Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) T. Otani Request for Comments: 7025 K. Ogaki Category: Informational KDDI ISSN: 2070-1721 D. Caviglia Ericsson F. Zhang Huawei Technologies C. Margaria Coriant R&D GmbH September 2013 Requirements for GMPLS Applications of PCE
AbstractThe initial effort of the PCE (Path Computation Element) WG focused mainly on MPLS. As a next step, this document describes functional requirements for GMPLS applications of PCE. 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 5741. 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/rfc7025.
Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2013 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. 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2. GMPLS Applications of PCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.1. Path Computation in GMPLS Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.2. Unnumbered Interface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.3. Asymmetric Bandwidth Path Computation . . . . . . . . . . 5 3. Requirements for GMPLS Applications of PCE . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.1. Requirements on Path Computation Request . . . . . . . . . 6 3.2. Requirements on Path Computation Reply . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.3. GMPLS PCE Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5. Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 RFC3945], such as those based on Wavelength Division Multiplexing (WDM), Time Division Multiplexing (TDM), or Ethernet. [RFC4655] and [RFC4657] discuss the framework and requirements for PCE on both packet MPLS networks and GMPLS-controlled networks. This document complements those RFCs by providing considerations of GMPLS applications in the intradomain and interdomain networking environments and indicating a set of requirements for the extended definition of PCE-related protocols.
Note that the requirements for interlayer and inter-area traffic engineering (TE) described in [RFC6457] and [RFC4927] are outside of the scope of this document. Constrained Shortest Path First (CSPF) computation within a domain or over domains for signaling GMPLS Label Switched Paths (LSPs) is usually more stringent than that of MPLS TE LSPs [RFC4216], because the additional constraints, e.g., interface switching capability, link encoding, link protection capability, Shared Risk Link Group (SRLG) [RFC4202], and so forth, need to be considered to establish GMPLS LSPs. The GMPLS signaling protocol [RFC3473] is designed taking into account bidirectionality, switching type, encoding type, and protection attributes of the TE links spanned by the path, as well as LSP encoding and switching type of the endpoints, appropriately. This document provides requirements for GMPLS applications of PCE in support of GMPLS path computation, included are requirements for both intradomain and interdomain environments. Figure 1 depicts a model GMPLS network, consisting of an ingress link, a transit link, as well as an egress link. We will use this model to investigate consistent guidelines for GMPLS path computation. Each link at each interface has its own switching capability, encoding type, and bandwidth. Ingress Transit Egress +-----+ link1-2 +-----+ link2-3 +-----+ link3-4 +-----+ |Node1|------------>|Node2|------------>|Node3|------------>|Node4| | |<------------| |<------------| |<------------| | +-----+ link2-1 +-----+ link3-2 +-----+ link4-3 +-----+ Figure 1: Path Computation in GMPLS Networks For the simplicity in consideration, the following basic assumptions are made when the LSP is created. (1) Switching capabilities of outgoing links from the ingress and egress nodes (link1-2 and link4-3 in Figure 1) are consistent with each other. (2) Switching capabilities of all transit links, including incoming links to the ingress and egress nodes (link2-1 and link3-4) are consistent with switching type of an LSP to be created.
(3) Encoding types of all transit links are consistent with the encoding type of an LSP to be created. GMPLS-controlled networks (e.g., GMPLS-based TDM networks) are usually responsible for transmitting data for the client layer. These GMPLS-controlled networks can provide different types of connections for customer services based on different service bandwidth requests. The applications and the corresponding additional requirements for applying PCE to GMPLS-based TDM networks are described in this section. In order to simplify the description, this document only discusses the scenario in Synchronous Digital Hierarchy (SDH) networks as an example (see Figure 2). The scenarios in Synchronous Optical Network (SONET) or Optical Transport Network (OTN) are similar. N1 N2 +-----+ +------+ +------+ | |-------| |--------------| | +-------+ +-----+ | |---| | | | | A1 +------+ | +------+ | | | | | +-------+ | | | PCE | | | | +------+ | | | | | | | |-----| | | +------+ | | | N5 | | | | | +------+ +------+ | | | | +-----+ | |--------------| |--------| | +------+ +------+ +-----+ N3 N4 A2 Figure 2: A Simple TDM (SDH) Network Figure 2 shows a simple TDM (SDH) network topology, where N1, N2, N3, N4, and N5 are all SDH switches; A1 and A2 are client devices (e.g., Ethernet switches). Assume that one Ethernet service with 100 Mbit/s bandwidth is required from A1 to A2 over this network. The client Ethernet service could be provided by a Virtual Container 4 (VC-4) container from N1 to N4; it could also be provided by three concatenated VC-3s (contiguous or virtual concatenation) from N1 to N4.
