Internet DRAFT - draft-ali-pce-remote-initiated-gmpls-lsp
PCE Working Group Zafar Ali
Internet Draft Siva Sivabalan
Intended status: Standard Track Clarence Filsfils
Expires: August 13, 2014 Cisco Systems
Oscar Gonzalez de Dios
February 14, 2014
Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)
Extensions for remote-initiated GMPLS LSP Setup
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
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
This Internet-Draft will expire on August 13, 2014.
Copyright (c) 2014 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
Expires January 2014 [Page 1]
Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without
warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.
This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
Contributions published or made publicly available before November
10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s)
controlling the copyright in such materials, this document may not
be modified outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative
works of it may not be created outside the IETF Standards Process,
except to format it for publication as an RFC or to translate it
into languages other than English.
Draft [I-D. draft-crabbe-pce-pce-initiated-lsp] specifies
procedures that can be used for creation and deletion of PCE-
initiated LSPs in the active stateful PCE model. However, this
specification focuses on MPLS networks, and does not cover remote
instantiation of paths in GMPLS-controlled networks. This document
complements [I-D. draft-crabbe-pce-pce-initiated-lsp] by addressing
the requirements for remote-initiated GMPLS LSPs.
Conventions used in this document
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in
this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119
Table of Contents
1. Introduction .............................................3
2. Requirements for Remote-Initiated GMPLS LSPs .............3
3. PCEP Extensions for Remote-Initiated GMPLS LSPs ..........4
3.1. Generalized Endpoint in LSP Initiate Message .........4
3.2. GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH object in LSP Initiate Message .5
3.3. Protection Attributes in LSP Initiate Message ........5
3.4. ERO in LSP Initiate Object ...........................5
3.4.1. ERO with explicit label control ................5
3.4.2. ERO with Path Keys .............................6
3.4.3. Switch Layer Object ............................6
3.5. LSP delegation and cleanup ...........................7
4. Security Considerations ..................................7
5. IANA Considerations ......................................7
5.1. PCEP-Error Object ....................................7
6. Acknowledgments ..........................................7
7. References ...............................................7
7.1. Normative References .................................7
Expires August 2014 [Page 2]
7.2. Informative References ...............................8
The Path Computation Element communication Protocol (PCEP)
provides mechanisms for Path Computation Elements (PCEs) to
perform route computations in response to Path Computation
Clients (PCCs) requests. PCEP Extensions for PCE-initiated LSP
Setup in a Stateful PCE Model draft [I-D. draft-ietf-pce-
stateful-pce] describes a set of extensions to PCEP to enable
active control of MPLS-TE and GMPLS network.
[I-D. draft-crabbe-pce-pce-initiated-lsp] describes the setup
and teardown of PCE-initiated LSPs under the active stateful PCE
model, without the need for local configuration on the PCC. This
enables realization of a dynamic network that is centrally
controlled and deployed. However, this specification is focused
on MPLS networks, and does not cover the GMPLS networks (e.g.,
WSON, OTN, SONET/ SDH, etc. technologies). This document
complements [I-D. draft-crabbe-pce-pce-initiated-lsp] by
addressing the requirements for remote-initiated GMPLS LSPs.
These requirements are covered in Section 2 of this draft. The
PCEP extensions for remote initiated GMPLS LSPs are specified in
2. Requirements for Remote-Initiated GMPLS LSPs
[I-D. draft-crabbe-pce-pce-initiated-lsp] specifies procedures
that can be used for creation and deletion of PCE-initiated LSPs
under the active stateful PCE model. However, this specification
does not address GMPLS requirements outlined in the following:
- GMPLS support multiple switching capabilities on per TE link
basis. GMPLS LSP creation requires knowledge of LSP switching
capability (e.g., TDM, L2SC, OTN-TDM, LSC, etc.) to be used
- GMPLS LSP creation requires knowledge of the encoding type
(e.g., lambda photonic, Ethernet, SONET/ SDH, G709 OTN, etc.)
to be used by the LSP [RFC3471], [RFC3473].
- GMPLS LSP creation requires information of the generalized
payload (G-PID) to be carried by the LSP [RFC3471], [RFC3473].
- GMPLS LSP creation requires specification of data flow
specific traffic parameters (also known as Tspec), which are
Expires August 2014 [Page 3]
- GMPLS also specifics support for asymmetric bandwidth
- GMPLS extends the addressing to include unnumbered interface
identifiers, as defined in [RFC3477].
