Internet DRAFT - draft-minei-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations
draft-minei-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations
PCE Working Group E. Crabbe
Internet-Draft Google, Inc.
Intended status: Standards Track J. Medved
Expires: September 4, 2014 Cisco Systems, Inc.
I. Minei
Google, Inc.
R. Varga
Pantheon Technologies SRO
X. Zhang
D. Dhody
Huawei Technologies
March 3, 2014
Optimizations of Label Switched Path State Synchronization Procedures
for a Stateful PCE
draft-minei-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations-02
Abstract
A stateful Path Computation Element (PCE) has access to not only the
information disseminated by the network's Interior Gateway Protocol
(IGP), but also the set of active paths and their reserved resources
for its computation. The additional Label Switched Path (LSP) state
information allows the PCE to compute constrained paths while
considering individual LSPs and their interactions. This requires a
reliable state synchronization mechanism between the PCE and the
network, PCE and path computation clients (PCCs), and between
cooperating PCEs. The basic mechanism for state synchronization is
part of the stateful PCE specification. This draft presents
motivations for optimizations to the base state synchronization
procedure and specifies the required Path Computation Element
Communication Protocol (PCEP) extensions.
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].
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-
Crabbe, et al. Expires September 4, 2014 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Optimizations of state synchronization March 2014
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 September 4, 2014.
Copyright Notice
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 Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Crabbe, et al. Expires September 4, 2014 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Optimizations of state synchronization March 2014
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. State Synchronization Avoidance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. State Synchronization Avoidance Procedure . . . . . . . . 5
3.3. PCEP Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.3.1. LSP State Database Version Number TLV . . . . . . . . 9
3.3.2. Speaker Entity Identifier TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4. PCE-triggered State Synchronization . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.1. Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.2. PCE-triggered State Synchronization Procedure . . . . . . 11
5. Incremental State Synchronization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.1. Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.2. Incremental Synchronization Procedure . . . . . . . . . . 13
6. Advertising Support of Synchronization Optimizations . . . . . 15
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
7.1. PCEP-Error Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
7.2. PCEP TLV Type Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
7.3. STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
10. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Crabbe, et al. Expires September 4, 2014 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Optimizations of state synchronization March 2014
1. Introduction
The Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) provides
mechanisms for Path Computation Elements (PCEs) to perform path
computations in response to Path Computation Clients (PCCs) requests.
[I-D.ietf-pce-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. The additional state allows the PCE to compute
constrained paths while considering individual LSPs and their
interactions. This requires a reliable state synchronization
mechanism between the PCE and the network, PCE and PCC, and between
cooperating PCEs. [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] describes the basic
mechanism for state synchronization. This draft specifies
optimizations for state synchronization and the correspoding PCEP
extensions.
2. Terminology
This document uses the following terms defined in [RFC5440]: PCC,
PCE, PCEP Peer.
This document uses the following terms defined in
[I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] : Delegation, Redelegation Timeout
Interval, LSP State Report, LSP Update Request, LSP State Database.
Within this document, when describing PCE-PCE communications, the
requesting PCE fills the role of a PCC. This provides a saving in
documentation without loss of function.
The message formats in this document are specified using Routing
Backus-Naur Format (RBNF) encoding as specified in [RFC5511].
3. State Synchronization Avoidance
3.1. Motivation
The purpose of state synchronization is to provide a checkpoint-in-
time state replica of a PCC's LSP state in a stateful PCE. State
synchronization is performed immediately after the initialization
phase ([RFC5440]). [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] describes the basic
mechanism for state synchronization.
State synchronization is not always necessary following a PCEP
Crabbe, et al. Expires September 4, 2014 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Optimizations of state synchronization March 2014
session restart. If the state of both PCEP peers did not change, the
synchronization phase may be skipped. This can result in significant
savings in both control-plane data exchanges and the time it takes
for the stateful PCE to become fully operational.
3.2. State Synchronization Avoidance Procedure
State synchronization MAY be skipped following a PCEP session restart
if the state of both PCEP peers did not change during the period
prior to session re-initialization. To be able to make this
determination, state must be exchanged and maintained by both PCE and
PCC during normal operation. This is accomplished by keeping track
of the changes to the LSP state database, using a version tracking
field called the LSP State Database Version Number.
