idnits 2.17.1 draft-fuxh-pce-boundary-explicit-control-framework-01.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** You're using the IETF Trust Provisions' Section 6.b License Notice from 12 Sep 2009 rather than the newer Notice from 28 Dec 2009. (See https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/) Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** There are 15 instances of too long lines in the document, the longest one being 22 characters in excess of 72. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year == The document doesn't use any RFC 2119 keywords, yet seems to have RFC 2119 boilerplate text. -- The document date (March 8, 2010) is 5162 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) No issues found here. Summary: 2 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 1 comment (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group X. Fu 3 Internet-Draft X. Lin 4 Intended status: Standards Track G. Xie 5 Expires: September 9, 2010 ZTE Corporation 6 March 8, 2010 8 A Framework for Explicit Control of Region Boundary in PCE-Based Inter- 9 Layer Architecture 10 draft-fuxh-pce-boundary-explicit-control-framework-01 12 Abstract 14 This document defines the framework for explicit control of region 15 boundary in PCE-based inter-layer architecture. 17 Conventions Used In This Document 19 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 20 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 21 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. 23 Status of this Memo 25 This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the 26 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 28 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 29 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that 30 other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- 31 Drafts. 33 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 34 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 35 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 36 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 38 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 39 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. 41 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 42 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 44 This Internet-Draft will expire on September 9, 2010. 46 Copyright Notice 48 Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 49 document authors. All rights reserved. 51 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 52 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 53 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 54 publication of this document. Please review these documents 55 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 56 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 57 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 58 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 59 described in the BSD License. 61 Table of Contents 63 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 64 2. Explicit Control of Region Boundary . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 65 2.1. Procedure for Region Boundary Explicit Contorl . . . . . . 3 66 3. Explicit Control Model of Region Boundary . . . . . . . . . . 4 67 3.1. Explicit Region Control in Single PCE Inter-Layer . . . . 4 68 3.2. Explicit Region Control in Multiple PCE Inter-Layer 69 with inter-PCE communication. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 70 3.3. Explicit Region Control in Multiple PCE Inter-Layer 71 without inter-PCE communication. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 72 4. Protocol Extension Requirements for Explicit Control of 73 Region Boundary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 74 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 75 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 76 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 77 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 78 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 79 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 81 1. Introduction 83 PCE can determine regions' boundaries. Without cooperating with VNTM 84 or policy configuration, a intermediate LSR has to determine regions' 85 boundaries by using the IGP database and ERO as described in 86 [RFC4206] in order to trigger the lower layer signaling. A 87 centralized routing and distributed signaling application is foreseen 88 in the PCE architecture. Without any or enough TED within the 89 intermediate LSR, it could not determine regions' boundaries during 90 the signaling. 