A Backward-Recursive PCE-Based Computation (BRPC) Procedure to Compute Shortest Constrained Inter-Domain Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths
RFC 5441
| Document | Type |
RFC - Proposed Standard
(April 2009; Errata)
Was draft-ietf-pce-brpc (pce WG)
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Vasseur Jp , Jean-Louis Le Roux , Raymond Zhang , Nabil Bitar | ||
| Last updated | 2020-01-21 | ||
| Replaces | draft-vasseur-pce-brpc | ||
| Stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | plain text html pdf htmlized with errata bibtex | ||
| Stream | WG state | (None) | |
| Document shepherd | No shepherd assigned | ||
| IESG | IESG state | RFC 5441 (Proposed Standard) | |
| Action Holders |
(None)
|
||
| Consensus Boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Telechat date | |||
| Responsible AD | Ross Callon | ||
| Send notices to | (None) | ||
Network Working Group JP. Vasseur, Ed.
Request for Comments: 5441 Cisco Systems, Inc
Category: Standards Track R. Zhang
BT Infonet
N. Bitar
Verizon
JL. Le Roux
France Telecom
April 2009
A Backward-Recursive PCE-Based Computation (BRPC) Procedure to Compute
Shortest Constrained Inter-Domain Traffic Engineering
Label Switched Paths
Status of This Memo
This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
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).
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document.
This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
Contributions published or made publicly available before November
10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
than English.
Vasseur, et al. Standards Track [Page 1]
RFC 5441 BRPC April 2009
Abstract
The ability to compute shortest constrained Traffic Engineering Label
Switched Paths (TE LSPs) in Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and
Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) networks across multiple domains has been
identified as a key requirement. In this context, a domain is a
collection of network elements within a common sphere of address
management or path computational responsibility such as an IGP area
or an Autonomous Systems. This document specifies a procedure
relying on the use of multiple Path Computation Elements (PCEs) to
compute such inter-domain shortest constrained paths across a
predetermined sequence of domains, using a backward-recursive path
computation technique. This technique preserves confidentiality
across domains, which is sometimes required when domains are managed
by different service providers.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. General Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. BRPC Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1. Domain Path Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2. Mode of Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. PCEP Protocol Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. VSPT Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. Inter-AS TE Links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8. Usage in Conjunction with Per-Domain Path Computation . . . . 10
9. BRPC Procedure Completion Failure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
10. Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
10.1. Diverse End-to-End Path Computation . . . . . . . . . . . 11
10.2. Path Optimality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
11. Reoptimization of an Inter-Domain TE LSP . . . . . . . . . . . 12
12. Path Computation Failure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
13. Metric Normalization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
14. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
14.1. Control of Function and Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
14.2. Information and Data Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
14.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
14.4. Verifying Correct Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
14.5. Requirements on Other Protocols and Functional
Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
14.6. Impact on Network Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
14.7. Path Computation Chain Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
15. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
15.1. New Flag of the RP Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
15.2. New Error-Type and Error-Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Vasseur, et al. Standards Track [Page 2]
RFC 5441 BRPC April 2009
15.3. New Flag of the NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
16. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
17. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
18. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
18.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
18.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
1. Introduction
The requirements for inter-area and inter-AS MPLS Traffic Engineering
(TE) have been developed by the Traffic Engineering Working Group (TE
WG) and have been stated in [RFC4105] and [RFC4216], respectively.
The framework for inter-domain Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS)
Traffic Engineering (TE) has been provided in [RFC4726].
[RFC5152] defines a technique for establishing an inter-domain
Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) TE Label Switched Path (LSP) whereby the
path is computed during the signaling process on a per-domain basis
by the entry boundary node of each domain (each node responsible for
triggering the computation of a section of an inter-domain TE LSP
path is always along the path of such TE LSP). This path computation
technique fulfills some of the requirements stated in [RFC4105] and
[RFC4216] but not all of them. In particular, it cannot guarantee to
find an optimal (shortest) inter-domain constrained path.
Furthermore, it cannot be efficiently used to compute a set of inter-
domain diversely routed TE LSPs.
The Path Computation Element (PCE) architecture is defined in
[RFC4655]. The aim of this document is to describe a PCE-based path
computation procedure to compute optimal inter-domain constrained
(G)MPLS TE LSPs.
