Applicability of a Stateful Path Computation Element (PCE)
RFC 8051
| Document | Type | RFC - Informational (January 2017) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Xian Zhang , Ina Minei | ||
| Last updated | 2017-01-06 | ||
| Replaces | draft-zhang-pce-stateful-pce-app | ||
| Stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Reviews |
RTGDIR Early review
(of
-06)
Has Issues
|
||
| Stream | WG state | Submitted to IESG for Publication | |
| Document shepherd | Jonathan Hardwick | ||
| Shepherd write-up | Show Last changed 2016-07-26 | ||
| IESG | IESG state | RFC 8051 (Informational) | |
| Action Holders |
(None)
|
||
| Consensus boilerplate | Yes | ||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | Deborah Brungard | ||
| Send notices to | "Jonathan Hardwick" <jonathan.hardwick@metaswitch.com> | ||
| IANA | IANA review state | Version Changed - Review Needed | |
| IANA action state | No IANA Actions |
RFC 8051
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) X. Zhang, Ed.
Request for Comments: 8051 Huawei Technologies
Category: Informational I. Minei, Ed.
ISSN: 2070-1721 Google, Inc.
January 2017
Applicability of a Stateful Path Computation Element (PCE)
Abstract
A stateful Path Computation Element (PCE) maintains information about
Label Switched Path (LSP) characteristics and resource usage within a
network in order to provide traffic-engineering calculations for its
associated Path Computation Clients (PCCs). This document describes
general considerations for a stateful PCE deployment and examines its
applicability and benefits, as well as its challenges and
limitations, through a number of use cases. PCE Communication
Protocol (PCEP) extensions required for stateful PCE usage are
covered in separate documents.
Status of This Memo
This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
published for informational purposes.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Not all documents
approved by the IESG are a candidate for any level of Internet
Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 7841.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8051.
Zhang & Minei Informational [Page 1]
RFC 8051 Applicability for a Stateful PCE January 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
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Application Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. Optimization of LSP Placement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1.1. Throughput Maximization and Bin Packing . . . . . . . 6
3.1.2. Deadlock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.1.3. Minimum Perturbation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.1.4. Predictability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.2. Auto-Bandwidth Adjustment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.3. Bandwidth Scheduling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.4. Recovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.4.1. Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.4.2. Restoration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.4.3. SRLG Diversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.5. Maintenance of Virtual Network Topology (VNT) . . . . . . 15
3.6. LSP Reoptimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.7. Resource Defragmentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3.8. Point-to-Multipoint Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3.9. Impairment-Aware Routing and Wavelength Assignment
(IA-RWA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4. Deployment Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
4.1. Multi-PCE Deployments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
4.2. LSP State Synchronization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
4.3. PCE Survivability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Zhang & Minei Informational [Page 2]
RFC 8051 Applicability for a Stateful PCE January 2017
1. Introduction
[RFC4655] defines the architecture for a model based on the Path
Computation Element (PCE) for the computation of Multiprotocol Label
Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering
Label Switched Paths (TE LSPs). To perform such a constrained
computation, a PCE stores the network topology (i.e., TE links and
nodes) and resource information (i.e., TE attributes) in its TE
Database (TED). [RFC5440] describes the Path Computation Element
Protocol (PCEP) for interaction between a Path Computation Client
(PCC) and a PCE, or between two PCEs, enabling computation of TE
LSPs.
As per [RFC4655], a PCE can be either stateful or stateless. A
stateful PCE maintains two sets of information for use in path
computation. The first is the Traffic Engineering Database (TED),
which includes the topology and resource state in the network. This
information can be obtained by a stateful PCE using the same
mechanisms as a stateless PCE (see [RFC4655]). The second is the LSP
State Database (LSP-DB), in which a PCE stores attributes of all
active LSPs in the network, such as their paths through the network,
bandwidth/resource usage, switching types, and LSP constraints. This
state information allows the PCE to compute constrained paths while
considering individual LSPs and their inter-dependency. However,
this requires reliable state synchronization mechanisms between the
PCE and the network, between the PCE and the PCCs, and between
cooperating PCEs, with potentially significant control-plane overhead
and maintenance of a large amount of state data, as explained in
[RFC4655].
This document describes how a stateful PCE can be used to solve
various problems for MPLS-TE and GMPLS networks and the benefits it
brings to such deployments. Note that alternative solutions relying
on stateless PCEs may also be possible for some of these use cases
and will be mentioned for completeness where appropriate.
Zhang & Minei Informational [Page 3]
RFC 8051 Applicability for a Stateful PCE January 2017
2. Terminology
This document uses the following terms defined in [RFC5440]: PCC,
PCE, and PCEP peer.
This document defines the following terms:
Stateful PCE: a PCE that has access to not only the network state,
but also to the set of active paths and their reserved resources
for its computations. A stateful PCE might also retain
information regarding LSPs under construction in order to reduce
churn and resource contention. The additional state allows the
PCE to compute constrained paths while considering individual LSPs
and their interactions. Note that this requires reliable state
synchronization mechanisms between the PCE and the network, PCE
and PCC, and between cooperating PCEs.
Passive Stateful PCE: a PCE that uses LSP state information learned
from PCCs to optimize path computations. It does not actively
update LSP state. A PCC maintains synchronization with the PCE.
Active Stateful PCE: a PCE that may issue recommendations to the
network. For example, an Active Stateful PCE may use the
Delegation mechanism to update LSP parameters in those PCCs that
delegate control over their LSPs to the PCE.
