Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-pce-applicability-actn
draft-ietf-pce-applicability-actn
PCE Working Group D. Dhody
Internet-Draft Y. Lee
Intended status: Informational Huawei Technologies
Expires: November 17, 2019 D. Ceccarelli
Ericsson
May 16, 2019
Applicability of the Path Computation Element (PCE) to the Abstraction
and Control of TE Networks (ACTN)
draft-ietf-pce-applicability-actn-12
Abstract
Abstraction and Control of TE Networks (ACTN) refers to the set of
virtual network (VN) operations needed to orchestrate, control and
manage large-scale multi-domain TE networks so as to facilitate
network programmability, automation, efficient resource sharing, and
end-to-end virtual service aware connectivity and network function
virtualization services.
The Path Computation Element (PCE) is a component, application, or
network node that is capable of computing a network path or route
based on a network graph and applying computational constraints. The
PCE serves requests from Path Computation Clients (PCCs) that
communicate with it over a local API or using the Path Computation
Element Communication Protocol (PCEP).
This document examines the applicability of PCE to the ACTN
framework.
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 https://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 November 17, 2019.
Dhody, et al. Expires November 17, 2019 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft PCE-ACTN May 2019
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 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
(https://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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Background Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Path Computation Element (PCE) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1.1. Role of PCE in SDN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1.2. PCE in Multi-domain and Multi-layer Deployments . . . 4
2.1.3. Relationship to PCE Based Central Control . . . . . . 5
2.2. Abstraction and Control of TE Networks (ACTN) . . . . . . 5
3. Architectural Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.1. Multi-Domain Coordination via Hierarchy . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2. Abstraction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.3. Customer Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.4. Virtual Service Coordination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4. Interface Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5. Realizing ACTN with PCE (and PCEP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
8. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Appendix A. Additional Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
1. Introduction
Abstraction and Control of TE Networks (ACTN) [RFC8453] refers to the
set of virtual network (VN) operations needed to orchestrate, control
and manage large-scale multi-domain TE networks so as to facilitate
network programmability, automation, efficient resource sharing, and
end-to-end virtual service aware connectivity and network function
virtualization services.
Dhody, et al. Expires November 17, 2019 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft PCE-ACTN May 2019
The Path Computation Element (PCE) [RFC4655] is a component,
application, or network node that is capable of computing a network
path or route based on a network graph and applying computational
constraints. The PCE serves requests from Path Computation Clients
(PCCs) that communicate with it over a local API or using the Path
Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP).
This document examines the PCE and ACTN architecture and describes
how PCE architecture is applicable to ACTN. It also lists the PCEP
extensions that are needed to use PCEP as an ACTN interface. This
document also identifies any gaps in PCEP, that exist at the time of
publication of this document.
Further, ACTN, stateful H-PCE [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-hpce], and PCE
as a central controller (PCECC) [RFC8283] are based on the same basic
hierarchy framework and thus compatible with each other.
2. Background Information
2.1. Path Computation Element (PCE)
The Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) [RFC5440]
provides mechanisms for Path Computation Clients (PCCs) to request a
Path Computation Element (PCE) [RFC4655] to perform path
computations.
The ability to compute shortest constrained TE LSPs in Multiprotocol
Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) networks across
multiple domains has been identified as a key motivation for PCE
development.
A stateful PCE [RFC8231] is capable of considering, for the purposes
of path computation, not only the network state in terms of links and
nodes (referred to as the Traffic Engineering Database or TED) but
also the status of active services (previously computed paths), and
currently reserved resources, stored in the Label Switched Paths
Database (LSP-DB).
[RFC8051] describes general considerations for a stateful PCE
deployment and examines its applicability and benefits, as well as
its challenges and limitations through a number of use cases.
[RFC8231] 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. The additional state allows the PCE to compute
constrained paths while considering individual LSPs and their
Dhody, et al. Expires November 17, 2019 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft PCE-ACTN May 2019
interactions. [RFC8281] describes the setup, maintenance and
teardown of PCE-initiated LSPs under the stateful PCE model.
[RFC8231] also describes the active stateful PCE. The active PCE
functionality allows a PCE to reroute an existing LSP or make changes
to the attributes of an existing LSP, or a PCC to delegate control of
specific LSPs to a new PCE.
