PCE Working Group D. King Internet Draft Old Dog Consulting Intended status: Informational J. Meuric Expires: April 18, 2011 O. Dugeon France Telecom Q. Zhao Huawei Technologies Oscar Gonzalez de Dios Francisco Javier Jimenex Chico Telefonica I+D October 18, 2010 Applicability of the Path Computation Element to Inter-Area and Inter-AS MPLS and GMPLS Traffic Engineering draft-ietf-pce-inter-area-as-applicability-00 Abstract The Path Computation Element (PCE) may be used for computing services that traverse multi-area and multi-AS Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Traffic Engineered (TE) networks. This document examines the applicability of the PCE architecture, protocols, and protocol extensions for computing multi-area and multi-AS paths in MPLS and GMPLS networks. Status of this Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html This Internet-Draft will expire on April 18, 2011. D. King, et al. Expires April 11, 2011 [Page 1] Internet-Draft October 2010 Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2010 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 1.1. Domains....................................................4 1.2. Path Computation...........................................5 1.3. Traffic Engineering Aggregation and Abstraction............5 1.4. Traffic Engineered Label Switched Paths....................5 1.5. Inter-area and Inter AS Connectivity Discovery.............5 2. Terminology..................................................6 3. Issues and Considerations....................................6 3.1 Multi-homed domains......................................6 3.2 Domain meshes............................................6 3.3 Destination location.....................................6 4. Applicability of the PCE to Inter-area Traffic Engineering...7 4.1. Inter-area Routing......................................7 4.1.1. Area Inclusion and Exclusion..........................7 4.1.2. Strict Explicit Path and Loose Path...................7 4.1.3. Inter-Area Diverse Path Computation...................7 4.2. Control and Recording of Area Crossing..................7 4.3. Inter-Area Policies ....................................7 4.4. Loop Avoidance .........................................7 5. Applicability of the PCE to Inter-AS Traffic Engineering.....7 5.1. Inter-AS Routing........................................8 5.1.1. AS Inclusion and Exclusion............................8 5.1.2. Strict Explicit Path and Loose Path...................8 5.1.3. AS Inclusion and Exclusion............................8 5.2. Inter-AS Bandwidth Guarantees...........................8 5.3. Inter-AS Recovery.......................................9 5.4. Inter-AS PCE Peering Policies...........................9 6. Multi-Domain PCE Deployment..................................9 6.1 Overview of Techniques...................................10 6.2 Traffic Engineering Database.............................10 D. King, et al. Expires April 11, 2011 [Page 2] Internet-Draft October 2010 6.3 Provisioning Techniques..................................11 6.4 Pre-Planning and Management-Based Solutions..............11 6.5 Per-Domain Computation...................................11 6.6 Cooperative PCEs.........................................11 6.7 Hierarchical PCEs ......................................12 7. Domain Topologies............................................12 7.1 Selecting Domain Paths...................................12 7.2 Multi-Homed Domains......................................12 7.3 Domain Meshes............................................12 7.4 Route Diversity..........................................12 7.5 Synchronized Path Computations...........................12 8. Domain Confidentiality.......................................13 8.1 Loose Hops...............................................13 8.2 Confidential Path Segments and Path Keys.................13 9. Point-to-Multipoint..........................................13 10. Optical Domains.............................................13 10.1. PCE applied to the ASON Architecture......................14 11.1. Policy Control............................................14 11.1.1 Inter-AS PCE Peering Policy Controls.....................14 12. IANA Considerations.........................................15 13. References..................................................15 13.1. Normative References......................................15 13.2. Informative References....................................15 14. Acknowledgements............................................16 15. Author's Address............................................17 1. Introduction Computing paths across large multi-domain