Delegation: an operation to grant a PCE temporary rights to modify a
subset of LSP parameters on one or more LSPs of a PCC. LSPs are
delegated from a PCC to a PCE and are referred to as "delegated"
LSPs. The PCC that owns the PCE state for the LSP has the right
to delegate it. An LSP is owned by a single PCC at any given
point in time. For intra-domain LSPs, this PCC should be the LSP
head end.
LSP State Database: information about all LSPs and their attributes.
PCE Initiation: assuming LSP delegation granted by default, a PCE
can issue recommendations to the network.
Minimum Cut Set: the minimum set of links for a specific source
destination pair that, when removed from the network, results in a
specific source being completely isolated from a specific
destination. The summed capacity of these links is equivalent to
the maximum capacity from the source to the destination by the
max-flow min-cut theorem.
Zhang & Minei Informational [Page 4]
RFC 8051 Applicability for a Stateful PCE January 2017
3. Application Scenarios
In the following sections, several use cases are described,
showcasing scenarios that benefit from the deployment of a stateful
PCE.
3.1. Optimization of LSP Placement
The following use cases demonstrate a need for visibility into global
LSP states in PCE path computations, and for a PCE control of
sequence and timing in altering LSP path characteristics within and
across PCEP sessions. Reference topologies for the use cases
described later in this section are shown in Figures 1 and 2.
Some of the use cases below are focused on MPLS-TE deployments but
may also apply to GMPLS. Unless otherwise cited, use cases assume
that all LSPs listed exist at the same LSP priority.
The main benefit in the cases below comes from moving away from an
asynchronous PCC-driven mode of operation to a model that allows for
central control over LSP computations and maintenance, and focuses
specifically on the active stateful PCE model of operation.
+-----+
| A |
+-----+
\
+-----+ +-----+
| C |----------------------| E |
+-----+ +-----+
/ \ +-----+ /
+-----+ +-----| D |-----+
| B | +-----+
+-----+
Figure 1: Reference Topology 1
+-----+ +-----+ +-----+
| A | | B | | C |
+--+--+ +--+--+ +--+--+
| | |
| | |
+--+--+ +--+--+ +--+--+
| E +--------+ F +--------+ G |
+-----+ +-----+ +-----+
Figure 2: Reference Topology 2
Zhang & Minei Informational [Page 5]
RFC 8051 Applicability for a Stateful PCE January 2017
3.1.1. Throughput Maximization and Bin Packing
Because LSP attribute changes in [RFC5440] are driven by Path
Computation Request (PCReq) messages under control of a PCC's local
timers, the sequence of resource reservation arrivals occurring in
the network will be randomized. This, coupled with a lack of global
LSP state visibility on the part of a stateless PCE, may result in
suboptimal throughput in a given network topology, as will be shown
in the example below.
Reference Topology 2 in Figure 2 and Tables 1 and 2 show an example
in which throughput is at 50% of optimal as a result of the lack of
visibility and synchronized control across PCCs. In this scenario,
the decision must be made as to whether to route any portion of the
E-G demand, as any demand routed for this source and destination will
decrease system throughput.
+------+--------+----------+
| Link | Metric | Capacity |
+------+--------+----------+
| A-E | 1 | 10 |
| B-F | 1 | 10 |
| C-G | 1 | 10 |
| E-F | 1 | 10 |
| F-G | 1 | 10 |
+------+--------+----------+
Table 1: Link Parameters for Throughput Use Case
+------+-----+-----+-----+--------+----------+-------+
| Time | LSP | Src | Dst | Demand | Routable | Path |
+------+-----+-----+-----+--------+----------+-------+
| 1 | 1 | E | G | 10 | Yes | E-F-G |
| 2 | 2 | A | B | 10 | No | --- |
| 3 | 1 | F | C | 10 | No | --- |
+------+-----+-----+-----+--------+----------+-------+
Table 2: Throughput Use Case Demand Time Series
In many cases, throughput maximization becomes a bin-packing problem.
While bin packing itself is an NP-hard problem, a number of common
heuristics that run in polynomial time can provide significant
improvements in throughput over random reservation event
distribution, especially when traversing links that are members of
the minimum cut set for a large subset of source destination pairs.
Zhang & Minei Informational [Page 6]
RFC 8051 Applicability for a Stateful PCE January 2017
Tables 3 and 4 show a simple use case using Reference Topology 1 in
Figure 1, where LSP state visibility and control of reservation order
across PCCs would result in significant improvement in total
throughput.
+------+--------+----------+
| Link | Metric | Capacity |
+------+--------+----------+
| A-C | 1 | 10 |
| B-C | 1 | 10 |
| C-E | 10 | 5 |
| C-D | 1 | 10 |
| D-E | 1 | 10 |
+------+--------+----------+
Table 3: Link Parameters for Bin-Packing Use Case
+------+-----+-----+-----+--------+----------+---------+
| Time | LSP | Src | Dst | Demand | Routable | Path |
+------+-----+-----+-----+--------+----------+---------+
| 1 | 1 | A | E | 5 | Yes | A-C-D-E |
| 2 | 2 | B | E | 10 | No | --- |
+------+-----+-----+-----+--------+----------+---------+
Table 4: Bin-Packing Use Case Demand Time Series
3.1.2. Deadlock
This section discusses the use case of cross-LSP impact under
degraded operation. Most existing RSVP-TE implementations will not
tear down established LSPs in the event of the failure of the
bandwidth increase procedure detailed in [RFC3209]. This behavior is
directly implied to be correct in [RFC3209] and is often desirable
from an operator's perspective, because either a) the destination
prefixes are not reachable via any means other than MPLS or b) this
would result in significant packet loss as demand is shifted to other
LSPs in the overlay mesh.