2.1.1. Role of PCE in SDN
Software-Defined Networking (SDN) [RFC7149] refers to a separation
between the control elements and the forwarding components so that
software running in a centralized system called a controller, can act
to program the devices in the network to behave in specific ways. A
required element in an SDN architecture is a component that plans how
the network resources will be used and how the devices will be
programmed. It is possible to view this component as performing
specific computations to place flows within the network given
knowledge of the availability of network resources, how other
forwarding devices are programmed, and the way that other flows are
routed. It is concluded in [RFC7399], that this is the same function
that a PCE might offer in a network operated using a dynamic control
plane. This is the function and purpose of a PCE, and the way that a
PCE integrates into a wider network control system including SDN is
presented in Application-Based Network Operation (ABNO) [RFC7491].
2.1.2. PCE in Multi-domain and Multi-layer Deployments
Computing paths across large multi-domain environments requires
special computational components and cooperation between entities in
different domains capable of complex path computation. The PCE
provides an architecture and a set of functional components to
address this problem space. A PCE may be used to compute end-to-end
paths across multi-domain environments using a per-domain path
computation technique [RFC5152]. The Backward Recursive PCE based
path computation (BRPC) mechanism [RFC5441] defines a PCE-based path
computation procedure to compute inter-domain constrained MPLS and
GMPLS TE networks. However, per-domain technique assumes 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. BRPC can work best with a known domain sequence, and it will
also work nicely with a small set of interconnected domains.
However, it doesn't work well for is a large set of interconnected
domains.
[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) when the
Dhody, et al. Expires November 17, 2019 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft PCE-ACTN May 2019
domain sequence is not known. Within the Hierarchical PCE (H-PCE)
architecture, 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.
[I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-hpce] state the considerations for stateful
PCEs 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.
[RFC5623] describes a framework for applying the PCE-based
architecture to inter-layer to (G)MPLS TE. It provides suggestions
for the deployment of PCE in support of multi-layer networks. It
also describes the relationship between PCE and a functional
component in charge of the control and management of the Virtual
Network Topology (VNT) [RFC5212], called the VNT Manager (VNTM).
2.1.3. Relationship to PCE Based Central Control
[RFC8283] introduces the architecture for PCE as a central controller
(PCECC), it further examines the motivations and applicability for
PCEP as a southbound interface, and introduces the implications for
the protocol. Section 2.1.3 of [RFC8283] describe a hierarchy of
PCE-based controller as per the Hierarchy of PCE framework defined in
[RFC6805].
2.2. Abstraction and Control of TE Networks (ACTN)
[RFC8453] describes the high-level ACTN requirements and the
architecture model for ACTN including the entities Customer Network
Controller (CNC), Multi-domain Service Coordinator (MDSC), and
Provisioning Network Controller (PNC) and their interfaces.
The ACTN reference architecture is shown in Figure 1 which is
reproduced here from [RFC8453] for convenience. [RFC8453] remains
the definitive reference for the ACTN architecture. As depicted in
Figure 1, the ACTN architecture identifies a three-tier hierarchy.
Dhody, et al. Expires November 17, 2019 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft PCE-ACTN May 2019
+---------+ +---------+ +---------+
| CNC | | CNC | | CNC |
+---------+ +---------+ +---------+
\ | /
\ | /
Boundary =============\==============|==============/============
Between \ | /
Customer & ------- | CMI -------
Network Operator \ | /
+---------------+
| MDSC |
+---------------+
/ | \
------------ | MPI -------------
/ | \
+-------+ +-------+ +-------+
| PNC | | PNC | | PNC |
+-------+ +-------+ +-------+
| SBI / | / \
| / | SBI / \
--------- ----- | / \
( ) ( ) | / \
- Control - ( Phys. ) | / -----
( Plane ) ( Net ) | / ( )
( Physical ) ----- | / ( Phys. )
( Network ) ----- ----- ( Net )
- - ( ) ( ) -----
( ) ( Phys. ) ( Phys. )
--------- ( Net ) ( Net )
----- -----
CMI - (CNC-MDSC Interface)
MPI - (MDSC-PNC Interface)
Figure 1: ACTN Hierarchy
There are two interfaces with respect to the MDSC: one north of the
MDSC (the CNC-MDSC Interface : CMI), and one south (the MDSC-PNC
Interface : MPI). A hierarchy of MDSCs is possible with a recursive
MPI interface.
[RFC8454] provides an information model for ACTN interfaces.
Dhody, et al. Expires November 17, 2019 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft PCE-ACTN May 2019
3. Architectural Considerations
The ACTN architecture [RFC8453] is based on hierarchy and
recursiveness of controllers. It defines three types of controllers
(depending on the functionalities they implement). The main
functionalities are -
o Multi-domain coordination
o Abstraction
o Customer mapping/translation
o Virtual service coordination
Section 3 of [RFC8453] describes these functions.