environments may require special computational components and cooperation between entities in different domains capable of complex path computation. The Path Computation Element (PCE) [RFC4655] provides an architecture and a set of functional components to address this problem space. Computing optimal routes for LSPs that cross domains in MPLS-TE and GMPLS networks presents a problem because no single point of path computation is aware of all of the links and resources in each domain. A solution may be achieved using the PCE architecture [RFC4655]. A domain can be defined as a separate administrative, geographic, or switching environment within the network. A domain may be further defined as a zone of routing or computational ability. Under these definitions a domain might be categorized as an Antonymous System (AS) or an Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) area ( as per [RFC4726] and [RFC4655]). D. King, et al. Expires April 11, 2011 [Page 3] Internet-Draft October 2010 A PCE may be used to compute end-to-end paths across multi-domain environments using a per-domain path computation technique [RFC5152]. The so called backward recursive path computation (BRPC) mechanism [RFC5441] defines a PCE-based path computation procedure to compute inter-domain constrained (G)MPLS TE LSPs. However, both per-domain and BRPC techniques assume that the sequence of domains to be crossed from source to destination is known, either fixed by the network operator or obtained by other means. In more advanced deployments (including multi-area and multi-AS environments) the sequence of domains may not be known in advance and the choice of domains in the end-to-end domain sequence might be critical to the determination of an optimal end-to-end path In this case the use of the Hierarchical PCE [H-PCE] architecture and mechanisms may be used to discovery the intra-area path and select the optimal end-to-end domain sequence. This document examines the applicability and describes the processes and procedures available when using the PCE architecture, protocols and protocol extensions for computing inter-area and inter-AS MPLS Traffic Engineered paths. 1.1 Domains For the purposes of this document, a domain is considered to be a collection of network elements within an area or AS that has a common sphere of address management or path computational responsibility. Wholly or partially overlapping domains are not within the scope of this document. In the context of GMPLS, a particularly important example of a domain is the Automatically Switched Optical Network (ASON) subnetwork [G-8080]. In this case, computation of an end-to-end path requires the selection of nodes and links within a parent domain where some nodes may, in fact, be subnetworks. Furthermore, a domain might be an ASON routing area [G-7715]. A PCE may perform the path computation function of an ASON routing controller as described in [G-7715-2]. It is assumed that the PCE architecture should be applied to small inter-domain topologies and not to solve route computation issues across large groups of domains, I.E. the entire Internet. 1.2 Path Computation For the purpose of this document it is assumed that the path computation is the sole responsibility of the PCE as per the architecture defined in [RFC4655]. When a path is required the Path Computation Client (PCC) will send a request to the PCE. The PCE will apply the required constraints and compute a path and return a D. King, et al. Expires April 11, 2011 [Page 4] Internet-Draft October 2010 response to the PCC. In the context of this document it maybe necessary for the PCE to co-operate with other PCEs in adjacent domains (as per BRPC [RFC5441]) or cooperate with the Parent PCE (as per [H-PCE]). It is entirely feasible that an operator could compute a path across multiple domains without the use of a PCE if the relevant domain information is available to the network planner or network management platform. The definition of what relevant information is required to perform this network planning operation and how that information is discovered and applied is outside the scope of this document. 1.3 Traffic Engineering Aggregation and Abstraction Networks are often constructed from multiple areas or ASs that are interconnected via multiple interconnect points. To maintain network confidentiality and scalability TE properties of each area and AS are not generally advertized outside each specific area or AS. TE aggregation or abstraction provide mechanism to hide information but may cause failed path setups or the selection of suboptimal end-to-end paths [RFC4726]. The aggregation process may also have significant scaling issues for networks with many possible routes and multiple TE metrics. Flooding TE information breaks confidentiality and does not scale in the routing protocol. The PCE architecture and associated mechanisms provide a solution to avoid the use of TE aggregation and abstraction. 