In addition, there are currently few implementations offering dynamic
ingress admission control (policing of the traffic volume mapped onto
an LSP) at the Label Edge Router (LER). Having ingress admission
control on a per-LSP basis is not necessarily desirable from an
operational perspective, as a) one must over-provision tunnels
significantly in order to avoid deleterious effects resulting from
stacked transport and flow control systems (for example, for tunnels
that are dynamically resized based on current traffic) and b) there
is currently no efficient commonly available northbound interface for
dynamic configuration of per-LSP ingress admission control.
Zhang & Minei Informational [Page 7]
RFC 8051 Applicability for a Stateful PCE January 2017
Lack of ingress admission control coupled with the behavior in
[RFC3209] may result in LSPs operating out of profile for significant
periods of time. It is reasonable to expect that these out-of-
profile LSPs will be operating in a degraded state and experience
traffic loss. Moreover, because those LSPs end up sharing common
network interfaces with other LPSs operating within their bandwidth
reservations, they will impact the operation of the in-profile LSPs,
even when there is unused network capacity elsewhere in the network.
Furthermore, this behavior will cause information loss in the TED
with regards to the actual available bandwidth on the links used by
the out-of-profile LSPs, as the reservations on the links no longer
reflect the capacity used.
Reference Topology 1 in Figure 1 and Tables 5 and 6 show a use case
that demonstrates this behavior. Two LSPs, LSP 1 and LSP 2, are
signaled with demand 2 and routed along paths A-C-D-E and B-C-D-E,
respectively. At a later time, the demand of LSP 1 increases to 20.
Under such a demand, the LSP cannot be resignaled. However, the
existing LSP will not be torn down. In the absence of ingress
policing, traffic on LSP 1 will cause degradation for traffic of LSP
2 (due to oversubscription on the links C-D and D-E), as well as
information loss in the TED with regard to the actual network state.
The problem could be easily ameliorated by global visibility of the
LSP state coupled with PCC-external demand measurements and placement
of two LSPs on disjoint links. Note that while the demand of 20 for
LSP 1 could never be satisfied in the given topology, isolation from
the ill-effects of the (unsatisfiable) increased demand could be
achieved.
+------+--------+----------+
| Link | Metric | Capacity |
+------+--------+----------+
| A-C | 1 | 10 |
| B-C | 1 | 10 |
| C-E | 10 | 5 |
| C-D | 1 | 10 |
| D-E | 1 | 10 |
+------+--------+----------+
Table 5: Link Parameters for the 'Degraded Operation' Example
Zhang & Minei Informational [Page 8]
RFC 8051 Applicability for a Stateful PCE January 2017
+------+-----+-----+-----+--------+----------+---------+
| Time | LSP | Src | Dst | Demand | Routable | Path |
+------+-----+-----+-----+--------+----------+---------+
| 1 | 1 | A | E | 2 | Yes | A-C-D-E |
| 2 | 2 | B | E | 2 | Yes | B-C-D-E |
| 3 | 1 | A | E | 20 | No | --- |
+------+-----+-----+-----+--------+----------+---------+
Table 6: 'Degraded Operation' Demand Time Series
3.1.3. Minimum Perturbation
As a result of both the lack of visibility into the global LSP state
and the lack of control over event ordering across PCE sessions,
unnecessary perturbations may be introduced into the network by a
stateless PCE. Tables 7 and 8 show an example of an unnecessary
network perturbation using Reference Topology 1 in Figure 1. In this
case, an unimportant (high LSP priority value) LSP (LSP1) is first
set up along the shortest path. At time 2, which is assumed to be
relatively close to time 1, a second more important (lower LSP-
priority value) LSP (LSP2) is established, preempting LSP1
potentially causing traffic loss. LSP1 is then reestablished on the
longer A-C-E path.
+------+--------+----------+
| Link | Metric | Capacity |
+------+--------+----------+
| A-C | 1 | 10 |
| B-C | 1 | 10 |
| C-E | 10 | 10 |
| C-D | 1 | 10 |
| D-E | 1 | 10 |
+------+--------+----------+
Table 7: Link Parameters for the 'Minimum-Perturbation' Example
+------+-----+-----+-----+--------+----------+----------+---------+
| Time | LSP | Src | Dst | Demand | LSP Prio | Routable | Path |
+------+-----+-----+-----+--------+----------+----------+---------+
| 1 | 1 | A | E | 7 | 7 | Yes | A-C-D-E |
| 2 | 2 | B | E | 7 | 0 | Yes | B-C-D-E |
| 3 | 1 | A | E | 7 | 7 | Yes | A-C-E |
+------+-----+-----+-----+--------+----------+----------+---------+
Table 8: 'Minimum-Perturbation' LSP and Demand Time Series
Zhang & Minei Informational [Page 9]
RFC 8051 Applicability for a Stateful PCE January 2017
A stateful PCE can help in this scenario by computing both routes at
the same time. The advantages of using a stateful PCE over
exploiting a stateless PCE via Global Concurrent Optimization (GCO)
are threefold. First is the ability to accommodate concurrent path
computation from different PCCs. Second is the reduction of control-
plane overhead since the stateful PCE has the route information of
the affected LSPs. Thirdly, the stateful PCE can use the LSP-DB to
further optimize the placement of LSPs. This will ensure placement
of the more important LSP along the shortest path, avoiding the setup
and subsequent preemption of the lower priority LSP. Similarly, when
a new higher priority LSP that requires preemption of an existing
lower priority LSP(s), a stateful PCE can determine the minimum
number of lower priority LSPs to reroute using the Make-Before-Break
(MBB) mechanism without disrupting any service and then set up the
higher priority LSP.