The LSP State Database Version Number, carried in LSP-DB-VERSION TLV
(see Section 3.3.1), is owned by a PCC and it MUST be incremented by
1 for each successive change in the PCC's LSP state database. The
LSP State Database Version Number MUST start at 1 and may wrap
around. Values 0 and 0xFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF are reserved. If either of
the two values are used during LSP state (re)-synchronization, the
PCE speaker receiving this node should send back a PCErr with Error-
type 20 Error-value 6 'Received an invalid LSP DB Version Number',
and close the PCEP session. Operations that trigger a change to the
local LSP state database include a change in the LSP operational
state, delegation of an LSP, removal or setup of an LSP or change in
any of the LSP attributes that would trigger a report to the PCE.
State synchronization avoidance is advertised on a PCEP session
during session startup using the INCLUDE-DB-VERSION (IDB) bit in the
capabilities TLV (see Section 6). The peer may move in the network,
either physically or logically, which may cause its connectivity
details and transport-level identity (such as IP address) to change.
To ensure that a PCEP peer can recognize a previously connected peer
even in face of such mobility, each PCEP peer includes the SPEAKER-
ENTITY-ID TLV described in Section 3.3.2 in the OPEN message.
If both PCEP speakers set the IDB flag in the OPEN object's STATEFUL-
PCE-CAPABILITY TLV to 1, the PCC MUST include the LSP-DB-VERSION TLV
in each LSP object of the PCRpt message. If the LSP-DB-VERSION TLV
is missing in a PCRpt message, the PCE will generate an error with
error-type 6 (mandatory object missing) and Error Value 12 (LSP-DB-
VERSION TLV missing) and close the session. If state synchronization
avoidance has not been enabled on a PCEP session, the PCC SHOULD NOT
include the LSP-DB-VERSION TLV in the LSP Object and the PCE SHOULD
ignore it were to receive one.
If a PCE's LSP state database survived the restart of a PCEP session,
Crabbe, et al. Expires September 4, 2014 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Optimizations of state synchronization March 2014
the PCE will include the LSP-DB-VERSION TLV in its OPEN object, and
the TLV will contain the last LSP State Database Version Number
received on an LSP State Report from the PCC in the previous PCEP
session. If a PCC's LSP State Database survived the restart of a
PCEP session, the PCC will include the LSP-DB-VERSION TLV in its OPEN
object and the TLV will contain the latest LSP State Database Version
Number. If a PCEP speaker's LSP state database did not survive the
restart of a PCEP session, the PCEP speaker MUST NOT include the LSP-
DB-VERSION TLV in the OPEN object.
If both PCEP speakers include the LSP-DB-VERSION TLV in the OPEN
Object and the TLV values match, the PCC MAY skip state
synchronization. Otherwise, the PCC MUST perform state
synchronization to the stateful PCE. If the PCC attempts to skip
state synchronization (i.e., the SYNC Flag = 0 on the first LSP State
Report from the PCC as per [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce]), the PCE MUST
send back a PCErr with Error-type 20 Error-value 2 'LSP Database
version mismatch', and close the PCEP session.
If state synchronization is required, then prior to completing the
initialization phase, the PCE MUST mark any LSPs in the LSP database
that were previously reported by the PCC as stale. When the PCC
reports an LSP during state synchronization, if the LSP already
exists in the LSP database, the PCE MUST update the LSP database and
clear the stale marker from the LSP. When it has finished state
synchronization, the PCC MUST immediately send an end of
synchronization marker. The end of synchronization marker is a Path
Computation State Report (PCRpt) message with an LSP object
containing a PLSP-ID of 0 and with the SYNC flag set to 0
([I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce]). The LSP-DB-VERSION TLV MUST be
included in this PCRpt message. On receiving this state report, the
PCE MUST purge any LSPs from the LSP database that are still marked
as stale.
Note that a PCE/PCC MAY force state synchronization by not including
the LSP-DB-VERSION TLV in its OPEN object.