Qualifying a path as optimal requires some clarification. Indeed, a
globally optimal TE LSP placement usually refers to a set of TE LSPs
whose placements optimize the network resources with regards to a
specified objective function (e.g., a placement that reduces the
maximum or average network load while satisfying the TE LSP
constraints). In this document, an optimal inter-domain constrained
TE LSP is defined as the shortest path satisfying the set of required
constraints that would be obtained in the absence of multiple domains
(in other words, in a totally flat IGP network between the source and
destination of the TE LSP). Note that this requires the use of
consistent metric schemes in each domain (see Section 13).
Vasseur, et al. Standards Track [Page 3]
RFC 5441 BRPC April 2009
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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
2. Terminology
ABR: Area Border Routers. Routers used to connect two IGP areas
(areas in OSPF or levels in IS-IS).
ASBR: Autonomous System Border Router. Router used to connect
together ASes of the same or different service providers via one or
more inter-AS links.
Boundary Node (BN): a boundary node is either an ABR in the context
of inter-area Traffic Engineering or an ASBR in the context of
inter-AS Traffic Engineering.
Entry BN of domain(n): a BN connecting domain(n-1) to domain(n) along
a determined sequence of domains.
Exit BN of domain(n): a BN connecting domain(n) to domain(n+1) along
a determined sequence of domains.
Inter-area TE LSP: A TE LSP that crosses an IGP area boundary.
Inter-AS TE LSP: A TE LSP that crosses an AS boundary.
LSP: Label Switched Path.
LSR: Label Switching Router.
PCC: Path Computation Client. Any client application requesting a
path computation to be performed by a Path Computation Element.
PCE: Path Computation Element. An entity (component, application, or
network node) that is capable of computing a network path or route
based on a network graph and applying computational constraints.
PCE(i) is a PCE with the scope of domain(i).
TED: Traffic Engineering Database.
VSPT: Virtual Shortest Path Tree.
The notion of contiguous, stitched, and nested TE LSPs is defined in
[RFC4726] and will not be repeated here.
Vasseur, et al. Standards Track [Page 4]
RFC 5441 BRPC April 2009
3. General Assumptions
In the rest of this document, we make the following set of
assumptions common to inter-area and inter-AS MPLS TE:
o Each IGP area or Autonomous System (AS) is assumed to be Traffic
Engineering enabled.
o No topology or resource information is distributed between domains
(as mandated per [RFC4105] and [RFC4216]), which is critical to
preserve IGP/BGP scalability and confidentiality.
o While certain constraints like bandwidth can be used across
different domains, other TE constraints (such as resource
affinity, color, metric, etc. [RFC2702]) could be translated at
domain boundaries. If required, it is assumed that, at the domain
boundary nodes, there will exist some sort of local mapping based
on policy agreement, in order to translate such constraints across
domain boundaries during the inter-PCE communication process.
o Each AS can be made of several IGP areas. The path computation
procedure described in this document applies to the case of a
single AS made of multiple IGP areas, multiple ASes made of a
single IGP area, or any combination of the above. For the sake of
simplicity, each AS will be considered to be made of a single area
in this document. The case of an inter-AS TE LSP spanning
multiple ASes, where some of those ASes are themselves made of
multiple IGP areas, can be easily derived from this case by
applying the BRPC procedure described in this document,
recursively.
o The domain path (the set of domains traversed to reach the
destination domain) is either administratively predetermined or
discovered by some means that is outside of the scope of this
document.
4. BRPC Procedure
The BRPC procedure is a multiple-PCE path computation technique as
described in [RFC4655]. A possible model consists of hosting the PCE
function on boundary nodes (e.g., ABR or ASBR), but this is not
mandated by the BRPC procedure.
The BRPC procedure relies on communication between cooperating PCEs.
In particular, the PCC sends a PCReq to a PCE in its domain. The
request is forwarded between PCEs, domain-by-domain, until the PCE
responsible for the domain containing the LSP destination is reached.
The PCE in the destination domain creates a tree of potential paths
Vasseur, et al. Standards Track [Page 5]
RFC 5441 BRPC April 2009
to the destination (the Virtual Shortest Path Tree - VSPT) and passes
this back to the previous PCE in a PCRep. Each PCE in turn adds to
the VSPT and passes it back until the PCE in the source domain uses
the VSPT to select an end-to-end path that the PCE sends to the PCC.
The BRPC procedure does not make any assumption with regards to the
nature of the inter-domain TE LSP that could be contiguous, nested,
or stitched.
