Internet DRAFT - draft-zhang-pce-resource-sharing
draft-zhang-pce-resource-sharing
PCE Working Group X. Zhang
Internet-Draft H. Zheng
Intended status: Standards Track Huawei Technologies
Expires: April 27, 2022 O. Gonzales de Dios
Telefonica
V. Lopez
Nokia
Y. Xu
CAICT
October 24, 2021
Extensions to the Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) to Support
Resource Sharing-based Path Computation
draft-zhang-pce-resource-sharing-15
Abstract
Resource sharing in a network means two or more Label Switched Paths
(LSPs) use common pieces of resource along their paths. This can
help save network resources and is useful in scenarios such as LSP
recovery or when two LSPs do not need to be active at the same time.
A Path Computation Element (PCE) is responsible for path computation
with such requirement.
Existing extensions to the Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP)
allow one path computation request for an LSP to be associated with
other (existing) LSPs through the use of the PCEP Association Object.
This document extends PCEP in order to support resource-sharing-based
path computation as another use of the Association Object to enable
better efficiency in the computation and in the resultant paths and
network resource usage.
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."
Zhang, et al. Expires April 27, 2022 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Extensions to PCEP for Resource Sharing October 2021
This Internet-Draft will expire on April 27, 2022.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2021 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. Single Domain Use Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2. Multiple Layers/Domains Use Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.3. Bulk Path Computation Use Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3. Extensions to PCEP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.1. Association Group and Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.2. Resource Sharing TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.3. Processing Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.1. Control of Function and Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.2. Information and Data Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.4. Verify Correct Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.5. Requirements on Other Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.6. Impact on Network Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7.1. Association Object Type Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7.2. PCEP TLV Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
8.2. Informational References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Zhang, et al. Expires April 27, 2022 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Extensions to PCEP for Resource Sharing October 2021
1. Introduction
A Path Computation Element (PCE) is a way to provide path computation
function, and it is especially useful in the scenarios where complex
constraints and/or a demanding amount of computation resource are
required [RFC4655]. The development of PCE standardization has
evolved from stateless to stateful. A stateful PCE has access to the
LSP database information of the networks it serves as a computation
engine [RFC8231]. Unless specified, this document assumes a PCE
mentioned is a stateful PCE..
Resource sharing denotes that two or more Label Switched Paths (LSPs)
share common pieces of resource, (such as a common time slot of a
link in an Optical Transport Network (OTN)). This is usually useful
in the scenario where only one of the LSPs is active and the benefit
is to save network resources. A simple example of this is
dynamically calculating a recovery LSP for an existing LSP undergoing
a link failure. Note that resource sharing can be worked out using a
stateless PCE, but the mechanism may be complex and is out the scope
of this document.
This document considers the requirement that a new LSP may request
for resource sharing with one or multiple existing LSPs.
Furthermore, if there is resource sharing between a new LSP and
existing an LSP, the two LSPs cannot be used to carry traffic
simultaneously, the new LSP will take over the traffic from the
existing LSP.
In a single domain, this is a common requirement in the recovery
cases especially in order to increase traffic resilience against
failure while reducing the amount of network resource used for
recovery purposes [RFC4428]
The current protocol supporting the communication between a PCE and a
Path Computation Client (PCC), i.e. PCE Protocol (PCEP), allows for
re-optimization of an existing LSP [RFC5440]. This is achieved by
setting the R bit in the Request Parameter (RP) object, together with
some additional information if applicable, in the Path Computation
Request (PCReq) message sent from a PCC to the PCE. To support this
type of resource sharing, a PCC needs to ask a PCE to compute a new
path with the constraints of sharing resource with one or multiple
existing LSPs. It is worth noting the "resource sharing" in this
draft not only means one LSP re-using the same links of another LSP,
but also the same slice of bandwidth in the network. This may occur
when an LSP is required for re-routing, or online re-optimization.
Current PCEP specifications do not provide such function. More
specifically, this document describes the resource sharing issue
during the procedure when a new LSP is required to replace an
Zhang, et al. Expires April 27, 2022 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Extensions to PCEP for Resource Sharing October 2021
existing LSP for use together with Make-before-break (MBB) described
in [RFC3209].