Since a PCE does not make changes to the LSP State Database Version
Number, a PCC should never encounter this TLV in a message from the
PCE (other than the OPEN message). A PCC SHOULD ignore the LSP-DB-
VERSION TLV, were it to receive one from a PCE.
If state synchronization avoidance is enabled, a PCC MUST increment
its LSP State Database Version Number when the 'Redelegation Timeout
Interval' timer expires (see [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce]) for the use
of the Redelegation Timeout Interval).
Figure 1 shows an example sequence where the state synchronization is
Crabbe, et al. Expires September 4, 2014 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Optimizations of state synchronization March 2014
skipped.
+-+-+ +-+-+
|PCC| |PCE|
+-+-+ +-+-+
| |
|--Open--, |
| DBv=42 \ ,---Open--|
| IDB=1 \ / DBv=42 |
| \/ IDB=1 |
| /\ |
| / `-------->| (OK to skip sync)
(Skip sync) |<--------` |
| . |
| . |
| . |
| |
|--PCRpt,DBv=43,SYNC=0-->| (Regular
| | LSP State Report)
|--PCRpt,DBv=44,SYNC=0-->| (Regular
| | LSP State Report)
|--PCRpt,DBv=45,SYNC=0-->|
| |
Figure 1: State Synchronization Skipped
Figure 2 shows an example sequence where the state synchronization is
performed due to LSP state database version mismatch during the PCEP
session setup. Note that the same state synchronization sequence
would happen if either the PCC or the PCE would not include the LSP-
DB-VERSION TLV in their respective Open messages.
Crabbe, et al. Expires September 4, 2014 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Optimizations of state synchronization March 2014
+-+-+ +-+-+
|PCC| |PCE|
+-+-+ +-+-+
| |
|--Open--, |
| DBv=46 \ ,---Open--|
| IDB=1 \ / DBv=42 |
| \/ IDB=1 |
| /\ |
| / `-------->| (Expect sync)
(Do sync) |<--------` |
| |
|--PCRpt,DBv=46,SYNC=1-->| (Sync start)
| . |
| . |
| . |
|--PCRpt,DBv=46,SYNC=0-->| (Sync done)
| . |(Purge LSP State
| . | if applicable)
| . |
|--PCRpt,DBv=47,SYNC=0-->| (Regular
| | LSP State Report)
|--PCRpt,DBv=48,SYNC=0-->| (Regular
| | LSP State Report)
|--PCRpt,DBv=49,SYNC=0-->|
| |
Figure 2: State Synchronization Performed
Figure 3 shows an example sequence where the state synchronization is
skipped, but because one or both PCEP speakers set the IDB Flag to 0,
the PCC does not send LSP-DB-VERSION TLVs in subsequent PCRpt
messages to the PCE. If the current PCEP session restarts, the PCEP
speakers will have to perform state synchronization, since the PCE
does not know the PCC's latest LSP State Database Version Number
information.
Crabbe, et al. Expires September 4, 2014 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Optimizations of state synchronization March 2014
+-+-+ +-+-+
|PCC| |PCE|
+-+-+ +-+-+
| |
|--Open--, |
| DBv=42 \ ,---Open--|
| IDB=0 \ / DBv=42 |
| \/ IDB=0 |
| /\ |
| / `-------->| (OK to skip sync)
(Skip sync) |<--------` |
| . |
| . |
| . |
|------PCRpt,SYNC=0----->| (Regular
| | LSP State Report)
|------PCRpt,SYNC=0----->| (Regular
| | LSP State Report)
|------PCRpt,SYNC=0----->|
| |
Figure 3: State Synchronization Skipped, no LSP-DB-VERSION TLVs sent
from PCC
3.3. PCEP Extensions
3.3.1. LSP State Database Version Number TLV
The LSP State Database Version Number (LSP-DB-VERSION) TLV is an
optional TLV that MAY be included in the OPEN object and the LSP
object.
The format of the LSP-DB-VERSION TLV is shown in the following
figure:
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=[TBD] | Length=8 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LSP State DB Version Number |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 4: LSP-DB-VERSION TLV format
The type of the TLV is [TBD] and it has a fixed length of 8 octets.