Furthermore, no assumption is made on the actual path computation
algorithm in use by a PCE (e.g., it can be any variant of Constrained
Shortest Path First (CSPF) or an algorithm based on linear
programming to solve multi-constraint optimization problems).
4.1. Domain Path Selection
The PCE-based BRPC procedure applies to the computation of an optimal
constrained inter-domain TE LSP. The sequence of domains to be
traversed is either administratively predetermined or discovered by
some means that is outside of the scope of this document. The PCC
MAY indicate the sequence of domains to be traversed using the
Include Route Object (IRO) defined in [RFC5440] so that it is
available to all PCEs. Note also that a sequence of PCEs MAY be
enforced by policy on the PCC, and this constraint can be carried in
the PCEP path computation request (as defined in [PCE-MONITOR]).
The BRPC procedure guarantees to compute the optimal path across a
specific sequence of traversed domains (which constitutes an
additional constraint). In the case of an arbitrary set of meshed
domains, the BRPC procedure can be used to compute the optimal path
across each domain set in order to get the optimal constrained path
between the source and the destination of the TE LSP. The BRPC
procedure can also be used across a subset of all domain sequences,
and the best path among these sequences can then be selected.
4.2. Mode of Operation
Definition of VSPT(i)
In each domain i:
o There is a set of X-en(i) entry BNs noted BN-en(k,i) where
BN-en(k,i) is the kth entry BN of domain(i).
o There is a set of X-ex(i) exit BNs noted BN-ex(k,i) where
BN-ex(k,i) is the kth exit BN of domain(i).
Vasseur, et al. Standards Track [Page 6]
RFC 5441 BRPC April 2009
VSPT(i): MP2P (multipoint-to-point) tree returned by PCE(i) to
PCE(i-1):
Root (TE LSP destination)
/ | \
BN-en(1,i) BN-en(2,i) ... BN-en(j,i).
where [X-en(i)] is the number of
entry BNs in domain i and j<= [X-en(i)]
Figure 1: MP2P Tree
Each link of tree VSPT(i) represents the shortest constrained path
between BN-en(j,i) and the TE LSP destination that satisfies the set
of required constraints for the TE LSP (bandwidth, affinities, etc.).
These are path segments to reach the TE LSP destination from
BN-en(j,i).
Note that PCE(i) only considers the entry BNs of domain(i), i.e.,
only the BNs that provide connectivity from domain(i-1). In other
words, the set BN-en(k,i) is only made of those BNs that provide
connectivity from domain (i-1) to domain(i). Furthermore, some BNs
may be excluded according to policy constraints (either due to local
policy or policies signaled in the path computation request).
Step 1:
First, the PCC needs to determine the PCE capable of serving its path
computation request (this can be done with local configuration or via
IGP discovery (see [RFC5088] and [RFC5089])). The path computation
request is then relayed until reaching a PCE(n) such that the TE LSP
destination resides in the domain(n). At each step of the process,
the next PCE can either be statically configured or dynamically
discovered via IGP/BGP extensions. If no next PCE can be found or
the next-hop PCE of choice is unavailable, the procedure stops and a
path computation error is returned (see Section 9). If PCE(i-1)
discovers multiple PCEs for the adjacent domain(i), PCE(i) may select
a subset of these PCEs based on some local policies or heuristics.
The PCE selection process is outside of the scope of this document.
Step 2:
PCE(n) computes VSPT(n), the tree made of the list of shortest
constrained paths between every BN-en(j,n) and the TE LSP destination
using a suitable path computation algorithm (e.g., CSPF) and returns
the computed VSPT(n) to PCE(n-1).
Vasseur, et al. Standards Track [Page 7]
RFC 5441 BRPC April 2009
Step i:
For i=n-1 to 2: PCE(i) computes VSPT(i), the tree made of the
shortest constrained paths between each BN-en(j,i) and the TE LSP
destination. It does this by considering its own TED and the
information in VSPT(i+1).
In the case of inter-AS TE LSP computation, this also requires adding
the inter-AS TE links that connect the domain(i) to the domain(i+1).
Step n:
Finally, PCE(1) computes the end-to-end shortest constrained path
from the source to the destination and returns the corresponding path
to the requesting PCC in the form of a PCRep message as defined in
[RFC5440].
