PCE Working Group U. Palle
Internet-Draft D. Dhody
Intended status: Experimental Huawei Technologies
Expires: November 16, 2016 May 15, 2016
LABEL-DB Synchronization Procedures for a PCE as a central
controller(PCECC)
draft-palle-pce-controller-labeldb-sync-00
Abstract
[I-D.zhao-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller] specify the
procedures and PCEP protocol extensions for using the PCE as the
central controller [I-D.zhao-teas-pce-control-function] where LSPs
are calculated/setup/initiated and label forwarding entries are
downloaded through a centralized PCE server to each network devices
along the LSP path while leveraging the existing PCE technologies as
much as possible.
Labels downloaded to forwarding entries requires a reliable
synchronization mechanism between the path computation clients (PCCs)
and the PCECC. This draft specify the label database synchronization
mechanism for managing of label database (LABEL-DB) at node (PCC)
aligning with LABEL-DB at PCECC on initial session UP or session flap
and specifies the required Path Computation Element Communication
Protocol (PCEP) extensions.
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 November 16, 2016.
Palle & Dhody Expires November 16, 2016 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft LABEL-DB-SYNC May 2016
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 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
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
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. LABEL-DB Synchronization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Full LABEL-DB Synchronization procedure . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Optimizations for LABEL-DB Synchronization . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. LABEL-DB Synchronization Avoidance Procedure . . . . . . 6
4.2. Incremental LABEL-DB Synchronization Procedure . . . . . 10
5. PCEP Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.1. Extension of SRP object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.2. Extension of PCECC Capability TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.3. New LABEL-DB-VERSION TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
1. Introduction
[I-D.zhao-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller] specify the
procedures and PCEP protocol extensions for using the PCE as the
central controller [I-D.zhao-teas-pce-control-function] and user
cases where LSPs are calculated/setup/initiated/downloaded through
extending the existing PCE architectures and PCEP.
Labels downloaded to forwarding entries requires a reliable
synchronization mechanism between the path computation clients (PCCs)
and the PCECC. This draft specify the PCECC maintenance of label
Palle & Dhody Expires November 16, 2016 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft LABEL-DB-SYNC May 2016
database per session, and describes the label database(LABEL-DB)
synchronization mechanism for managing of label database at node
(PCC) aligning with label database at PCECC on initial session UP or
session flap and specifies the required Path Computation Element
Communication Protocol (PCEP) extensions.
This draft specify the optimizations for LABEL-DB synchronization and
the corresponding PCEP procedures and extensions.
1.1. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
2. LABEL-DB Synchronization
PCECC MUST maintains the LABEL-DB for each PCEP session separately.
The purpose of LABEL-DB synchronization is to make sure that the
PCECC's view of LABEL-DB matches with the PCC's LABEL-DB. The LABEL-
DB synchronization MUST be performed from PCECC to PCC immediately
after the LSP state synchronization. [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce]
describes the basic mechanism for LSP state synchronization.
[I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations] describes the
optimizations for LSP state synchronization.
By default a Full LABEL-DB is performed from PCECC to PCC on Initial
session UP or every session flap. see Section 3 for detail
procedures.
But a Full LABEL-DB synchronization is not always necessary following
a PCEP session restart and providing an Optimizations for LABEL-DB
synchronization can result in significant savings in both control-
plane data exchanges and the time it takes for the PCC to become
fully operational.
Optimizations for LABEL-DB synchronization describes the need that
both PCEP speakers support label database version capability and
maintain label database version for each session. See Section 4 for
detail procedures.
3. Full LABEL-DB Synchronization procedure
During Full LABEL-DB Synchronization, a PCECC first takes a snapshot
of the label database for the session, then sends this snapshot to
the PCC in a sequence of Label Update message (PCLabelUpd message
defined in [I-D.zhao-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller]). Each
Palle & Dhody Expires November 16, 2016 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft LABEL-DB-SYNC May 2016
PCLabelUpd message sent during LABEL-DB Synchronization has the SYNC
Flag in the SRP Object(see Section 5.1) set to 1.