As mentioned in [RFC8231], the PLSP-ID provides a unique identifier
for an LSP during a PCEP session between PCC and PCE. Such
identification is helpful in supporting the resource sharing
requirement for stateful PCEs because it greatly simplifies the
operation of a PCC. Instead of the PCC determining all the resources
to be shared, the PCC can request that the PCE share the resources of
a specific LSP: the stateful PCE is able to determine those resource
itself.
Resource sharing can also be required in an inter-layer PCEP session.
This is similar to the previous requirement. However, it is more
complex and therefore deserves a more detailed explanation here.
In a multi-layer network, LSPs in a lower layer are used to carry
higher-layer LSPs across the lower-layer network [RFC5623].
Therefore, the resource sharing constraints in the higher layer might
actually relate to resource sharing in the lower layer. Thus, it is
useful to consider how this can be achieved and whether additional
extensions are needed using the models defined in [RFC5623].
In the next sections, use cases are provided to show what information
needs to be exchanged to fulfill these requirements. This memo then
provides extensions to PCEP to enable this function.
1.1. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
2. Motivation
2.1. Single Domain Use Case
There are two potential cases that request resource to be shared:
restoration and re-optimization. Figure 1 shows a single domain
network with a stateful PCE, and is used as an example for the
resource sharing application.
Zhang, et al. Expires April 27, 2022 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Extensions to PCEP for Resource Sharing October 2021
+--------------+
| |
| Stateful PCE |
| |
+--------------+
+------+ +------+ +------+
| N1 +----------+ N2 +-----X----+ N3 |
+--+---+ +---+--+ +---+--+
| | |
| +---------+ |
| | |
| +------+ +------+ |
+-----+ N5 +----------+ N4 +-----+
+------+ +------+
Figure 1: A Single Domain Example
LSP0 (existing): N1-N2-N3.
LSP1 (restoration): N1-N2-N4-N3.
LSP2 (re-optimization): N1-N5-N4-N3.
For the failure restoration, we can assume a working LSP (LSP0)
exists in the network. When there is failure on the link N2-N3, it
is desired to set up a restoration path for this working LSP.
Suppose N1 serves as the PCC and sends a request to the stateful PCE
for such an LSP. Besides the head-end and tail-end node of the
working LSP, N1 may also need to check what policy should be applied
for the restoration. For example, it may evaluate resource sharing
and prefer to share as much resource with the working LSP as possible
and specify this policy as a special object in the PCReq message.
Given such policy, a probable outcome from the path computation would
be LSP1, which shares the link 'N1-N2' with the existing LSP. The
LSP1 will be set up by PCC via either PCInitiate of RSVP.
Re-optimization does not usually result from a specific failure in
the network, but takes place on a stable network when more optimal
paths may have become available. Thus switching from the existing
LSP to the new LSP happens with live traffic. An example can be
found in Figure 1 without failure on the link N2-N3. Instead, an
online re-optimization is needed for the working LSP (LSP0) from the
stateful PCE. In such cases, the best choice is to set up a backup
Zhang, et al. Expires April 27, 2022 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Extensions to PCEP for Resource Sharing October 2021
LSP for the working LSP with totally separate routing (for example,
LSP2), and move the traffic to that backup LSP. After that, the
working LSP can be torn down, which will not result in any
interruption during the optimization procedure. This can actually be
implemented with existing PCEP mechanisms. However, if there is no
such separate path, existing PCEP mechanisms will return an error. A
secondary option for this case is to set up an LSP and complete re-
optimization with resource sharing, even if some interruption is
introduced.
In the example from Figure 1 it is assumed that the restored LSP or
re-optimized LSP have the same source and destination nodes. But in
some applications there is no restriction for this assumption, i.e.,
after an LSP is failed, it can be restored as a new LSP with
different source/destination.
In the use cases above it is also assumed that the characteristics of
the restored LSP or re-optimized LSP are unchanged. However, it is
possible to have parameter changes during the resource sharing
computation. For example, the bandwidth of the request LSP may be
different from the existing LSP, while resource sharing is still
preferred by the PCC. The PCE should consider the sharing request
together with the policy and available resources in the network.
Details can be found in Section 3.3.
Conversely to resource sharing, it may also be required to apply a
disjoint constraint for the path computation. [RFC8800] discusses
the solution under such a scenario, which is a companion work to this
document.
