[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: (draft-vasseur-pce-monitoring) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 RFC 5886

Networking Working Group                                JP. Vasseur, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                        Cisco Systems, Inc
Intended status: Standards Track                             JL. Le Roux
Expires: June 19, 2010                                    France Telecom
                                                              Y. Ikejiri
                                          NTT Communications Corporation
                                                       December 16, 2009


      A set of monitoring tools for Path Computation Element based
                              Architecture
                    draft-ietf-pce-monitoring-07.txt

Abstract

   A Path Computation Element (PCE) based architecture has been
   specified for the computation of Traffic Engineering (TE) Label
   Switched Paths (LSPs) in Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and
   Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) networks in the context of single or
   multiple domains (where a domain refers to a collection of network
   elements within a common sphere of address management or path
   computational responsibility such as IGP areas and Autonomous
   Systems).  Path Computation Clients (PCCs) send computation requests
   to PCEs, and these may forward the requests to and cooperate with
   other PCEs forming a "path computation chain".

   In PCE-based environments, it is thus critical to monitor the state
   of the path computation chain for troubleshooting and performance
   monitoring purposes: liveness of each element (PCE) involved in the
   PCE chain, detection of potential resource contention states and
   statistics in term of path computation times are examples of such
   metrics of interest.  This document specifies procedures and
   extensions to the Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) in order
   to gather such information.

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and 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



Vasseur, et al.           Expires June 19, 2010                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft      draft-ietf-pce-monitoring-07.txt       December 2009


   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.

   This Internet-Draft will expire on June 19, 2010.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2009 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 BSD License.



























Vasseur, et al.           Expires June 19, 2010                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft      draft-ietf-pce-monitoring-07.txt       December 2009


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     1.1.  Requirements Language  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   2.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   3.  Path Computation Monitoring messages . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     3.1.  Path Computation Monitoring Request message (PCMonReq) . .  6
     3.2.  Path Monitoring Reply message (PCMonRep) . . . . . . . . .  9
   4.  Path Computation Monitoring Objects  . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     4.1.  MONITORING Object  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     4.2.  PCE-ID Object  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     4.3.  PROC-TIME Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
     4.4.  OVERLOAD Object  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
   5.  Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
   6.  Elements of Procedure  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
   7.  Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
     7.1.  Control of Function and Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
     7.2.  Information and Data Models  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
     7.3.  Liveness Detection and Monitoring  . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
     7.4.  Verify Correct Operations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
     7.5.  Requirements On Other Protocols  . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
     7.6.  Impact On Network Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
   8.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
     8.1.  New PCEP Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
     8.2.  New PCEP Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
     8.3.  New Error-Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
     8.4.  MONITORING Object Flag Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
     8.5.  PROC-TIME Object Flag Field  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
     8.6.  OVERLOAD Object Flag field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
   9.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
   10. Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
   11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
     11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
     11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
















Vasseur, et al.           Expires June 19, 2010                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft      draft-ietf-pce-monitoring-07.txt       December 2009


1.  Introduction

   The Path Computation Element (PCE) based architecture has been
   specified in [RFC4655] for the computation of Traffic Engineering
   (TE) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) in Multiprotocol Label Switching
   (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) networks in the context of single
   or multiple domains where a domain refers to a collection of network
   elements within a common sphere of address management or path
   computational responsibility such Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP)
   areas and Autonomous Systems.

   Path Computation Clients (PCCs) send computation requests to PCEs
   using PCReq messages, and these may forward the requests to and
   cooperate with other PCEs forming a "path computation chain".  In
   case of succesful path computation the computed paths are then
   provided to the requesting PCC using PCRep messages.  The PCReq and
   PCRep messages are defined in [RFC5440].

   In PCE-based environments, it is critical to monitor the state of the
   path computation chain for troubleshooting and performance monitoring
   purposes: liveness of each element (PCE) involved in the PCE chain,
   detection of potential resource contention states and statistics in
   term of path computation times are examples of such metrics of
   interest.

   As defined in [RFC4655], there are circumstances where more than one
   PCE are involved in the computation of a TE LSP.  A typical example
   is when the PCC requires the computation of a TE LSP where the head-
   end and the tail-end of the TE LSP do not reside in adjacent domains
   and there is no single PCE with the visibility of both the head-end
   and tail-end domain.  We call the set of PCEs involved in the
   computation of a TE LSP a "path computation chain".  As further
   discussed in Section 3.1, the PCE chain may either be static (pre-
   configured) or dynamically determined during the path computation
   process.

