Path Computation Element communication Protocol extension for relationship between LSPs and Attributes or Policies
draft-dhody-pce-association-attr-04

Abstract

The Path Computation Element (PCE) provides functions of path computation in support of traffic engineering in networks controlled by Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS).

This document defines a mechanism to create associations between a set of LSPs and a set of attributes (such as configuration parameters) or policies.

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 progress."

This Internet-Draft will expire on October 21, 2016.

Copyright Notice

Copyright (c) 2016 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
• 1.1. Requirements Language
• 2. Terminology
• 3. Motivation
• 3.1. Opaque Identifier
• 3.2. Policy based Constraints
• 3.3. Bundled requests
• 4. Overview
• 5. Attribute Association Group
• 5.1. ATTRIBUTE-OBJECT-TLV
• 6. Policy Association Group
• 7. Security Considerations
• 8. IANA Considerations
• 8.1. Association object Type Indicators
• 8.2. PCEP TLV Type Indicators
• 9. Manageability Considerations
• 9.1. Control of Function and Policy
• 9.2. Information and Data Models
• 9.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring
• 9.4. Verify Correct Operations
• 9.5. Requirements On Other Protocols
• 9.6. Impact On Network Operations
• 10. Acknowledgments
• 11. References
• 11.1. Normative References
• 11.2. Informative References
• Appendix A. Contributor Addresses
• Authors' Addresses

1. Introduction

[RFC5440] describes the Path Computation Element communication Protocol (PCEP) which enables the communication between a Path Computation Client (PCC) and a Path Control Element (PCE), or between two PCEs based on the PCE architecture [RFC4655].

[I-D.ietf-pce-association-group] introduces a generic mechanism to create a grouping of LSPs which can then be used to define associations between a set of LSPs and a set of attributes (such as configuration parameters or behaviours) and is equally applicable to the active and passive modes of a stateful PCE and a stateless PCE.

This document specifies a PCEP extension to associate one or more LSPs with a set of attributes or policies.

PCEP Extensions for Stateful PCE Model [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] describes a set of extensions to PCEP to enable active control of MPLS-TE and GMPLS tunnels. [I-D.ietf-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, thus allowing for a dynamic network. The mechanims described in this document is equally applicable to these deployment models.

1.1. Requirements Language

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 [RFC2119].

2. Terminology

The following terminology is used in this document.

AAG:

Attribute Association Group.

LSR:

Label Switch Router.

MPLS:

Multiprotocol Label Switching.

PAG:

Policy Association Group.

PCC:

Path Computation Client. Any client application requesting a path computation to be performed by a Path Computation Element.

PCE:

Path Computation Element. An entity (component, application, or network node) that is capable of computing a network path or route based on a network graph and applying computational constraints.

PCEP:

Path Computation Element Communication Protocol.

3. Motivation

This section discusses in more detail the motivation and use cases for such an association including but not limited to -

3.1. Opaque Identifier

An opaque identifier may represent attributes such as configured parameters or constraints that a PCEP speaker may invoke on a peer. Thus a PCEP speaker may only need an opaque identifier to invoke these attributes (parameters or constraints) rather than encoding them explicitly in each PCEP message.

This can also be used for tagging bunch of LSP to a particular customer or for creation of virtual network like in case of Abstraction and Control of TE Networks (ACTN) [I-D.ietf-teas-actn-requirements]. (See [I-D.leedhody-pce-vn-association])

3.2. Policy based Constraints

In the context of policy-enabled path computation [RFC5394], path computation policies may be applied at both a PCC and a PCE. Consider an Label Switch Router (LSR) with a policy enabled PCC, it receives a service request via signaling, including over a Network-Network Interface (NNI) or User Network Interface (UNI) reference point, or receives a configuration request over a management interface to establish a service. The PCC may also apply user- or service-specific policies to decide how the path selection process should be constrained, that is, which constraints, diversities, optimization criterion, and constraint relaxation strategies should be applied in order for the service LSP(s) to have a likelihood to be successfully established and provide necessary QoS and resilience against network failures. The user- or service-specific policies applied to PCC and are then passed to the PCE along with the Path computation request, in the form of constraints [RFC5394].

