PCE Working Group Young Lee Haomian Zheng Internet Draft Huawei Intended Status: Standard Expires: September 2017 Daniele Ceccarelli Ericsson Wei Wang Beijing Univ. of Posts and Telecom Peter Park KT Bin Young Yoon ETRI March 5, 2017 PCEP Extension for Distribution of Link-State and TE information for Optical Networks draft-lee-pce-pcep-ls-optical-01 Abstract In order to compute and provide optimal paths, Path Computation Elements (PCEs) require an accurate and timely Traffic Engineering Database (TED). Traditionally this Link State and TE information has been obtained from a link state routing protocol (supporting traffic engineering extensions). This document extends the Path Communication Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)_with Link-State and TE information for optical 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 Lee Expires September 5, 2017 [Page 1] Internet-Draft PCEP LS for Optical Networks March 2017 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 September 5, 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. Applicability..................................................5 3. Requirements for PCEP extension................................6 4. PCEP-LS extension for Optical Networks.........................6 4.1. Node Attributes TLV.......................................6 4.2. Link Attributes TLV.......................................7 5. PCEP-LS for Optical Network Abstraction........................8 6. Security Considerations........................................8 7. IANA Considerations............................................9 7.1. PCEP-LS Sub-TLV Type Indicators...........................9 8. References....................................................10 8.1. Normative References.....................................10 8.2. Informative References...................................11 Lee Expires September 5, 2017 [Page 2] Internet-Draft PCEP LS for Optical Networks March 2017 Appendix A. Contributor Addresses................................12 Author's Addresses...............................................13 1. Introduction In Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS), a Traffic Engineering Database (TED) is used in computing paths for connection oriented packet services and for circuits. The TED contains all relevant information that a Path Computation Element (PCE) needs to perform its computations. It is important that the TED should be complete and accurate anytime so that the PCE can perform path computations. In MPLS and GMPLS networks, Interior Gateway routing Protocols (IGPs) have been used to create and maintain a copy of the TED at each node. One of the benefits of the PCE architecture [RFC4655] is the use of computationally more sophisticated path computation algorithms and the realization that these may need enhanced processing power not necessarily available at each node participating in an IGP. Section 4.3 of [RFC4655] describes the potential load of the TED on a network node and proposes an architecture where the TED is maintained by the PCE rather than the network nodes. However it does not describe how a PCE would obtain the information needed to populate its TED. PCE may construct its TED by participating in the IGP ([RFC3630] and [RFC5305] for MPLS-TE; [RFC4203] and [RFC5307] for GMPLS). An alternative is offered by [BGP-LS]. [RFC7399] touches upon this issue: "It has also been proposed that the PCE Communication Protocol (PCEP) [RFC5440] could be extended to serve as an information collection protocol to supply information from network devices to a PCE. The logic is that the network devices may already speak PCEP and so the protocol could easily be used to report details about the resources and state in the network, including the LSP state discussed in Sections 14 and 15." [Stateful-PCE] describes a set of extensions to PCEP to provide stateful control. A stateful PCE has access to not only the information carried by the network's Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP), but also the set of