The end of synchronization marker is a PCLabelUpd message with the
SYNC Flag set to 0 for SRP Object with Label equal to reserved value
0 in the LABEL object
([I-D.zhao-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller]). If the PCECC has
no label to synchronize, it will only send the end of synchronization
marker.
A PCECC SHOULD NOT send PCUpd messages to a PCC before LABEL-DB
Synchronization is complete.
Either the PCECC or the PCC MAY terminate the session using the PCEP
session termination procedures during the LABEL-DB synchronization
phase. If the session is terminated, the PCC MUST clean up label(s)
it received from this PCECC. The session reestablishment MUST be re-
attempted as per the procedures defined in [RFC5440], including use
of a back-off timer.
The PCC does not send positive acknowledgements for properly received
label database synchronization messages. It MUST respond with a
PCErr message with Error-type TBD1 (Label Database Synchronization
Error) and Error-value 1 (indicating an error in processing the
PCLabelUpd) if it encounters a problem with the Label Update it
received from the PCECC and it MUST terminate the session.
If the PCECC encounters a problem which prevents it from completing
the label transfer, it MUST send a PCErr message with Error-type TBD1
(Label Database Synchronization Error) and Error-value 2 (indicating
an internal PCECC Error) to the PCC and terminate the session.
The successful LABEL-DB Synchronization sequence is shown in
Figure 1.
Palle & Dhody Expires November 16, 2016 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft LABEL-DB-SYNC May 2016
+-+-+-+ +-+-+
|PCECC| |PCC|
+-+-+-+ +-+-+
| |
|-----PCLabelUpd, SYNC=1----->| (Sync start)
| |
|-----PCLabelUpd, SYNC=1----->|
| . |
| . |
| . |
|-----PCLabelUpd, SYNC=1----->|
| . |
| . |
| . |
| |
|-----PCLabelUpd, SYNC=0----->| (End of sync marker
| | Label Update
| | LABEL=0)
| | (Sync done)
Figure 1: Successful LABEL-DB synchronization
The sequence where the PCC fails during the LABEL-DB Synchronization
phase is shown in Figure 2.
+-+-+-+ +-+-+
|PCECC| |PCC|
+-+-+-+ +-+-+
| |
|--------PCLabelUpd, SYNC=1----->| (Sync start)
| |
|--------PCLabelUpd, SYNC=1----->|
| . |
| . |
| . |
|--------PCLabelUpd, SYNC=1----->|
| |
|---PCLabelUpd, SYNC=1 |
| \ ,----PCErr ----|
| \ / |
| \/ |
| /\ |
| / `------------->| (Ignored)
|<-----------` |
Figure 2: Failed LABEL-DB synchronization(PCC failure)
Palle & Dhody Expires November 16, 2016 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft LABEL-DB-SYNC May 2016
The sequence where the PCECC fails during the LABEL-DB
Synchronization phase is shown in Figure 3.
+-+-+-+ +-+-+
|PCECC| |PCC|
+-+-+-+ +-+-+
| |
|-----PCLabelUpd, SYNC=1----->| (Sync start)
| |
|-----PCLabelUpd, SYNC=1----->|
| . |
| . |
| . |
|----------- PCErr=? -------->|
| |
Figure 3: Failed LABEL-DB synchronization(PCECC failure)
4. Optimizations for LABEL-DB Synchronization
This section add some of the optimization mechanisms for LABEL-DB
synchronization. By default, the full LABEL-DB synchronization is
performed.
4.1. LABEL-DB Synchronization Avoidance Procedure
The LABEL-DB synchronization MAY be skipped following a PCEP session
restart if there is no change in the LABEL-DB of the session at
PCECC, during the period prior to session re-initialization. To be
able to make this determination, labels must be exchanged and
maintained by both PCECC and PCC during normal operation. This is
accomplished by keeping track of the changes to the label database,
using a version tracking field called the Label Database Version
Number.
