LSPs.
Thus the architectural conclusion is that scheduling state should be
held centrally at the point of use and not in the network devices.
3.2. What State is Held?
As already described, the PCE needs access to an enhanced, time-based
TED. It stores the traffic engineering (TE) information such as
bandwidth for every link for a series of time intervals. There are a
few ways to store the TE information in the TED. For example,
suppose that the amount of the unreserved bandwidth at a priority
level for a link is Bj in a time interval from time Tj to Tk (k =
j+1), where j = 0, 1, 2, ....
Zhuang, et al. Expires December 28, 2017 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Scheduled Use of Resources June 2017
Bandwidth
^
| B3
| B1 ___________
| __________
|B0 B4
|__________ B2 _________
| ________________
|
-+-------------------------------------------------------> Time
|T0 T1 T2 T3 T4
Figure 1: A Plot of Bandwidth Usage against Time
The unreserved bandwidth for the link can be represented and stored
in the TED as [T0, B0], [T1, B1], [T2, B2], [T3, B3], ... as shown in
Figure 1.
But it must be noted that service requests for future LSPs are known
in terms of the LSPs whose paths are computed and for which resources
are scheduled. For example, if the requester of a future LSP decides
to cancel the request or to modify the request, the PCE must be able
to map this to the resources that were reserved. When the LSP or the
request for the LSP with a number of time intervals is cancelled, the
PCE must release the resources that were reserved on each of the
links along the path of the LSP in every time intervals from the TED.
If the bandwidth reserved on a link for the LSP is B from time T2 to
T3 and the unreserved bandwidth on the link is B2 from T2 to T3, B is
added to the link for the time interval from T2 to T3 and the
unreserved bandwidth on the link from T2 to T3 will be B2 + B.
This suggests that the PCE needs an LSP Database (LSP-DB)
[I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] that contains information not only about
LSPs that are active in the network, but also those that are planned.
The information for an LSP stored in the LSP-DB includes for each
time interval that applies to the LSP: the time interval, the paths
computed for the LSP satisfying the constraints in the time interval,
and the resources such as bandwidth reserved for the LSP in the time
interval. See also Section 2.3
It is an implementation choice how the TED and LSP-DB are stored both
for dynamic use and for recovery after failure or restart, but it may
be noted that all of the information in the scheduled TED can be
recovered from the active network state and from the scheduled LSP-
DB.
Zhuang, et al. Expires December 28, 2017 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Scheduled Use of Resources June 2017
4. Architecture Overview
The architectural considerations and conclusions described in the
previous section lead to the architecture described in this section
and illustrated in Figure 2. The interfaces and interactions shown
on the figure and labeled (a) through (f) are described in
Section 4.1.
-------------------
| Service Requester |
-------------------
^
a|
v
------- b --------
| |<--->| LSP-DB |
| | --------
| PCE |
| | c -----
| |<---->| TED |
------- -----
^ ^
| |
d| |e
| |
------+-----+--------------------
| | Network
| --------
| | Router |
v --------
----- -----
| LSR |<------>| LSR |
----- f -----
Figure 2: Reference Architecture for Scheduled Use of Resources
4.1. Service Request
As shown in Figure 2, some component in the network requests a
service. This may be an application, an NMS, an LSR, or any
component that qualifies as a Path Computation Client (PCC). We show
this on the figure as the "Service Requester" and it sends a request
to the PCE for an LSP to be set up at some time (either now or in the
future). The request, indicated on Figure 2 by the arrow (a),
includes all of the parameters of the LSP that the requester wishes
to supply such as bandwidth, start time, and end time. Note that the
Zhuang, et al. Expires December 28, 2017 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Scheduled Use of Resources June 2017
requester in this case may be the LSR shown in the figure or may be a
distinct system.
The PCE enters the LSP request in its LSP-DB (b), and uses
information from its TED (c) to compute a path that satisfies the
constraints (such as bandwidth) for the LSP in the time interval from
the start time to the end time. It updates the future resource
availability in the TED so that further path computations can take
account of the scheduled resource usage. It stores the path for the
LSP into the LSP-DB (b).
When it is time (i.e., at the start time) for the LSP to be set up,
the PCE sends a PCEP Initiate request to the head end LSR (d)
providing the path to be signaled as well as other parameters such as
the bandwidth of the LSP.