It should be noted that this document lists all possible ways in
which PCE could be used for each of the above functions, but all
functions are not required to be implemented via PCE. Similarly,
this document presents the ways in which PCEP could be used as the
communications medium between functional components. Operators may
choose to use the PCEP for multi-domain coordination via stateful
H-PCE, but alternatively use Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)
[RFC6241], RESTCONF [RFC8040], or BGP - Link State (BGP-LS) [RFC7752]
to get access to the topology and support abstraction function.
3.1. Multi-Domain Coordination via Hierarchy
With the definition of domain being "everything that is under the
control of the single logical controller", as per [RFC8453], it is
needed to have a control entity that oversees the specific aspects of
the different domains and to build a single abstracted end-to-end
network topology in order to coordinate end-to-end path computation
and path/service provisioning.
The MDSC in ACTN framework realizes this function by coordinating the
per-domain PNCs in a hierarchy of controllers. It also needs to
detach from the underlying network technology and express customer
concerns by business needs.
[RFC6805] and [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-hpce] describe a hierarchy of
PCEs with the Parent PCE coordinating multi-domain path computation
function between Child PCEs. It is easy to see how these principles
align, and thus how the stateful H-PCE architecture can be used to
realize ACTN.
Dhody, et al. Expires November 17, 2019 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft PCE-ACTN May 2019
The per domain stitched LSP in the Hierarchical stateful PCE
architecture, described in Section 3.3.1 of
[I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-hpce] is well suited for multi-domain
coordination function. This includes domain sequence selection; End-
to-End (E2E) path computation; Controller (PCE) initiated path setup
and reporting. This is also applicable to multi-layer coordination
in case of IP+optical networks.
[I-D.litkowski-pce-state-sync] describes the procedures to allow a
stateful communication between PCEs for various use-cases. The
procedures and extensions are also applicable to Child and Parent PCE
communication and thus useful for ACTN as well.
3.2. Abstraction
To realize ACTN, an abstracted view of the underlying network
resources needs to be built. This includes global network-wide
abstracted topology based on the underlying network resources of each
domain. This also includes abstract topology created as per the
customer service connectivity requests and represented as a VN slice
allocated to each customer.
In order to compute and provide optimal paths, PCEs require an
accurate and timely Traffic Engineering Database (TED).
Traditionally this TED has been obtained from a link state (LS)
routing protocol supporting traffic engineering extensions. 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 [RFC7752].
In case of H-PCE [RFC6805], the Parent PCE needs to build the domain
topology map of the child domains and their interconnectivity.
[RFC6805] and [I-D.ietf-pce-inter-area-as-applicability] suggest that
BGP-LS could be used as a "northbound" TE advertisement from the
Child PCE to the Parent PCE.
[I-D.dhodylee-pce-pcep-ls] proposes another approach for learning and
maintaining the Link-State and TE information as an alternative to
IGPs and BGP flooding, using PCEP itself. The Child PCE can use this
mechanism to transport Link-State and TE information from Child PCE
to a Parent PCE using PCEP.
In ACTN, there is a need to control the level of abstraction based on
the deployment scenario and business relationship between the
controllers. The mechanism used to disseminate information from PNC
(Child PCE) to MDSC (Parent PCE) should support abstraction.
[RFC8453] describes a few alternative approaches of abstraction. The
resulting abstracted topology can be encoded using the PCEP-LS
Dhody, et al. Expires November 17, 2019 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft PCE-ACTN May 2019
mechanisms [I-D.dhodylee-pce-pcep-ls] and its optical network
extension [I-D.lee-pce-pcep-ls-optical]. PCEP-LS is an attractive
option when the operator would wish to have a single control plane
protocol (PCEP) to achieve ACTN functions.
[RFC8453] discusses two ways to build abstract topology from an MDSC
standpoint with interaction with PNCs. The primary method is called
automatic generation of abstract topology by configuration. With
this method, automatic generation is based on the abstraction/
summarization of the whole domain by the PNC and its advertisement on
the MPI. The secondary method is called on-demand generation of
supplementary topology via Path Compute Request/Reply. This method
may be needed to obtain further complementary information such as
potential connectivity from Child PCEs in order to facilitate an end-
to-end path provisioning. PCEP is well suited to support both
methods.