   As discussed in [RFC4655], a TE LSP may be computed by one PCE
   (referred to as single PCE path computation) or several PCEs
   (referred to as multiple PCE path computation).  In the former case,
   the PCC may be able to use IGP extensions to check the liveness of
   the PCE (see [RFC5088] and [RFC5089]) or PCEP using Keepalive
   messages.  In contrast, when multiple PCEs are involved in the path
   computation chain an example of which is the Backward Recursive PCE-
   based Computation (BRPC) procedure defined in [RFC5441], the PCC's
   visibility may be limited to the first PCE involved in the path
   computation chain.  Thus, it is critical to define mechanisms in
   order to monitor the state of the path computation chain.




Vasseur, et al.           Expires June 19, 2010                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft      draft-ietf-pce-monitoring-07.txt       December 2009


   This document specifies PCEP extensions in order to gather various
   state metrics along the path computation chain.  In this document we
   call a "state metric" a metric that characterizes a PCE state.  For
   example, such metric can have a form of a boolean (PCE is alive or
   not, PCE is congested or not) or a performance metric (path
   computation time at each PCE).

   PCE state metrics can be gathered in two different contexts: in band
   or out of band.  By "in band" we refer to the situation whereby a PCC
   requests to gather metrics in the context of a path computation
   request.  For example, a PCC may send a path computation request to a
   PCE and may want to know the processing time of that request in
   addition to the computed path.  Conversely, if the request is "out of
   band", PCE state metric collection is performed as a standalone
   request (e.g., check the liveness of a specific PCE chain, collect
   the average processing time computed over the last 5mn period on one
   or more PCEs").

   In this document we define two monitoring request types: general and
   specific.  A general monitoring request relates to the collection of
   a PCE state metrics that is not coupled to a particular path
   computation request (e.g., average CPU load on a PCE).  Conversely, a
   specific monitoring request relates to a particular path computation
   request (processing time to complete the path computation for a TE
   LSP).

   This document specifies procedures and extensions to the Path
   Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) ([RFC5440]), including new
   objects and new PCEP messages, in order to monitor the path
   computation chain and gather various performance metrics.

   The message formats in this document are specified using Backus Naur
   Format (BNF) encoding as specified in [RFC5511].

1.1.  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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119].


2.  Terminology

   PCC (Path Computation Client): any client application requesting a
   path computation to be performed by a Path Computation Element.

   PCE (Path Computation Element): an entity (component, application or
   network node) that is capable of computing a network path or route



Vasseur, et al.           Expires June 19, 2010                 [Page 5]


Internet-Draft      draft-ietf-pce-monitoring-07.txt       December 2009


   based on a network graph and applying computational constraints.

   TE LSP: Traffic Engineering Label Switched Path.


3.  Path Computation Monitoring messages

   As defined in [RFC5440], a PCEP message consists of a common header
   followed by a variable length body made of a set of objects that can
   either be mandatory or optional.  As a reminder, an object is said to
   be mandatory in a PCEP message when the object must be included for
   the message to be considered as valid.  The P flag (defined in
   [RFC5440]) is located in the common header of each PCEP object and
   can be set by a PCEP peer to require a PCE to take into account the
   related information during the path computation.  Because the P flag
   exclusively relates to a path computation request, it MUST be cleared
   in the two PCEP messages (PCMonReq and PCMonRep message).

   For each PCEP message type a set of rules is defined that specify the
   set of objects that the message can carry.  An implementation MUST
   form the PCEP messages using the object ordering specified in this
   document.

   In this document we define two PCEP messages referred to as the Path
   Computation Monitoring Request (PCMonReq) and Path Computation
   Monitoring Reply (PCMonRep) messages so as to handle "out of band"
   monitoring request.  The aim of the PCMonReq message sent by a PCC to
   a PCE is to gather one or more PCE state metrics on a set of PCEs
   involved in a path computation chain.  The PCMonRep message sent by a
   PCE to a PCC is used to provide such data.

3.1.  Path Computation Monitoring Request message (PCMonReq)

   The Message-Type field of the PCEP common header for the PCMonReq
   message is set to 8 (To be confirmed by IANA).

