draft-ietf-pce-brpc-02.txt   draft-ietf-pce-brpc-03.txt 
Networking Working Group JP. Vasseur, Ed. Networking Working Group JP. Vasseur, Ed.
Internet-Draft Cisco Systems, Inc Internet-Draft Cisco Systems, Inc
Intended status: Informational R. Zhang Intended status: Informational R. Zhang
Expires: June 17, 2007 BT Infonet Expires: July 19, 2007 BT Infonet
N. Bitar N. Bitar
Verizon Verizon
JL. Le Roux JL. Le Roux
France Telecom France Telecom
December 14, 2006 January 15, 2007
A Backward Recursive PCE-based Computation (BRPC) procedure to compute A Backward Recursive PCE-based Computation (BRPC) procedure to compute
shortest inter-domain Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths shortest inter-domain Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths
draft-ietf-pce-brpc-02.txt draft-ietf-pce-brpc-03.txt
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware 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 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. aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
skipping to change at page 1, line 40 skipping to change at page 1, line 40
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on June 17, 2007. This Internet-Draft will expire on July 19, 2007.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
Abstract Abstract
The ability to compute constrained shortest Traffic Engineering (TE) The ability to compute constrained shortest Traffic Engineering (TE)
Label Switched Paths (LSPs) in Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) in Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS)
and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) networks across multiple domains (where and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) networks across multiple domains (where
a domain is referred to as a collection of network elements within a a domain is referred to as a collection of network elements within a
common sphere of address management or path computational common sphere of address management or path computational
responsibility such as IGP areas and Autonomous Systems) has been responsibility such as IGP areas and Autonomous Systems) has been
identified as a key requirement . This document specifies a identified as a key requirement . This document specifies a
skipping to change at page 3, line 28 skipping to change at page 3, line 28
9.1. Diverse end-to-end path computation . . . . . . . . . . . 10 9.1. Diverse end-to-end path computation . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9.2. Path optimality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 9.2. Path optimality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
10. Reoptimization of an inter-domain TE LSP . . . . . . . . . . . 11 10. Reoptimization of an inter-domain TE LSP . . . . . . . . . . . 11
11. Path Computation failure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 11. Path Computation failure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
12. Metric normalization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 12. Metric normalization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
13. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 13. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
14. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 14. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
14.1. New flag of the RP object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 14.1. New flag of the RP object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
14.2. New flag of the NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 14.2. New flag of the NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
15. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 15. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
16. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 16. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
17. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 17. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
17.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 17.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
17.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 17.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Appendix A. Proposed Status and Discussion [To Be Removed Appendix A. Proposed Status and Discussion [To Be Removed
Upon Publication] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Upon Publication] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 16 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 16
1. Terminology 1. Terminology
skipping to change at page 8, line 50 skipping to change at page 8, line 50
5. PCEP Protocol Extensions 5. PCEP Protocol Extensions
The BRPC procedure requires the specification of a new flag of the RP The BRPC procedure requires the specification of a new flag of the RP
object carried within the PCReq message (defined in object carried within the PCReq message (defined in
[I-D.ietf-pce-pcep]), the aim of which is to specify that the [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep]), the aim of which is to specify that the
shortest path(s) satisfying the constraints from the destination to shortest path(s) satisfying the constraints from the destination to
the set of entry boundary nodes are requested (such set of path(s) the set of entry boundary nodes are requested (such set of path(s)
forms the downstream VSPT as specified in Section 4.2). forms the downstream VSPT as specified in Section 4.2).
The following new flag of the RP object is defined: VSPT (V) flag: The following new flag of the RP object is defined: VSPT (V) flag:
0x20. When set, this indicates that the PCC requests the computation 0x60. When set, this indicates that the PCC requests the computation
of an inter-domain TE LSP using the BRPC procedure. of an inter-domain TE LSP using the BRPC procedure.
Because path segment(s) computed by a downstream PCE in the context Because path segment(s) computed by a downstream PCE in the context
of the BRPC procedure must be provided along with their respective of the BRPC procedure must be provided along with their respective
path cost(s), the C flag of the RP object carried within the PCReq path cost(s), the C flag of the METRIC object carried within the
message MUST be set. It is the choice of the requester to PCReq message MUST be set. It is the choice of the requester to
appropriately set the O bit of the RP object. appropriately set the O bit of the RP object.