The Label Database Version Number, carried in LABEL-DB-VERSION TLV
(see Section 5.3), is owned by a PCECC and it MUST be incremented by
1 for each successive change in the PCECC's label database. The
Label Database Version Number MUST start at 1 and may wrap around.
Values 0 and 0xFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF are reserved. If either of the two
values are used during LABEL-DB synchronization, the PCC speaker
receiving this node should send back a PCErr with Error-type TBD1
Error-value 3 'Received an invalid Label Database Version Number',
and close the PCEP session. Operations that trigger a change to the
Label database include an addition or deletion of labels that would
trigger a label update to the PCC.
Palle & Dhody Expires November 16, 2016 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft LABEL-DB-SYNC May 2016
LABEL-DB synchronization avoidance is advertised on a PCEP session
during session startup using the INCLUDE-LABEL-DB-VERSION (I) bit in
the PCECC capability TLV (see Section 5.2). The PCEP peer MAY
include the SPEAKER-ENTITY-ID TLV described in
[I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations] in the OPEN message to
identify the peer in case of IP address change.
If both PCEP speakers set the I flag in the OPEN object's PCECC
Capability TLV to 1, the PCECC MUST include the LABEL-DB-VERSION TLV
in each LABEL object of the PCLabelUpd message. If the LABEL-DB-
VERSION TLV is missing in a PCLabelUpd message, the PCC will generate
an error with Error-Type 6 (mandatory object missing) and Error-Value
TBD2 'LABEL-DB-VERSION TLV missing' and close the session. If LABEL-
DB synchronization avoidance has not been enabled on a PCEP session,
the PCECC SHOULD NOT include the LABEL-DB-VERSION TLV in the LABEL
Object and the PCC SHOULD ignore it were it to receive one.
If a PCC's label database survived the restart of a PCEP session, the
PCC will include the LABEL-DB-VERSION TLV in its OPEN object, and the
TLV will contain the last Label Database Version Number received on
an Label Update from the PCECC in the previous PCEP session. If a
PCECC's Label Database survived the restart of a PCEP session, the
PCECC will include the LABEL-DB-VERSION TLV in its OPEN object and
the TLV will contain the latest Label Database Version Number. If a
PCEP speaker's label database did not survive the restart of a PCEP
session, the PCEP speaker MUST NOT include the LABEL-DB-VERSION TLV
in the OPEN object.
If both PCEP speakers include the LABEL-DB-VERSION TLV in the OPEN
Object and the TLV values match, the PCECC MAY skip LABEL-DB
synchronization. Otherwise, the PCECC MUST perform full LABEL-DB
synchronization (see Section 3) or incremental LABEL-DB
synchronization (see Section 4.2) to the PCC, Incase, the PCECC
attempts to skip LABEL-DB synchronization, by setting the SYNC Flag
to 0 on the first Label Update from the PCECC, the PCC MUST send back
a PCErr with Error-type TBD1 (Label Database Synchronization Error)
and Error-value 4(Label Database Version mismatch), and close the
PCEP session.
If LABEL-DB synchronization is required, then prior to completing the
initialization phase, the PCC MUST mark any labels in the label
database that were previously updated by the PCECC as stale. When
the PCECC updates a label during LABEL-DB synchronization, if the
label already exists in the label database, the PCC MUST update the
label database and clear the stale marker from the label. When it
has finished LABEL-DB synchronization, the PCECC MUST immediately
send an end of synchronization marker. The end of synchronization
marker is a Path Computation Label Update (PCLabelUpd) message with a
Palle & Dhody Expires November 16, 2016 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft LABEL-DB-SYNC May 2016
SRP object containing the SYNC flag set to 0 (see Section 5.1) and
Label as 0 in the LABEL object. The LABEL-DB-VERSION TLV MUST be
included in this PCLabelUpd message. On receiving this Label Update,
the PCC MUST purge any labels from the label database that are still
marked as stale.
