Path Computation Element (pce)
|WG||Name||Path Computation Element|
|Area||Routing Area (rtg)|
|Status update||Show Changed 2021-07-22|
|Additional resources||Wiki, Zulip stream|
|Personnel||Chairs||Dhruv Dhody, Julien Meuric|
|Area Director||John Scudder|
|Delegates||Hariharan Ananthakrishnan, John Scudder|
|Liaison Contacts||Dhruv Dhody, Hariharan Ananthakrishnan, Julien Meuric|
|Liaison CC Contact||John Scudder|
Charter for Working Group
The PCE Working Group is chartered to specify the required protocols
so as to enable a Path Computation Element (PCE)-based architecture
for the computation of paths for MPLS and GMPLS Point to Point and
Point to Multi-point Traffic Engineered LSPs.
In this architecture path computation does not necessarily occur on
the head-end (ingress) LSR, but on some other path computation entity
that may not be physically located on each head-end LSR. The TEAS
Working Group is responsible for defining and extending architectures
for Traffic Engineering (TE) and it is expected that the PCE and TEAS
WGs will work closely together on elements of TE architectures that
The PCE WG works on the application of this model within a single
domain or within a group of domains (where a domain is a layer, IGP
area or Autonomous System with limited visibility from the head-end
LSR). At this time, applying this model to large groups of domains such
as the Internet is not thought to be possible, and the PCE WG will not
spend energy on that topic.
The WG specifies the PCE communication Protocol (PCEP) and needed
extensions for communication between Path Computation Clients (PCCs)
and PCEs, and between cooperating PCEs. Security mechanisms such as
authentication and confidentiality are included.
The WG determines requirements for extensions to existing routing and
signaling protocols in support of the PCE architecture and the
signaling of inter-domain paths (e.g., RSVP-TE and its GMPLS
variations). Any necessary extensions will be produced in
collaboration with the Working Groups responsible for the protocols.
The WG also works on the mechanisms to for multi-layer path
computation and PCEP extensions for communication between several
The WG defines the required PCEP extensions for Wavelength Switched
Optical Networks (WSON) while keeping consistency with the GMPLS
protocols specified in the CCAMP and TEAS WGs.
- PCEP extensions to support MPLS and GMPLS Traffic Engineered LSP
path computation models involving PCEs. This includes the case of
computing the paths of intra- and inter-domain TE LSPs. Such path
computation includes the generation of primary, protection and
recovery paths, as well as computations for (local/global)
reoptimization and load balancing. Both intra- and inter-domain
applications are covered.
- In cooperation with the TEAS Working Group, development of PCE-
based architectures for Traffic Engineering.
- In cooperation with protocol specific Working Group (e.g., MPLS,
CCAMP), development of LSP signaling (RSVP-TE) extensions required
to support PCE-based path computation models.
- Specification of PCEP extensions for expressing path computation
requests and responses in the various GMPLS-controlled networks,
- Definition of PCEP extensions for path computation in multi-layer
- Definition of the PCEP extensions used by a stateful PCE for
recommending a new path for an existing or new LSP to the PCC/PCE.
Further protocol extensions must cover the case where receiving
PCC/PCE chooses to not follow the recommendation.
|Feb 2015||Evaluate WG progress, recharter or close|
|Done||Submit the stateful PCE document(s) to the IESG|
|Done||Submit the PCEP MIB to the IESG to be considered as a Proposed Standard|
|Done||Submit extensions for hierarchical model to the IESG to be considered as a Proposed Standard|
|Done||Submit inter-layer extensions to the IESG to be considered as a Proposed Standard|
|Done||Submit PCEP extensions for GMPLS to the IESG to be considered as a Proposed Standard|
|Done||Submit inter-area/AS applicability statement to the IESG as an informational RFC|
|Done||Submit the GMPLS requirements to the IESG to be considered as an Informational RFC|
|Done||Submit applicability and metrics documents to the IESG|
|Done||Submit PCE P2MP PCEP protocol extensions to the IESG to be considered as an Proposed Standard RFC|
|Done||Submit PCE P2MP communication requirements to the IESG to be considered as an Informational RFC|
|Done||Submit first draft of the PCE P2MP PCEP protocol extensions|
|Done||Submit first draft of the PCE P2MP communication requirements|
|Done||Submit PCE communication protocol specification to the IESG to be considered as a Proposed Standard|
|Done||Submit PCE discovery protocol extensions specifications to the IESG to be considered as a Proposed Standard|
|Done||Submit PCE communication protocol requirements to the IESG to be considered as an Informational RFC|
|Done||Submit first draft of the MIB module for the PCE protocol|
|Done||Submit PCE architecture specification to the IESG to be considered as Informational RFC|
|Done||Submit first draft of the PCE communication protocol specification|
|Done||Submit first draft of the definition of objective metrics|
|Done||Submit first draft of the PCE communication protocol requirements|
|Done||Submit first draft of PCE discovery requirements and protocol extensions documents|
|Done||Submit first draft of PCE architecture document|