6. Inter-AS TE Links 6. Inter-AS TE Links
In the case of Inter-AS TE LSP path computation, the BRPC procedure In the case of Inter-AS TE LSP path computation, the BRPC procedure
requires the knowledge of the traffic engineering attributes of the requires the knowledge of the traffic engineering attributes of the
Inter-AS TE links: the process by which the PCE acquires this Inter-AS TE links: the process by which the PCE acquires this
information is out of the scope of the BRPC procedure (which is information is out of the scope of the BRPC procedure (which is
compliant with the PCE architecture defined in [RFC4655]). compliant with the PCE architecture defined in [RFC4655]).
skipping to change at page 10, line 6 skipping to change at page 10, line 6
completion failure". The PCErr message MUST be relayed to the completion failure". The PCErr message MUST be relayed to the
requesting PCC. requesting PCC.
PCEP-ERROR objects are used to report a PCEP protocol error and are PCEP-ERROR objects are used to report a PCEP protocol error and are
characterized by an Error-Type which specifies the type of error and characterized by an Error-Type which specifies the type of error and
an Error-value that provides additional information about the error an Error-value that provides additional information about the error
type. Both the Error-Type and the Error-Value are managed by IANA. type. Both the Error-Type and the Error-Value are managed by IANA.
A new Error-Type is defined that relates to the BRPC procedure. A new Error-Type is defined that relates to the BRPC procedure.
Error-type Meaning Error-type Meaning
10 BRPC procedure completion failure 13 BRPC procedure completion failure
Error-value Error-value
1: BRPC procedure not supported by one or more PCEs 1: BRPC procedure not supported by one or more PCEs
along the domain path along the domain path
9. Applicability 9. Applicability
As discussed in section 3, the requirements for inter-area and As discussed in section 3, the requirements for inter-area and
inter-AS MPLS Traffic Engineering have been developed by the Traffic inter-AS MPLS Traffic Engineering have been developed by the Traffic
Engineering Working Group (TE WG) and have been stated in [RFC4105] Engineering Working Group (TE WG) and have been stated in [RFC4105]
and [RFC4216], respectively. Among the set of requirements, both and [RFC4216], respectively. Among the set of requirements, both
skipping to change at page 12, line 18 skipping to change at page 12, line 18
14. IANA Considerations 14. IANA Considerations
14.1. New flag of the RP object 14.1. New flag of the RP object
A new flag of the RP object (specified in [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep]) is A new flag of the RP object (specified in [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep]) is
defined in this document. defined in this document.
Name: VSPT (V) Name: VSPT (V)
Value: 0x20. Bit Number: 10
Value: 0x60
When set, this indicates that the PCC requests the computation of an When set, this indicates that the PCC requests the computation of an
inter-domain TE LSP using the BRPC procedure. inter-domain TE LSP using the BRPC procedure.
A new Error-Type is defined in this document (Error-Type and Error- A new Error-Type is defined in this document (Error-Type and Error-
value to be assigned by IANA). value to be assigned by IANA).
Error-type Meaning Error-type Meaning
10 BRPC procedure completion failure 13 BRPC procedure completion failure
Error-value Error-value
1: BRPC procedure not supported by one or PCEs 1: BRPC procedure not supported by one or PCEs
along the domain path along the domain path
14.2. New flag of the NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV 14.2. New flag of the NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV
A new flag of the NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV defined in [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep]) A new flag of the NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV defined in [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep])
is specified in this document. is specified in this document.
Defining RFC: draft-ietf-pce-pcep (to be replaced by RFC number when pusblished) Defining RFC: draft-ietf-pce-pcep (to be replaced by RFC number when pusblished)
skipping to change at page 13, line 14 skipping to change at page 13, line 18
and Siva Sivabalan for their useful comments. A special thank to and Siva Sivabalan for their useful comments. A special thank to
Adrian Farrel for his useful comments and suggestions. Adrian Farrel for his useful comments and suggestions.