Note that a PCECC/PCC MAY force LABEL-DB synchronization by not
including the LABEL-DB-VERSION TLV in its OPEN object.
Figure 4 shows an example sequence where the LABEL-DB synchronization
is skipped.
+-+-+-+ +-+-+
|PCECC| |PCC|
+-+-+-+ +-+-+
| ,----Open---|
| / DBv=35 |
|--Open--, / I=1 |
| DBv=35 \ / |
| I=1 \ / |
| \/ |
| /\ |
| / `------------->| (OK to skip sync)
(Skip sync) |<--------` |
| . |
| . |
| . |
| |
|--PCLabelUpd,DBv=36,SYNC=0-->| (Regular
| | Label Update)
|--PCLabelUpd,DBv=37,SYNC=0-->| (Regular
| | Label Update)
|--PCLabelUpd,DBv=38,SYNC=0-->|
| |
Figure 4: LABEL-DB synchronization Skipped
Figure 5 shows an example sequence where the LABEL-DB synchronization
is performed due to label database version mismatch during the PCEP
session setup. Note that the same LABEL-DB synchronization sequence
would happen if either the PCC or the PCECC would not include the
LABEL- DB-VERSION TLV in their respective Open messages.
Palle & Dhody Expires November 16, 2016 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft LABEL-DB-SYNC May 2016
+-+-+-+ +-+-+
|PCECC| |PCC|
+-+-+-+ +-+-+
| ,----Open---|
| / DBv=35 |
|--Open--, / I=1 |
| DBv=39 \ / |
| I=1 \ / |
| \/ |
| /\ |
| / `------------->| (Expect sync)
(Do sync) |<--------` |
| |
|--PCLabelUpd,DBv=39,SYNC=1-->| (Sync start)
| . |
| . |
| . |
|--PCLabelUpd,DBv=39,SYNC=0-->| (Sync done)
| . |(Purge Label
| . | if applicable)
| . |
|--PCLabelUpd,DBv=40,SYNC=0-->| (Regular
| | Label Update)
|--PCLabelUpd,DBv=41,SYNC=0-->| (Regular
| | Label Update)
|--PCLabelUpd,DBv=42,SYNC=0-->|
| |
Figure 5: LABEL-DB synchronization Performed
Figure 6 shows an example sequence where the LABEL-DB synchronization
is skipped, but because one or both PCEP speakers set the I Flag to
0, the PCECC does not send LABEL-DB-VERSION TLVs in subsequent
PCLabelUpd messages to the PCC. If the current PCEP session
restarts, the PCEP speakers will have to perform full LABEL-DB
synchronization, since the PCC does not know the PCECC's latest Label
Database Version Number information.
Palle & Dhody Expires November 16, 2016 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft LABEL-DB-SYNC May 2016
+-+-+-+ +-+-+
|PCECC| |PCC|
+-+-+-+ +-+-+
| ,----Open---|
| / DBv=43 |
|--Open--, / I=0 |
| DBv=43 \ / |
| I=0 \ / |
| \/ |
| /\ |
| / `------------->| (OK to skip sync)
(Skip sync) |<--------` |
| . |
| . |
| . |
|------PCLabelUpd,SYNC=0----->| (Regular
| | Label Update)
|------PCLabelUpd,SYNC=0----->| (Regular
| | Label Update)
|------PCLabelUpd,SYNC=0----->|
| |
Figure 6: LABEL-DB Synchronization Skipped, no LABEL-DB-VERSION TLVs
sent from PCECC
4.2. Incremental LABEL-DB Synchronization Procedure
If a PCC restarts and its label database survived, PCECC with
mismatched Label Database Version Number will send all their Labels
information (full LABEL-DB) to the PCC, even if only a small number
of changes happened. It can take a long time and consume large
communication channel bandwidth.