   There is one mandatory object that MUST be included within a PCMonReq
   message: the MONITORING object (see section Section 4.1).  If the
   MONITORING object is missing, the receiving PCE MUST send a PCErr
   message with Error-type=6 (Mandatory Object missing) and Error-
   value=4 (MONITORING Object missing).  Other objects are optional.










Vasseur, et al.           Expires June 19, 2010                 [Page 6]


Internet-Draft      draft-ietf-pce-monitoring-07.txt       December 2009


   Format of a PCMonReq message (out of band request):
   <PCMonReq Message>::= <Common Header>
                         <MONITORING>
                         [<pce-list>]
                         [<svec-list>]
                         [<request-list>]
   where:

   <svec-list>::=<SVEC>
                 [<OF>]
                 [<svec-list>]

   <request-list>::=<request>[<request-list>]

   <request>::= <RP>
                <END-POINTS>
                [<LSPA>]
                [<BANDWIDTH>]
                [<metric-list>]
                [<RRO>]
                [<IRO>]
                [<LOAD-BALANCING>]
                [<XRO>]

   <metric-list>::=<METRIC>[<metric-list>]

   <pce-list>::=<PCE-ID>[<pce-list>]
























Vasseur, et al.           Expires June 19, 2010                 [Page 7]


Internet-Draft      draft-ietf-pce-monitoring-07.txt       December 2009


   Format of a PCReq message with monitoring data requested (in band
   request):
   <PCReq Message>::= <Common Header>
                      <MONITORING>
                      [<pce-list>]
                      [<svec-list>]
                      <request-list>

   where:
      <svec-list>::=<SVEC>[<svec-list>]

      <request-list>::=<request>[<request-list>]

      <request>::= <RP>
                   <END-POINTS>
                   [<LSPA>]
                   [<BANDWIDTH>]
                   [<metric-list>]
                   [<RRO>[<BANDWIDTH>]]
                   [<IRO>]
                   [<LOAD-BALANCING>]
   where:

   <metric-list>::=<METRIC>[<metric-list>]

   <pce-list>::=<PCE-ID>[<pce-list>]


   The SVEC, RP, END-POINTS, LSPA, BANDWIDTH, METRIC, RRO, IRO and LOAD-
   BALANCING objects are defined in [RFC5440].  The XRO object is
   defined in [RFC5521] and the OF object is defined in [RFC5541].

   The PCMonReq message is used to gather various PCE state metrics
   along a path computation chain.  The path computation chain may be
   determined by the PCC (in the form of a series of a series of PCE-ID
   objects defined in Section 4.2.) or may alternatively be determined
   by the path computation procedure.  For example, if the BRPC
   procedure ([RFC5441]) is used to compute an inter-domain TE LSP, the
   PCE chain may be determined dynamically.  In that case, the PCC sends
   a PCMonReq message that contains the PCEP objects that characterize
   the TE LSP attributes along with the MONITORING object (see
   Section 4.1) that lists the set of metrics of interest.

   Several PCE state metrics may be requested that are specified by a
   set of objects defined in Section 4.  Note that this set of objects
   may be extended in the future.

   As pointed out in [RFC5440] several situations can arise:



Vasseur, et al.           Expires June 19, 2010                 [Page 8]


Internet-Draft      draft-ietf-pce-monitoring-07.txt       December 2009


   o  Bundle of a set of independent and non-synchronized path
      computation requests,

   o  Bundle of a set of independent and synchronized path computation
      requests (SVEC object defined below required),

   o  Bundle of a set of dependent and synchronized path computation
      requests (SVEC object defined below required).

   In the case of a bundle of a set of request, the MONITORING object
   SHOULD only be present in the first PCReq or PCMonReq message and the
   monitoring request applies to all the requests of the bundle, even in
   the case of dependent and/or synchronized requests sent using more
   than one PCReq or PCMonReq message.

   Examples of requests.  For the sake of illustration, consider the
   three following examples:

   Example 1 (out of band request): PCC1 requests to check the path
   computation chain that would be used should it request a path
   computation for a specific TE LSP named T1.  A PCMonReq message is
   sent that contains a MONITORING object specifying a path computation
   check, along with the appropriate set of objects (e.g., RP, END-
   POINTS, ...) that would be included in a PCReq message for T1.