As the LSP is signaled between LSRs (f) the use of resources in the
network is updated and distributed using the IGP. This information
is shared with the PCE either through the IGP or using BGP-LS (e),
and the PCE updates the information stored in its TED (c).
After the LSP is set up, the head end LSR sends a PCEP LSP State
Report (PCRpt message) to the PCE (d). The report contains the
resources such as bandwidth usage for the LSP. The PCE updates the
status of the LSP in the LSP-DB according to the report.
When an LSP is no longer required (either because the Service
Requester has cancelled the request, or because the LSP's scheduled
lifetime has expired) the PCE can remove it. If the LSP is currently
active, the PCE instructs the head-end LSR to tear it down (d), and
the network resource usage will be updated by the IGP and advertised
back to the PCE through the IGP or BGP-LS (e). Once the LSP is no
longer active, the PCE can remove it from the LSP-DB (b).
4.2. Initialization and Recovery
When a PCE in the architecture shown in Figure 2 is initialized, it
must learn state from the network, from its stored databases, and
potentially from other PCEs in the network.
The first step is to get an accurate view of the topology and
resource availability in the network. This would normally involve
reading the state direct from the network via the IGP or BGP-LS (e),
but might include receiving a copy of the TED from another PCE. Note
that a TED stored from a previous instantiation of the PCE is
unlikely to be valid.
Zhuang, et al. Expires December 28, 2017 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Scheduled Use of Resources June 2017
Next, the PCE must construct a time-based TED to show scheduled
resource usage. How it does this is implementation specific and this
document does not dictate any particular mechanism: it may recover a
time-based TED previously saved to non-volatile storage, or it may
reconstruct the time-based TED from information retrieved from the
LSP-DB previously saved to non-volatile storage. If there is more
than one PCE active in the network, the recovering PCE will need to
synchronize the LSP-DB and time-based TED with other PCEs (see
Section 4.3).
Note that the stored LSP-DB needs to include the intended state and
actual state of the LSPs so that when a PCE recovers it is able to
determine what actions are necessary.
4.3. Synchronization Between PCEs
If there is more than one PCE that supports scheduling active in the
network, it is important to achieve some consistency between the
scheduled TED and scheduled LSP-DB held by the PCEs.
[RFC7399] answers various questions around synchronization between
the PCEs. It should be noted that the time-based "scheduled"
information adds another dimension to the issue of synchronization
between PCEs. It should also be noted that a deployment may use a
primary PCE and the have other PCEs as backup, where a backup PCE can
take over only in the event of a failure of the primary PCE.
Alternatively, the PCEs may share the load at all times. The choice
of the synchronization technique is largely dependent on the
deployment of PCEs in the network.
One option for ensuring that multiple PCEs use the same scheduled
information is simply to have the PCEs driven from the same shared
database, but it is likely to be inefficient and interoperation
between multiple implementations will be harder.
Another option is for each PCE to be responsible for its own
scheduled database and to utilize some distributed database
synchronization mechanism to have consistent information. Depending
on the implementation, this could be efficient, but interoperation
between heterogeneous implementations is still hard.
A further approach is to utilize PCEP messages to synchronize the
scheduled state between PCEs. This approach would work well if the
number of PCEs which support scheduling is small, but as the number
increases considerable message exchange needs to happen to keep the
scheduled databases synchronized. Future solutions could also
utilize some synchronization optimization techniques for efficiency.
Another variation would be to request information from other PCEs for
Zhuang, et al. Expires December 28, 2017 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Scheduled Use of Resources June 2017
a particular time slice, but this might have impact on the
optimization algorithm.
5. Multi-Domain Considerations
Multi-domain path computation usually requires some form of
cooperation between PCEs each of which has responsibility for
determining a segment of the end-to-end path in the domain for which
it has computationonal responsiblity. When computing a scheduled
path, resources need to be booked in all of the domains that the path
will cross so that they are available when the LSP is finlly
signalled.
Per-domain path computation [RFC5152] is not an appropriate mechanism
when a scheduled LSP is being computed because the computation
requests at downstream PCEs are only triggered by signaling.
