Network Working Group Seisho Yasukawa Internet Draft NTT Category: Informational Adrian Farrel Expires: August 2006 Old Dog Consulting February 2006 PCC-PCE Communication Requirements for Point to Multipoint Traffic Engineering draft-yasukawa-pce-p2mp-req-00.txt Status of this Memo By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. 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." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. Abstract The Path Computation Element (PCE) provides functions of path computation in support of traffic engineering in Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) networks. Extensions to the MPLS and GMPLS signaling and routing protocols have been made in support of traffic engineered point-to-multipoint (P2MP) label switched paths (LSPs). Since P2MP LSP routes are sometimes complex to compute, and given the use of PCE in MPLS networks it is likely that PCE will be used in P2MP MPLS networks. Generic requirements for a communication protocol between Path Computation Clients (PCCs) and PCEs are presented in "PCE Communication Protocol Generic Requirements". This document complements the generic requirements and presents a detailed set of PCC-PCE communication protocol requirements for point-to-multipoint traffic engineering. Yasukawa Expires August 2006 [Page 1] draft-yasukawa-pce-p2mp-req-00.txt February 2006 Conventions used in this document The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. 1. Introduction The Path Computation Element (PCE) defined in [PCE-ARCH] is an entity that is capable of computing a network path or route based on a network graph, and applying computational constraints. The intention is that the PCE is used to compute the path of traffic engineered label switched paths (TE LSPs) within Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) networks. Requirements for point-to-multipoint (P2MP) MPLS TE LSPs are documented in [P2MP-REQ] and signaling protocol extensions are defined in [P2MP-RSVP]. P2MP MPLS TE networks are currently being planned by service provides in support of various features including layer 3 multicast VPNs. Path computation for P2MP LSPs presents a significant challenge and network optimization of multiple P2MP TE LSPs will require considerable computational resources. PCE offers a way to offload such path computations from LSRs. The applicability of the PCE-based path computation architecture to point-to-multipoint MPLS traffic engineering is described in a companion document [PCE-P2MP-APP]. No further attempt is made to justify the use of PCE for P2MP MPLS TE within this document. This document presents a set of PCC-PCE communication protocol (PCECP) requirements for P2MP MPLS traffic engineering. It supplements the generic requirements documented in [PCE-COM-REQ]. 2. PCC-PCE Communication Requirements for P2MP MPLS Traffic Engineering This section sets out additional requirements not covered in [PCE-COM-REQ] specific to the problems of P2MP MPLS TE. 2.1. PCC-PCE Communication The PCC-PCE communication protocol MUST allow requests and replies for the computation of paths for P2MP LSPs. This requires no additional messages, but implies the following additional constraints to be added to the PCC-PCE communication protocol. Yasukawa Expires August 2006 [Page 2] draft-yasukawa-pce-p2mp-req-00.txt February 2006 2.1.1. Indication of P2MP Path Computation Request Although the presence of certain parameters (such as a list of more than one destination) may be used to infer that a path computation request is for a P2MP LSP, an explicit parameter SHOULD be placed in a conspicuous place within a Path Computation Request message to allow a receiving PCE to easily identify that the request is for a P2MP path. 2.1.2. Non-Support of P2MP Path Computation Not all PCEs are required to support P2MP path computation. Therefore it MUST be possible for a PCE to reject a P2MP Path Computation Request message with a reason code that indicates no support for P2MP path computation. 2.1.3. Non-Support by Back-Level PCE Implementations It is possible that initial PCE implementations will be developed without support for P2MP path computation and without the ability to recognize the explicit flag described in section 2.1.1. Therefore at least one parameter required for P2MP path computation (possibly including the flag described in section 2.1.1) MUST be defined in such a way as to cause automatic rejection as unprocessable or unrecognized by a back-level PCE implementation without requiring any changes to that PCE. 2.1.4. Specification of Destinations Since P2MP LSPs have more than one destination, it MUST be possible for a single Path Computation Request to list multiple destinations. 