   Example 2 (in band request): PCC1 requests a path computation for a
   TE LSP and also request to gather the processing time along the path
   computation chain selected for the computation of T1.  A PCReq
   message is sent that also contains a MONITORING object that specifies
   the performance metrics of interest.

   Example 3 (out of band request): PCC2 requests to gather performance
   metrics along the specific path computation chain <pce1, pce2, pce3,
   pce7>.  A PCMonReq message is sent to PCE1 that contains a MONITORING
   object and a sequence of PCE-ID objects that identify PCE1, PCE2,
   PCE3 and PCE7 respectively.

   In all of the examples above, a PCRep message (in-band request) or
   PCMonReq message (out of band request) is sent in response to the
   request that reports the computed metrics.

3.2.  Path Monitoring Reply message (PCMonRep)

   The PCMonRep message is used to provide PCE state metrics back to the
   requester for "out of band" monitoring requests.  The Message-Type
   field of the PCEP common header for the PCMonRep message is set to 9
   (To be confirmed by IANA).




Vasseur, et al.           Expires June 19, 2010                 [Page 9]


Internet-Draft      draft-ietf-pce-monitoring-07.txt       December 2009


   There is one mandatory object that MUST be included within a PCMonRep
   message: the MONITORING object (see Section 4.1).  If the MONITORING
   object is missing, the receiving PCE MUST send a PCErr message with
   Error-type=6 (Mandatory Object missing) and Error-value=4 (MONITORING
   Object missing).

   Other objects are optional.

   Format of a PCMonRep (out of band request):
   <PCMonRep Message>::= <Common Header>
                         <MONITORING>
                         [<RP>]
                         [<metric-pce-list>]

   where:

   <metric-pce-list>::=<metric-pce>[<metric-pce-list>]

   <metric-pce>::=<PCE-ID>
                  [<PROC-TIME>]
                  [<OVERLOAD>]






























Vasseur, et al.           Expires June 19, 2010                [Page 10]


Internet-Draft      draft-ietf-pce-monitoring-07.txt       December 2009


   Format of a PCRep message with monitoring data (in band):
   <PCRep Message> ::= <Common Header>
                       <response-list>

   where:
      <response-list>::=<response>[<response-list>]


      <response>::=<RP>
                   <MONITORING>
                  [<NO-PATH>]
                  [<attribute-list>]
                  [<path-list>]
                  [<metric-pce-list>]

      <path-list>::=<path>[<path-list>]

      <path>::= <ERO><attribute-list>


   where:

    <attribute-list>::=[<LSPA>]
                       [<BANDWIDTH>]
                       [<metric-list>]
                       [<IRO>]

    <metric-list>::=<METRIC>[<metric-list>]

    <metric-pce-list>::=<metric-pce>[<metric-pce-list>]

    <metric-pce>::=<PCE-ID>
                  [<PROC-TIME>]
                  [<OVERLOAD>]


   The RP and the NO-PATH objects are defined in [RFC5440].


4.  Path Computation Monitoring Objects

   The PCEP objects defined in the document are compliant with the PCEP
   object format defined in [RFC5440].  The P flag and the I flag of the
   PCEP objects defined in this document SHOULD always be set to 0 on
   transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt since these flags are
   exclusively related to path computation requests.

   Several objects are defined in this section that can be carried



Vasseur, et al.           Expires June 19, 2010                [Page 11]


Internet-Draft      draft-ietf-pce-monitoring-07.txt       December 2009


   within the PCEP PCReq or PCRep messages defined in [RFC5440] in case
   of "in band" monitoring requests (the PCC requests the computation of
   the TE LSP in addition to gathering PCE state metrics).  In case of
   "out of band" monitoring requests, the objects defined in this
   section are carried within PCMonReq and PCMonRep messages.

   All TLVs carried in objects defined in this document have the TLV
   format defined in [RFC5440]

   o  Type: 2 bytes

   o  Length: 2 bytes

   o  Value: variable

   A PCEP object TLV is comprised of 2 bytes for the type, 2 bytes
   specifying the TLV length, and a value field.  The Length field
   defines the length of the value portion in bytes.  The TLV is padded
   to 4-bytes alignment; padding is not included in the Length field (so
   a 3-byte value would have a length of 3, but the total size of the
   TLV would be 8 bytes).  Unrecognized TLVs MUST be ignored.