This section extends the idea to only synchronize the delta (changes)
in case of Label Database Version Number of both PCEP peers is non-
zero and mismatch.
If both PCEP speakers include the LABEL-DB-VERSION TLV in the OPEN
object and the LABEL-DB-VERSION TLV values match, the PCECC MAY skip
LABEL-DB synchronization. Otherwise, the PCECC MUST perform LABEL-DB
synchronization. Incremental label database synchronization
capability is advertised on a PCEP session during session startup
using the DELTA-LABEL-SYNC-CAPABILITY (D) bit in the capabilities TLV
(see Section 5.2). Instead of dumping full LABEL-DB to the PCC
again, the PCECC synchronizes the delta (changes) as described in
Figure 7 when D flag and I flag is set to 1 by both PCC and PCECC.
Other combinations of D and I flags setting by PCC and PCECC result
in full LABEL-DB synchronization procedure as described in Section 3.
Palle & Dhody Expires November 16, 2016 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft LABEL-DB-SYNC May 2016
The PCECC MAY force a full LABEL-DB synchronization by setting the D
flag to zero in the OPEN message.
+-+-+-+ +-+-+
|PCECC| |PCC|
+-+-+-+ +-+-+
| ,----Open---|
| / DBv=35 |
|--Open--, / I=1 |
| DBv=39 \ / D=1 |
| I=0 \ / |
| \/ |
| /\ |
| / `------------->| (Expect Delta sync)
(Do sync)|<--------` | (DONOT Purge Label)
(Delta) | |
| |
(Delta |--PCLabelUpd,DBv=39,SYNC=1-->|
Sync starts) | . |
| . |
| . |
| . |
|--PCLabelUpd,DBv=39,SYNC=0-->| (Sync done)
| |
| |
|--PCLabelUpd,DBv=40,SYNC=0-->| (Regular
| | Label Update)
|--PCLabelUpd,DBv=41,SYNC=0-->| (Regular
| | Label Update)
|--PCLabelUpd,DBv=42,SYNC=0-->|
| |
Figure 7: Incremental Synchronization Procedure
As per Section 4.1, the Label Database Version Number is incremented
each time a change is made to the PCECC's label database. Each label
is associated with the DB version at the time of its addition. This
is needed to determine which label and what information needs to be
synchronized in incremental LABEL-DB synchronization.
It is not necessary for a PCECC to store a complete history of label
database change, but rather remember the labels (including label
addition and deletion) that happened between the PCEP session(s)
restart in order to carry out incremental LABEL-DB synchronization.
After the synchronization procedure finishes, the PCECC can dump this
history information. In the example shown in Figure 7, the PCECC
needs to store the label changes that happened between DB Version 35
Palle & Dhody Expires November 16, 2016 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft LABEL-DB-SYNC May 2016
to 39 and synchronizes these changes only when performing incremental
label update. So a PCECC needs to remember at least the label
changes that happened after an existing PCEP session with a PCC goes
down to have any chance of doing incremental synchronization when the
session is re-established.
If a PCECC finds out it does not have sufficient information to
complete incremental synchronization after advertising incremental
LABEL-DB synchronization capability, it MUST send a PCErr with Error-
Type TBD1 and Error-Value 5 'A PCECC indicates to a PCC that it can
not complete the LABEL-DB synchronization' and terminate the session.
The PCECC SHOULD re-establish the session with the D bit set to 0 in
the OPEN message.
The other procedures and error checks remain unchanged from the full
LABEL-DB synchronization defined in Section 3.
5. PCEP Extensions
5.1. Extension of SRP object
SRP object is defined in [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] and extended in
[I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp]. This draft defines a new 'SYNC'
flag (S bit) to specify the LABEL-DB synchronization operation.