1.4 Traffic Engineered Label Switched Paths This document highlights the PCE techniques and mechanisms that exist for establishing TE packet and optical LSPs across multiple areas (inter-area TE LSP) and ASs (inter-AS TE LSP). In this context and within the remainder of this document, we consider all LSPs to be constraint-based and traffic engineered. Three signaling options are defined for setting up an inter-area or inter-AS LSP [RFC4726]: - Contiguous LSP - Stitched LSP - Nested LSP All three signaling methods are applicable to the architectures and procedures discussed in this document. 1.5 Inter-area and Inter AS Connectivity Discovery D. King, et al. Expires April 11, 2011 [Page 5] Internet-Draft October 2010 When using a PCE-based approach for inter-area and inter-AS path computation, a PCE in one area or AS may need to learn information related to inter-AS capable PCEs located in other ASs. The PCE discovery mechanism defined in [RFC5088] and [RFC5089] allow the discovery of PCEs and disclosure of information related to inter-area and inter-AS capable PCEs across area and AS boundaries. 2. Terminology Terminology used in this document. ABR: IGP Area Border Router, a router that is attached to more than one IGP area. ASBR: Autonomous System Border Router, a router used to connect together ASs of a different or the same Service Provider via one or more inter-AS links. Inter-area TE LSP: A TE LSP whose path transits through two or more IGP areas. Inter-AS MPLS TE LSP: A TE LSP whose path transits through two or more ASs or sub-ASs (BGP confederations LSP: Traffic Engineered Label Switched Path. LSR: Label Switching Router. TED: Traffic Engineering Database, which contains the topology and resource information of the domain. The TED may be fed by Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) extensions or potentially by other means. This document also uses the terminology defined in [RFC4655] and [RFC5440]. 3. Issues and Considerations 3.1 Multi-homed domains 3.2 Domain meshes 3.3 Destination location 4. Applicability of the PCE to Inter-area Traffic Engineering D. King, et al. Expires April 11, 2011 [Page 6] Internet-Draft October 2010 As networks increase in size and complexity it may be required to introduce scaling methods to reduce the amount information flooded within the network and make the network more manageable. An IGP hierarchy is designed to improve IGP scalability by dividing the IGP domain into areas and limiting the flooding scope of topology information to within area boundaries. This restricts visibility of the area to routers in a single area. If a router needs to compute a route to destination located in another area a method is required to compute a path across area boundaries. In order to support multiple vendors in a network, in cases where data and/or control plane technologies cannot interoperate, it is useful to divide the network in vendor domains. Each vendor domain is an IGP area, and the flooding scope of the topology (as well as any other relevant information) is limited to the area boundaries. Per-domain path computation [RFC5152] exists to provide a method of inter-area path computation. The per-domain solution is based on loose hop routing with an Explicit Route Object (ERO) expansion on each Area Border Router (ABR). This allows an LSP to be established using a constrained path, however at least two issues exist: - This method does not guarantee an optimal constrained path - The method may require several crankback signaling messages increasing signaling traffic and delaying the LSP setup The PCE-based architecture [RFC4655] is designed to solve inter-area path computation problems. The issue of limited topology visibility is resolved by introducing path computation entities that are able to cooperate in order to establish LSPs with source and destinations located in different areas. 4.1. Inter-area Routing 4.1.1. Area Inclusion and Exclusion 4.1.2. Strict Explicit Path and Loose Path 4.1.3. Inter-Area Diverse Path Computation 4.2. Control and Recording of Area Crossing 4.3. Inter-Area Policies 4.4. Loop Avoidance 5. Applicability of the PCE to Inter-AS Traffic Engineering D. King, et al. Expires April 11, 2011 [Page 7] Internet-Draft October 2010 As discussed in section 4 (Applicability of the PCE to Inter-area Traffic Engineering) it is necessary to divide the network into smaller administrative domains, or ASs. If an LSR within an AS needs to compute a path across an AS boundary it must also use an inter-AS computation technique. [RFC5152] defines mechanisms for the computation of inter-domain TE LSPs using network elements along the signaling paths to compute per-domain constrained path segments. The PCE was designed to be capable of computing MPLS and GMPLS paths across AS boundaries. This section outlines the features of a PCE-enabled solution for computing inter-AS paths. 