4.1.  MONITORING Object

   The MONITORING object MUST be present within PCMonReq and PCMonRep
   messages ("out of band" monitoring requests) and MAY be carried
   within PCRep and PCReq messages ("in band" monitoring requests).
   There SHOULD NOT be more than one instance of the MONITORING object
   in a PCMonReq or PCMonRep message: if more than one instance of the
   MONITORING object is present, the recipient MUST process the first
   instance and MUST ignore other instances.

   The MONITORING object is used to specify the set of requested PCE
   state metrics.

   The MONITORING Object-Class is to be assigned by IANA (recommended
   value=19)

   The MONITORING Object-Type is to be assigned by IANA (recommended
   value=1)











Vasseur, et al.           Expires June 19, 2010                [Page 12]


Internet-Draft      draft-ietf-pce-monitoring-07.txt       December 2009


   The format of the MONITORING object body is as follows:
    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |    Reserved   |                  Flags              |I|C|P|G|L|
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                     Monitoring-id-number                      |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   //                      Optional TLV(s)                        //
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


   Flags: 24 bits

   The following flags are currently defined:

   L (Liveness) - 1 bit: when set, this indicates that the state metric
   of interest is the PCE's liveness and thus the PCE MUST include a
   PCE-ID object in the corresponding reply.  The L bit MUST always be
   ignored in a PCMonRep or PCRep message.

   G (General) - 1 bit: when set, this indicates that the monitoring
   request is a general monitoring request.  When the requested
   performance metric is specific, the G bit MUST be cleared.  The G bit
   MUST always be ignored in a PCMonRep or PCRep message.

   P (Processing Time) - 1 bit: the P bit of the MONITORING object
   carried in a PCMonReq or a PCReq message is set to indicate that the
   processing times is a metric of interest.  If allowed by policy, a
   PROC-TIME object MUST be inserted in the corresponding PCMonRep or
   PCRep message.  The P bit MUST always be ignored in a PCMonRep or
   PCRep message.

   C (Overload) - 1 bit: The C bit of the MONITORING object carried in a
   PCMonReq or a PCReq message is set to indicate that the overload
   status is a metric of interest, in which case a OVERLOAD object MUST
   be inserted in the corresponding PCMonRep or PCRep message.  The C
   bit MUST always be ignored in a PCMonRep or PCRep message.

   I (Incomplete) - 1 bit: If a PCE supports a received PCMonReq message
   and that message does not trigger any policy violation, but the PCE
   cannot provide any of the set of requested performance metrics for
   unspecified reasons, the PCE MUST set the I bit.  The I bit has no
   meaning in a request and SHOULD be ignored on receipt.

   Monitoring-id-number (32 bits): The monitoring-id-number value



Vasseur, et al.           Expires June 19, 2010                [Page 13]


Internet-Draft      draft-ietf-pce-monitoring-07.txt       December 2009


   combined with the PCEP-ID of the PCC identifies the monitoring
   request context.  The monitoring-id-number MUST start at a non-zero
   value and MUST be incremented each time a new monitoring request is
   sent to a PCE.  Each increment SHOULD have a value of 1 and may cause
   a wrap back to zero.  If no reply to a monitoring request is received
   from the PCE, and the PCC wishes to resend its path computation
   monitoring request, the same monitoring-id-number MUST be used.
   Conversely, a different monitoring-id-number MUST be used for
   different requests sent to a PCE.  The path computation monitoring
   reply is unambiguously identified by the monitoring-id-number and the
   PCEP-ID of the replying PCE.  A PCEP implementation SHOULD checkpoint
   the Monitoring-id-number of pending monitoring requests in case of
   restart thus avoiding the re-use of a Monitoring-id-number of an in-
   process monitoring request.

   Unassigned bits are considered as reserved and MUST be set to zero on
   transmission and ignored on reception.

   No optional TLVs are currently defined.

4.2.  PCE-ID Object

   The PCE-ID Object is used to specify a PCE's IP address.

   A set of PCE-ID objects may be inserted within a PCReq or a PCMonReq
   message to specify the PCE for which PCE state metrics are requested
   and in a PCMonRep or a PCRep message to record the IP address of the
   PCE reporting PCE state metrics or that was involved in the path
   computation chain.