The value contains a 64-bit unsigned integer, representing the LSP
Crabbe, et al. Expires September 4, 2014 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Optimizations of state synchronization March 2014
State DB Version Number.
3.3.2. Speaker Entity Identifier TLV
The Speaker Entity Identifier TLV (SPEAKER-ENTITY-ID) is an optional
TLV that MAY be included in the OPEN Object when a PCEP speaker
wishes to determine if state synchronization can be skipped when a
PCEP session is restarted. It contains a unique identifier for the
node that does not change during the lifetime of the PCEP speaker.
It identifies the PCEP speaker to its peers even if the speaker's IP
address is changed.
The format of the SPEAKER-ENTITY-ID TLV is shown in the following
figure:
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=[TBD] | Length (variable) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
// Speaker Entity Identifier //
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 5: SPEAKER-ENTITY-ID TLV format
The type of the TLV is [TBD] and it has a a variable length, which
MUST be greater than 0 and padded to 4-octet alignment (, and padding
is not included in the Length field). The value contains the entity
identifier of the speaker transmitting this TLV. This identifier is
required to be unique within its scope of visibility, which is
usually limited to a single domain. It MAY be configured by the
operator. Alternatively, it can be derived automatically from a
suitably-stable unique identifier, such as a MAC address, serial
number, Traffic Engineering Router ID, or similar. In the case of
inter-domain connections, the speaker SHOULD prefix its usual
identifier with the domain identifier of its residence, such as
Autonomous System number, IGP area identifier, or similar.
The relationship between this identifier and entities in the Traffic
Engineering database is intentionally left undefined.
From a manageability point of view, a PCE or PCC implementation
SHOULD allow the operator to configure this Speaker Entity
Identifier.
Crabbe, et al. Expires September 4, 2014 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Optimizations of state synchronization March 2014
4. PCE-triggered State Synchronization
4.1. Motivation
The accuracy of the computations performed by the PCE is tied to the
accuracy of the view the PCE has on the state of the LSPs.
Therefore, it can be beneficial to be able to resynchronize this
state even after the session has been established. The PCE may use
this approach to continuously sanity check its state against the
network, or to recover from error conditions without having to tear
down sessions.
4.2. PCE-triggered State Synchronization Procedure
Support of PCE-triggered state synchronization is advertised during
session startup using the TRIGGERED-SYNC (T) bit in the STATEFUL-PCE-
CAPABILITY TLV (see Section 6). The PCE can choose to resynchronize
its entire LSP database or a single LSP.
To trigger resynchronization for an LSP, the PCE MUST first mark the
LSP as stale and then send a Path Computation State Update (PCUpd)
for it, with the SYNC flag in the LSP object set to 1. The PCE
SHOULD NOT include any parameter updates for the LSP, and the PCC
SHOULD ignore such updates if the SYNC flag is set. The PCC MUST
respond with a PCRpt message and SHOULD include the SRP-ID-number of
the PCUpd that triggered the resynchronization.
The PCE can also trigger resynchronization of the entire LSP
database. The PCE MUST first mark all LSPs in the LSP database that
were previously reported by the PCC as stale and then send a PCUpd
with an LSP object containing a PLSP-ID of 0 and with the SYNC flag
set to 1. This PCUpd message is the trigger for the PCC to enter the
synchronization phase as described in [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] and
start sending PCRpt messages. After the receipt of the end-of-
synchronization marker, the PCE will purge LSPs which were not
refreshed. The SRP-ID-number of the PCUpd that triggered the
resynchronization SHOULD be included in each of the PCRpt messages.