2.2. Multiple Layers/Domains Use Case
As Discussed in Section 3 of [RFC5623], there are three models for
inter-layer path computation. They are single PCE computation,
multiple PCE with inter-PCE communication, and multiple PCE without
inter-PCE communication. For the single PCE computation, the process
would be similar to that of the use case in Section 2.1.
An inter-layer path computation example is shown in Figure 2. Assume
an LSP (LSP1: H2-H3) has been established already, visible as H2-H3
from the view of the higher-layer PCE, and as H2-L1-L2-H3 from the
global view (or from the view of the lower-layer PCE). A new request
is received by H2 to establish a new LSP (LSP2: from H2 to H5), given
the constraint that it can share resources with LSP1. This
requirement is possible if only one of the LSPs needs to be active
and resource sharing is the target.
Zhang, et al. Expires April 27, 2022 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Extensions to PCEP for Resource Sharing October 2021
-----
.................................| LSR |
.: | H5 |
.: /-----
.: / |
----- -----.: ----- -----/ |
| LSR |--| LSR |.......................| LSR |--| LSR | /
| H1 | | H2 | | H3 | | H4 | /
----- -----\ /----- ----- /
\ / /
\ / /
\ / /
\ / /
\----- -----/ /
| LSR |-| LSR | /
| L1 | | L2 | /
----- -----\ /
| \ /
| \ /
| \ /
----- \-----/
| LSR |-----------| LSR |
| L3 | | L4 |
----- -----
Figure 2: A Two-layer Network Example
If the model of multiple PCEs with inter-PCE communication is
employed, the path computation request sent by H2 to higher-layer PCE
will be forwarded to lower-layer PCE since there is no resource
readily available in the higher layer. So it leaves the lower-layer
PCE to compute a path in the lower layer in order to support the
higher layer request. In this case, the lower-layer PCE is required
to compute a path between H2 and H5 under the constraint that it can
share the resource with that of LSP1. At this moment the lower-layer
PCE has knowledge of the mapping relationship between the higher-
layer link H2-H3 and the lower layer link L1-L2, and therefore can
convert the resource to be shared from higher layer to lower layer.
So when the lower-layer PCE computes the path for LSP2, it can
consider the resource used by L1-L2 as available with higher
priority. For example, the lower-layer PCE may choose H2-L1-L2-L4-H5
as the computation result. On the other hand, if the path
computation policy is to have a separate path with LSP1, the lower-
layer PCE may choose H2-L1-L3-L4-H5.
Zhang, et al. Expires April 27, 2022 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Extensions to PCEP for Resource Sharing October 2021
During this procedure the higher-layer PCE can only use information
about LSP1 (such as its five-tuple LSP information). An issue to
solve is how the lower-layer PCE can resolve this information to the
actual resource usage in its own layer, i.e. the lower layer. This
could be solved by the edge LSR (L1) reporting this higher-lower LSP
correlation to the lower-layer PCE as part of the LSP information
during the LSP state synchronization process. If needed, it can be
updated later when there is a change in this information.
Alternatively, the lower-layer PCE can get this information from
other sources, such as a network management system, where this
information should be stored.
If the model of multiple PCEs without inter-PCE communication is
employed, the path computation request in the lower layer will be
initiated by the border LSR node, i.e., L1. The process would be
similar to that of the previous scenario. A point worth noting is
that the border LSR node may be able to resolve the higher layer LSP
information itself, such as by mapping it to the corresponding LSP in
the lower layer, in this way the lower-layer PCE does not need to
perform this function. Otherwise, the mapping method mentioned above
can still be used.
2.3. Bulk Path Computation Use Case
There is a potential need for resource sharing during bulk path
computation, especially the processing of the "sticky resources" in
[RFC7399]. It would be useful to specify the resources that can be
shared among different paths, i.e., the bandwidth information.
Considering the H-PCE architecture in [RFC8751], when the parent PCE
asks for a single path across a few domains, such a request may
become a bulk path computation to a certain child PCE. Figure 3
shows an example of 3 domains. The parent PCE will select one of
these path for establishment.