   Two PCE-ID objects (for IPv4 and IPv6) are defined.  PCE-ID Object-
   Class is to be assigned by IANA (recommended value=20) PCE-ID Object-
   Type is to be assigned by IANA (recommended value=1 for IPv4 and 2
   for IPv6)

   The format of the PCE-ID Object is as follows:















Vasseur, et al.           Expires June 19, 2010                [Page 14]


Internet-Draft      draft-ietf-pce-monitoring-07.txt       December 2009


   The format of the PCE-ID object body for IPv4 and IPv6 are as
   follows:

    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                           IPv4 Address                        |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   |                           IPv6 Address                        |
   |                                                               |
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   The PCE-ID object body has a fixed length of 4 octets for IPv4 and 16
   octets for IPv6.

   When a dynamic discovery mechanism is used for PCE discovery, a PCE
   advertises its PCE address in the PCE-ADDRESS sub-TLV defined in
   [RFC5088] and [RFC5089].  A PCC MUST use this address in PCReq and
   PCMonReq messages and a PCE MUST also use this address in PCRep and
   PCMonRep messages.

4.3.  PROC-TIME Object

   If allowed by policy, the PCE includes a PROC-TIME object within a
   PCMonRep or a PCRep message if the P bit of the MONITORING object
   carried within the corresponding PCMonReq or PCReq message is set.
   The PROC-TIME object is used to report various processing time
   related metrics.

   1) Case of general monitoring requests

   A PCC may request processing time metrics for general monitoring
   requests (e.g., the PCC may want to know the minimum, maximum and
   average processing times on a particular PCE).  In this case, general
   requests can only be made by using PCMonReq/PCMonRep messages.  The
   Current-processing-time field (as explained below) is exclusively
   used for specific monitoring requests and MUST be cleared for general
   monitoring requests.  The algorithms used by a PCE to compute the
   minimum, maximum, average and variance of the processing times are
   out of the scope of this document (A PCE may decide to compute the
   minimum processing time over a period of times, for the last N path
   computation requests, ...).




Vasseur, et al.           Expires June 19, 2010                [Page 15]


Internet-Draft      draft-ietf-pce-monitoring-07.txt       December 2009


   2) Case of specific monitoring requests

   In the case of a specific request, the algorithms used by a PCE to
   compute the Processing-time metrics are out of the scope of this
   document but a flag is specified that is used to indicate to the
   requester whether the processing time value was estimated or
   computed.  The PCE may either (1) estimate the processing time
   without performing an actual path computation or (2) effectively
   perform the computation to report the processing time.  In the former
   case, the E bit of the PROC-TIME object MUST be set.  The G bit MUST
   be cleared and the Min-processing-time, Max-processing-time, Average-
   processing-time and Variance-processing-time MUST be set to
   0x00000000.

   When the processing time is requested in addition to a path
   computation (case where the MONITORING object is carried within a
   PCReq message), the PROC-TIME object always reports the actual
   processing time for that request and thus the E bit MUST be cleared.

   The PROC-TIME Object-Class is to be assigned by IANA (recommended
   value=21)

   The PROC-TIME Object-Type is to be assigned by IANA (recommended
   value=1)

   The format of the PROC-TIME object body is as follows:
    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |       Reserved                |           Flags             |E|
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                     Current-processing-time                   |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                        Min-processing-time                    |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                        Max-processing-time                    |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                       Average-processing time                 |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                       Variance-processing-time                |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


   Flags: 16 bits - one flag is currently defined:

   E (Estimated) - 1 bit: when set, this indicates that the reported
   metric value is based on estimated processing time as opposed to
   actual computations.



Vasseur, et al.           Expires June 19, 2010                [Page 16]


Internet-Draft      draft-ietf-pce-monitoring-07.txt       December 2009


   Unassigned bits are considered as reserved and MUST be set to zero on
   transmission.

   Current-processing-time: This field indicates in milliseconds the
   processing time for the path computation of interest characterized in
   the corresponding PCMonReq message.

   Min-processing-time: This field indicates in milliseconds the minimum
   processing time.

   Max-processing-time: This field indicates in milliseconds the maximum
   processing time.

   Average-processing-time: This field indicates in milliseconds the
   average processing time.

   Variance-processing-time: This field indicates in milliseconds the
   variance of the processing times.

4.4.  OVERLOAD Object

   The OVERLOAD object is used to report a PCE processing congestion
   state.  Note that "overload" as indicated by this object refers to
   the processing state of the PCE and its ability to handle new PCEP
   requests.  A PCE is overloaded when it has a backlog of PCEP requests
   such that it cannot immediately start to process a new request thus
   leading to waiting times.  The overload duration is quantified as
   being the (estimated) time until the PCE expects to be able to
   immediately process a new PCEP request.