5.1 Inter-AS Routing 5.1.1. AS Inclusion and Exclusion 5.1.2. Strict Explicit Path and Loose Path During path computation, the PCE architecture and BRPC algorithm allow operators to specify if the resultant LSP must follow a strict or a loose path. By explicitly specify the path, the operator request a strict explicit path which must pass through one or many LSR. If this behaviour is well define and appropriate for inter-area, it implies some topology discovery for inter-AS. So, this feature when the operator owns several ASs (and so, knows the topology of its ASs) or restricts to the well-known ASBR to avoid topology discovery between operators. The loose path, even if it does not allow granular specification of the path, protects topology disclosure as it not obligatory for the operator to disclose information about its networks. 5.1.3. AS Inclusion and Exclusion Like explicit and loose path, [RFC5441] allows to specify inclusion or exclusion of respectively an AS or and ASBR. Using this method, an operator might decide if an AS must be include or exclude from the inter-AS path computation. Exclusion and/or inclusion could also be specified at any step in the LSP path computation process by a PCE (within the BRPC algorithm) but the best practice would be to specify them at the edge. In opposition to the strict and loose path, AS inclusion or exclusion doesn't impose topology disclosure as ASs are public entity as well as their interconnection. 5.2 Inter-AS Bandwidth Guarantees Many operators with multi-AS domains will have deployed MPLS-TE Diffserv either across their entire network or at the domain edges on CE-PE links. In situations where strict QOS bounds are required, admission control inside the network may also be required. D. King, et al. Expires April 11, 2011 [Page 8] Internet-Draft October 2010 When the propagation delay can be bounded, the performance targets, such as maximum one-way transit delay may be guaranteed by providing bandwidth guarantees along the Diffserv-enabled path. One typical example of this requirement is to provide bandwidth guarantees over an end-to-end path for VoIP traffic classified as EF (Expedited Forwarding) class in a Diffserv-enabled network. In the case where the EF path is extended across multiple ASs, inter-AS bandwidth guarantee would be required. Another case for inter-AS bandwidth guarantee is the requirement for guaranteeing a certain amount of transit bandwidth across one or multiple ASs. 5.3 Inter-AS Recovery During path computation, a PCCReq may contains backup LSP requirements in order to setup in the same time the primary and backup LSPs. It is also possible to request a backup LSP for a group of primary LSPs. [RFC4090] adds fast re-route protection to LSP. So, the PCE could be used to trigger computation of backup tunnels in order to protect Inter-AS connectivity. Inter-AS recovery requirements needs not only PCE protection and redundancy but also LSP tunnels protection through FRR mechanisms. Inter-AS PCE computation must support the FRR mechanisms and the patch computation for backup tunnels for protection and fast recovery. 5.4 Inter-AS PCE Peering Policies Like BGP peering policies, inter-AS PCE peering policies is a requirement for operator. In inter-AS BRPC process, PCE must cooperate in order to compute the end-to-end LSP. So, the AS path must not only follow technical constraints e.g. bandwidth availability, but also policies define by the operator. Typically PCE interconnections at an AS level must follow contract obligations, also known as peering agreements. The PCE peering policies are the result of the contract negotiation and govern the relation between the different PCE. 6. Multi-domain PCE Deployment Options The PCE provides the architecture and mechanisms to compute inter-area and inter-AS LSPs. The objective of this document is not to reprint the techniques and mechanisms available, but to highlight their existence and reference the relevant documents that introduce and describe the techniques and mechanisms necessary for computing inter-area and inter-AS LSP based services. An area or AS may contain multiple PCEs: D. King, et al. Expires April 11, 2011 [Page 9] Internet-Draft October 2010 - The path computation load may be balanced among a set of PCEs to improve scalability. - For