92 This document defines the framework for explicit control of region 93 boundary in PCE-based inter-layer architecture. The solution isn't 94 limited to specific Inter-Layer Path Computation and Inter-Layer Path 95 Control Models. The solution in this document can also be applied in 96 the situation where TED can be maintained by the intermediate LSR in 97 order for less signaling time. 99 2. Explicit Control of Region Boundary 101 PCE can determine regions' boundaries. After PCE compute an end-to- 102 end paths across multi-layer, multi-layer EROs must be carried in 103 PCRep and Path message in terms of RFC5623. In order to explicit 104 control of regions' boundaries, this document introduces a new object 105 (ERBO- Explicit Region Boundary Object). It is carried in PCRep and 106 RSVP-TE Signaling message. Regions' boundaries must be carried in 107 ERBO. 109 2.1. Procedure for Region Boundary Explicit Contorl 111 PCC request the PCE computate a multi-layer path with an indication 112 of whether inter-layer path computation is allowed. The PCE computes 113 and returns a multi-layer path to the PCC converted to an Explicit 114 Route Object (ERO) for use in RSVP-TE signaling. The PCRep also must 115 includs the region boundaries information which contains zero or 116 multiple pairs of nodes. This document introduces a new object 117 (ERBO- Explicit Region Boundary Object). It is carried in PCRep and 118 RSVP-TE Signaling message. Regions' boundaries must be carried in 119 ERBO. One pairs or multiple pairs of nodes within the ERBO can 120 belong to the same layer or different layers. The RSVP-TE signaling 121 message among the PCC and intermediate nodes must carry the region 122 boundaries information provided by PCE. 124 If the intermediate nodes receive the signaling message with region 125 boundaries information, it must check whether it is one of the region 126 boundaries. If it isn't one of region boundaries, the signaling 127 should be continued. If the intermediate nodes receive the signaling 128 message without region boundaries information, the signaling should 129 be continued. 131 If it is one of region boundaries, it must get another end of region 132 boundary from the next hop in ERBO. It must get the detailed routing 133 information between the pair of region boundaries from the ERO in 134 order to initiate the signaling of lower layer path. Because there 135 may be more further region boundaries information within the lower 136 layer in ERBO, it must get the region boundaries information for 137 lower layers from ERBO. 139 Once the pair of region boundaries, the region boundaries information 140 of lower layers and the routing information of lower layers are 141 determined, the ingress node of region boundaries initiates the lower 142 layer signaling. The signaling of lower layers must also include the 143 region boundaries information. 145 3. Explicit Control Model of Region Boundary 147 3.1. Explicit Region Control in Single PCE Inter-Layer 149 Because inter-layer path computation is performed by a single PCE 150 that has topology visibility into all layers in this model, PCE can 151 determines the region boundaries within all the layers. It must 152 return the detailed routing information in ERO and region boundaries 153 information in ERBO. 155 PCC initiates the signaling based on the ERO and ERBO returned by the 156 PCE. The intermediate nodes will initiate the signaling procedure of 157 lower layers based on the routing information in ERO and the region 158 boundaries information in ERBO. 160 The process of creating a LSP from H1 to H6 based on the following 161 figure is as follows: 163 1. H1 sends a route request between H1 and H6 to PCE,and PCE 164 responses to H1 with ERO = {H1,H2,L3,L4,H5,H6} and ERBO = 165 {H2,H5}. 167 2. H1 Sends Path to H2 with ERO = {H2,L3,L4,H5,H6} and ERBO = {H2, 168 H5}. 170 3. After H2 receivs the Path message, H2 confirm that it is the 171 initiator of lower layer LSP and H5 is another end of region 172 boundaries in terms of the ERBO and ERO. H2 extracts the 173 complete route of the lower layer LSP from ERO in terms of the 174 other end of the region boundaries. The routing information of 175 lower layer is {H2,L3,L4,H5}. There is no any further region 176 boundaries information within lower layer based on the ERBO. 178 4. Then H2 starts the creation of lower layer LSP, the route is 179 H2,L3,L4,H5. 181 5. After the creation of the lower layer LSP, the Higher-Layer LSP's 182 creation is to be continued. H2 sends the Path message to H5. 183 And the ERO and ERBO in the Path message is cut out. So there 184 isn't any information in ERBO. 186 ----- 187 | PCE | 188 ----- 189 ^ | 190 | 2:PCRep 191 | | (ERO) (ERBO) 192 | | ---- ---- 193 | | | H1 | | H2 | 194 | | ---- ---- 195 | | | H2 | | H5 | 196 | | ---- ---- 197 | | | L3 | 198 | | ---- 199 | | | L4 | 200 | | ---- 201 | | | H5 | 202 | | ---- 203 | | | H6 | 204 | | ---- 205 | | 206 1:PCReq | 207 | v 208 ----- ----- ----- ----- 209 | LSR |--| LSR |................