3.3. Customer Mapping
In ACTN, there is a need to map customer virtual network (VN)
requirements into a network provisioning request to the PNC. That
is, the customer requests/commands are mapped by the MDSC into
network provisioning requests that can be sent to the PNC.
Specifically, the MDSC provides mapping and translation of a
customer's service request into a set of parameters that are specific
to a network type and technology such that network configuration
process is made possible.
[RFC8281] 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. To instantiate or delete
an LSP, the PCE sends the Path Computation LSP Initiate Request
(PCInitiate) message to the PCC. As described in
[I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-hpce], for inter-domain LSP in Hierarchical
PCE architecture, the initiation operations can be carried out at the
Parent PCE. In which case, after Parent PCE finishes the E2E path
computation, it can send the PCInitiate message to the Child PCE, the
Child PCE further propagates the initiate request to the Label
Switching Router (LSR). The customer request is received by the MDSC
(Parent PCE) and based on the business logic, global abstracted
topology, network conditions and local policy, the MDSC (Parent PCE)
translates this into per domain LSP initiation request that a PNC
(Child PCE) can understand and act on. This can be done via the
PCInitiate message.
PCEP extensions for associating opaque policy between PCEP peer
[I-D.ietf-pce-association-policy] can be used.
Dhody, et al. Expires November 17, 2019 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft PCE-ACTN May 2019
3.4. Virtual Service Coordination
Virtual service coordination function in ACTN incorporates customer
service-related information into the virtual network service
operations in order to seamlessly operate virtual networks while
meeting customer's service requirements.
[I-D.leedhody-pce-vn-association] describes the need for associating
a set of LSPs with a VN "construct" to facilitate VN operations in
PCE architecture. This association allows the PCEs to identify which
LSPs belong to a certain VN.
This association based on VN is useful for various optimizations at
the VN level which can be applied to all the LSPs that are part of
the VN slice. During path computation, the impact of a path for an
LSP is compared against the paths of other LSPs in the VN. This is
to make sure that the overall optimization and SLA of the VN rather
than of a single LSP. Similarly, during re-optimization, advanced
path computation algorithm and optimization technique can be
considered for all the LSPs belonging to a VN/customer and optimize
them all together.
4. Interface Considerations
As per [RFC8453], to allow virtualization and multi-domain
coordination, the network has to provide open, programmable
interfaces, in which customer applications can create, replace and
modify virtual network resources and services in an interactive,
flexible and dynamic fashion while having no impact on other
customers. The two ACTN interfaces are -
o The CNC-MDSC Interface (CMI) is an interface between a Customer
Network Controller and a Multi-Domain Service Coordinator. It
requests the creation of the network resources, topology or
services for the applications. The MDSC may also report potential
network topology availability if queried for current capability
from the Customer Network Controller.
o The MDSC-PNC Interface (MPI) is an interface between a Multi-
Domain Service Coordinator and a Provisioning Network Controller.
It communicates the creation request, if required, of new
connectivity of bandwidth changes in the physical network, via the
PNC. In multi-domain environments, the MDSC needs to establish
multiple MPIs, one for each PNC, as there are multiple PNCs
responsible for its domain control.
In the case of hierarchy MDSCs, the MPI is applied recursively. From
an abstraction point of view, the top level MDSC which interfaces the
Dhody, et al. Expires November 17, 2019 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft PCE-ACTN May 2019
CNC operates on a higher level of abstraction (i.e., less granular
level) than the lower level MSDCs.
PCEP is especially suitable on the MPI as it meets the requirement
and the functions as set out in the ACTN framework [RFC8453]. Its
recursive nature is well suited via the multi-level hierarchy of PCE.
PCEP can also be applied to the CMI as the CNC can be a path
computation client while the MDSC can be a path computation server.
Section 5 describes how PCE and PCEP could help realize ACTN on the
MPI.
5. Realizing ACTN with PCE (and PCEP)
As per the example in Figure 2, there are 4 domains, each with its
own PNC and an MDSC on top. The PNC and MDSC need PCE as an
important function. The PNC (or Child PCE) already uses PCEP to
communicate to the network device. It can utilize the PCEP as the
MPI to communicate between controllers too.
Dhody, et al. Expires November 17, 2019 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft PCE-ACTN May 2019
******
..........*MDSC*..............................
. ****** .. MPI .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
v v v .
****** ****** ****** .
*PNC1* *PNC2* *PNC4* .
****** ****** ****** .
+---------------+ +---------------+ +---------------+ .
|A |----| |----| C| .
| | | | | | .
|DOMAIN 1 |----|DOMAIN 2 |----|DOMAIN 4 | .