3.1.4. Predictability
Randomization of reservation events caused by lack of control over
event ordering across PCE sessions results in poor predictability in
LSP routing. An offline system applying a consistent optimization
method will produce predictable results to within either the boundary
of forecast error (when reservations are over-provisioned by
reasonable margins) or to the variability of the signal and the
forecast error (when applying some hysteresis in order to minimize
churn). Predictable results are valuable for being able to simulate
the network and reliably test it under various scenarios, especially
under various failure modes and planned maintenances when predictable
path characteristics are desired under contention for network
resources.
Reference Topology 1 and Tables 9, 10, and 11 show the impact of
event ordering and predictability of LSP routing.
+------+--------+----------+
| Link | Metric | Capacity |
+------+--------+----------+
| A-C | 1 | 10 |
| B-C | 1 | 10 |
| C-E | 1 | 10 |
| C-D | 1 | 10 |
| D-E | 1 | 10 |
+------+--------+----------+
Table 9: Link Parameters for the 'Predictability' Example
Zhang & Minei Informational [Page 10]
RFC 8051 Applicability for a Stateful PCE January 2017
+------+-----+-----+-----+--------+----------+---------+
| Time | LSP | Src | Dst | Demand | Routable | Path |
+------+-----+-----+-----+--------+----------+---------+
| 1 | 1 | A | E | 7 | Yes | A-C-E |
| 2 | 2 | B | E | 7 | Yes | B-C-D-E |
+------+-----+-----+-----+--------+----------+---------+
Table 10: 'Predictability' LSP and Demand Time Series 1
+------+-----+-----+-----+--------+----------+---------+
| Time | LSP | Src | Dst | Demand | Routable | Path |
+------+-----+-----+-----+--------+----------+---------+
| 1 | 2 | B | E | 7 | Yes | B-C-E |
| 2 | 1 | A | E | 7 | Yes | A-C-D-E |
+------+-----+-----+-----+--------+----------+---------+
Table 11: 'Predictability' LSP and Demand Time Series 2
As can be shown in the example, both LSPs are routed in both cases,
but along very different paths. This would be a challenge if
reliable simulation of the network is attempted. An active stateful
PCE can solve this through control over LSP ordering. Based on
triggers such as a failure or an optimization trigger, the PCE can
order the computations and path setup in a deterministic way.
3.2. Auto-Bandwidth Adjustment
The bandwidth requirements of LSPs often change over time, requiring
LSP resizing. In most implementations available today, the head-end
node performs this function by monitoring the actual bandwidth usage,
triggering a recomputation and resignaling when a threshold is
reached. This operation is referred to as "auto-bandwidth
adjustment". The head-end node either recomputes the path locally,
or it requests a recomputation from a PCE by sending a PCReq message.
In the latter case, the PCE computes a new path and provides the new
route suggestion. Upon receiving the reply from the PCE, the PCC
resignals the LSP in Shared-Explicit (SE) mode along the newly
computed path. With a stateless PCE, the head-end node needs to
provide the currently used bandwidth and the route information via
path computation request messages. Note that in this scenario, the
head-end node is the one that drives the LSP resizing based on local
information, and that the difference between using a stateless and a
passive stateful PCE is in the level of optimization of the LSP
placement as discussed in the previous section.
A more interesting smart bandwidth adjustment case is one where the
LSP resizing decision is done by an external entity with access to
additional information such as historical trending data, application-
Zhang & Minei Informational [Page 11]
RFC 8051 Applicability for a Stateful PCE January 2017
specific information about expected demands or policy information, as
well as knowledge of the actual desired flow volumes. In this case,
an active stateful PCE provides an advantage in both the computation
with knowledge of all LSPs in the domain and in the ability to
trigger bandwidth modification of the LSP.
3.3. Bandwidth Scheduling
Bandwidth scheduling allows network operators to reserve resources in
advance according to the agreements with their customers and allows
them to transmit data with a specified starting time and duration,
for example, for a scheduled bulk data replication between data
centers.
Traditionally, this can be supported by Network Management System
(NMS) operation through path pre-establishment and activation on the
agreed starting time. However, this does not provide efficient
network usage since the established paths exclude the possibility of
being used by other services even when they are not used for
undertaking any service. It can also be accomplished through GMPLS
protocol extensions by carrying the related request information
(e.g., starting time and duration) across the network. Nevertheless,
this method inevitably increases the complexity of the signaling and
routing process.
A passive stateful PCE can support this application with better
efficiency since it can alleviate the burden of processing on network
elements. This requires the PCE to maintain the scheduled LSPs and
their associated resource usage, as well as the ability of head-ends
to trigger signaling for LSP setup/deletion at the correct time.
This approach requires coarse time synchronization between PCEs and
PCCs. With PCE initiation capability, a PCE can trigger the setup
and deletion of scheduled requests in a centralized manner, without
modification of existing head-end behaviors, by notifying the PCCs to
set up or tear down the paths.
3.4. Recovery
The recovery use cases discussed in the following sections show how
leveraging a stateful PCE can simplify the computation of recovery
path(s). In particular, two characteristics of a stateful PCE are
used: 1) using information stored in the LSP-DB for determining
shared protection resources and 2) performing computations with
knowledge of all LSPs in a domain.