Each branch of the VSPT tree (path) may be returned in the form of an
explicit path (in which case, all the hops along the path segment are
listed) or a loose path (in which case, only the BN is specified) so
as to preserve confidentiality along with the respective cost. In
the latter case, various techniques can be used in order to retrieve
the computed explicit paths on a per-domain basis during the
signaling process, thanks to the use of path keys as described in
[PATH-KEY].
A PCE that can compute the requested path for more than one
consecutive domain on the path SHOULD perform this computation for
all such domains before passing the PCRep to the previous PCE in the
sequence.
BRPC guarantees to find the optimal (shortest) constrained inter-
domain TE LSP according to a set of defined domains to be traversed.
Note that other variants of the BRPC procedure relying on the same
principles are also possible.
Note also that in case of Equal Cost Multi-Path (ECMP) paths, more
than one path could be returned to the requesting PCC.
5. PCEP Protocol Extensions
The BRPC procedure requires the specification of a new flag of the RP
object carried within the PCReq message (defined in [RFC5440]) to
specify that the shortest paths satisfying the constraints from the
destination to the set of entry boundary nodes are requested (such a
set of paths forms the downstream VSPT as specified in Section 4.2).
Vasseur, et al. Standards Track [Page 8]
RFC 5441 BRPC April 2009
The following new flag of the RP object is defined:
VSPT Flag
Bit Number Name Flag
25 VSPT
When set, the VSPT Flag indicates that the PCC requests the
computation of an inter-domain TE LSP using the BRPC procedure
defined in this document.
Because path segments computed by a downstream PCE in the context of
the BRPC procedure MUST be provided along with their respective path
costs, the C flag of the METRIC object carried within the PCReq
message MUST be set. It is the choice of the requester to
appropriately set the O bit of the RP object.
6. VSPT Encoding
The VSPT is returned within a PCRep message. The encoding consists
of a non-ordered list of Explicit Route Objects (EROs) where each ERO
represents a path segment from a BN to the destination specified in
the END-POINT object of the corresponding PCReq message.
Example:
<---- area 1 ----><---- area 0 -----><------ area 2 ------>
ABR1-A-B-+
| |
ABR2-----D
| |
ABR3--C--+
Figure 2: An Example of VSPT Encoding Using a Set of EROs
In the simple example shown in Figure 2, if we make the assumption
that a constrained path exists between each ABR and the destination
D, the VSPT computed by a PCE serving area 2 consists of the
following non-ordered set of EROs:
o ERO1: ABR1(TE Router ID)-A(Interface IP address)-B(Interface IP
address)-D(TE Router ID)
o ERO2: ABR2(TE Router ID)-D(TE Router ID)
o ERO3: ABR3(TE Router ID)-C(interface IP address)-D(TE Router ID)
The PCReq message, PCRep message, PCEP END-POINT object, and ERO
object are defined in [RFC5440].
Vasseur, et al. Standards Track [Page 9]
RFC 5441 BRPC April 2009
7. Inter-AS TE Links
In the case of inter-AS TE LSP path computation, the BRPC procedure
requires the knowledge of the traffic engineering attributes of the
inter-AS TE links. The process by which the PCE acquires this
information is out of the scope of the BRPC procedure, which is
compliant with the PCE architecture defined in [RFC4655].
That said, a straightforward solution consists of allowing the ASBRs
to flood the TE information related to the inter-ASBR links although
no IGP TE is enabled over those links (there is no IGP adjacency over
the inter-ASBR links). This allows the PCE of a domain to get entire
TE visibility up to the set of entry ASBRs in the downstream domain
(see the IGP extensions defined in [RFC5316] and [RFC5392]).
8. Usage in Conjunction with Per-Domain Path Computation
The BRPC procedure may be used to compute path segments in
conjunction with other path computation techniques (such as the per-
domain path computation technique defined in [RFC5152]) to compute
the end-to-end path. In this case, end-to-end path optimality can no
longer be guaranteed.
9. BRPC Procedure Completion Failure
If the BRPC procedure cannot be completed because a PCE along the
domain does not recognize the procedure (VSPT flag of the RP object),
as stated in [RFC5440], the PCE sends a PCErr message to the upstream
PCE with an Error-Type=4 (Not supported object), Error-value=4
(Unsupported parameter). The PCE may include the parent object (RP
object) up to and including (but no further than) the unknown or
unsupported parameter. In this case where the unknown or unsupported
parameter is a bit flag (VSPT flag), the included RP object should
contain the whole bit flag field with all bits after the parameter at
issue set to zero. The corresponding path computation request is
then cancelled by the PCE without further notification.