Zhang, et al. Expires April 27, 2022 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Extensions to PCEP for Resource Sharing October 2021
+-------+
/| P-PCE |\
/ +---+---+ \
/ | \
/ | \
/ | \
/ | \
/ | \
/ | \
+-----/+ +---+---+ +\------+
|C-PCE1| |C-PCE2 | |C-PCE3 |
+------+ +-------+ +-------+
/ | \
--------------- ----------------------- -------------
/ \ / \ / \
| +---+ +---+ | | +---+ +---+ +---+ | | +---+ +---+ |
| | A +-----+ B +-+--+--+ D +---+ E +---+ H +-+--+-+ J +----+ L | |
| +-\-+ +---+ | | +---+ +---+ +--\+ | | +---+ +-/-+ |
| \ | | / \ | | / |
| \ | | / \| | / |
| \ +---+ | | +---+ / |\\| +---+/ |
| \+ C +-+--+--+ G +/ | |----| K | |
\ +---+/ \ +---+ / \ +---+ /
---------------- ----------------------- --------------
Figure 3: Bulk Request example with Hierarchical PCEs
A 3-domain example is shown in Figure 3, with the hierarchical PCE
architecture. In this example nodes A/B/C belong to domain 1, nodes
D/E/G/H belong to domain 2, and nodes J/K/L belong to domain 3.
Inter-domain links are B-D/C-G between domains 1 and 2, and H-J/H-K
between domains 2 and 3. Given a path computation request from A to
L, a bulk request from P-PCE would be helpful to understand whether
it is possible to have different combinations on the inter-domain
links. However, the resources on some specific links become 'sticky'
and have to be indicated as 'sharing allowed' to avoid unnecessary
resource competition. For example, both the route A-B-D-E-H-J-L and
A-C-G-E-H-K-L are qualified, but these routes are competing for the
resource on the link E-H and cannot be established simultaneously, so
there must be one route failed to be reported to P-PCE. Given the
indication of allowing resource sharing on the link E-H, both of
these routes can be reported for P-PCE's decision, and there will not
be any competition as the P-PCE understands that only one path needs
to be set up.
Zhang, et al. Expires April 27, 2022 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Extensions to PCEP for Resource Sharing October 2021
3. Extensions to PCEP
3.1. Association Group and Type
According to the definition in [RFC8697], the association group is
used to associate multiple LSPs into one group for further path
computation considerations, such as disjointness and resource
sharing, in the messages when requesting path computation. An
association ID will be used to identify the resource sharing group.
An association type that described disjointness has been defined in
[RFC8800]. In this document, a new association type is defined as
follows:
o Association type = TBD1 ("Sharing Association Type").
A sharing group should have multiple LSPs. The number of LSPs and
the criteria for how LSPs share among each other are dependent on
local policy.
3.2. Resource Sharing TLV
The PCEP Resource Sharing group MAY carry the following TLV. It MAY
be carried within a PCReq message from the network element (or other
PCCs) so as to indicate the desired resource sharing requirements to
be applied by the stateful PCE during path computation.
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 = [TBD2] | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Flags |B|S|N|L|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Optional TLVs |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The following flags are defined:
o L (Link share) bit: when set, this flag indicates that the PCE
should prioritize the links shared by existing LSPs within the
sharing group for path computation. The existing LSP identifier
and its available link identifiers can be contained in the
optional TLVs.
Zhang, et al. Expires April 27, 2022 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Extensions to PCEP for Resource Sharing October 2021
o N (Node share) bit: when set, this flag indicates that the PCE
should prioritize the nodes shared by existing LSPs within the
sharing group for path computation. The existing LSP identifier
and its available node identifiers can be contained in the
optional TLVs.
o S (SRLG share) bit: when set, this flag indicates that the PCE
should set the SRLG (Shared Risk Link Group) of the computed LSP
to the same as existing LSPs within the sharing group for path
computation. The existing LSP identifier and SRLG information can
be contained in the optional TLVs.
o B (Bandwidth share) bit: when set, this flag indicates that the
PCE should prioritize the bandwidth to be shared by LSPs within
the sharing group for bulk path computation. The LSP identifiers
can be contained in the optional TLVs.
It is worth noting that there can be multiple flags set which may
conflict with each other. In this scenario, the result for path
computation may not be unique, and is dependent on the
implementation. The selection among multiple computation results is
out of the scope of this document.