Zhang & Minei Informational [Page 12]
RFC 8051 Applicability for a Stateful PCE January 2017
3.4.1. Protection
If a PCC can specify in a request whether the computation is for a
working path or for protection and a PCC can report the resource as a
working or protection path, then the following text applies. A PCC
can send multiple requests to the PCE, asking for two LSPs, and use
them as working and backup paths separately. Either way, the
resources bound to backup paths can be shared by different LSPs to
improve the overall network efficiency, such as m:n protection or
pre-configured shared mesh recovery techniques as specified in
[RFC4427]. If resource sharing is supported for LSP protection, the
information relating to existing LSPs is required to avoid allocation
of shared protection resources to two LSPs that might fail together
and cause protection contention issues. A stateless PCE can
accommodate this use case by having the PCC pass this information as
a constraint in the path computation request. A passive stateful PCE
can more easily accommodate this need using the information stored in
its LSP-DB. Furthermore, an active stateful PCE can help with
(re)optimization of protection resource sharing as well as LSP
maintenance operation with less impact on protection resources.
+----+
|PCE |
+----+
+------+ +------+ +------+
| A +----------+ B +----------+ C |
+--+---+ +---+--+ +---+--+
| | |
| +---------+ |
| | |
| +--+---+ +------+ |
+-----+ E +----------+ D +-----+
+------+ +------+
Figure 3: Reference Topology 3
For example, in the network depicted in Figure 3, suppose there
exists LSP1 with working path LSP1_working following A->E and with
backup path LSP1_backup following A->B->E. A request arrives asking
for a working and backup path pair to be computed for LSP2 from B to
E. If the PCE decides LSP2_working follows B->A->E, then the backup
path LSP2_backup should not share the same protection resource with
LSP1 since LSP2 shares part of its resource (specifically A->E) with
LSP1 (i.e., these two LSPs are in the same shared risk group). There
is no such constraint if B->C->D->E is chosen for LSP2_working.
Zhang & Minei Informational [Page 13]
RFC 8051 Applicability for a Stateful PCE January 2017
If a stateless PCE is used, the head node B needs to be aware of the
existence of LSPs that share the route of LSP2_working and of the
details of their protection resources. B must pass this information
to the PCE as a constraint so as to request a path with diversity.
Alternatively, a stateless PCE may be able to compute paths
diversified by SRLG (Shared Risk Link Group) if TED is extended so
that it includes the SRLG information that is protected by a given
backup resource, but at the expense of a high complexity in routing.
On the other hand, a stateful PCE can get the LSPs information by
itself given the LSP identifier(s) and can then find SRLG-diversified
protection paths for both LSPs. This is made possible by comparing
the LSP resource usage exploiting the LSP-DB accessible by the
stateful PCE.
3.4.2. Restoration
In case of a link failure, such as a fiber cut, multiple LSPs may
fail at the same time. Thus, the source nodes of the affected LSPs
will be informed of the failure by the nodes detecting the failure.
These source nodes will send requests to a PCE for rerouting. In
order to reuse the resource taken by an existing LSP, the source node
can send a PCReq message that includes the Exclude Route Object (XRO)
with Fail (F) bit set together with the Record Route Object (RRO)
that contains the current route information, as specified in
[RFC5521].
If a stateless PCE is used, it might respond to the rerouting
requests separately if the requests arrive at different times. Thus,
it might result in suboptimal resource usage. Even worse, it might
unnecessarily block some of the rerouting requests due to
insufficient resources for rerouting messages that arrive later. If
a passive stateful PCE is used to fulfill this task, the procedure
can be simplified. The PCCs reporting the failures can include LSP
identifiers instead of detailed information, and the PCE can find
relevant LSP information by inspecting the LSP-DB. Moreover, the PCE
can recompute the affected LSPs concurrently while reusing part of
the existing LSP's resources when it is informed of the failed link
identifier provided by the first request. This is made possible
because the passive stateful PCE can check what other LSPs are
affected by the failed link and their route information by inspecting
its LSP-DB. As a result, a better performance can be achieved, such
as better resource usage or minimal probability of blocking upcoming
new rerouting requests sent as a result of the link failure.
If the target is to avoid resource contention within the time window
of a high number of LSP rerouting requests, a stateful PCE can retain
the under-construction LSP resource usage information for a given
time and exclude it from being used for a forthcoming LSP's request.
Zhang & Minei Informational [Page 14]
RFC 8051 Applicability for a Stateful PCE January 2017
In this way, it can ensure that the resource will not be double-
booked; thus, the issue of resource contention and computation crank-
backs can be alleviated.
3.4.3. SRLG Diversity
An alternative way to achieve efficient resilience is to maintain
SRLG disjointness between LSPs, irrespective of whether or not these
LSPs share the source and destination nodes. This can be achieved at
provisioning time, if the routes of all the LSPs are requested
together, using a synchronized computation of the different LSPs with
SRLG disjointness constraint. If the LSPs need to be provisioned at
different times, the PCC can specify, as constraints to the path
computation, a set of SRLGs using the Exclude Route Object [RFC5521].
However, for the latter to be effective, the entity that requests the
route to the PCE needs to maintain updated SRLG information regarding
all of the LSPs to which it must maintain the disjointness. A
stateless PCE can compute an SRLG-disjoint path by inspecting the TED
and precluding the links with the same SRLG values specified in the
PCReq message sent by a PCC.
A passive stateful PCE maintains the updated SRLG information of the
established LSPs in a centralized manner. Therefore, the PCC can
specify, as constraints to the path computation, the SRLG
disjointness of a set of already established LSPs by only providing
the LSP identifiers. Similarly, a passive stateful PCE can also
accommodate disjointness using other constraints, such as link, node,
or path segment.