+------------B13+ +---------------+ +B43------------+ .
\ / .
\ ****** / .
\ *PNC3*<............/.....................
\ ****** /
\+---------------+/
B31 B34
| |
|DOMAIN 3 B|
+---------------+
MDSC -> Parent PCE
PNC -> Child PCE
MPI -> PCEP
Figure 2: ACTN with PCE
o Building Domain Topology at MDSC: PNC (or Child PCE) needs to have
the TED to compute path in its domain. As described in
Section 3.2, it can learn the topology via IGP or BGP-LS. PCEP-LS
is also a proposed mechanism to carry link state and traffic
engineering information within PCEP. A mechanism to carry
abstracted topology while hiding technology specific information
between PNC and MDSC is described in [I-D.dhodylee-pce-pcep-ls].
At the end of this step the MDSC (or Parent PCE) has the
abstracted topology from each of its PNC (or Child PCE). This
could be as simple as a domain topology map as described in
[RFC6805] or it can have full topology information of all domains.
The latter is not scalable and thus an abstracted topology of each
Dhody, et al. Expires November 17, 2019 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft PCE-ACTN May 2019
domain interconnected by inter-domain links is the most common
case.
* Topology Change: When the PNC learns of any topology change,
the PNC needs to decide if the change needs to be notified to
the MDSC. This is dependent on the level of abstraction
between the MDSC and the PNC.
o VN Instantiate: When an MDSC is requested to instantiate a VN, the
minimal information that is required would be a VN identifier and
a set of end points. Various path computation, setup constraints
and objective functions may also be provided. In PCE terms, a VN
Instantiate can be considered as a set of paths belonging to the
same VN. As described in Section 3.4 and
[I-D.leedhody-pce-vn-association] the VN association can help in
identifying the set of paths that belong to a VN. The rest of the
information like the endpoints, constraints and objective function
(OF) is already defined in PCEP in terms of a single path.
* Path Computation: As per the example in Figure 2, the VN
instantiate requires two end to end paths between (A in Domain
1 to B in Domain 3) and (A in Domain 1 to C in Domain 4). The
MDSC (or Parent PCE) triggers the end to end path computation
for these two paths. MDSC can do path computation based on the
abstracted domain topology that it already has or it may use
the H-PCE procedures (Section 3.1) using the PCReq and PCRep
messages to get the end to end path with the help of the Child
PCEs (PNC). Either way, the resultant E2E paths may be broken
into per-domain paths.
* A-B: (A-B13,B13-B31,B31-B)
* A-C: (A-B13,B13-B31,B31-B34,B34-B43,B43-C)
* Per Domain Path Instantiation: Based on the above path
computation, MDSC can issue the path instantiation request to
each PNC via PCInitiate message (see
[I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-hpce] and
[I-D.leedhody-pce-vn-association]). A suitable stitching
mechanism would be used to stitch these per domain LSPs. One
such mechanism is described in
[I-D.dugeon-pce-stateful-interdomain], where PCEP is extended
to support stitching in stateful H-PCE context.
* Per Domain Path Report: Each PNC should report the status of
the per-domain LSP to the MDSC via PCRpt message, as per the
Hierarchy of stateful PCE ([I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-hpce]). The
Dhody, et al. Expires November 17, 2019 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft PCE-ACTN May 2019
status of the end to end LSP (A-B and A-C) is made up when all
the per domain LSP are reported up by the PNCs.
* Delegation: It is suggested that the per domain LSPs are
delegated to respective PNC, so that they can control the path
and attributes based on each domain network conditions.
* State Synchronization: The state needs to be synchronized
between the Parent PCE and Child PCE. The mechanism described
in [I-D.litkowski-pce-state-sync] can be used.
o VN Modify: MDSC is requested to modify a VN, for example the
bandwidth for VN is increased. This may trigger path computation
at MDSC as described in the previous step and can trigger an
update to existing per-intra-domain path (via PCUpd message) or
creation (or deletion) of a per-domain path (via PCInitiate
message). As described in [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-hpce], this
should be done in make-before-break fashion.
o VN Delete: MDSC is requested to delete a VN, in this case, based
on the E2E paths and the resulting per-domain paths need to be
removed (via PCInitiate message).
o VN Update (based on network changes): Any change in the per-domain
LSP is reported to the MDSC (via PCRpt message) as per
[I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-hpce]. This may result in changes in the
E2E path or VN status. This may also trigger a re-optimization
leading to a new per-domain path, update to existing path, or
deletion of the path.