17. References 17. References
17.1. Normative References 17.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-pce-pcep] [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep]
Roux, J. and J. Vasseur, "Path Computation Element (PCE) Roux, J. and J. Vasseur, "Path Computation Element (PCE)
communication Protocol (PCEP) - Version 1", communication Protocol (PCEP) - Version 1",
draft-ietf-pce-pcep-04 (work in progress), December 2006. draft-ietf-pce-pcep-05 (work in progress), January 2007.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J., and J. Ash, "A Path Computation [RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J., and J. Ash, "A Path Computation
Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655, August 2006. Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655, August 2006.
17.2. Informative References 17.2. Informative References
[I-D.bradford-pce-path-key] [I-D.bradford-pce-path-key]
Bradford, R., "Preserving Topology Confidentiality in Bradford, R., "Preserving Topology Confidentiality in
Inter-Domain Path Computation using a key based Inter-Domain Path Computation using a key based
mechanism", draft-bradford-pce-path-key-01 (work in mechanism", draft-bradford-pce-path-key-02 (work in
progress), October 2006. progress), January 2007.
[I-D.ietf-ccamp-inter-domain-framework] [I-D.ietf-ccamp-inter-domain-framework]
Farrel, A., "A Framework for Inter-Domain Multiprotocol Farrel, A., "A Framework for Inter-Domain Multiprotocol
Label Switching Traffic Engineering", Label Switching Traffic Engineering",
draft-ietf-ccamp-inter-domain-framework-06 (work in draft-ietf-ccamp-inter-domain-framework-06 (work in
progress), August 2006. progress), August 2006.
[I-D.ietf-ccamp-inter-domain-pd-path-comp] [I-D.ietf-ccamp-inter-domain-pd-path-comp]
Vasseur, J., "A Per-domain path computation method for Vasseur, J., "A Per-domain path computation method for
establishing Inter-domain Traffic Engineering (TE) Label establishing Inter-domain Traffic Engineering (TE) Label
Switched Paths (LSPs)", Switched Paths (LSPs)",
draft-ietf-ccamp-inter-domain-pd-path-comp-03 (work in draft-ietf-ccamp-inter-domain-pd-path-comp-03 (work in
progress), August 2006. progress), August 2006.
[I-D.ietf-ccamp-inter-domain-rsvp-te] [I-D.ietf-ccamp-inter-domain-rsvp-te]
Ayyangar, A. and J. Vasseur, "Inter domain GMPLS Traffic Ayyangar, A. and J. Vasseur, "Inter domain MPLS and GMPLS
Engineering - RSVP-TE extensions", Traffic Engineering - RSVP-TE extensions",
draft-ietf-ccamp-inter-domain-rsvp-te-03 (work in draft-ietf-ccamp-inter-domain-rsvp-te-04 (work in
progress), March 2006. progress), January 2007.
[RFC2702] Awduche, D., Malcolm, J., Agogbua, J., O'Dell, M., and J. [RFC2702] Awduche, D., Malcolm, J., Agogbua, J., O'Dell, M., and J.
McManus, "Requirements for Traffic Engineering Over MPLS", McManus, "Requirements for Traffic Engineering Over MPLS",
RFC 2702, September 1999. RFC 2702, September 1999.
[RFC4105] Le Roux, J., Vasseur, J., and J. Boyle, "Requirements for [RFC4105] Le Roux, J., Vasseur, J., and J. Boyle, "Requirements for
Inter-Area MPLS Traffic Engineering", RFC 4105, June 2005. Inter-Area MPLS Traffic Engineering", RFC 4105, June 2005.
[RFC4216] Zhang, R. and J. Vasseur, "MPLS Inter-Autonomous System [RFC4216] Zhang, R. and J. Vasseur, "MPLS Inter-Autonomous System
(AS) Traffic Engineering (TE) Requirements", RFC 4216, (AS) Traffic Engineering (TE) Requirements", RFC 4216,
skipping to change at page 16, line 7 skipping to change at page 16, line 7
JL Le Roux JL Le Roux
France Telecom France Telecom
2, Avenue Pierre-Marzin 2, Avenue Pierre-Marzin
Lannion, 22307 Lannion, 22307
FRANCE FRANCE
Email: jeanlouis.leroux@orange-ft.com Email: jeanlouis.leroux@orange-ft.com
Full Copyright Statement Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights. retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Intellectual Property Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights 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 might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
 End of changes. 16 change blocks. 
24 lines changed or deleted 26 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.33. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/