the purpose of redundancy, primary and backup PCEs may be used. - PCEs may have distinct path computation capabilities (P2P or P2MP). Discovery of PCEs and capabilities per area or AS is defined in [RFC5088] and [RFC5089]. Each PCE per domain can be deployed in a centralized or distributed architecture, the latter model having local visibility and collaborating in a distributed fashion to compute a path across the domain. Each PCE may collect topology and TE information from the same sources as the LSR, such as the IGP TED. When the PCC sends a path computation request to the PCE, the PCE will compute the path across a domain based on the required constraints. The PCE will generate the full set of strict hops from source to destination. This information, encoded as an ERO, is then sent back to the PCC that requested the path. In the event that a path request from a PCC contains source and destination nodes that are located in different domains the PCE is required to co-operate between multiple PCEs, each responsible for its own domain. Techniques for inter-domain path computation are described in [RFC5152] and [RFC5441], both techniques assume that the sequence of domains to be crossed from source to destination is well known. In the event that the sequence of domains is not well known, [H-PCE] might be used. The sequence could also be retrieve locally from information previously stored in the PCE database (preferably in the TED) by OSS management or other protocols. 6.1 Overview of Techniques 6.2 Traffic Engineering Database TEDs are automatically populated by the IGP-TE like IS-IS-TE or OSPF-TE. However, no information related to AS path are provided by such IGP-TE. It could be helpful for BRPC algorithm as AS path helper, to populate a TED with suitable information regarding inter-AS connectivity. Such information could be obtain from various sources, such as BGP protocol, peering policies, OSS of the operator or from neighbor PCE. In any case, no topology disclosure must be impose in order to provide such information. In particular, for both inter-area and inter-AS, the TED must be populated with all boundary node information suitable to establish PCEP protocol with the next PCE in the path. D. King, et al. Expires April 11, 2011 [Page 10] Internet-Draft October 2010 6.3 Provisioning Techniques As PCE algorithms rely on information contained in the TED, it is possible to populate TED information by means of provisioning. In this case, the operator must regularly update and store all suitable information in the TED in order for the PCE to correctly compute LSP. Such information range from policies (e.g. avoid this LSR, or use this ASBR for a specific IP prefix) up to topology information (e.g. AS X is reachable trough a 100 Mbit/s link on this ASBR and 30 Mbit/s are reserved for EF traffic). Operators may choose the type and amount of information they can use to manage their traffic engineered network. However, some LSPs might be provisioned to link ASs or areas. In this case, these LSP must be announced by the IGP-TE in order to automatically fulfill the TED. 6.4 Pre-Planning and Management-Based Solutions Offline path computation is performed ahead of time, before the LSP setup is requested. That means that it is requested by, or performed as part of, a management application. This model can be seen in Section 5.5 of [RFC4655]. The offline model is particularly appropriate to long-lived LSPs (such as those present in a transport network) or for planned responses to network failures. In these scenarios, more planning is normally a feature of LSP provisioning. This model may also be used where the network operator wishes to retain full manual control of the placement of LSPs, using the PCE only as a computation tool to assist the operator, not as part of an automated network. The management based solutions could also be used in conjunction with the BRPC algorithm. Operator just computes the AS-Path as parameter for the inter-AS path computation request and let each PCE along the AS path compute the LSP part on its own domain. 6.5 Per-Domain Computation [RFC5152] define the mechanism to compute per-domain path and must be used in that condition. Otherwise, BRPC [RFC5441] will be used. 6.6 Cooperative PCEs When PCE cooperate to compute an inter-area or inter-AS LSP, both [RFC5152] and [RFC5441] could be used. D. King, et al. Expires April 11, 2011 [Page 11] Internet-Draft October 2010 6.7 Hierarchical PCEs The [H-PCE] draft defines how a hierarchy of PCEs may be used. An operator must define a parent PCE and each child PCE. A parent PCE can be announced in the other areas or ASs in order for the parent PCE to contact remote child PCEs. Reciprocally, childs PCEs are announced in remote areas or ASs in order to be contacted by a remote parent PCE. Parent and each child PCE could also be provisioned in the TED if they are not announced. 