o VN Protection: The VN protection/restoration requirements, need to
be applied to each E2E path as well as each per domain path. The
MDSC needs to play a crucial role in coordinating the right
protection/restoration policy across each PNC. The existing
protection/restoration mechanism of PCEP can be applied on each
path.
o In case a PNC generates an abstract topology towards the MDSC, the
PCInitiate/PCUpd messages from the MDSC to a PNC will contain a
path with abstract nodes and links. A PNC would need to take that
as an input for path computation to get a path with physical nodes
and links. Similarly, a PNC would convert the path received from
the device (with physical nodes and links) into an abstract path
(based on the abstract topology generated before with abstract
nodes and links) and report it to the MDSC.
Dhody, et al. Expires November 17, 2019 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft PCE-ACTN May 2019
6. IANA Considerations
This document makes no requests for IANA action.
7. Security Considerations
Various security considerations for PCEP are described in [RFC5440]
and [RFC8253]. Security considerations as stated in Section 10.1,
Section 10.6, and Section 10.7 of [RFC5440] continue to apply on PCEP
when used as ACTN interface. Further, this document lists various
extensions of PCEP that are applicable, each of them specify various
security considerations which continue to apply here.
The ACTN framework described in [RFC8453] defines key components and
interfaces for managed traffic engineered networks. It also lists
various security considerations such as request and control of
resources, confidentially of the information, and availability of
function which should be taken into consideration.
As per [RFC8453], securing the request and control of resources,
confidentiality of the information, and availability of function
should all be critical security considerations when deploying and
operating ACTN platforms. From a security and reliability
perspective, ACTN may encounter many risks such as malicious attack
and rogue elements attempting to connect to various ACTN components
(with PCE being one of them). Furthermore, some ACTN components
represent a single point of failure and threat vector and must also
manage policy conflicts and eavesdropping of communication between
different ACTN components. [RFC8453] further states that all
protocols used to realize the ACTN framework should have rich
security features, and customer, application and network data should
be stored in encrypted data stores. When PCEP is used as an ACTN
interface, the security of PCEP provided by Transport Layer Security
(TLS) [RFC8253], as per the recommendations and best current
practices in [RFC7525] (unless explicitly set aside in [RFC8253]), is
used.
As per [RFC8453], regarding the MPI, a PKI- based mechanism is
suggested, such as building a TLS or HTTPS connection between the
MDSC and PNCs, to ensure trust between the physical network layer
control components and the MDSC. Which MDSC the PNC exports topology
information to, and the level of detail (full or abstracted), should
also be authenticated, and specific access restrictions and topology
views should be configurable and/or policy based. When PCEP is used
in MPI, the security functions as per [RFC8253] are used to fulfill
these requirements.
Dhody, et al. Expires November 17, 2019 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft PCE-ACTN May 2019
As per [RFC8453], regarding the CMI, suitable authentication and
authorization of each CNC connecting to the MDSC will be required.
If PCEP is used in CMI, the security functions as per [RFC8253] can
be used to support peer authentication, message encryption, and
integrity checks.
8. Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Jonathan Hardwick for the inspiration
behind this document. Further thanks to Avantika for her comments
with suggested text.
Thanks to Adrian Farrel and Daniel King for their substantial
reviews.
Thanks to Yingzhen Qu for RTGDIR review.
Thanks to Rifaat Shekh-Yusef for SECDIR review.
Thanks to Meral Shirazipour for GENART review.
Thanks to Roman Danyliw and Barry Leiba for IESG review comments.
Thanks to Deborah Brungard for being the responsible AD.
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J., and J. Ash, "A Path Computation
Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4655, August 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4655>.
[RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation
Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5440, March 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5440>.
[RFC6805] King, D., Ed. and A. Farrel, Ed., "The Application of the
Path Computation Element Architecture to the Determination
of a Sequence of Domains in MPLS and GMPLS", RFC 6805,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6805, November 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6805>.
Dhody, et al. Expires November 17, 2019 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft PCE-ACTN May 2019
[RFC8453] Ceccarelli, D., Ed. and Y. Lee, Ed., "Framework for
Abstraction and Control of TE Networks (ACTN)", RFC 8453,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8453, August 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8453>.
9.2. Informative References
[RFC3630] Katz, D., Kompella, K., and D. Yeung, "Traffic Engineering
(TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC 3630,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3630, September 2003,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3630>.