3.5. Maintenance of Virtual Network Topology (VNT)
In Multi-Layer Networks (MLN), a Virtual Network Topology (VNT)
[RFC5212] consists of a set of one or more TE LSPs in the lower
layer, which provides TE links to the upper layer. In [RFC5623], the
PCE-based architecture is proposed to support path computation in MLN
networks in order to achieve inter-layer TE.
The establishment/teardown of a TE link in VNT needs to take into
consideration the state of existing LSPs and/or new LSP request(s) in
the higher layer. Hence, when a stateless PCE cannot find the route
for a request based on the upper-layer topology information, it does
not have enough information to decide whether or not to set up or
remove a TE link, which then can result in non-optimal usage of a
resource. On the other hand, a passive stateful PCE can make a
better decision of when and how to modify the VNT either to
accommodate new LSP requests or to reoptimize resource usage across
layers irrespective of the PCE models as described in [RFC5623].
Furthermore, given the active capability, the stateful PCE can issue
Zhang & Minei Informational [Page 15]
RFC 8051 Applicability for a Stateful PCE January 2017
VNT modification suggestions in order to accommodate path setup
requests or reoptimize resource usage across layers.
3.6. LSP Reoptimization
In order to make efficient usage of network resources, it is
sometimes desirable to reoptimize one or more LSPs dynamically. In
the case of a stateless PCE, in order to optimize network resource
usage dynamically through online planning, a PCC must send a request
to the PCE together with detailed path/bandwidth information of the
LSPs that need to be concurrently optimized. This means that the PCC
must be able to determine when and which LSPs should be optimized.
In the case of a passive stateful PCE, given the LSP state
information in the LSP database, the process of dynamic optimization
of network resources can be simplified without requiring the PCC to
supply detailed LSP state information. Moreover, an active stateful
PCE can even make the process automated by triggering the request.
Because a stateful PCE can maintain information for all LSPs that are
in the process of being set up and it may have the ability to control
timing and sequence of LSP setup/deletion, the optimization
procedures can be performed more intelligently and effectively. A
stateful PCE can also determine which LSP should be reoptimized based
on network events. For example, when an LSP is torn down, its
resources are freed. This can trigger the stateful PCE to
automatically determine which LSP should be reoptimized so that the
recently freed resources may be allocated to it.
A special case of LSP reoptimization is GCO [RFC5557]. Global
control of the LSP operation sequence in [RFC5557] is predicated on
the use of what is effectively a stateful (or semi-stateful) NMS.
The NMS can be either not local to the network nodes, in which case
another northbound interface is required for LSP attribute changes,
or local/collocated, in which case there are significant issues with
efficiency in resource usage. A stateful PCE adds a few features
that:
o Roll the NMS visibility into the PCE and remove the requirement
for an additional northbound interface.
o Allow the PCE to determine when reoptimization is needed, with
which level (GCO or a more incremental optimization).
o Allow the PCE to determine which LSPs should be reoptimized.
o Allow a PCE to control the sequence of events across multiple
PCCs, allowing for bulk (and truly global) optimization, LSP
shuffling, etc.
Zhang & Minei Informational [Page 16]
RFC 8051 Applicability for a Stateful PCE January 2017
3.7. Resource Defragmentation
If LSPs are dynamically allocated and released over time, the
resource becomes fragmented. In networks with link bundle, the
overall available resource on a (bundle) link might be sufficient for
a new LSP request, but if the available resource is not continuous,
the request is rejected. Stateful PCEs can be used to perform the
defragmentation procedure, because global visibility of LSPs in the
network is required to accurately assess resources on the LSPs and to
perform defragmentation while ensuring a minimal disruption of the
network. This use case cannot be accommodated by a stateless PCE
because it does not possess the detailed information of existing LSPs
in the network.
Another case of particular interest is the optical spectrum
defragmentation in flexible-grid networks. In flexible-grid networks
[RFC7698], LSPs with different optical spectrum sizes (such as
12.5GHz, 25GHz, etc.) can coexist so as to accommodate the services
with different bandwidth requests. Therefore, even if the overall
spectrum size can meet the service request, it may not be usable if
the available spectrum resource is not contiguous, but rather
fragmented into smaller pieces. Thus, with the help of existing LSP
state information, a stateful PCE can make the resource grouped
together to be usable. Moreover, a stateful PCE can proactively
choose routes for upcoming path requests to reduce the chance of
spectrum fragmentation.
3.8. Point-to-Multipoint Applications
PCE has been identified as an appropriate technology for the
determination of the paths of Point-to-Multipoint (P2MP) TE LSPs
[RFC5671]. The application scenarios and use cases described in
Sections 3.1, 3.4, and 3.6 are also applicable to P2MP TE LSPs.
In addition to these, the stateful nature of a PCE simplifies the
information conveyed in PCEP messages since it is possible to refer
to the LSPs via an identifier. For P2MP, this is an added advantage
where the size of the PCEP message is much larger. In case of
stateless PCEs, modification of a P2MP tree requires encoding of all
leaves along with the paths in a PCReq message. But by using a
stateful PCE with P2MP capability, the PCEP message can be used to
convey only the modifications (the other information can be retrieved
from the identifier via the LSP-DB).