active paths and their reserved resources for its computations. PCC can delegate the rights to modify the LSP parameters to an Active Stateful PCE. This requires PCE to quickly be updated on any changes in the Topology and TEDB, so that PCE can meet the need for updating LSPs effectively and in a timely manner. The fastest way for a PCE to be updated on TED changes is via a Lee Expires September 5, 2017 [Page 3] Internet-Draft PCEP LS for Optical Networks March 2017 direct interface with each network node and with incremental update from each network node. [PCE-initiated] describes the setup, maintenance and teardown of PCE-initiated LSPs under the stateful PCE model, without the need for local configuration on the PCC, thus allowing for a dynamic network that is centrally controlled and deployed. This model requires timely topology and TED update at the PCE. [PCEP-LS-Arch] proposes alternative architecture approaches for learning and maintaining the Link State (and TE) information directly on a PCE from network nodes as an alternative to IGPs and BGP transport and investigate the impact from the PCE, routing protocol, and network node perspectives. [RFC6805] describes a Hierarchical PCE (H-PCE) architecture which can be used for computing end-to-end paths for inter-domain MPLS Traffic Engineering (TE) and GMPLS Label Switched Paths (LSPs). Within the Hierarchical PCE (H-PCE) architecture [RFC6805], the Parent PCE (P-PCE) is used to compute a multi-domain path based on the domain connectivity information. A Child PCE (C-PCE) may be responsible for a single domain or multiple domains, it is used to compute the intra-domain path based on its domain topology information. [Stateful H-PCE] presents general considerations for stateful PCE(s) in hierarchical PCE architecture. In particular, the behavior changes and additions to the existing stateful PCE mechanisms (including PCE-initiated LSP setup and active PCE usage) in the context of networks using the H-PCE architecture. [PCEP-LS] describes a mechanism by which Link State and TE information can be collected from packet networks and shared with PCE with the PCEP itself. This is achieved using a new PCEP message format. [ACTN-Abstraction] describes various ways to support abstraction topology including optical networks. This draft describes an optical extension of [PCEP-LS] and explains how encodings suggested by [PCEP-LS] can be used in the optical network contexts. In the stateful H-PCE architecture, PCEP-LS is applied in both C-PCE to NE as well as P-PCE to C-PCE. When PCEP-LS is applied to P-PCE to C-PCE, the topology can be abstracted to hide details of optical networks. Lee Expires September 5, 2017 [Page 4] Internet-Draft PCEP LS for Optical Networks March 2017 2. Applicability There are three main applicability of this alternative proposed by this draft: - Case 1: Where there is IGP running in optical network but there is a need for a faster link-state and TE resource collection at the PCE directly from an optical node (PCC) via a PCC-PCE interface. o A PCE may receive an incremental update (as opposed to the entire TE information of the node/link). Note: A PCE may receive full information from IGP using existing mechanism. In some cases, the convergence of full link-state and TE resource information of the entire network may not be appropriate for certain applications. Incremental update capability will enhance the accuracy of the TE information at a given time. - Case 2: Where there is no IGP running in the optical network and there is a need for link-state and TE resource collections at the PCE directly from an optical node (PCC) via a PCC-PCE interface. - Case 3: Where there is a need for transporting abstract optical link-state and TE information from child PCE and to a parent PCE in H-PCE [RFC6805] and [Stateful H-PCE] as well as for Physical Network Controller (PNC) to Multi-Domain Service Coordinator (MDSC) in Abstraction and Control of TE Networks (ACTN) [ACTN-Frame]. [ACTN-Abstraction] discusses how abstraction in optical networks