- In some technologies path calculation is tightly coupled with
label selection along the route. For example, path calculation
in a WDM network may include lambda continuity and/ or lambda
feasibility constraints and hence a path computed by the PCE
is associated with a specific lambda (label). Hence, in such
networks, the label information needs to be provided to a PCC
in order for a PCE to initiate GMPLS LSPs under the active
stateful PCE model. I.e., explicit label control may be
- GMPLS specifics protection context for the LSP, as defined in
[RFC4872] and [RFC4873].
3. PCEP Extensions for Remote-Initiated GMPLS LSPs
LSP initiate (PCInitiate) message defined in [I-D. draft-crabbe-
pce-pce-initiated-lsp] needs to be extended to include GMPLS
specific PCEP objects as follows:
3.1. Generalized Endpoint in LSP Initiate Message
This document does not modify the usage of END-POINTS object for
PCE initiated LSPs as specified in [I-D. draft-crabbe-pce-pce-
initiated-lsp]. It augments the usage as specified below.
END-POINTS object has been extended by [I-D. draft-ietf-pcep-
gmpls-ext] to include a new object type called "Generalized
Endpoint". PCInitiate message sent by a PCE to a PCC to trigger
a GMPLS LSP instantiation SHOULD include the END-POINTS with
Generalized Endpoint object type. Furthermore, the END-POINTS
object MUST contain "label request" TLV. The label request TLV
is used to specify the switching type, encoding type and GPID of
the LSP being instantiated by the PCE.
The unnumbered endpoint TLV can be used to specify unnumbered
endpoint addresses for the LSP being instantiated by the PCE.
The END-POINTS MAY contain other TLVs defined in [I-D. draft-
If the END-POINTS Object of type Generalized Endpoint is missing
the label request TLV, the PCC MUST send a PCErr message with
Error-type=6 (Mandatory Object missing) and Error-value= TBA
(LSP request TLV missing).
If the PCC does not support the END-POINTS Object of type
Generalized Endpoint, the PCC MUST send a PCErr message with
Expires August 2014 [Page 4]
Error-type = 3 (Unknown Object), Error-value = 2(unknown object
3.2. GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH object in LSP Initiate Message
LSP initiate message defined in [I-D. draft-crabbe-pce-pce-
initiated-lsp] can optionally include the BANDWIDTH object.
However, the following possibilities cannot be represented in
the BANDWIDTH object:
- Asymmetric bandwidth (different bandwidth in forward and
reverse direction), as described in [RFC6387].
- Technology specific GMPLS parameters (e.g., Tspec for
SDH/SONET, G.709, ATM, MEF, etc.) are not supported.
GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH object has been defined in [I-D. draft-
ietf-pcep-gmpls-ext] to address the above-mentioned limitation
of the BANDWIDTH object.
This document specifies the use of GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH object
in PCInitiate message. Specifically, GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH
object MAY be included in the PCInitiate message. The
GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH object in PCInitiate message is used to
specify technology specific Tspec and asymmetrical bandwidth
values for the LSP being instantiated by the PCE.
3.3. Protection Attributes in LSP Initiate Message
This document does not modify the usage of LSPA object for PCE
initiated LSPs as specified in [I-D. draft-crabbe-pce-pce-
initiated-lsp]. It augments the usage of LSPA object in LSP
Initiate Message to carry the end-to-end protection context this
also includes the protection state information.
The LSP Protection Information TLV of LSPA in the PCInitiate
message can be used to specify protection attributes of the LSP
being instantiated by the PCE.
3.4. ERO in LSP Initiate Object
This document does not modify the usage of ERO object for PCE
initiated LSPs as specified in [I-D. draft-crabbe-pce-pce-
initiated-lsp]. It augments the usage as specified in the
3.4.1. ERO with explicit label control
As mentioned earlier, there are technologies and scenarios where
active stateful PCE requires explicit label control in order to
instantiate an LSP.
Expires August 2014 [Page 5]
Explicit label control (ELC) is a procedure supported by RSVP-
TE, where the outgoing label(s) is (are) encoded in the ERO. [I-
D. draft-ietf-pcep-gmpls-ext] extends the <ERO> object of PCEP
to include explicit label control. The ELC procedure enables the
PCE to provide such label(s) directly in the path ERO.