3.3. Processing Rules
To request a path allowing resource sharing with one or multiple
existing LSPs, a PCC includes a Resource Sharing TLV in the
Association Group Object in any kind of path computation request
message, such as the PCReq, PCUpd, or PCInitiate messages specified
in [RFC8231] and [RFC8281].
On receipt of a PCEP message with a Resource Sharing TLV, a stateful
PCE MUST proceed as follows:
o If the Resource Sharing TLV is unknown/unsupported, the PCE will
follow procedures defined in [RFC5440]. That is, the PCE sends a
PCErr message with error type 26 (Association Error) and error
value 6 (Association Information Mismatch), and the related path
computation request is discarded.
o If the Resource Sharing TLV is extracted correctly, the PCE MUST
apply the requested resource sharing requirement, i.e., try to
share as much resource as possible with the LSP specified in
Resource Sharing TLV.
The procedure of setting flags follows the rules defined in
Section 3.1. The flags in the Resource Sharing TLV may be locally
configured on the requesting nodes via external entities, such as a
Zhang, et al. Expires April 27, 2022 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Extensions to PCEP for Resource Sharing October 2021
network management system or the entity that imposes the resource
sharing requirement.
It is worth noting that the Resource Sharing TLV can be used together
with other path indication objects like the IRO/XRO, with different
objectives. The first difference is, the use of the Resource Sharing
TLV is to set up an alternative path, instead a new path. It is also
dependent on the knowledge held be the PCC, e.g., if the PCC has full
knowledge of the path information and has a strong preference on the
route, it may send the request message with an IRO to specify the
route. On the other hand, if the PCC does not know how the path
should go but just wants to set up a new LSP to replace the old one,
it may use the Resource Sharing TLV instead of an IRO. The second
difference is that the Resource Sharing TLV is a loose requirement.
For example, if the constraint specified in an IRO/XRO in an A-Z path
computation request cannot be satisfied, the reply message from PCE
to PCC would be unsuccessful. However it is still possible to have a
path from the A-Z. If the target node/link/SRLG/Bandwidth is set in
the Resource Sharing TLV rather than an IRO, the PCE may feedback a
path from A-Z that does not share the target specified in the
Resource Sharing TLV.
4. Implementation Status
[Note to the RFC Editor - remove this section before publication, as
well as remove the reference to [RFC7942].
Currently the authors are not aware of any implementations.
5. Manageability Considerations
All manageability requirements and considerations listed in [RFC5440]
and [RFC8231] apply to the PCEP protocol extensions defined in this
document. In addition, requirements and considerations listed in
this section apply.
5.1. Control of Function and Policy
A PCE or PCC implementation MUST allow operator-configured
associations and SHOULD allow setting of the resource sharing TLV
(Section 3.2) as described in this document.
5.2. Information and Data Models
An implementation SHOULD allow the operator to view the resource
sharing configured or created dynamically. Further implementation
SHOULD allow to view resource sharing associations reported by each
peer, and the current set of LSPs in the association. The PCEP YANG
Zhang, et al. Expires April 27, 2022 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Extensions to PCEP for Resource Sharing October 2021
module [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang] includes association groups
information.
5.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring
Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new liveness
detection and monitoring requirements in addition to those already
listed in [RFC5440].
5.4. Verify Correct Operations
Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new operation
verification requirements in addition to those already listed in
[RFC5440] and [RFC8231].
5.5. Requirements on Other Protocols
Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new requirements
on other protocols. The configuration on local policy may be
accomplished by other protocols, such as Netconf.
5.6. Impact on Network Operations
Mechanisms defined in [RFC5440] and [RFC8231] also apply to PCEP
extensions defined in this document.
6. Security Considerations
Security of PCEP is discussed in [RFC5440] and [RFC6952]. The
extensions in this document do not change the fundamentals of
security for PCEP.
However, the introduction of the Resource Sharing TLV in the
Association Group Object provides a vector that may be used to probe
for information from a network. For example, a PCC that wants to
discover the path of an LSP with which it is not involved can issue a
request message with a Resource Sharing TLV and may be able to get
back quite a lot of information about the path of the LSP through
issuing multiple such requests for different endpoints and analyzing
the received results. To protect against this, a PCE SHOULD be
configured with access and authorization controls such that only
authorized PCCs (for example, those within the network) can make
computation requests, only specifically authorized PCCs can make
requests for resource sharing, and such requests relating to specific
LSPs are further limited to a select few PCCs. How such access
controls and authorization is managed is outside the scope of this
document, but it will at the least include Access Control Lists.