[RFC4203] Kompella, K., Ed. and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "OSPF Extensions in
Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS)", RFC 4203, DOI 10.17487/RFC4203, October 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4203>.
[RFC5152] Vasseur, JP., Ed., Ayyangar, A., Ed., and R. Zhang, "A
Per-Domain Path Computation Method for Establishing Inter-
Domain Traffic Engineering (TE) Label Switched Paths
(LSPs)", RFC 5152, DOI 10.17487/RFC5152, February 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5152>.
[RFC5212] Shiomoto, K., Papadimitriou, D., Le Roux, JL., Vigoureux,
M., and D. Brungard, "Requirements for GMPLS-Based Multi-
Region and Multi-Layer Networks (MRN/MLN)", RFC 5212,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5212, July 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5212>.
[RFC5305] Li, T. and H. Smit, "IS-IS Extensions for Traffic
Engineering", RFC 5305, DOI 10.17487/RFC5305, October
2008, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5305>.
[RFC5307] Kompella, K., Ed. and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "IS-IS Extensions
in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS)", RFC 5307, DOI 10.17487/RFC5307, October 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5307>.
[RFC5441] Vasseur, JP., Ed., Zhang, R., Bitar, N., and JL. Le Roux,
"A Backward-Recursive PCE-Based Computation (BRPC)
Procedure to Compute Shortest Constrained Inter-Domain
Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths", RFC 5441,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5441, April 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5441>.
Dhody, et al. Expires November 17, 2019 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft PCE-ACTN May 2019
[RFC5623] Oki, E., Takeda, T., Le Roux, JL., and A. Farrel,
"Framework for PCE-Based Inter-Layer MPLS and GMPLS
Traffic Engineering", RFC 5623, DOI 10.17487/RFC5623,
September 2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5623>.
[RFC6241] Enns, R., Ed., Bjorklund, M., Ed., Schoenwaelder, J., Ed.,
and A. Bierman, Ed., "Network Configuration Protocol
(NETCONF)", RFC 6241, DOI 10.17487/RFC6241, June 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6241>.
[RFC7149] Boucadair, M. and C. Jacquenet, "Software-Defined
Networking: A Perspective from within a Service Provider
Environment", RFC 7149, DOI 10.17487/RFC7149, March 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7149>.
[RFC7399] Farrel, A. and D. King, "Unanswered Questions in the Path
Computation Element Architecture", RFC 7399,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7399, October 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7399>.
[RFC7491] King, D. and A. Farrel, "A PCE-Based Architecture for
Application-Based Network Operations", RFC 7491,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7491, March 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7491>.
[RFC7525] Sheffer, Y., Holz, R., and P. Saint-Andre,
"Recommendations for Secure Use of Transport Layer
Security (TLS) and Datagram Transport Layer Security
(DTLS)", BCP 195, RFC 7525, DOI 10.17487/RFC7525, May
2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7525>.
[RFC7752] Gredler, H., Ed., Medved, J., Previdi, S., Farrel, A., and
S. Ray, "North-Bound Distribution of Link-State and
Traffic Engineering (TE) Information Using BGP", RFC 7752,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7752, March 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7752>.
[RFC8040] Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M., and K. Watsen, "RESTCONF
Protocol", RFC 8040, DOI 10.17487/RFC8040, January 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8040>.
[RFC8051] Zhang, X., Ed. and I. Minei, Ed., "Applicability of a
Stateful Path Computation Element (PCE)", RFC 8051,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8051, January 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8051>.
Dhody, et al. Expires November 17, 2019 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft PCE-ACTN May 2019
[RFC8231] Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Medved, J., and R. Varga, "Path
Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)
Extensions for Stateful PCE", RFC 8231,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8231, September 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8231>.
[RFC8253] Lopez, D., Gonzalez de Dios, O., Wu, Q., and D. Dhody,
"PCEPS: Usage of TLS to Provide a Secure Transport for the
Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)",
RFC 8253, DOI 10.17487/RFC8253, October 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8253>.
[RFC8281] Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Sivabalan, S., and R. Varga, "Path
Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)
Extensions for PCE-Initiated LSP Setup in a Stateful PCE
Model", RFC 8281, DOI 10.17487/RFC8281, December 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8281>.
[RFC8283] Farrel, A., Ed., Zhao, Q., Ed., Li, Z., and C. Zhou, "An
Architecture for Use of PCE and the PCE Communication
Protocol (PCEP) in a Network with Central Control",
RFC 8283, DOI 10.17487/RFC8283, December 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8283>.