2.1.5. Indication of P2MP Paths The Path Computation Response MUST be able to carry the path of a P2MP LSP. This SHOULD be expressed as a compacted series of routes as described in [P2MP-RSVP] although not necessarily using an identical encoding. This MAY be expressed as a non-compacted series of source-to-destination routes. 2.1.6. Multi-Message Requests and Responses A single P2MP LSP may have very many destinations, and the computed path (tree) may be very extensive. In these cases it is possible that the entire Path Computation Request or Response cannot fit within one PCE message. Therefore it MUST be possible for a single request or response to be conveyed by a sequence of messages. Note that there is a requirement in [PCE-COM-REQ] for reliable and in-order message delivery, so it is assumed that components of the Yasukawa Expires August 2006 [Page 3] draft-yasukawa-pce-p2mp-req-00.txt February 2006 sequence will be delivered in order and without missing items. 2.1.7. Non-Specification of Per-Destination Constraints and Parameters It MUST NOT be possible to set different constraints, traffic parameters, or quality of service requirements for different destination of a P2MP LSP within a single computation request. 2.1.8. Path Modification and Path Diversity No changes are made to the requirement to support path modification and path diversity as described in [PCE-COM-REQ]. Note, however, that a consequence of this requirement is that it must be possible to supply an existing path on a Path Computation Request. This requirement is unchanged as well, but it is a new requirement that such paths MUST be able to be P2MP paths. 2.1.9. Capabilities Exchange PCE capabilities exchange forms part of PCE discovery [PCE-DISCO], but MAY also be included in the PCECP message exchanges. In the event that the PCE ability to perform P2MP computation is not advertised as part of PCE discovery, the PCECP MUST allow a PCC to discover which PCEs with which it communicates support P2MP path computation and which objective functions specific to P2MP path computation are supported by each PCE. 3. Manageability Considerations Manageability of P2MP MPLS TE with PCE must address the following considerations. - Need for a MIB module for control and monitoring. - Need for built-in diagnostic tools. - Configuration implications for the protocol. 4. Security Considerations P2MP computation requests do not raise any additional security issues for the PCECP. Note, however, that P2MP computation requests are more CPU-intensive and also use more link bandwidth. Therefore if the PCECP was susceptible to denial of service attacks based on the injection of spurious Path Computation Requests, the support of P2MP path computation would exacerbate the effect. It would be possible to consider applying different authorization policies for P2MP path computation requests compared to other Yasukawa Expires August 2006 [Page 4] draft-yasukawa-pce-p2mp-req-00.txt February 2006 requests. 5. IANA Considerations This document makes no requests for IANA action. 6. Acknowledgments TBD 7. References 7.1. Normative Reference [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to indicate requirements levels", RFC 2119, March 1997. [PCE-COM-REQ] J. Ash, J.L Le Roux et al., "PCE Communication Protocol Generic Requirements", draft-ietf-pce-comm-protocol-gen-reqs (work in progress). 7.2. Informative Reference [PCE-ARCH] A. Farrel, JP. Vasseur and J. Ash, "Path Computation Element (PCE) Architecture", draft-ietf-pce-architecture (work in progress). [PCE-DISCO] JL Le Roux et al., "Requirements for Path Computation Element (PCE) Discovery", draft-ietf-pce-discovery-reqs (work in progress). [PCE-P2MP-APP] S. Yasukawa et al., "Applicability of the Path Computation Element to Point-to-Multipoint Traffic Engineering", draft-yasukawa-pce-p2mp-app, (work in progress). [P2MP-REQ] Yasukawa, S. (Editor), "Signaling Requirements for Point to Multipoint Traffic Engineered MPLS LSPs", draft-ietf-mpls-p2mp-sig-requirement, (work in progress). [P2MP-RSVP] Aggarwal, R., Papadimitriou, D., and Yasukawa, S., "Extensions to RSVP-TE for Point to Multipoint TE LSPs", draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-p2mp, (work in progress). Yasukawa Expires August 2006 [Page 5] draft-yasukawa-pce-p2mp-req-00.txt February 2006 8. Authors' Addresses Seisho Yasukawa NTT 3-9-11 Midori-cho, Musashino-shi, Tokyo 180-8585, Japan Email: yasukawa.seisho@lab.ntt.co.jp Adrian Farrel Old Dog Consulting Email: adrian@olddog.co.uk 9. Intellectual Property Statement The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in this document or the extent to which any license under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at http://www.ietf.org/ipr. The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org. Disclaimer of Validity This document and the information contained herein are provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Copyright Statement Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. Yasukawa Expires August 2006 [Page 6]