If the TRIGGERED-SYNC capability is not advertised and the PCC
receives a PCUpd with the SYNC flag set to 1, it MUST send a PCErr
with the SRP-ID-number of the PCUpd, error-type 20 and error-value
4.(see Section 7.1)
5. Incremental State Synchronization
[I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] describes the LSP state synchronization
mechanism between PCCs and stateful PCEs. During the state
Crabbe, et al. Expires September 4, 2014 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Optimizations of state synchronization March 2014
synchronization, a PCC sends the information of all its LSPs (full
LSP-DB) to the stateful PCE. In order to save the state
synchronization overhead when there is a small number of LSP state
change in the network between PCEP session restart as well as
avoiding overloading a PCE during state (re-)synchronization phase,
this section proposes a mechanism for incremental (Delta) LSP
Database (LSP-DB) synchronization as well as allowing PCE to control
the timing of the LSP-DB synchronization process during incremental
syncronization.
5.1. Motivation
According to [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] , if a PCE restarts and its
LSP-DB survived, PCCs with mismatched LSP State Database Version
Number will send all their LSPs information (full LSP-DB) to the
stateful PCE, even if only a small number of LSPs underwent state
change. It can take a long time and consume large communication
channel bandwidth. Moreover, the stateful PCE can get overloaded
with all the PCC performing full synchronization with it at the same
time.
Figure 6 shows an example of LSP state synchronization.
+-----+
| PCE |
+-----+
/
/
/
/
+------+ +------+
| PCC1 |------------| PCC2 |
+------+ +------+
| |
| |
+------+ +------+
| PCC3 |------------| PCC4 |
+------+ +------+
Figure 6: Topology Example
Assuming there are 320 LSPs in the network, with each PCC having 80
LSPs. During the time when the PCEP session is down, 20 LSPs of each
PCC (i.e., 80 LSPs in total), are changed. Hence when PCEP session
restarts, the stateful PCE needs to synchronize 320 LSPs with all
PCCs. But actually, 240 LSPs stay the same. If performing full LSP
state synchronization, it can take a long time to carry out the
synchronization of all LSPs. It is especially true when only a low
Crabbe, et al. Expires September 4, 2014 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Optimizations of state synchronization March 2014
bandwidth communication channel is available and there is a
substantial number of LSPs in the network. Another disadvantage of
full LSP synchronization is that it is a waste of communication
bandwidth to perform full LSP synchronization given the fact that the
number of LSP changes can be small during the time when PCEP session
is down.
An incremental (Delta) LSP Database (LSP-DB) state synchronization is
described in this section, where only the LSPs underwent state change
are synchronized between the session restart. This may include new/
modified/deleted LSPs. Furthermore, to avoid overloading the PCE,
the proposed method enable a stateful PCE to trigger the LSP
synchronization (similar to Section 4).
PCEP extensions for stateful PCEs to perform LSP synchronization
SHOULD allow:
o Incremental LSP state synchronization between session restarts.
Note this does not exclude the need for a stateful PCE to request
a full LSP DB synchronization.
o A stateful PCE to control the timing of PCC synchronizing its LSP
state with the PCE during incremental synchronisation.
5.2. Incremental Synchronization Procedure
[I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] describes state synchronization and
Section 3 describes state synchronization avoidance by using LSP-DB-
VERSION TLV in its OPEN object. This section extends this idea to
only synchronize the delta (changes) in case of version mismatch as
well as to allow a stateful PCE to control the timing of this
process.
If both PCEP speakers include the LSP-DB-VERSION TLV in the OPEN
object and the LSP-DB-VERSION TLV values match, the PCC MAY skip
state synchronization. Otherwise, the PCC MUST perform state
synchronization. Instead of dumping full LSP-DB to PCE again, the
PCC synchronizes the delta (changes) as described in Figure 7 when
DELTA-LSP-SYNC-CAPABILITY (D flag) is set to 1 by both PCC and PCE
(see Section 6). Other combinations of D flag setting by PCC and PCE
result in full LSP-DB synchronization procedure as described in
[I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce]. If a PCC has to force full LSP DB
synchronization due to reasons including but not limited: (1) local
policy configured at the PCC; (2) no sufficient LSP state caches for
incremental update, the PCC can set the D flag to 0. Note a PCC may
have to bring down the current session and force a full LSPDB
synchronization with D flag set to 0 in the subsequent open message.