PCEP speaker can use the generic mechanism as per [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group] to associate a set of LSPs with policy and its resulting path computation constraints. This simplified the path computation message exchanges.

3.3. Bundled requests

In some scenarios(e.g.,the topology example described in Section 4.6 of [RFC6805]), there is a need to send multiple requests with the same constraints and attributes to the PCE. Currently these requests are either sent in a separate path computation request (PCReq) messages or bundled together in one (or more) PCReq messages. In either case, the constraints and attributes need to be encoded separately for each request even though they are exactly identical.

If a association is used to identify these constraints and attributes shared by multiple requests and grouped together via association mechanism, thus simplifying the path computation message exchanges.

4. Overview

As per [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group], LSPs are associated with other LSPs with which they interact by adding them to a common association group. This grouping can then be used to define associations between sets of LSPs or between a set of LSPs and a set of attributes (such as configuration parameters). Similarly grouping can also be used to define association between LSPs and policies. Two new optional Association Object-types are defined based on the generic Association object -

• Attribute Association Group (AAG)
• Policy Association Group (PAG)

Thus this document defines two new association type called "Attribute Association Type" of value TBD1 and "Policy Association Type" of value TBD2. An AAG can have one or more LSPs and its associated attributes and a PAG can have one or more LSPs and its associated policy(s). The scope and handling of AAG and PAG identifier is similar to the generic association identifier defined in [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group].

One or more LSP are grouped via a single group identifier as defined in [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group]. The attributes that may be associated with this set of LSPs may either are -

• known to the PCEP peers via some external means like configuration, policy enforcement etc (can be considered as 'out-of-band'). PCEP speaker simply use the AAG identifier in the PCEP message and the peer is supposed to be aware of the associated attributes. This is suitable for stateless PCE where the PCEP peers should be aware of the association and its significance outside of the protocol.
• or communicated to the PCEP peer via PCEP itself on first use (can be considered as 'in-band'). PCEP speaker creates a new AAG by using a new identifier and the associated attributes are communicated via TLVs in association object. This is applicable for stateful PCE only.

Error handling would be taken up in future revision.

In case of Policy, PCEP speaker muct be aware of the policy outside of PCEP.

5. Attribute Association Group

The format of the generic Association object used for AAG is shown in Figure 1:

  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
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |         Reserved              |            Flags            |R|
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |      Association type (TBD1)  |      Association ID           |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |              IPv4 Association Source                          |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 //                   Optional TLVs                             //
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

  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
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |         Reserved              |            Flags            |R|
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |      Association type (TBD1)  |      Association ID           |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |                                                               |
 |                    IPv6 Association Source                    |
 |                                                               |
 |                                                               |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 //                   Optional TLVs                             //
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+     

 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=[TBD3]         |           Length              |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Object-Class  |   OT  |Res|P|I|   Object Length (bytes)       |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|                                                               |
//                        (Object body)                        //
|                                                               |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    

  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
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |         Reserved              |            Flags            |R|
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |      Association type (TBD2)  |      Association ID           |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |              IPv4 Association Source                          |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 //                   Optional TLVs                             //
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

  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
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |         Reserved              |            Flags            |R|
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |      Association type (TBD2)  |      Association ID           |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |                                                               |
 |                    IPv6 Association Source                    |
 |                                                               |
 |                                                               |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 //                   Optional TLVs                             //
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+     

Value     Name                        Reference
TBD1      Attribute Association Type  [This I.D.]
TBD2      Policy Association Type     [This I.D.]

Value     Name                        Reference
TBD3      ATTRIBUTE-OBJECT-TLV        [This I.D.]

Xian Zhang
Huawei Technologies
Bantian, Longgang District
Shenzhen  518129
P.R.China

EMail: zhang.xian@huawei.com

Udayasree Palle
Huawei Technologies
Divyashree Techno Park, Whitefield
Bangalore, Karnataka  560066
INDIA

EMail: udayasree.palle@huawei.com