can be done. The applicability for Case 3 may arise as a consequence of Case 1 and Case 2. When TE information changes occur in the optical network, this may also affect abstracted TE information and thus needs to be updated to Parent PCE/MSDC from each child PCE/PNC. Lee Expires September 5, 2017 [Page 5] Internet-Draft PCEP LS for Optical Networks March 2017 3. Requirements for PCEP extension The key requirements associated with link-state (and TE) distribution are identified for PCEP and listed in Section 4 of [PCEP-LS]. These new functions required in PCEP to support distribution of link-state (and TE) information are described in Section 5 of [PCEP-LS]. Details of PCEP messages and related Objects/TLVs are specified in Sections 8 and 9 of [PCEP-LS]. The key requirements and new functions specified in [PCEP-LS] are equally applicable to optical networks. Section 4 in this draft will specify additional PCEP-LS extension for Optical Networks. Section 5 will specify PCEP-LS extension for Optical Network abstraction. 4. PCEP-LS extension for Optical Networks This section provides additional PCEP-LS extension necessary to support optical networks. All Objects/TLVs defined in [PCEP-LS] are applicable to optical networks. 4.1. Node Attributes TLV Node-Attributed TLV is defined in Section 9.2.10.1 in [PCEP-LS] as follows. This TLV is applicable for LS Node Object-Type as defined in [PCEP-LS]. 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | // Node Attributes Sub-TLVs (variable) // | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ The following 'Node Attribute' sub-TLVs are valid for optical networks: Lee Expires September 5, 2017 [Page 6] Internet-Draft PCEP LS for Optical Networks March 2017 +-----------+------------------+--------------+-------------------+ | Sub-TLV | Description | TLV/Sub-TLV | Length |Reference| +-----------+------------------+--------------+---------+---------+ | TBD | Connectivity | 5/14 | variable|[RFC7579]| | | Matrix | | |[RFC7580]| | TBD | Resource Block | 6/1 | variable|[RFC7688]| | | Information | | | | | TBD | Resource Block | 6/2 | variable|[RFC7688]| | | Accessibility | | | | | TBD | Resource Block | 6/3 | variable|[RFC7688]| | | Wavelength Const | | | | | TBD | Resource Block | 6/4 | variable|[RFC7688]| | | Pool State | | | | | TBD | Resource Block | 6/5 | variable|[RFC7688]| | | Shared Access | | | | | | Wavelength Avail.| | | | +------------------------------------------------------=----------+ 4.2. Link Attributes TLV Link-Attributes TLV is defined in Section 9.2.10.2 in [PCEP-LS] as follows. This TLV is applicable for LS Link Object-Type as defined in [PCEP-LS]. 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | // Link Attributes Sub-TLVs (variable) // | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ The following 'Link Attribute' sub-TLVs are valid for optical networks: Lee Expires September 5, 2017 [Page 7] Internet-Draft PCEP LS for Optical Networks March 2017 +-----------+-----------------+--------------+--------+----------+ | Sub-TLV | Description | TLV/Sub-TLV | Length |Reference | | | | | | | +-----------+-----------------+--------------+--------+----------+ | TBD | ISCD | 15 |Variable|[RFC4203] | | | | | | | | TBD | OTN-TDM SCSI | 15/1,2 |Variable|[RFC4203] | | | | | |[RFC7138] | | TBD | WSON-LSC SCSI | 15/1,2 |Variable|[RFC4203] | | | | | |[RFC7688] | | TBD | Flexi-grid SCSI | 15/1 |Variable|[FlexOSPF]| | | | | | | | TBD | Port Label | 34 |Variable|[RFC7579] | | | Restriction | | |[RFC7580] | | | | | |[FlexOSPF]| +-----------+-----------------+--------------+--------+----------+ 5. PCEP-LS for Optical Network Abstraction This section provides additional PCEP-LS extension necessary to support optical networks abstraction. Abstraction is primarily applied to C-PCE and P-PCE although the same principle can be applied to PCC (NE) to PCE. Abstraction For OTN networks, max bandwidth available may be per ODU 0/1/2/3 switching level or aggregated across all ODU switching levels (i.e., ODUj/k). For WSON networks, max bandwidth available