However, a similar mechanism could be used where cooperating PCEs
exchange PCReq messages for a scheduled LSP as shown in Figure 3. In
this case the service requester asks for a scheduled LSP that will
span two domains (a). PCE1 computes a path across Domain 1 and
reserves the resources, and also asks PCE2 to compute and reserve in
Domain 2 (b). PCE2 may return a full path, or could return a path
key [RFC5520]. When it is time for LSP setup PCE1 triggers the head-
end LSR (c) and the LSP is signaled (d). If a path key is used, the
entry LSR in Domain 2 will consult PCE2 for the path expansion (e)
before completing signaling (f).
Zhuang, et al. Expires December 28, 2017 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Scheduled Use of Resources June 2017
-------------------
| Service Requester |
-------------------
^
a|
v
------ b ------
| |<---------------->| |
| PCE1 | | PCE2 |
| | | |
------ ------
^ ^
| |
c| e|
| |
----+----------------- ----+-----------------
| | Domain 1 | | | Domain 2 |
| v | | v |
| ----- d ----- | | ----- f ----- |
| | LSR |<--->| LSR |<-+--+->| LSR |<--->| LSR | |
| ----- ----- | | ----- ----- |
---------------------- ----------------------
Figure 3: Per-Domain Path Computation for Scheduled LSPs
Another mechanism for PCE cooperation in multi-domain LSP setup is
Backward- Recursive Path Computation (BRPC) [RFC5441]. This approach
relies on the downstream domain supply a variety of potential paths
to the upstream domain. Although BRPC can arrive at a more optimal
end-to-end path than per-domain path computation, it is not well
suited to LSP scheduling because the downstream PCE would need to
reserve resources on all of the potential paths and then release
those that the upstream PCE announced it did not plan to use.
Finally we should consider hierarchical PCE (H-PCE) [RFC6805]. This
mode of operatation is similar to that shown in Figure 3, but a
parent PCE is used to coordinate the requests to the child PCEs
resulting in better visibility of the end-to-end path and better
coordination of the resource booking. The sequenced flow of control
is shown in Figure 4.
Zhuang, et al. Expires December 28, 2017 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Scheduled Use of Resources June 2017
-------------------
| Service Requester |
-------------------
^
a|
v
--------
| |
| Parent |
| PCE |
| |
--------
^ ^ b
b| |_______________________
| |
v v
------ ------
| | | |
| PCE1 | | PCE2 |
| | | |
------ ------
^ ^
| |
c| e|
| |
----+----------------- ----+-----------------
| | Domain 1 | | | Domain 2 |
| v | | v |
| ----- d ----- | | ----- f ----- |
| | LSR |<--->| LSR |<-+--+->| LSR |<--->| LSR | |
| ----- ----- | | ----- ----- |
---------------------- ----------------------
Figure 4: Hierarchical PCE for Path Computation for Scheduled LSPs
6. Security Considerations
The protocol implications of scheduled resources are unchanged from
"on-demand" LSP computation and setup. A discussion of securing PCEP
is found in [RFC5440] and work to extend that security is provided in
[I-D.ietf-pce-pceps]. Furthermore, the path key mechanism described
in [RFC5520] can be used to enhance privacy and security.
Similarly, there is no change to the security implications for the
signaling of scheduled LSPs. A discussion of the security of the
signaling protocols that would be used is found in [RFC5920].
Zhuang, et al. Expires December 28, 2017 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Scheduled Use of Resources June 2017
However, the use of scheduled LSPs extends the attack surface for a
PCE-enabled TE system by providing a larger (logically infinte)
window during which an attack can be initiated or planned. That is,
if bogus scheduled LSPs can be requested, they can be entered into
the LSP-DB, then a large number of LSPs could be launched, or
significant network resources could be blocked. Of course,
additional authorization could be applied for access to LSP
scheduling, and diagnostic tools could inspect the LSP DB to spot
attacks.
7. IANA Considerations
This architecture document makes no request for IANA action.
8. Acknowledgements
This work has benefited from the discussions of resource scheduling
over the years. In particular the DRAGON project [DRAGON] and
[I-D.yong-ccamp-ason-gmpls-autobw-service] both of which provide
approaches to auto-bandwidth services in GMPLS networks.
Mehmet Toy, Lei Liu, and Khuzema Pithewan contributed the earlier
version of [I-D.chen-teas-frmwk-tts]. We would like to thank the
authors of that draft on Temporal Tunnel Services.