7. Domain Topologies 7.1 Selecting Domain Paths 7.2 Multi-Homed Domains 7.3 Domain Meshes Very frequently network domains are composed by dozens or hundreds of network elements. These network elements are usually interconnected between them in a partial-mesh fashion, to provide survivability against dual failures, and to benefit from the traffic engineering capabilities from MPLS and GMPLS protocols. A typical node degree ranges from 3 to 10 (4-5 is quite common), being the node degree the number of neighbors per node. Networks are sometimes divided into domains. Some reasons for it range from manageability to separation into vendor-specific domains. The size of the domain will be usually limited by control plane, but it can also be stated by arbitrary design constraints. 7.4 Route Diversity Whenever an specific connectivity service is required to have 1+1 protection feature, two completely disjoint paths must be established on an end to end fashion. In a multi-domain environment without, this can be accomplished ither by selecting domain diversity, or by ensuring divere connection within a domain. In order to compute the route diversity, it could be helpful to have SRLG information in the domains. 7.5 Synchronized Path Computations In some scenarios, it would be beneficial for the operator to rely on the capability of the PCE to perform synchronized path computation. A non comprehensive list of such cases could be the following: D. King, et al. Expires April 11, 2011 [Page 12] Internet-Draft October 2010 o Route diversity: computation of two disjoint paths from a source to a destination (as drafted in the previous section). o Synchronous restoration: joint computation of a set of alternative paths for a set of affected LSPs as a consequence of a failure event. Note that in this case, the requests will potentially involve different source-destination pairs. In this scenario, the different path computation requests may arrive at different time stamps. o Batch provisioning: It is common that the operator sends a set of LSPs requests together, e.g in a daily of weekly basis, mainly in case of long lived LSPs. In order to optimize the resource usage, a synchronized path computation is needed. o Network optimization: After some time of operation, the distribution of the established LSP paths results in a non optimal use of resources. Also, inter-domain policies/agreements may have been changed. In such cases, a full (or partial) network planning action regarding the interdomain connections will be triggered. This will involve the request of potentially a big amount of connections. 8. Domain Confidentiality 8.1 Loose Hops 8.2 Confidential Path Segments and Path Keys 9. Point-to-Multipoint For the Point-to-Multipoint application scenarios for MPLS-TE LSP, the complexity of domain sequences, domain policies, choice and number of domain interconnects is magnified comparing to P2P path computations. Also as the size of the network grows, the number of leaves and branches increase and it in turn puts the scalability of the path computation and optimization into a bigger issue. A solution for the point-to-multipoint path computations may be achieved using the PCEP protocol extension for P2MP [RFC6006] and using the PCEP P2MP procedures defined in [PCEP-P2MP-INTER-DOMAIN]. 10. Optical Domains The International Telecommunications Union (ITU) defines the ASON architecture in [G-8080]. [G-7715] defines the routing architecture D. King, et al. Expires April 11, 2011 [Page 13] Internet-Draft October 2010 for ASON and introduces a hierarchical architecture. In this architecture, the Routing Areas (RAs) have a hierarchical relationship between different routing levels, which means a parent (or higher level) RA can contain multiple child RAs. The interconnectivity of the lower RAs is visible to the higher level RA. 10.1. PCE applied to the ASON Architecture In the ASON framework, a path computation request is termed a Route Query. This query is executed before signaling is used to establish an LSP termed a Switched Connection (SC) or a Soft Permanent Connection (SPC). [G-7715-2] defines the requirements and architecture for the functions performed by Routing Controllers (RC) during the operation of remote route queries - an RC is synonymous with a PCE. In the ASON routing environment, a RC responsible for an RA may communicate with its neighbor RC to request the computation of an end-to-end path across several RAs. The path computation components and sequences are defined as follows: o