may be per lambda/frequency level (OCh) or aggregated across all lambda/frequency level. Per OCh level abstraction gives more detailed data to the P-PCE at the expense of more information processing. Either OCh-level or aggregated level abstraction should factor in the RWA constraint (i.e., wavelength continuity) at the C- PCE level. This means the C-PCE should have this capability and advertise it as such. 6. Security Considerations This document extends PCEP for LS (and TE) distribution including a set of TLVs. Procedures and protocol extensions defined in this document do not effect the overall PCEP security model. See Lee Expires September 5, 2017 [Page 8] Internet-Draft PCEP LS for Optical Networks March 2017 [RFC5440], [I-D.ietf-pce-pceps]. The PCE implementation SHOULD provide mechanisms to prevent strains created by network flaps and amount of LS (and TE) information. Thus it is suggested that any mechanism used for securing the transmission of other PCEP message be applied here as well. As a general precaution, it is RECOMMENDED that these PCEP extensions only be activated on authenticated and encrypted sessions belonging to the same administrative authority. 7. IANA Considerations This document requests IANA actions to allocate code points for the protocol elements defined in this document. 7.1. PCEP-LS Sub-TLV Type Indicators This document specifies a set of PCEP-LS Sub-TLVs. IANA is requested to create an "PCEP-LS Sub-TLV Types" sub-registry in the "PCEP TLV Type Indicators" for the sub-TLVs carried in the PCEP-LS TLV (Node Attributes TLV and Link Attributes TLV). +-----------+------------------+--------------+----------+ | Sub-TLV | Description | Ref Sub-TLV | Reference| +-----------+------------------+--------------+----------+ | TBD | Connectivity | 5/14 | [RFC7579]| | | Matrix | | [RFC7580]| | TBD | Resource Block | 6/1 | [RFC7688]| | | Information | | | | TBD | Resource Block | 6/2 | [RFC7688]| | | Accessibility | | | | TBD | Resource Block | 6/3 | [RFC7688]| | | Wavelength Const | | | | TBD | Resource Block | 6/4 | [RFC7688]| | | Pool State | | | | TBD | Resource Block | 6/5 | [RFC7688]| | | Shared Access | | | | | Wavelength Avail.| | | Lee Expires September 5, 2017 [Page 9] Internet-Draft PCEP LS for Optical Networks March 2017 | TBD | ISCD | 15 |[RFC4203] | | | | | | | TBD | OTN-TDM SCSI | 15/1,2 |[RFC4203] | | | | |[RFC7138] | | TBD | WSON-LSC SCSI | 15/1,2 |[RFC4203] | | | | |[RFC7688] | | TBD | Flexi-grid SCSI | 15/1 |[FlexOSPF]| | | | | | | TBD | Port Label | 34 |[RFC7579] | | | Restriction | |[RFC7580] | | | | |[FlexOSPF]| +-----------+------------------+--------------+----------+ 8. References 8.1. Normative References [RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J.-P., and J. Ash, "A Path Computation Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655, August 2006. [RFC4674] Le Roux, J., Ed., "Requirements for Path Computation Element (PCE) Discovery", RFC 4674, October 2006. [RFC5088] Le Roux, JL., Ed., Vasseur, JP., Ed., Ikejiri, Y., and R. Zhang, "OSPF Protocol Extensions for Path Computation Element (PCE) Discovery", RFC 5088, January 2008. [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. [RFC5250] Berger, L., Bryskin, I., Zinin, A., and R. Coltun, "The OSPF Opaque LSA Option", RFC 5250, July 2008. [RFC5305] Li, T. and H. Smit, "IS-IS Extensions for Traffic Engineering", RFC 5305, October 2008. [RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440, March 2009. Lee Expires September 5, 2017 [Page 10] Internet-Draft PCEP LS for Optical Networks March 2017 8.2. Informative References [JMS] Java Message Service, Version 1.1, April 2002, Sun Microsystems. [RFC3630] Katz, D., Kompella, K., and D. Yeung, "Traffic Engineering (TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC 3630, September 2003. [RFC4203] Kompella, K., Ed. and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "OSPF Extensions in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)", RFC 4203, October 2005. [RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J., and