Zhang, et al. Expires April 27, 2022 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Extensions to PCEP for Resource Sharing October 2021
Furthermore, a PCC must be aware that setting up an LSP that shares
resources with another LSP may be a way of attacking the other LSP,
for example by depriving it of the resources it needs to operate
correctly. Thus it is important that, both in PCEP and the
associated signaling protocols, only authorized resource sharing is
allowed.
7. IANA Considerations
7.1. Association Object Type Indicators
IANA maintains a registry called the "Path Computation Element
Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry with a subregistry called the
"Association Type Field" subregistry. IANA is requested to make an
assignment from that subregistry as follows:
Object Name Object Reference
Class Type
------------------------------------------------------------
TBD1 Sharing-group Association Type [this document]
7.2. PCEP TLV Definitions
This document defines the following TLVs to support the resource
sharing scenario:
Value Name Reference
------------------------------------------------------------
TBD2 Resource-sharing TLV [this document]
IANA is requested to allocate the following bit numbers in the flag
spaces of Resource-sharing TLV:
Bit Flag name Reference
31 Link Share [this document]
30 Node Share [this document]
29 SRLG Share [this document]
28 Bandwidth Share [this document]
Zhang, et al. Expires April 27, 2022 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Extensions to PCEP for Resource Sharing October 2021
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[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>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[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>.
[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>.
[RFC8697] Minei, I., Crabbe, E., Sivabalan, S., Ananthakrishnan, H.,
Dhody, D., and Y. Tanaka, "Path Computation Element
Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for Establishing
Relationships between Sets of Label Switched Paths
(LSPs)", RFC 8697, DOI 10.17487/RFC8697, January 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8697>.
[RFC8800] Litkowski, S., Sivabalan, S., Barth, C., and M. Negi,
"Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)
Extension for Label Switched Path (LSP) Diversity
Constraint Signaling", RFC 8800, DOI 10.17487/RFC8800,
July 2020, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8800>.
8.2. Informational References
Zhang, et al. Expires April 27, 2022 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Extensions to PCEP for Resource Sharing October 2021
[I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang]
Dhody, D., Hardwick, J., Beeram, V. P., and J. Tantsura,
"A YANG Data Model for Path Computation Element
Communications Protocol (PCEP)", draft-ietf-pce-pcep-
yang-16 (work in progress), February 2021.
[RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.,
and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
Tunnels", RFC 3209, DOI 10.17487/RFC3209, December 2001,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3209>.
[RFC4428] Papadimitriou, D., Ed. and E. Mannie, Ed., "Analysis of
Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)-based
Recovery Mechanisms (including Protection and
Restoration)", RFC 4428, DOI 10.17487/RFC4428, March 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4428>.
[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>.
[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>.
[RFC6952] Jethanandani, M., Patel, K., and L. Zheng, "Analysis of
BGP, LDP, PCEP, and MSDP Issues According to the Keying
and Authentication for Routing Protocols (KARP) Design
Guide", RFC 6952, DOI 10.17487/RFC6952, May 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6952>.
[RFC7942] Sheffer, Y. and A. Farrel, "Improving Awareness of Running
Code: The Implementation Status Section", BCP 205,
RFC 7942, DOI 10.17487/RFC7942, July 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7942>.
Authors' Addresses
Xian Zhang
Huawei Technologies
China
Email: zhang.xian@huawei.com
Zhang, et al. Expires April 27, 2022 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Extensions to PCEP for Resource Sharing October 2021
Haomian Zheng
Huawei Technologies
H1, Xiliu Beipo Village, Songshan Lake,
Dongguan, Guangdong 523808
China
Email: zhenghaomian@huawei.com
Oscar Gonzales de Dios
Telefonica
Spain
Email: oscar.gonzalezdedios@telefonica.com
Victor Lopez
Nokia
Spain
Email: victor.lopez@nokia.com
Yunbin Xu
CAICT
China
Email: xuyunbin@caict.ac.cn
Zhang, et al. Expires April 27, 2022 [Page 17]