Remote route query. An operation where a routing controller communicates with another routing controller, which does not have the same set of layer resources, in order to compute a routing path in a collaborative manner. o Route query requester. The connection controller or RC that sends a route query message to a routing controller requesting for one or more routing path that satisfies a set of routing constraints. o Route query responder. An RC that performs path computation upon reception of a route query message from a routing controller or connection controller, sending a response back at the end of computation. When computing an end-to-end connection, the route may be computed by a single RC or multiple RCs in a collaborative manner and the two scenarios can be considered a centralized remote route query model and distributed remote route query model. RCs in an ASON environment can also use the hierarchical PCE [H-PCE] model to fully match the ASON hierarchical routing model. 11. Security 11.1. Policy Control 11.1.1 Inter-AS PCE Peering Policy Controls D. King, et al. Expires April 11, 2011 [Page 14] Internet-Draft October 2010 Each PCE cooperating with another PCE in a neighboring AS will need to request or enforce policies applicable to the sender of the request. Parameters that are subject to policy include bandwidth, setup/holding priority, Fast Reroute request, Differentiated Services Traffic Engineering (DS-TE) Class Type (CT), and others as specified in Section 5.2.2.1 of [RFC4216]. 11.2. Confidentiality 11.3. Denial of Service Attacks 12. IANA Considerations This document makes no requests for IANA action. 13. References 13.1. Normative References [RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J., and J. Ash, "A Path Computation Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655, August 2006. [RFC5440] Ayyangar, A., Farrel, A., Oki, E., Atlas, A., Dolganow, A., Ikejiri, Y., Kumaki, K., Vasseur, J., and J. Roux, "Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440, March 2009. 13.2. Informative References [RFC4090] Pan, P., Swallow, G., and A. Atlas, "Fast Reroute Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP Tunnels", RFC 4090, May 2005. [RFC4216] Zhang, R., Ed., and J.-P. Vasseur, Ed., "MPLS Inter- Autonomous System (AS) Traffic Engineering (TE) Requirements", RFC 4216, November 2005. [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. D. King, et al. Expires April 11, 2011 [Page 15] Internet-Draft October 2010 [RFC5089] Le Roux, JL., Ed., Vasseur, JP., Ed., 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. [RFC5441] Vasseur, J.P., Ed., "A Backward Recursive PCE-based Computation (BRPC) procedure to compute shortest inter- domain Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths", RFC5441, April 2009. [G-8080] ITU-T Recommendation G.8080/Y.1304, Architecture for the automatically switched optical network (ASON). [G-7715] ITU-T Recommendation G.7715 (2002), Architecture and Requirements for the Automatically Switched Optical Network (ASON). [G-7715-2] ITU-T Recommendation G.7715.2 (2007), ASON routing architecture and requirements for remote route query. [H-PCE] King, D. and A. Farrel, "The Application of the Path Computation Element Architecture to the Determination of a Sequence of Domains in MPLS & GMPLS", July 2010. [RFC6006] Takeda, T., Chaitou M., Le Roux, J.L., Ali Z., Zhao, Q., King, D., "Extensions to the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) for Point-to-Multipoint Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths", RFC6006, September 2010. [PCEP-P2MP-INTER-DOMAIN] Ali Z., Zhao, Q., King, D., "PCE-based Computation Procedure To Compute Shortest Constrained P2MP Inter-domain Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths", draft-zhao-pce-pcep-inter-domain-p2mp-procedures-05.txt, work in progress, July, 2010. 11. Acknowledgements The author would like to thank Adrian Farrel for his review and Meral Shirazipour for his comments. D. King, et al. Expires April 11, 2011 [Page 16] Internet-Draft October 2010 12. Author's Address Daniel King Old Dog Consulting UK Email: daniel@olddog.co.uk Julien Meuric France Telecom 2, avenue Pierre-Marzin 22307 Lannion Cedex Email: julien.meuric@orange-ftgroup.com Olivier Dugeon France Telecom 2, avenue Pierre-Marzin 22307 Lannion Cedex Email: olivier.dugeon@orange-ftgroup.com Quintin Zhao Huawei Technology 125 Nagog Technology Park Acton, MA 01719 US Email: qzhao@huawei.com Oscar Gonzalez de Dios Telefonica I+D Emilio Vargas 6, Madrid Spain Email: ogondio@tid.es Francisco Javier Jimenex Chico Telefonica I+D Emilio Vargas 6, Madrid Spain Email: fjjc@tid.es D. King, et al. Expires April 11, 2011 [Page 17] Internet-Draft October 2010