   The OVERLOAD object MUST be present within a PCMonRep or a PCRep
   message if the C bit of the MONITORING object carried within the
   corresponding PCMonReq or PCReq message is set and the PCE is
   experiencing a congested state.  The OVERLOAD Object-Class is to be
   assigned by IANA (recommended value=22).  The OVERLOAD Object-Type is
   to be assigned by IANA (recommended value=1)

   The format of the CONGESTION object body is as follows:
    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |   Flags       |   Reserved    |      Overload Duration        |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


   Flags: 8 bits - No flag is currently defined.

   Overload duration - 16 bits: This field indicates in the amount of



Vasseur, et al.           Expires June 19, 2010                [Page 17]


Internet-Draft      draft-ietf-pce-monitoring-07.txt       December 2009


   time in seconds that the responding PCE expects that it may continue
   to be overloaded from the time that the response message was
   generated.  The receiver MAY use this value to decide whether or not
   so send further requests to the same PCE.

   It is worth noting that a PCE along a PCE chain involved in the
   monitoring request may decide to learn from the overload information
   received by one of downstream PCE in the chain.


5.  Policy

   The receipt of a PCMonReq message may trigger a policy violation on
   some PCE in which case the PCE MUST send a PCErr message with Error-
   Type=5 and Error-value=3 (To be Confirmed by IANA).


6.  Elements of Procedure

   I bit processing: as indicated in section Section 4.1, if a PCE
   supports a received PCMonReq message and that message does not
   trigger any policy violation, but the PCE cannot provide any of the
   set of requested performance metrics for unspecified reasons, the PCE
   MUST set the I bit.  Once set, the I bit MUST NOT be changed by a
   receiving PCE.

   Upon receiving a PCMonReq message:

   1) As specified in [RFC5440], if the PCE does not support the
   PCMonReq message, the PCE peer MUST send a PCErr message with Error-
   value=2 (capability not supported).  According to the procedure
   defined in section 6.9 of [RFC5440], if a PCC/PCE receives
   unrecognized messages at a rate equal of greater than specified rate,
   the PCC/PCE must send a PCEP CLOSE message with close value=5
   "Reception of an unacceptable number of unrecognized PCEP messages".
   In this case, the PCC/PCE must also close the TCP session and must
   not send any further PCEP messages on the PCEP session.

   2) If the PCE supports the PCMonReq message but the monitoring
   request is prohibited by policy, the PCE must follow the procedure
   specified in section 5.  As pointed out in section 4.3, a PCE may
   still partially satisfy a request, leaving out some of the required
   data if not allowed by policy.

   3) If the PCE supports the PCMonReq and the monitoring request is not
   prohibited by policy, the receiving PCE MUST first determine whether
   it is the last PCE of the path computation chain.  If the PCE is not
   the last element of the path computation chain, the PCMonReq message



Vasseur, et al.           Expires June 19, 2010                [Page 18]


Internet-Draft      draft-ietf-pce-monitoring-07.txt       December 2009


   is relayed to the next hop PCE: such next hop may either be specified
   by means of a PCE-ID object present in the PCMonReq message or
   dynamically determined by means of a procedure outside of the scope
   of this document.  Conversely, if the PCE is the last PCE of the path
   computation chain, the PCE originates a PCMonRep message that
   contains the requested objects according to the set of requested PCE
   states metrics listed in the MONITORING object carried in the
   corresponding PCMonReq message.

   Upon receiving a PCReq message that carries a MONITORING and
   potentially other monitoring objects (e.g., PCE-ID object):

   1) As specified in [RFC5440], if the PCE does not support (in band)
   monitoring, the PCE peer MUST send a PCErr message with Error-value=2
   (capability not supported).  According to the procedure defined in
   section 6.9 of [RFC5440], if a PCC/PCE receives unrecognized messages
   at a rate equal of greater than specified rate, the PCC/PCE must send
   a PCEP CLOSE message with close value=5 "Reception of an unacceptable
   number of unrecognized PCEP messages".  In this case, the PCC/PCE
   must also close the TCP session and must not send any further PCEP
   messages on the PCEP session.