| LSR |--| LSR | 210 | H1 | | H2 | | H5 | | H6 | 211 ----- -----\ /----- ----- 212 \----- -----/ 213 | LSR |--| LSR | 214 | L3 | | L4 | 215 ----- ----- 216 ---------------> ---------------> 217 3:Path 4:Path 218 (ERO) (ERBO) (ERO) 219 ---- ---- ---- 220 | H2 | | H2 | | H2 | 221 ---- ---- ---- 222 | L3 | | H5 | 223 ---- ---- 224 | L4 | 225 ---- 226 | H5 | 227 ---- 228 | H6 | 229 ---- 231 3.2. Explicit Region Control in Multiple PCE Inter-Layer with inter-PCE 232 communication. 234 In the following figure, there are two PCEs with inter-PCE 235 communication. PCE Hi has the topology visibility restricted to the 236 upper layer. PCE Lo has the topology visibility of two layers. The 237 end-to-end path is computated by the cooperation between PCE Hi and 238 PCE Lo. 240 The region boundaries within all the layers can be determined by the 241 cooperation between the PCE Hi and PCE Lo. The PCE Hi must return 242 the detailed routing information in ERO and region boundaries 243 information in ERBO. 245 PCC initiates the signaling based on the ERO and ERBO returned by the 246 PCE. The intermediate nodes will initiate the signaling procedure of 247 lower layers based on the routing information in ERO and the region 248 boundaries information in ERBO. 250 The process of creating a LSP from H1 to H10 is as follows: 252 1. H1 sends a route request bwtween H1 and H10 to PCE Ho. Without 253 the topology visibility of lower layers, PCE Ho has to compute a 254 multi-layer path with inter-communication with PCE Lo. PCE Lo 255 computes two multi-layer paths. One is between H2 and H5. 256 Another is between H6 and H9. PCE Lo responses to PCE Hi with 257 the derailed routing information and region boundaries 258 information. In the end, PCE Hi responses to H1 with ERO = 259 {H1,H2,L3,M1,M2,L4,H5,H6,L7,L8,H9,H10} and ERBO 260 ={H2,H5,L3,L4,H6,H9}. 262 2. H1 Sends Path to H2 with ERO = 263 {H2,L3,M1,M2,L4,H5,H6,L7,L8,H9,H10}, ERBO = {H2,H5,L3,L4,H6,H9} 265 3. After H2 receives the Path, H2 determines it is the one end of 266 region boundaries and H5 is another end based on the ERO and 267 ERBO. So it abstracts the derailed routing information and 268 region boundaries information of lower layer. The region 269 boundaries information is {L3,L4}. It is to create lower layer 270 LSP with ERO = {H2,L3,M1,M2,L4,H5} and ERBO = {L3,L4}. 272 4. H2 Sends Path to L3 with ERO = {L3,M1,M2,L4,H5} and ERBO = 273 {L3,L4}. 275 5. After L3 receives the Path, L3 determines it is the one end of 276 region boundaries and L4 is another end based on the ERO and 277 ERBO. So it abstracts the derailed routing information and 278 region boundaries information of lower layer. The routing 279 information of lower layer is {L3,M1,M2,L4}. The region 280 boundaries information is empty. L3 is to create lower layer 281 LSP with ERO = {L3,M1,M2,L4}. 283 6. L3 Sends Path to M1 with ERO = {M1,M2,L4} and ERBO = empty. 285 7. After the creation of the lower layer LSP between L3 and L4, L3 286 continues to send Path to L4 with ERO = {L4,H5} and ERBO = 287 empty. 289 8. After the creation of the lower layer LSP between H2 and H5, H2 290 continues to send Path to H5 with ERO = {H5,H6,L7,L8,H9,H10} and 291 ERBO = {H6,H9}. 293 9. H5 send the Path message to H6 with the with ERO = 294 {H6,L7,L8,H9,H10} and ERBO = {H6,H9}. 296 10. After H6 receives the Path, H6 determines it is the one end of 297 region boundaries and H9 is another end based on the ERO and 298 ERBO. So it abstracts the derailed routing information and 299 region boundaries information of lower layer. The routing 300 information of lower layer is {H6,L7,L8,H9}. The region 301 boundaries information is empty. H6 create the lower layer LSP 302 with ERO = {H6,L7,L8,H9} and ERBO = empty. 304 11. After the creation of the lower layer LSP between H6 and H9, the 305 higher layer LSP's creation is to be continued. 307 ----- 308 | PCE | 309 | Hi | <---------------------- 310 ----- | 311 ^ | | 312 | | | 313 | | | 314 | | | 315 | | | 316 | v | 317 ----- ----- | ----- ----- ----- ----- 318 | LSR |--| LSR |.............|...............| LSR |--| LSR | .............| LSR |--| LSR | 319 | H1 | | H2 | v | H5 | | H6 | | H9 | | H10 | 320 ----- -----\ ----- /----- -----\ /----- ----- 321 | | PCE | | | | 322 | | Lo | | | | 323 | ----- | | | 324 \----- -----/ \----- -----/ 325 | LSR |................| LSR | | LSR |..| LSR | 326 | L3 | | L4 | | L7 | | L8 | 327 -----\ /----- ----- ----- 328 | | 329 | | 330 | | 331 \----- -----/ 332 | LSR |..| LSR | 333 | M1 | | M2 | 334 ----- ----- 336 3.3. Explicit Region Control in Multiple PCE Inter-Layer without inter- 337 PCE communication. 339 In the following figure, the PCE Hi has the topology visibility of 340 higher two layers. The PCE Lo has the topology visibility of lower 341 two layers. 