[RFC8454] Lee, Y., Belotti, S., Dhody, D., Ceccarelli, D., and B.
Yoon, "Information Model for Abstraction and Control of TE
Networks (ACTN)", RFC 8454, DOI 10.17487/RFC8454,
September 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8454>.
[I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-hpce]
Dhody, D., Lee, Y., Ceccarelli, D., Shin, J., King, D.,
and O. Dios, "Hierarchical Stateful Path Computation
Element (PCE).", draft-ietf-pce-stateful-hpce-07 (work in
progress), April 2019.
[I-D.ietf-pce-inter-area-as-applicability]
King, D. and H. Zheng, "Applicability of the Path
Computation Element to Inter-Area and Inter-AS MPLS and
GMPLS Traffic Engineering", draft-ietf-pce-inter-area-as-
applicability-07 (work in progress), December 2018.
[I-D.dhodylee-pce-pcep-ls]
Dhody, D., Lee, Y., and D. Ceccarelli, "PCEP Extension for
Distribution of Link-State and TE Information.", draft-
dhodylee-pce-pcep-ls-13 (work in progress), February 2019.
Dhody, et al. Expires November 17, 2019 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft PCE-ACTN May 2019
[I-D.lee-pce-pcep-ls-optical]
Lee, Y., Zheng, H., Ceccarelli, D., weiw@bupt.edu.cn, w.,
Park, P., and B. Yoon, "PCEP Extension for Distribution of
Link-State and TE information for Optical Networks",
draft-lee-pce-pcep-ls-optical-07 (work in progress), March
2019.
[I-D.leedhody-pce-vn-association]
Lee, Y., Zhang, X., and D. Ceccarelli, "PCEP Extensions
for Establishing Relationships Between Sets of LSPs and
Virtual Networks", draft-leedhody-pce-vn-association-07
(work in progress), February 2019.
[I-D.litkowski-pce-state-sync]
Litkowski, S., Sivabalan, S., Li, C., and H. Zheng, "Inter
Stateful Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication
Procedures.", draft-litkowski-pce-state-sync-05 (work in
progress), March 2019.
[I-D.ietf-pce-association-policy]
Litkowski, S., Sivabalan, S., Tantsura, J., Hardwick, J.,
and M. Negi, "Path Computation Element communication
Protocol extension for associating Policies and LSPs",
draft-ietf-pce-association-policy-05 (work in progress),
February 2019.
[I-D.dugeon-pce-stateful-interdomain]
Dugeon, O., Meuric, J., Lee, Y., and D. Ceccarelli, "PCEP
Extension for Stateful Inter-Domain Tunnels", draft-
dugeon-pce-stateful-interdomain-02 (work in progress),
March 2019.
[EXP] Casellas, R., Vilalta, R., Martinez, R., Munoz, R., Zheng,
H., and Y. Lee, "Experimental Validation of the ACTN
architecture for flexi-grid optical networks using Active
Stateful Hierarchical PCEs", 19th International Conference
on Transparent Optical Networks (ICTON) , July 2017,
<http://www.cttc.es/publication/experimental-validation-
of-the-actn-architecture-for-flexi-grid-optical-networks-
using-active-stateful-hierarchical-pces/>.
Dhody, et al. Expires November 17, 2019 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft PCE-ACTN May 2019
Appendix A. Additional Information
In the paper [EXP], the application of the ACTN architecture is
presented to demonstrate the control of a multi-domain flexi-grid
optical network, by proposing, adopting and extending -
o the Hierarchical active stateful PCE architectures and protocols
o the PCEP protocol to support efficient and incremental link state
topological reporting, known as PCEP-LS
o the per link partitioning of the optical spectrum based on
variable-sized allocated frequency slots enabling network sharing
and virtualization
o the use of a model-based interface to dynamically request the
instantiation of virtual networks for specific clients / tenants.
The design and the implementation of the testbed are reported in
order to validate the approach.
Authors' Addresses
Dhruv Dhody
Huawei Technologies
Divyashree Techno Park, Whitefield
Bangalore, Karnataka 560066
India
EMail: dhruv.ietf@gmail.com
Young Lee
Huawei Technologies
5340 Legacy Drive, Building 3
Plano, TX 75023
USA
EMail: leeyoung@huawei.com
Daniele Ceccarelli
Ericsson
Torshamnsgatan,48
Stockholm
Sweden
EMail: daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com
Dhody, et al. Expires November 17, 2019 [Page 21]