In this scenario, when the ingress node (e.g., N1) receives a client service transmitting request, the type of containers (one VC-4 or three concatenated VC-3s) could be determined by the PCC (Path Computation Client), e.g., N1 or Network Management System (NMS). However, it could also be determined automatically by the PCE based on policy [RFC5394]. If it is determined by the PCC, then the PCC should be capable of specifying the ingress node and egress node, signal type, the type of the concatenation, and the number of the concatenation in a PCReq (Path Computation Request) message. The PCE should consider those parameters during path computation. The route information (co-routing or diverse routing) should be specified in a PCRep (Path Computation Reply) message if path computation is performed successfully. As described above, the PCC should be capable of specifying TE attributes defined in the next section, and the PCE should compute a path accordingly. Where a GMPLS network consists of interdomain (e.g., inter-AS or inter-area) GMPLS-controlled networks, requirements on the path computation follow [RFC5376] and [RFC4726]. RFC3477]; this means that the endpoints of the path may be unnumbered. It should also be possible to request a path consisting of the mixture of numbered links and unnumbered links, or a P2MP (Point-to-Multipoint) path with different types of endpoints. Therefore, the PCC should be capable of indicating the unnumbered interface ID of the endpoints in the PCReq message. RFC6387], GMPLS signaling can be used for setting up an asymmetric bandwidth bidirectional LSP. If a PCE is responsible for path computation, it should be capable of computing a path for the bidirectional LSP with asymmetric bandwidth. This means that the PCC should be able to indicate the asymmetric bandwidth requirements in forward and reverse directions in the PCReq message.
Section 2, the PCE should appropriately consider the GMPLS TE attributes listed below once a PCC or another PCE requests a path computation. The path calculation request message from the PCC or the PCE must contain the information specifying appropriate attributes. According to [RFC5440], [PCE-WSON-REQ], and RSVP procedures such as explicit label control (ELC), the additional attributes introduced are as follows: (1) Switching capability/type: as defined in [RFC3471], [RFC4203], and all current and future values. (2) Encoding type: as defined in [RFC3471], [RFC4203], and all current and future values. (3) Signal type: as defined in [RFC4606] and all current and future values. (4) Concatenation type: In SDH/SONET and OTN, two kinds of concatenation modes are defined: contiguous concatenation, which requires co-routing for each member signal and that all the interfaces along the path support this capability, and virtual concatenation, which allows diverse routing for member signals and requires that only the ingress and egress interfaces support this capability. Note that for the virtual concatenation, it may also specify co-routing or diverse routing. See [RFC4606] and [RFC4328] about concatenation information. (5) Concatenation number: Indicates the number of signals that are requested to be contiguously or virtually concatenated. Also see [RFC4606] and [RFC4328]. (6) Technology-specific label(s): as defined in [RFC4606], [RFC6060], [RFC6002], or [RFC6205]. (7) End-to-End (E2E) path protection type: as defined in [RFC4872], e.g., 1+1 protection, 1:1 protection, (pre-planned) rerouting, etc. (8) Administrative group: as defined in [RFC3630]. (9) Link protection type: as defined in [RFC4203].
(10) Support for unnumbered interfaces: as defined in [RFC3477]. (11) Support for asymmetric bandwidth requests: as defined in [RFC6387]. (12) Support for explicit label control during the path computation. (13) Support of label restrictions in the requests/responses, similar to RSVP-TE ERO (Explicit Route Object) and XRO (Exclude Route Object), as defined in [RFC3473] and [RFC4874]. Section 3.1, the PCE should compute a path accordingly. For path computation involving contiguous concatenation, a single route is required, and all the interfaces along the route should support contiguous concatenation capability. Therefore, the PCE should compute a path based on the contiguous concatenation capability of each interface and only one ERO that should carry the route information for the response. For path computation involving virtual concatenation, only the ingress/egress interfaces need to support virtual concatenation capability, and there may be diverse routes for the different member signals. Therefore, multiple EROs may be needed for the response. Each ERO may represent the route of one or multiple member signals. When one ERO represents multiple member signals, the number must be specified.