Thanks to Michael Scharf and Daniele Ceccarelli for useful comments
on this work.
9. Contributors
The following people contributed to discussions that led to the
development of this document:
Dhruv Dhody
Email: dhruv.dhody@huawei.com
10. Informative References
[DRAGON] National Science Foundation, "http://www.maxgigapop.net/
wp-content/uploads/The-DRAGON-Project.pdf".
[I-D.chen-teas-frmwk-tts]
Chen, H., Toy, M., Liu, L., and K. Pithewan, "Framework
for Temporal Tunnel Services", draft-chen-teas-frmwk-
tts-01 (work in progress), March 2016.
Zhuang, et al. Expires December 28, 2017 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Scheduled Use of Resources June 2017
[I-D.ietf-pce-pceps]
Lopez, D., Dios, O., Wu, Q., and D. Dhody, "Secure
Transport for PCEP", draft-ietf-pce-pceps-14 (work in
progress), May 2017.
[I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce]
Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Medved, J., and R. Varga, "PCEP
Extensions for Stateful PCE", draft-ietf-pce-stateful-
pce-21 (work in progress), June 2017.
[I-D.yong-ccamp-ason-gmpls-autobw-service]
Yong, L. and Y. Lee, "ASON/GMPLS Extension for Reservation
and Time Based Automatic Bandwidth Service", draft-yong-
ccamp-ason-gmpls-autobw-service-00 (work in progress),
October 2006.
[RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.,
and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
Tunnels", RFC 3209, DOI 10.17487/RFC3209, December 2001,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3209>.
[RFC3473] Berger, L., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-
Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3473, January 2003,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3473>.
[RFC3945] Mannie, E., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Architecture", RFC 3945,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3945, October 2004,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3945>.
[RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J., and J. Ash, "A Path Computation
Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4655, August 2006,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4655>.
[RFC5063] Satyanarayana, A., Ed. and R. Rahman, Ed., "Extensions to
GMPLS Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) Graceful
Restart", RFC 5063, DOI 10.17487/RFC5063, October 2007,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5063>.
[RFC5152] Vasseur, JP., Ed., Ayyangar, A., Ed., and R. Zhang, "A
Per-Domain Path Computation Method for Establishing Inter-
Domain Traffic Engineering (TE) Label Switched Paths
(LSPs)", RFC 5152, DOI 10.17487/RFC5152, February 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5152>.
Zhuang, et al. Expires December 28, 2017 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Scheduled Use of Resources June 2017
[RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation
Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5440, March 2009,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5440>.
[RFC5441] Vasseur, JP., Ed., Zhang, R., Bitar, N., and JL. Le Roux,
"A Backward-Recursive PCE-Based Computation (BRPC)
Procedure to Compute Shortest Constrained Inter-Domain
Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths", RFC 5441,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5441, April 2009,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5441>.
[RFC5520] Bradford, R., Ed., Vasseur, JP., and A. Farrel,
"Preserving Topology Confidentiality in Inter-Domain Path
Computation Using a Path-Key-Based Mechanism", RFC 5520,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5520, April 2009,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5520>.
[RFC5920] Fang, L., Ed., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS
Networks", RFC 5920, DOI 10.17487/RFC5920, July 2010,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5920>.
[RFC6805] King, D., Ed. and A. Farrel, Ed., "The Application of the
Path Computation Element Architecture to the Determination
of a Sequence of Domains in MPLS and GMPLS", RFC 6805,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6805, November 2012,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6805>.
[RFC7399] Farrel, A. and D. King, "Unanswered Questions in the Path
Computation Element Architecture", RFC 7399,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7399, October 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7399>.
[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,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7752>.
Authors' Addresses
Yan Zhuang
Huawei
101 Software Avenue, Yuhua District
Nanjing, Jiangsu 210012
China
Email: zhuangyan.zhuang@huawei.com
Zhuang, et al. Expires December 28, 2017 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Scheduled Use of Resources June 2017
Qin Wu
Huawei
101 Software Avenue, Yuhua District
Nanjing, Jiangsu 210012
China
Email: bill.wu@huawei.com
Huaimo Chen
Huawei
Boston, MA
US
Email: huaimo.chen@huawei.com
Adrian Farrel
Juniper Networks
Email: afarrel@juniper.net
Zhuang, et al. Expires December 28, 2017 [Page 19]