The format of the SRP object is shown Figure 8:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Flags |S|R|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| SRP-ID-number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
// Optional TLVs //
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 8: SRP Object format
S (SYNC - 1 bit): The S Flag MUST be set to 1 on each PCLabelUpd sent
from a PCECC during LABEL-DB Synchronization. The S Flag MUST be set
to 0 in other messages sent from the PCECC.
Palle & Dhody Expires November 16, 2016 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft LABEL-DB-SYNC May 2016
5.2. Extension of PCECC Capability TLV
PCECC Capability TLV is defined in
[I-D.zhao-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller]. This draft defines
a new 'INCLUDE-LABEL-DB-VERSION' flag (I bit) to specify the label
database version capability and 'DELTA-LABEL-SYNC-CAPABILITY' to
specify the incremental label database synchronization capability.
The format of the PCECC Capability TLV is shown Figure 9:
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 | Length=4 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Flags |D|I|S|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 9: PCECC Capability TLV
I (INCLUDE-LABEL-DB-VERSION - 1 bit): if set to 1 by both PCEP
Speakers, the PCECC will include the LABEL-DB-VERSION TLV in each
LABEL Object.
D (DELTA-LABEL-SYNC-CAPABILITY - 1 bit): if set to 1 by a PCEP
speaker, it indicates that the PCEP speaker allows incremental
(delta) LABEL-DB synchronization.
5.3. New LABEL-DB-VERSION TLV
The Label Database Version Number (LABEL-DB-VERSION) TLV is an
optional TLV that MAY be included in the OPEN object and the LABEL
object.
The format of the LABEL-DB-VERSION TLV is shown in the following
figure:
Palle & Dhody Expires November 16, 2016 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft LABEL-DB-SYNC May 2016
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=[TBD3] | Length=8 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Label Database Version Number |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 10: LABEL-DB-VERSION TLV format
The type of the TLV is [TBD3] and it has a fixed length of 8 octets.
The value contains a 64-bit unsigned integer, representing the Label
Database Version Number.
6. Manageability Considerations
TBD
7. Security Considerations
TBD
8. IANA Considerations
TBD
9. Acknowledgements
This document borrows some of the structure and text from
[I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations], and would like to thanks
the authors and contributors of the document.
10. References
10.1. 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,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[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>.
Palle & Dhody Expires November 16, 2016 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft LABEL-DB-SYNC May 2016
[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-14 (work in progress), March 2016.
[I-D.zhao-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller]
Zhao, Q., Li, Z., Dhody, D., and C. Zhou, "PCEP Procedures
and Protocol Extensions for Using PCE as a Central
Controller (PCECC) of LSPs", draft-zhao-pce-pcep-
extension-for-pce-controller-03 (work in progress), March
2016.
10.2. Informative References
[I-D.zhao-teas-pce-control-function]
Farrel, A., Zhao, Q., Li, Z., and C. Zhou, "An
Architecture for Use of PCE and PCEP in a Network with
Central Control", draft-zhao-teas-pce-control-function-00
(work in progress), May 2016.
[I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp]
Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Sivabalan, S., and R. Varga, "PCEP
Extensions for PCE-initiated LSP Setup in a Stateful PCE
Model", draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp-05 (work in
progress), October 2015.
[I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations]
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", draft-
ietf-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations-05 (work in
progress), April 2016.
Authors' Addresses
Udayasree Palle
Huawei Technologies
Divyashree Techno Park, Whitefield
Bangalore, Karnataka 560066
India
EMail: udayasree.palle@huawei.com
Palle & Dhody Expires November 16, 2016 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft LABEL-DB-SYNC May 2016
Dhruv Dhody
Huawei Technologies
Divyashree Techno Park, Whitefield
Bangalore, Karnataka 560066
India
EMail: dhruv.ietf@gmail.com
Palle & Dhody Expires November 16, 2016 [Page 16]