(2) Label constraint In the case that a PCC does not specify the exact label(s) when requesting a label-restricted path and the PCE is capable of performing the route computation and label assignment computation procedure, the PCE needs to be able to specify the label of the path in a PCRep message. Wavelength restriction is a typical case of label restriction. More generally, label switching and selection constraints may apply in GMPLS-controlled networks, and a PCC may request a PCE to take label constraint into account and return an ERO containing the label or set of labels that fulfill the PCC request. (3) Roles of the routes When a PCC specifies the protection type of an LSP, the PCE should compute the working route and the corresponding protection route(s). Therefore, the PCRep should allow to distinguish the working (nominal) and the protection routes. According to these routes, the RSVP-TE procedure appropriately creates both the working and the protection LSPs, for example, with the ASSOCIATION object [RFC6689]. RFC4655] for manageability considerations for a PCE-based architecture.) However, this document proposes the introduction of several PCEP objects and data for the better integration of PCE with GMPLS networks. Those protocol elements will need to be visible in any management tools that apply to the PCE, PCC, and PCEP. That includes, but is not limited to, adding appropriate objects to existing PCE MIB modules that are used for modeling and monitoring PCEP deployments [PCEP-MIB]. Ideas for what objects are needed may be guided by the relevant GMPLS extensions in GMPLS-TE-STD-MIB [RFC4802]. Section 10 of [RFC5440] describes the list of security considerations in PCEP. At the time [RFC5440] was published, TCP Authentication Option (TCP-AO) had not been fully
specified for securing the TCP connections that underlie PCEP sessions. TCP-AO [RFC5925] has now been published, and PCEP implementations should fully support TCP-AO according to [RFC6952]. [RFC3471] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC 3471, January 2003. [RFC3473] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473, January 2003. [RFC3477] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Signalling Unnumbered Links in Resource ReSerVation Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)", RFC 3477, January 2003. [RFC3630] Katz, D., Kompella, K., and D. Yeung, "Traffic Engineering (TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC 3630, September 2003. [RFC3945] Mannie, E., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Architecture", RFC 3945, October 2004. [RFC4202] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Routing Extensions in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)", RFC 4202, October 2005. [RFC4203] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "OSPF Extensions in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)", RFC 4203, October 2005. [RFC4328] Papadimitriou, D., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Extensions for G.709 Optical Transport Networks Control", RFC 4328, January 2006.
[RFC4606] Mannie, E. and D. Papadimitriou, "Generalized Multi- Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Extensions for Synchronous Optical Network (SONET) and Synchronous Digital Hierarchy (SDH) Control", RFC 4606, August 2006. [RFC4802] Nadeau, T. and A. Farrel, "Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering Management Information Base", RFC 4802, February 2007. [RFC4872] Lang, J., Rekhter, Y., and D. Papadimitriou, "RSVP-TE Extensions in Support of End-to-End Generalized Multi- Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Recovery", RFC 4872, May 2007. [RFC4927] Le Roux, J., "Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCECP) Specific Requirements for Inter-Area MPLS and GMPLS Traffic Engineering", RFC 4927, June 2007. [RFC5376] Bitar, N., Zhang, R., and K. Kumaki, "Inter-AS Requirements for the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCECP)", RFC 5376, November 2008. [RFC5440] Vasseur, JP. and JL. Le Roux, "Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440, March 2009. [RFC6002] Berger, L. and D. Fedyk, "Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Data Channel Switching Capable (DCSC) and Channel Set Label Extensions", RFC 6002, October 2010. [RFC6060] Fedyk, D., Shah, H., Bitar, N., and A. Takacs, "Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Control of Ethernet Provider Backbone Traffic Engineering (PBB-TE)", RFC 6060, March 2011. [RFC6205] Otani, T. and D. Li, "Generalized Labels for Lambda- Switch-Capable (LSC) Label Switching Routers", RFC 6205, March 2011. [RFC6387] Takacs, A., Berger, L., Caviglia, D., Fedyk, D., and J. Meuric, "GMPLS Asymmetric Bandwidth Bidirectional Label Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 6387, September 2011. [RFC6689] Berger, L., "Usage of the RSVP ASSOCIATION Object", RFC 6689, July 2012.
[PCE-WSON-REQ] Lee, Y., Bernstein, G., Martensson, J., Takeda, T., Tsuritani, T., and O. Dios, "PCEP Requirements for WSON Routing and Wavelength Assignment", Work in Progress, June 2013. [PCEP-MIB] Koushik, K., Stephan, E., Zhao, Q., King, D., and J. Hardwick, "PCE communication protocol (PCEP) Management Information Base", Work in Progress, July 2013. [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. [RFC4657] Ash, J. and J. Le Roux, "Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol Generic Requirements", RFC 4657, September 2006. [RFC4726] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J., and A. Ayyangar, "A Framework for Inter-Domain Multiprotocol Label Switching Traffic Engineering", RFC 4726, November 2006. [RFC4874] Lee, CY., Farrel, A., and S. De Cnodder, "Exclude Routes - Extension to Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)", RFC 4874, April 2007. [RFC5394] Bryskin, I., Papadimitriou, D., Berger, L., and J. Ash, "Policy-Enabled Path Computation Framework", RFC 5394, December 2008. [RFC5925] Touch, J., Mankin, A., and R. Bonica, "The TCP Authentication Option", RFC 5925, June 2010. [RFC6457] Takeda, T. and A. Farrel, "PCC-PCE Communication and PCE Discovery Requirements for Inter-Layer Traffic Engineering", RFC 6457, December 2011. [RFC6952] Jethanandani, M., Patel, K., and L. Zheng, "Analysis of BGP, LDP, PCEP, and MSDP Issues According to the Keying and Authentication for Routing Protocols (KARP) Design Guide", RFC 6952, May 2013.