If the BRPC procedure cannot be completed because a PCE along the
domain path recognizes but does not support the procedure, it MUST
return a PCErr message to the upstream PCE with an Error-Type "BRPC
procedure completion failure".
The PCErr message MUST be relayed to the requesting PCC.
PCEP-ERROR objects are used to report a PCEP protocol error and are
characterized by an Error-Type that specifies the type of error and
an Error-value that provides additional information about the error
type. Both the Error-Type and the Error-value are managed by IANA.
Vasseur, et al. Standards Track [Page 10]
RFC 5441 BRPC April 2009
A new Error-Type is defined that relates to the BRPC procedure.
Error-Type Meaning
13 BRPC procedure completion failure
Error-value
1: BRPC procedure not supported by one or more PCEs
along the domain path
10. Applicability
As discussed in Section 3, the requirements for inter-area and
inter-AS MPLS Traffic Engineering have been developed by the Traffic
Engineering Working Group (TE WG) and have been stated in [RFC4105]
and [RFC4216], respectively. Among the set of requirements, both
documents indicate the need for some solution that provides the
ability to compute an optimal (shortest) constrained inter-domain TE
LSP and to compute a set of diverse inter-domain TE LSPs.
10.1. Diverse End-to-End Path Computation
PCEP (see [RFC5440]) allows a PCC to request the computation of a set
of diverse TE LSPs by setting the SVEC object's flags L, N, or S to
request link, node, or SRLG (Shared Risk Link Group) diversity,
respectively. Such requests MUST be taken into account by each PCE
along the path computation chain during the VSPT computation. In the
context of the BRPC procedure, a set of diversely routed TE LSPs
between two LSRs can be computed since the path segments of the VSPT
are simultaneously computed by a given PCE. The BRPC procedure
allows for the computation of diverse paths under various objective
functions (such as minimizing the sum of the costs of the N diverse
paths, etc.).
By contrast, with a 2-step approach consisting of computing the first
path followed by computing the second path after having removed the
set of network elements traversed by the first path (if that does not
violate confidentiality preservation), one cannot guarantee that a
solution will be found even if such solution exists. Furthermore,
even if a solution is found, it may not be the most optimal one with
respect to an objective function such as minimizing the sum of the
paths' costs, bounding the path delays of both paths, and so on.
Finally, it must be noted that such a 2-step path computation
approach is usually less efficient in terms of signaling delays since
it requires that two serialized TE LSPs be set up.
Vasseur, et al. Standards Track [Page 11]
RFC 5441 BRPC April 2009
10.2. Path Optimality
BRPC guarantees that the optimal (shortest) constrained inter-domain
path will always be found, subject to policy constraints. Both in
the case where local path computation techniques are used (such as to
build stitched or nested TE LSPs), and in the case where a domain has
more than one BN-en or more than one BN-ex, it is only possible to
guarantee optimality after some network change within the domain by
completely re-executing the BRPC procedure.
11. Reoptimization of an Inter-Domain TE LSP
The ability to reoptimize an existing inter-domain TE LSP path has
been explicitly listed as a requirement in [RFC4105] and [RFC4216].
In the case of a TE LSP reoptimization request, the reoptimization
procedure defined in [RFC5440] applies when the path in use (if
available on the head-end) is provided as part of the path
computation request so that the PCEs involved in the reoptimization
request can avoid double bandwidth accounting.
12. Path Computation Failure
If a PCE requires to relay a path computation request according to
the BRPC procedure defined in this document to a downstream PCE and
no such PCE is available, the PCE MUST send a negative path
computation reply to the requester using a PCReq message as specified
in [RFC5440] that contains a NO-PATH object. In such case, the
NO-PATH object MUST carry a NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV (defined in [RFC5440])
with the newly defined bit named "BRPC path computation chain
unavailable" set.
Bit number Name Flag
28 BRPC path computation chain unavailable
13. Metric Normalization
In the case of inter-area TE, the same IGP/TE metric scheme is
usually adopted for all the IGP areas (e.g., based on the link-speed,
propagation delay, or some other combination of link attributes).