The extended ERO object in PCInitiate message can be used to
specify label along with ERO to PCC for the LSP being
instantiated by the active stateful PCE.
3.4.2. ERO with Path Keys
There are many scenarios in packet and optical networks where
the route information of an LSP may not be provided to the PCC
for confidentiality reasons. A multi-domain or multi-layer
network is an example of such networks. Similarly, a GMPLS User-
Network Interface (UNI) [RFC4208] is also an example of such
In such scenarios, ERO containing the entire route cannot be
provided to PCC (by PCE). Instead, PCE provides an ERO with Path
Keys to the PCC. For example, in the case UNI interface between
the router and the optical nodes, the ERO in the LSP Initiate
Message may be constructed as follows:
- The first hop is a strict hop that provides the egress
interface information at PCC. This interface information is
used to get to a network node that can extend the rest of the
ERO. (Please note that in the cases where the network node is
not directly connected with the PCC, this part of ERO may
consist of multiple hops and may be loose).
- The following(s) hop in the ERO may provide the network node
with the path key [RFC5520] that can be resolved to get the
contents of the route towards the destination.
- There may be further hops but these hops may also be encoded
with the path keys (if needed).
This document does not change encoding or processing roles for
the path keys, which are defined in [RFC5520].
3.4.3. Switch Layer Object
[draft-ietf-pce-inter-layer-ext-07] specifies the SWITCH-LAYER
object which defines and specifies the switching layer (or
layers) in which a path MUST or MUST NOT be established. A
switching layer is expressed as a switching type and encoding
type. [I-D. draft-ietf-pcep-gmpls-ext], which defines the GMPLS
Expires August 2014 [Page 6]
extensions for PCEP, suggests using the SWITCH-LAYER object.
Thus, SWITCH-LAYER object can be used in the PCInitiate message
to specify the switching layer (or layers) of the LSP being
3.5. LSP delegation and cleanup
LSP delegation and cleanup procedure specified in [I-D. draft-
ietf-pcep-gmpls-ext] are equally applicable to GMPLS LSPs and
this document does not modify the associated usage.
4. Security Considerations
To be added in future revision of this document.
5. IANA Considerations
5.1. PCEP-Error Object
This document defines the following new Error-Value:
Error-Type Error Value
6 Error-value=TBA: LSP Request TLV missing
The authors would like to thank George Swallow and Jan Medved
for their comments.
7.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[I-D. draft-crabbe-pce-pce-initiated-lsp] Crabbe, E., Minei,
I., Sivabalan, S., Varga, R., "PCEP Extensions for
PCE-initiated LSP Setup in a Stateful PCE Model",
draft-crabbe-pce-pce-initiated-lsp, work in progress.
[RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed., and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path
Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol
(PCEP)", RFC 5440, March 2009.
[RFC5623] Oki, E., Takeda, T., Le Roux, JL., and A. Farrel,
"Framework for PCE-Based Inter-Layer MPLS and GMPLS
Traffic Engineering", RFC 5623, September 2009.
Expires August 2014 [Page 7]
[RFC 6107] Shiomoto, K., Ed., and A. Farrel, Ed., "Procedures
for Dynamically Signaled Hierarchical Label Switched
Paths", RFC 6107, February 2011.
7.2. Informative References
[RFC3471] Berger, L., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description",
RFC 3471, January 2003.
[RFC3473] Berger, L., Ed., "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.
[RFC4872] Lang, J., Ed., Rekhter, Y., Ed., and D. Papadimitriou,
Ed., "RSVP-TE Extensions in Support of End-to-End
Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)
Recovery", RFC 4872, May 2007.
[RFC4873] Berger, L., Bryskin, I., Papadimitriou, D., and A.
Farrel, "GMPLS Segment Recovery", RFC 4873, May 2007.
[RFC4208] Swallow, G., Drake, J., Ishimatsu, H., and Y. Rekhter,
"Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS)
User-Network Interface (UNI): Resource ReserVation
Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Support for the
Overlay Model", RFC 4208, October 2005.
[RFC5520] Bradford, R., Ed., Vasseur, JP., and A. Farrel,
"Preserving Topology Confidentiality in Inter-Domain
Path Computation Using a Path-Key-Based Mechanism",
RFC 5520, April 2009.
Expires August 2014 [Page 8]
Oscar Gonzalez de Dios
Expires August 2014 [Page 9]