J. Ash, "A Path Computation Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655, August 2006. [BGP-LS] Gredler, H., Medved, J., Previdi, S., Farrel, A., and S.Ray, "North-Bound Distribution of Link-State and TE information using BGP", draft-ietf-idr-ls-distribution, work in progress. [S-PCE-GMPLS] X. Zhang, et. al, "Path Computation Element (PCE) Protocol Extensions for Stateful PCE Usage in GMPLS- controlled Networks", draft-ietf-pce-pcep-stateful-pce- gmpls, work in progress. [RFC7399] A. Farrel and D. king, "Unanswered Questions in the Path Computation Element Architecture", RFC 7399, October 2015. [RFC7449] Y. Lee, G. Bernstein, "Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Requirements for Wavelength Switched Optical Network (WSON) Routing and Wavelength Assignment", RFC 7449, February 2015. [RFC4456] Bates, T., Chen, E., and R. Chandra, "BGP Route Reflection: An Alternative to Full Mesh Internal BGP (IBGP)", RFC 4456, April 2006. [RFC6163] Y. Lee, G. Bernstein, W. Imajuku, "Framework for GMPLS and PCE Control of Wavelength Switched Optical Networks", RFC 6163, [G.680] ITU-T Recommendation G.680, Physical transfer functions of optical network elements, July 2007. Lee Expires September 5, 2017 [Page 11] Internet-Draft PCEP LS for Optical Networks March 2017 [ACTN-Frame] D.Ceccarelli, and Y. Lee (Editors), "Framework for Abstraction and Control of TE Networks", draft-ietf-teas- actn-framework, work in progress. [RFC6805] A. Farrel and D. King, "The Application of the Path Computation Element Architecture to the Determination of a Sequence of Domains in MPLS and GMPLS", RFC 6805, November 2012. [PCEP-LS-Arch] Y. Lee, D. Dhody and D. Ceccarelli, "Architecture and Requirement for Distribution of Link-State and TE Information via PCEP", draft-leedhody-teas-pcep-ls, work in progress. [PCEP-LS] D. Dhody, Y. Lee and D. Ceccarelli "PCEP Extension for Distribution of Link-State and TE Information.", work in progress, September 21, 2015[Stateful-PCE] Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Medved, J., and R. Varga, "PCEP Extensions for Stateful PCE", draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce, work in progress. [PCE-Initiated] Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Sivabalan, S., and R. Varga, "PCEP Extensions for PCE-initiated LSP Setup in a Stateful PCE Model", draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp, work in progress. [Stateful H-PCE] D. Dhody, Y. Lee and D. Ceccarelli, "Hierarchical Stateful Path Computation Element (PCE)", draft-dhodylee- pce-stateful-hpce, work-in-progress. [FlexOSPF] X. Zhang, H. Zheng, R. Casellas, O. Gonzalez de Dios, D. Ceccarelli, "GMPLS OSPF Extensions in support of Flexi- grid DWDM networks", draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-ospf- ext-05, work in progress. [ACTN-Abstraction] Y. Lee, D. Dhody. D. Ceccarelli, and O. D. de Dios, "Abstraction and Control of TE Networks (ACTN) Abstraction Methods", draft-lee-teas-actn-abstraction, work in progress. Appendix A. Contributor Addresses Dhruv Dhody Huawei Technologies Lee Expires September 5, 2017 [Page 12] Internet-Draft PCEP LS for Optical Networks March 2017 Divyashree Techno Park, Whitefield Bangalore, Karnataka 560066 India Email: dhruv.ietf@gmail.com Author's Addresses Young Lee Huawei Technologies 5340 Legacy Drive, Building 3 Plano, TX 75023, USA Email: leeyoung@huawei.com Haomian Zheng Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. F3-1-B R&D Center, Huawei Base, Bantian, Longgang District Shenzhen 518129 P.R.China Email: zhenghaomian@huawei.com Daniele Ceccarelli Ericsson Torshamnsgatan,48 Stockholm Sweden EMail: daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com Wei Wang Beijing University of Posts and Telecom No. 10, Xitucheng Rd. Haidian District, Beijing 100876, P.R.China Email: weiw@bupt.edu.cn Peter Park KT Email: peter.park@kt.com Lee Expires September 5, 2017 [Page 13] Internet-Draft PCEP LS for Optical Networks March 2017 Bin Yeong Yoon ETRI Email: byyun@etri.re.kr Lee Expires September 5, 2017 [Page 14]