Hence, the proposed set of mechanisms always computes the shortest
path across multiple areas that obey the required set of constraints
with respect to a specified objective function. Conversely, in the
case of inter-AS TE, in order for this path computation to be
meaningful, metric normalization between ASes may be required. One
solution to avoid IGP metric modification would be for the service
providers to agree on a TE metric normalization scheme and use the TE
Vasseur, et al. Standards Track [Page 12]
RFC 5441 BRPC April 2009
metric for TE LSP path computation (in that case, the use of the TE
metric must be requested in the PCEP path computation request) using
the METRIC object (defined in [RFC5440]).
14. Manageability Considerations
This section follows the guidance of [PCE-MANAGE].
14.1. Control of Function and Policy
The only configurable item is the support of the BRPC procedure on a
PCE. The support of the BRPC procedure by the PCE MAY be controlled
by a policy module governing the conditions under which a PCE should
participate in the BRPC procedure (origin of the requests, number of
requests per second, etc.). If the BRPC is not supported/allowed on
a PCE, it MUST send a PCErr message as specified in Section 9.
14.2. Information and Data Models
A BRPC MIB module will be specified in a separate document.
14.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring
The BRPC procedure is a multiple-PCE path computation technique and,
as such, a set of PCEs are involved in the path computation chain.
If the path computation chain is not operational either because at
least one PCE does not support the BRPC procedure or because one of
the PCEs that must be involved in the path computation chain is not
available, procedures are defined to report such failures in Sections
9 and 12, respectively. Furthermore, a built-in diagnostic tool to
check the availability and performances of a PCE chain is defined in
[PCE-MONITOR].
14.4. Verifying Correct Operation
Verifying the correct operation of BRPC can be performed by
monitoring a set of parameters. A BRPC implementation SHOULD provide
the following parameters:
o Number of successful BRPC procedure completions on a per-PCE-peer
basis
o Number of BRPC procedure completion failures because the VSPT flag
was not recognized (on a per-PCE-peer basis)
o Number of BRPC procedure completion failures because the BRPC
procedure was not supported (on a per-PCE-peer basis)
Vasseur, et al. Standards Track [Page 13]
RFC 5441 BRPC April 2009
14.5. Requirements on Other Protocols and Functional Components
The BRPC procedure does not put any new requirements on other
protocols. That said, since the BRPC procedure relies on the PCEP
protocol, there is a dependency between BRPC and PCEP; consequently,
the BRPC procedure inherently makes use of the management functions
developed for PCEP.
14.6. Impact on Network Operation
The BRPC procedure does not have any significant impact on network
operation: indeed, BRPC is a multiple-PCE path computation scheme as
defined in [RFC4655] and does not differ from any other path
computation request.
14.7. Path Computation Chain Monitoring
[PCE-MONITOR] specifies a set of mechanisms that can be used to
gather PCE state metrics. Because BRPC is a multiple-PCE path
computation technique, such mechanisms could be advantageously used
in the context of the BRPC procedure to check the liveness of the
path computation chain, locate a faulty component, monitor the
overall performance, and so on.
15. IANA Considerations
15.1. New Flag of the RP Object
A new flag of the RP object (specified in [RFC5440]) is defined in
this document. IANA maintains a registry of RP object flags in the
"RP Object Flag Field" sub-registry of the "Path Computation Element
Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry.
IANA has allocated the following value:
Bit Description Reference
25 VSPT This document
15.2. New Error-Type and Error-Value
IANA maintains a registry of Error-Types and Error-values for use in
PCEP messages. This is maintained as the "PCEP-ERROR Object Error
Types and Values" sub-registry of the "Path Computation Element
Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry.
Vasseur, et al. Standards Track [Page 14]
RFC 5441 BRPC April 2009
A new Error-value is defined for the Error-Type "Not supported
object" (type 4).
Error-Type Meaning and error values Reference
4 Not supported object
Error-value=4: Unsupported parameter This document
A new Error-Type is defined in this document as follows:
Error-Type Meaning Reference
13 BRPC procedure completion failure This document
Error-value=1: BRPC procedure not This document
supported by one or more PCEs along
the domain path
15.3. New Flag of the NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV
A new flag of the NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV defined in [RFC5440]) is
specified in this document.
IANA maintains a registry of flags for the NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV in the
"NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV Flag Field" sub-registry of the "Path Computation
Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry.