Zhang & Minei Informational [Page 17]
RFC 8051 Applicability for a Stateful PCE January 2017
3.9. Impairment-Aware Routing and Wavelength Assignment (IA-RWA)
In Wavelength Switched Optical Networks (WSONs) [RFC6163], a
wavelength-switched LSP traverses one or more fiber links. The bit
rates of the client signals carried by the wavelength LSPs may be the
same or different. Hence, a fiber link may transmit a number of
wavelength LSPs with equal or mixed bit-rate signals. For example, a
fiber link may multiplex the wavelengths with only 10 Gbit/s signals,
mixed 10 Gbit/s and 40 Gbit/s signals, or mixed 40 Gbit/s and 100
Gbit/s signals.
IA-RWA in WSONs refers to the process (i.e., lightpath computation)
that takes into account the optical layer/transmission imperfections
as additional (i.e., physical layer) constraints. To be more
specific, linear and non-linear effects associated with the optical
network elements should be incorporated into the route and wavelength
assignment procedure. For example, the physical imperfection can
result in the interference of two adjacent lightpaths. Thus, a guard
band should be reserved between them to alleviate these effects. The
width of the guard band between two adjacent wavelengths depends on
their characteristics, such as modulation formats and bit rates. Two
adjacent wavelengths with different characteristics (e.g., different
bit rates) may need a wider guard band and those with the same
characteristics may need a narrower guard band. For example, 50 GHz
spacing may be acceptable for two adjacent wavelengths with 40 G
signals. But for two adjacent wavelengths with different bit rates
(e.g., 10 G and 40 G), a larger spacing such as 300 GHz may be
needed. Hence, the characteristics (states) of the existing
wavelength LSPs should be considered for a new RWA request in WSON.
In summary, when stateful PCEs are used to perform the IA-RWA
procedure, they need to know the characteristics of the existing
wavelength LSPs. The impairment information relating to existing and
to-be-established LSPs can be obtained by nodes in WSON networks via
external configuration or other means such as monitoring or
estimation based on a vendor-specific impair model. However, WSON-
related routing protocols, i.e., [RFC7688] and [RFC7580], only
advertise limited information (i.e., availability) of the existing
wavelengths, without defining the supported client bit rates. It
will incur a substantial amount of control-plane overhead if routing
protocols are extended to support dissemination of the new
information relevant for the IA-RWA process. In this scenario,
stateful PCE(s) would be a more appropriate mechanism to solve this
problem. Stateful PCE(s) can exploit impairment information of LSPs
stored in LSP-DB to provide accurate RWA calculation.
Zhang & Minei Informational [Page 18]
RFC 8051 Applicability for a Stateful PCE January 2017
4. Deployment Considerations
This section discusses general issues with stateful PCE deployments
and identifies areas where additional protocol extensions and
procedures are needed to address them. Definitions of protocol
mechanisms are beyond the scope of this document.
4.1. Multi-PCE Deployments
Stateless and stateful PCEs can coexist in the same network and be in
charge of path computation of different types. To solve the problem
of distinguishing between the two types of PCEs, either discovery or
configuration may be used.
Multiple stateful PCEs can coexist in the same network. These PCEs
may provide redundancy for load sharing, resilience, or partitioning
of computation features. Regardless of the reason for multiple PCEs,
an LSP is only delegated to one of the PCEs at any given point in
time. However, an LSP can be redelegated between PCEs, for example,
when a PCE fails. [RFC7399] discusses various approaches for
synchronizing state among the PCEs when multiple PCEs are used for
load sharing or backup and compute LSPs for the same network.
4.2. LSP State Synchronization
The LSP-DB is populated using information received from the PCC.
Because the accuracy of the computations depends on the accuracy of
the databases used and because the updates must reach the PCE from
the network, it is worth noting that the PCE view lags behind the
true state of the network. Thus, the use of stateful PCE reduces but
cannot eliminate the possibility of crankbacks, nor can it guarantee
optimal computations all the time. [RFC7399] discusses these
limitations and potential ways to alleviate them.
In case of multiple PCEs with different capabilities coexisting in
the same network, such as a passive stateful PCE and an active
stateful PCE, it is useful to refer to an LSP, be it delegated or
not, by a unique identifier instead of providing detailed information
(e.g., route, bandwidth) associated with it, when these PCEs
cooperate on path computation, such as for load sharing.
4.3. PCE Survivability
For a stateful PCE, an important issue is to get the LSP state
information resynchronized after a restart. LSP state
synchronization procedures can be applied equally to a network node
or another PCE, allowing multiple ways to reacquire the LSP database
on a restart. Because synchronization may also be skipped, if a PCE
Zhang & Minei Informational [Page 19]
RFC 8051 Applicability for a Stateful PCE January 2017
implementation has the means to retrieve its database in a different
way (for example, from a backup copy stored locally), the state can
be restored without further overhead in the network. A hybrid
approach where the bulk of the state is recovered locally, and a
small amount of state is reacquired from the network, is also
possible. Note that locally recovering the state would still require
some degree of resynchronization to ensure that the recovered state
is indeed up-to-date. Depending on the resynchronization mechanism
used, there may be an additional load on the PCE, and there may be a
delay in reaching the synchronized state, which may negatively affect
survivability. Different resynchronization methods are suited for
different deployments and objectives.
5. Security Considerations
This document describes general considerations for a stateful PCE
deployment and examines its applicability and benefits, as well as
its challenges and limitations through a number of use cases. No new
protocol extensions to PCEP are defined in this document.
The PCEP extensions in support of the stateful PCE and the delegation
of path control ability can result in more information and control
being available for a hypothetical adversary and a number of
additional attack surfaces that must be protected. This includes,
but is not limited to, the authentication and encryption of PCEP
sessions, snooping of the state of the LSPs active in the network,
etc. Therefore, documents in which the PCEP protocol extensions are
defined need to consider the issues and risks associated with a
stateful PCE.