Crabbe, et al. Expires September 4, 2014 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Optimizations of state synchronization March 2014
+-+-+ +-+-+
|PCC| |PCE|
+-+-+ +-+-+
| |
|--Open--, |
| DBv=46 \ ,---Open--|
| IDB=1 \ / DBv=42 |
| D=1 \/ IDB=1 |
| T=1 /\ D=1 |
| / \ T=1 |
| / `-------->| (Expect Delta sync)
(Do sync)|<--------` | (DONOT Purge LSP
(Delta) | | State)
(Wait for PCE to | |
trigger LSP state | |
sync) | |
|<----PCUpd, SYNC=1------| (ask for LSP Sync,
| | PLSP-ID =0)
(Delta Sync starts) |--PCRpt,DBv=43,SYNC=1-->|
| . |
| . |
| . |
| . |
|--PCRpt,DBv=46,SYNC=0-->| (Sync done,
| | PLSP-ID=0)
| |
|--PCRpt,DBv=47,SYNC=0-->| (Regular
| | LSP State Report)
|--PCRpt,DBv=48,SYNC=0-->| (Regular
| | LSP State Report)
|--PCRpt,DBv=49,SYNC=0-->|
| |
Figure 7: Incremental Synchronization Procedure
A stateful PCE MAY choose to control the LSP-DB synchronization
process. To allow PCE to do so, PCEP speakers MUST set T bit to 1 to
indicate this (as described in Section 4). If the LSP-DB Version is
mis-matched, it can send a PCUpd message with PLSP-ID = 0 and SYNC =
1 in order to trigger the LSP-DB synchronization process. In this
way, the PCE can control the sequence of LSP synchronization among
all the PCCs that are re-establishing PCEP sessions with it. When
the capability of PCE control is enabled, only after a PCC receives
this message, it will start sending information that PCE does not
possess, which is inferred from the LSP-DB version information
exchanged in the OPEN message. Note that the PCE should not mark the
existing LSPs as stale for incremental state synchronisation
Crabbe, et al. Expires September 4, 2014 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Optimizations of state synchronization March 2014
procedure.
As per Section 3, the LSP State Database Version Number is
incremented each time a change is made to the PCC's local LSP State
Database. Each LSP is associated with the DB version at the time of
its state change. This is needed to determine which LSP and what
information needs to be synchronized in incremental state
synchronization.
It is not necessary for a PCC to store a complete history of LSP
Database change, but rather remember the LSP state changes (including
LSP modification, setup and deletion) that happend between the PCEP
session(s) restart in order to carry out incremental state
synchronization. After the synchronization procedure finishes, the
PCC can dump this history information. In the example shown in
Figure 7, the PCC needs to store the LSP state changes that happend
between DB Version 43 to 46 and synchronizes these changes only when
performing incremental LSP state update. So a PCC needs to remember
the LSP state changes that happened when an existing PCEP session to
a stateful PCE goes down in the hope of doing incremental
synchronisation when the session is re-established.
If a PCC finds out it does not have sufficient information to
complete incremental synchronisation after advertising incremental
LSP state synchronization capability, it MUST send a PCErr with
error-type 20 and error-value 5(see Section 7.1) and terminate the
session.
6. Advertising Support of Synchronization Optimizations
Support for each of the optimizations described in this document
requires advertising the corresponding capabilities during session
establishment time.
New flags are defined for the STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV defined in
[I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce]. Its format is shown in the following
figure:
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=4 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Flags |D|T|I|S|U|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 8: STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV Format
Crabbe, et al. Expires September 4, 2014 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Optimizations of state synchronization March 2014
The value comprises a single field - Flags (32 bits):
U (LSP-UPDATE-CAPABILITY - 1 bit): defined in
[I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce].
S (INCLUDE-DB-VERSION - 1 bit): if set to 1 by both PCEP Speakers,
the PCC will include the LSP-DB-VERSION TLV in each LSP Object.
I (LSP-INSTANTIATION-CAPABILITY - 1 bit): defined in
[I-D.crabbe-pce-pce-initiated-lsp].
T (TRIGGERED-SYNC - 1 bit): if set to 1 by both PCEP Speakers, the
PCE can trigger synchronization of LSPs at any point in the life
of the session.