IANA has allocated the following allocation value:
Bit number Meaning Reference
4 BRPC path computation This document
chain unavailable
16. Security Considerations
The BRPC procedure relies on the use of the PCEP protocol and as such
is subjected to the potential attacks listed in Section 10 of
[RFC5440]. In addition to the security mechanisms described in
[RFC5440] with regards to spoofing, snooping, falsification, and
denial of service, an implementation MAY support a policy module
governing the conditions under which a PCE should participate in the
BRPC procedure.
The BRPC procedure does not increase the information exchanged
between ASes and preserves topology confidentiality, in compliance
with [RFC4105] and [RFC4216].
Vasseur, et al. Standards Track [Page 15]
RFC 5441 BRPC April 2009
17. Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Arthi Ayyangar, Dimitri
Papadimitriou, Siva Sivabalan, Meral Shirazipour, and Mach Chen for
their useful comments. A special thanks to Adrian Farrel for his
useful comments and suggestions.
18. References
18.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC5440] Vasseur, J., Ed. and J. Roux, Ed., "Path Computation
Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)",
RFC 5440, April 2009.
18.2. Informative References
[PATH-KEY] Bradford, R., Vasseur, J., and A. Farrel, "Preserving
Topology Confidentiality in Inter-Domain Path
Computation Using a Key-Based Mechanism", Work in
Progress, November 2008.
[PCE-MANAGE] Farrel, A., "Inclusion of Manageability Sections in
PCE Working Group Drafts", Work in Progress,
January 2009.
[PCE-MONITOR] Vasseur, J., Roux, J., and Y. Ikejiri, "A set of
monitoring tools for Path Computation Element based
Architecture", Work in Progress, November 2008.
[RFC2702] Awduche, D., Malcolm, J., Agogbua, J., O'Dell, M., and
J. McManus, "Requirements for Traffic Engineering Over
MPLS", RFC 2702, September 1999.
[RFC4105] Le Roux, J., Vasseur, J., and J. Boyle, "Requirements
for Inter-Area MPLS Traffic Engineering", RFC 4105,
June 2005.
[RFC4216] Zhang, R. and J. Vasseur, "MPLS Inter-Autonomous
System (AS) Traffic Engineering (TE) Requirements",
RFC 4216, November 2005.
[RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J., and J. Ash, "A Path
Computation Element (PCE)-Based Architecture",
RFC 4655, August 2006.
Vasseur, et al. Standards Track [Page 16]
RFC 5441 BRPC April 2009
[RFC4726] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J., and A. Ayyangar, "A Framework
for Inter-Domain Multiprotocol Label Switching Traffic
Engineering", RFC 4726, November 2006.
[RFC5088] Le Roux, JL., Vasseur, JP., Ikejiri, Y., and R. Zhang,
"OSPF Protocol Extensions for Path Computation Element
(PCE) Discovery", RFC 5088, January 2008.
[RFC5089] Le Roux, JL., Vasseur, JP., Ikejiri, Y., and R. Zhang,
"IS-IS Protocol Extensions for Path Computation
Element (PCE) Discovery", RFC 5089, January 2008.
[RFC5152] Vasseur, JP., Ayyangar, A., and R. Zhang, "A Per-
Domain Path Computation Method for Establishing Inter-
Domain Traffic Engineering (TE) Label Switched Paths
(LSPs)", RFC 5152, February 2008.
[RFC5316] Chen, M., Zhang, R., and X. Duan, "ISIS Extensions in
Support of Inter-Autonomous System (AS) MPLS and GMPLS
Traffic Engineering", RFC 5316, December 2008.
[RFC5392] Chen, M., Zhang, R., and X. Duan, "OSPF Extensions in
Support of Inter-Autonomous System (AS) MPLS and GMPLS
Traffic Engineering", RFC 5392, January 2009.
Vasseur, et al. Standards Track [Page 17]
RFC 5441 BRPC April 2009
Authors' Addresses
JP Vasseur (editor)
Cisco Systems, Inc
1414 Massachusetts Avenue
Boxborough, MA 01719
USA
EMail: jpv@cisco.com
Raymond Zhang
BT Infonet
2160 E. Grand Ave.
El Segundo, CA 90025
USA
EMail: raymond.zhang@bt.com
Nabil Bitar
Verizon
117 West Street
Waltham, MA 02451
USA
EMail: nabil.n.bitar@verizon.com
JL Le Roux
France Telecom
2, Avenue Pierre-Marzin
Lannion, 22307
FRANCE
EMail: jeanlouis.leroux@orange-ftgroup.com
Vasseur, et al. Standards Track [Page 18]