343 The process of creating a LSP from H1 to H10 is as follows: 345 1. H1 sends a route request between H1 and H10 to PCE Ho. PCE Ho 346 could not computate a multi-layer path within four layers. PCE 347 Ho computes a multi-layer path for higher two layers without 348 inter-communication with PCE Lo, and responses to H1 with ERO = 349 {H1,H2,M3,M8,H9,H10} and ERBO ={H2,H9}. 351 2. H1 Sends Path to H2 with ERO = {H2,M3,M8,H9,H10} and ERBO = 352 {H2,H9}. 354 3. After H2 receives the Path, H2 determines it is the one end of 355 region boundaries and H9 is another end based on the ERO and 356 ERBO. So it abstracts the derailed routing information and 357 region boundaries information of lower layer. The routing 358 information of lower layer is {H2,M3,M8,H9}. The region 359 boundaries information is empty. H2 is to create lower layer 360 LSP with ERO = {H2,M3,M8,H9}. 362 4. H2 Sends Path to M3,with ERO = {M3,M8,H9} and ERBO = empty. 364 5. There is no any connectivity between M3 and M8. M3 can 365 communicates with PCE Lo. PCE Lo has the capability of Inter- 366 Layer path computation. So M3 consults the PCE Lo with 367 responsibility for the lower-layers network. PCE Lo computes 368 the route to expand the loose hop route (i.e., M3 and M8) in the 369 higher-layer LSP and responses to M3 with ERO = 370 {M3,L4,L5,L6,L7,M8}, ERBO ={L4,L7}. 372 6. M3 Sends Path to L4, with ERO = {L4,L5,L6,L7,M8}, ERBO = 373 {L4,L7}. 375 7. After L4 receives the Path, L4 determines it is the one end of 376 region boundaries and H7 is another end based on the ERO and 377 ERBO. So it abstracts the derailed routing information and 378 region boundaries information of lower layer. The routing 379 information of lower layer is {L4,L5,L6,L7}. The region 380 boundaries information is empty. L4 is to create lower layer 381 LSP with ERO = {L4,L5,L6,L7} and ERBO = empty. 383 8. L4 Sends Path to L5, with ERO = {L5,L6,L7} and ERBO = empty. 385 9. After the creation of the lower layer LSP between L4 and L7, L4 386 continues to send Path to L7 with ERO = {L7,M8} and ERBO = 387 empty. 389 10. After the creation of the lower layer LSP between M3 and M8, M3 390 continues to send Path to M8 with ERO = {M8,H9} and ERBO = 391 empty. 393 11. After the creation of the lower layer LSP between H2 and H9, H2 394 continues to send Path to H9 with ERO = {H9,H10} and ERBO = 395 empty 396 ----- 397 | PCE | 398 | Hi | 399 ----- 400 ^ | 401 | | 402 | | 403 | | 404 | | 405 | v 406 ----- ----- ----- ----- 407 | LSR |--| LSR |..........................................| LSR |--| LSR | 408 | H1 | | H2 | | H9 | | H10 | 409 ----- -----\ /----- ----- 410 | | 411 | | 412 | | 413 \----- -----/ 414 | LSR |............................ | LSR | 415 | M3 |<------------- | M8 | 416 -----\ | /----- 417 | v | 418 | ----- | 419 | | PCE | | 420 | | Lo | | 421 | ----- | 422 \----- -----/ 423 | LSR |...............| LSR | 424 | L4 | | L7 | 425 -----\ /----- 426 | | 427 | | 428 | | 429 \----- -----/ 430 | LSR |..| LSR | 431 | L4 | | L7 | 432 ----- ----- 434 4. Protocol Extension Requirements for Explicit Control of Region 435 Boundary 437 A requirements for PCRep (RFC5440) extensions to support explicit 438 control of region boundary is foreseen. A requirements for Path 439 (RFC3473) extensions to support explicit control of region boundary 440 is also foreseen. A new object (ERBO) could be introduced in PCRep 441 and Path message. The format of new object is the same as an ERO. 442 [draft-fuxh-ccamp-region-boundary-explicit-control-rsvp-ext-00] 443 defines the RSVP-TE signaling extension for explicit control of 444 region boundary during the signaling procedure. 445 [draft-fuxh-pce-region-boundary-explicit-control-pcep-ext-00] defines 446 the PCEP protocol extension for explicit control of region boundary 447 in PCE-based inter-layer architecture. 449 5. Security Considerations 451 TBD 453 6. IANA Considerations 455 TBD 457 7. References 459 7.1. Normative References 461 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 462 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 464 [RFC4206] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Label Switched Paths (LSP) 465 Hierarchy with Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching 466 (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE)", RFC 4206, October 2005. 468 7.2. Informative References 470 Authors' Addresses 472 Xihua Fu 473 ZTE Corporation 474 West District,ZTE Plaza,No.10,Tangyan South Road,Gaoxin District 475 Xi An 710065 476 P.R.China 478 Phone: +8613798412242 479 Email: fu.xihua@zte.com.cn 480 URI: http://wwwen.zte.com.cn/ 481 Xuefeng Lin 482 ZTE Corporation 483 12F,ZTE Plaza,No.19,Huayuan East Road,Haidian District 484 Beijing 100191 485 P.R.China 487 Phone: +8615901011821 488 Email: lin.xuefeng@zte.com.cn 489 URI: http://www.zte.com.cn/ 491 Gang Xie 492 ZTE Corporation 493 12F,ZTE Plaza,No.19,Huayuan East Road,Haidian District 494 Beijing 100191 495 P.R.China 497 Phone: +8613691280432 498 Email: xie.gang@zte.com.cn