D (DELTA-LSP-SYNC-CAPABILITY - 1 bit): if set to 1 by a PCEP
speaker, it indicates that the PCEP speaker allows incremental
state synchronization.
7. IANA Considerations
This document requests IANA actions to allocate code points for the
protocol elements defined in this document. Values shown here are
suggested for use by IANA.
7.1. PCEP-Error Object
This document defines new Error-Value values for the LSP state
synchronization error defined in [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce].
Error-Type Meaning
6 Mandatory Object missing
Error-value=12: LSP-DB-VERSION TLV missing
20 LSP State synchronization error
Error-value=2: LSP Database version mismatch.
Error-value=3: The LSP-DB-VERSION TLV Missing when
state synchronization avoidance is
enabled.
Error-value=4: Attempt to trigger a synchronization
when the TRIGGERED-SYNC capability has
not been advertised.
Error-value=5: No sufficient LSP change information
for incremental LSP state
synchronization.
Crabbe, et al. Expires September 4, 2014 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Optimizations of state synchronization March 2014
Error-value=6: Received an invalid LSP DB Version
Number
7.2. PCEP TLV Type Indicators
This document defines the following new PCEP TLVs:
Value Meaning Reference
23 LSP-DB-VERSION This document
24 SPEAKER-ENTITY-ID This document
7.3. STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV
The following values are defined in this document for the Flags field
in the STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY-TLV in the OPEN object:
Bit Description Reference
28 DELTA-LSP-SYNC-CAPABILITY This document
29 TRIGGERED-SYNC This document
30 INCLUDE-DB-VERSION This document
8. Security Considerations
The security considerations listed in [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce]
apply to this document as well.
9. Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Young Lee for his contributions.
10. Contributors
Gang Xie
Huawei Technologies
F3-5-B R&D Center, Huawei Industrial Base, Bantian, Longgang District
Shenzhen, Guangdong, 518129
P.R. China
Email: xiegang09@huawei.com
11. References
Crabbe, et al. Expires September 4, 2014 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Optimizations of state synchronization March 2014
11.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce]
Crabbe, E., Medved, J., Minei, I., and R. Varga, "PCEP
Extensions for Stateful PCE",
draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-08 (work in progress),
February 2014.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC5440] Vasseur, JP. and JL. Le Roux, "Path Computation Element
(PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440,
March 2009.
[RFC5511] Farrel, A., "Routing Backus-Naur Form (RBNF): A Syntax
Used to Form Encoding Rules in Various Routing Protocol
Specifications", RFC 5511, April 2009.
11.2. Informative References
[I-D.crabbe-pce-pce-initiated-lsp]
Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Sivabalan, S., and R. Varga, "PCEP
Extensions for PCE-initiated LSP Setup in a Stateful PCE
Model", draft-crabbe-pce-pce-initiated-lsp-03 (work in
progress), October 2013.
Authors' Addresses
Edward Crabbe
Google, Inc.
1600 Amphitheatre Parkway
Mountain View, CA 94043
US
Email: edc@google.com
Jan Medved
Cisco Systems, Inc.
170 West Tasman Dr.
San Jose, CA 95134
US
Email: jmedved@cisco.com
Crabbe, et al. Expires September 4, 2014 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Optimizations of state synchronization March 2014
Ina Minei
Google, Inc.
1600 Amphitheatre Parkway
Mountain View, CA 94043
US
Email: inaminei@google.com
Robert Varga
Pantheon Technologies SRO
Mlynske Nivy 56
Bratislava 821 05
Slovakia
Email: robert.varga@pantheon.sk
Xian Zhang
Huawei Technologies
F3-5-B R&D Center, Huawei Industrial Base, Bantian, Longgang District
Shenzhen, Guangdong 518129
P.R.China
Email: zhang.xian@huawei.com
Dhruv Dhody
Huawei Technologies
Leela Palace
Bangalore, Karnataka 560008
INDIA
Email: dhruv.ietf@gmail.com
Crabbe, et al. Expires September 4, 2014 [Page 19]