6. References
6.1. Normative References
[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>.
[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>.
[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>.
Zhang & Minei Informational [Page 20]
RFC 8051 Applicability for a Stateful PCE January 2017
6.2. Informative References
[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>.
[RFC4427] Mannie, E., Ed. and D. Papadimitriou, Ed., "Recovery
(Protection and Restoration) Terminology for Generalized
Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)", RFC 4427,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4427, March 2006,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4427>.
[RFC5212] Shiomoto, K., Papadimitriou, D., Le Roux, JL., Vigoureux,
M., and D. Brungard, "Requirements for GMPLS-Based Multi-
Region and Multi-Layer Networks (MRN/MLN)", RFC 5212,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5212, July 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5212>.
[RFC5521] Oki, E., Takeda, T., and A. Farrel, "Extensions to the
Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) for
Route Exclusions", RFC 5521, DOI 10.17487/RFC5521, April
2009, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5521>.
[RFC5557] Lee, Y., Le Roux, JL., King, D., and E. Oki, "Path
Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)
Requirements and Protocol Extensions in Support of Global
Concurrent Optimization", RFC 5557, DOI 10.17487/RFC5557,
July 2009, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5557>.
[RFC5623] Oki, E., Takeda, T., Le Roux, JL., and A. Farrel,
"Framework for PCE-Based Inter-Layer MPLS and GMPLS
Traffic Engineering", RFC 5623, DOI 10.17487/RFC5623,
September 2009, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5623>.
[RFC5671] Yasukawa, S. and A. Farrel, Ed., "Applicability of the
Path Computation Element (PCE) to Point-to-Multipoint
(P2MP) MPLS and GMPLS Traffic Engineering (TE)", RFC 5671,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5671, October 2009,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5671>.
[RFC6163] Lee, Y., Ed., Bernstein, G., Ed., and W. Imajuku,
"Framework for GMPLS and Path Computation Element (PCE)
Control of Wavelength Switched Optical Networks (WSONs)",
RFC 6163, DOI 10.17487/RFC6163, April 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6163>.
Zhang & Minei Informational [Page 21]
RFC 8051 Applicability for a Stateful PCE January 2017
[RFC7580] Zhang, F., Lee, Y., Han, J., Bernstein, G., and Y. Xu,
"OSPF-TE Extensions for General Network Element
Constraints", RFC 7580, DOI 10.17487/RFC7580, June 2015,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7580>.
[RFC7688] Lee, Y., Ed. and G. Bernstein, Ed., "GMPLS OSPF
Enhancement for Signal and Network Element Compatibility
for Wavelength Switched Optical Networks", RFC 7688,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7688, November 2015,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7688>.
[RFC7698] Gonzalez de Dios, O., Ed., Casellas, R., Ed., Zhang, F.,
Fu, X., Ceccarelli, D., and I. Hussain, "Framework and
Requirements for GMPLS-Based Control of Flexi-Grid Dense
Wavelength Division Multiplexing (DWDM) Networks",
RFC 7698, DOI 10.17487/RFC7698, November 2015,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7698>.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Cyril Margaria, Adrian Farrel, JP Vasseur, and
Ravi Torvi for the useful comments and discussions.
Contributors
The following people all contributed significantly to this document
and are listed below in alphabetical order:
Ramon Casellas
CTTC - Centre Tecnologic de Telecomunicacions de Catalunya
Av. Carl Friedrich Gauss n7
Castelldefels, Barcelona 08860
Spain
Email: ramon.casellas@cttc.es
Edward Crabbe
Email: edward.crabbe@gmail.com
Dhruv Dhody
Huawei Technology
Leela Palace
Bangalore, Karnataka 560008
India
Email: dhruv.dhody@huawei.com
Zhang & Minei Informational [Page 22]
RFC 8051 Applicability for a Stateful PCE January 2017
Oscar Gonzalez de Dios
Telefonica Investigacion y Desarrollo
Emilio Vargas 6
Madrid, 28045
Spain
Phone: +34 913374013
Email: ogondio@tid.es
Young Lee
Huawei
1700 Alma Drive, Suite 100
Plano, TX 75075
United States of America
Phone: +1 972 509 5599 x2240
Fax: +1 469 229 5397
Email: leeyoung@huawei.com
Jan Medved
Cisco Systems, Inc.
170 West Tasman Dr.
San Jose, CA 95134
United States of America
Email: jmedved@cisco.com
Robert Varga
Pantheon Technologies LLC
Mlynske Nivy 56
Bratislava 821 05
Slovakia
Email: robert.varga@pantheon.sk
Fatai Zhang
Huawei Technologies
F3-5-B R&D Center, Huawei Base
Bantian, Longgang District
Shenzhen 518129
China
Phone: +86-755-28972912
Email: zhangfatai@huawei.com
Xiaobing Zi
Zhang & Minei Informational [Page 23]
RFC 8051 Applicability for a Stateful PCE January 2017
Authors' Addresses
Xian Zhang (editor)
Huawei Technologies
F3-5-B R&D Center
Huawei Industrial Base
Bantian, Longgang District
Shenzhen, Guangdong 518129
China
Email: zhang.xian@huawei.com
Ina Minei (editor)
Google, Inc.
1600 Amphitheatre Parkway
Mountain View, CA 94043
United States of America
Email: inaminei@google.com
Zhang & Minei Informational [Page 24]