   2) If the PCE supports the monitoring request but the monitoring
   request is prohibited by policy, the PCE must follow the procedure
   specified in section 5.  As pointed out in section 4.3, a PCE may
   still partially satisfy a request, leaving out some of the required
   data if not allowed by policy.

   3) If the PCE supports the monitoring request and that request is not
   prohibited by policy, the receiving PCE MUST first determine whether
   it is the last PCE of the path computation chain.  If the PCE is not
   the last element of the path computation chain, the PCReq message
   (with the MONITORING object and potentially other monitoring objects
   such as the PCE-ID) is relayed to the next hop PCE: such next hop may
   either be specified by means of a PCE-ID object present in the PCReq
   message or dynamically determined by means of a procedure outside of
   the scope of this document.  Conversely, if the PCE is the last PCE
   of the path computation chain, the PCE originates a PCRep message
   that contains the requested objects according to the set of requested
   PCE states metrics listed in the MONITORING and potentially other
   monitoring objects carried in the corresponding PCReq message.

   Upon receiving a PCMonRep message, the PCE processes the request,
   adds the relevant objects to the PCMonRep message and forwards the
   PCMonRep message to the upstream requesting PCE or PCC.

   Upon receiving a PCRep message that carries monitoring data, the
   message is processed, additional monitoring data is added according



Vasseur, et al.           Expires June 19, 2010                [Page 19]


Internet-Draft      draft-ietf-pce-monitoring-07.txt       December 2009


   to this specification and the message is forwarded upstream to the
   requesting PCE or PCC.

   Special case of multi-destination monitoring: monitoring request
   related to more than one destinations may involve a set of path
   computation chains.  In that case, a PCE sends each copy of the
   PCMonReq message to each downstream PCE of each path computation
   chain.


7.  Manageability Considerations

7.1.  Control of Function and Policy

   It MUST be possible to configure the activation/deactivation of PCEP
   monitoring on a PCEP speaker.  In addition to the parameters already
   listed in section 8.1 of [RFC5440], a PCEP implementation SHOULD
   allow configuring on a PCE whether specific, generic, in band and out
   of band monitoring requests are allowed or not.  Also a PCEP
   implementation SHOULD allow configuring on a PCE a list of authorized
   state metrics (aliveness, overload, processing time, etc).  This may
   apply to any session the PCEP speaker participates in, to a specific
   session with a given PCEP peer or to a specific group of sessions
   with a specific group of PCEP peers, for instance the PCEP peers of a
   neighbor AS.

7.2.  Information and Data Models

   A new MIB Module may be defined that provides local PCE state
   metrics, as well as state metrics of other PCEs gathered using
   mechanisms defined in this document.

7.3.  Liveness Detection and Monitoring

   This document provides mechanisms to monitor the liveliness and
   performances of a given PCE chain.

7.4.  Verify Correct Operations

   Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new operation
   verification requirements in addition to those already listed in
   [RFC5440].

7.5.  Requirements On Other Protocols

   Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any requirements on
   other protocols in addition to those already listed in [RFC5440].




Vasseur, et al.           Expires June 19, 2010                [Page 20]


Internet-Draft      draft-ietf-pce-monitoring-07.txt       December 2009


7.6.  Impact On Network Operations

   The frequency of PCMonReq messages may impact the operations of PCEs.
   An implementation SHOULD allow a limit to be placed on the rate of
   PCMonReq messages sent by a PCEP speaker and processed from a peer.
   It SHOULD also allow sending a notification when a rate threshold is
   reached.  An implementation SHOULD allow handling PCReq messages with
   a higher priority than PCMonReq messages.  An implementation SHOULD
   allow the configuration of a second limit for the PCReq message
   requesting monitoring data.


8.  IANA Considerations

8.1.  New PCEP Message

   Each PCEP message has a message type value.

   Two new PCEP (specified in [RFC5440]) messages are defined in this
   document:

 Value    Description                                      Reference
   8      Path Computation Monitoring Request (PCMonReq)   This document
   9      Path Computation Monitoring Reply (PCMonRep)     This document

8.2.  New PCEP Objects

   Each PCEP object has an Object-Class and an Object-Type.  The
   following new PCEP objects are defined in this document:

   Object-Class Value Name        Object-Type             Reference

          19          MONITORING  1                       This document

          20          PCE-ID      1: IPv4 addresses       This document
                                  2: IPv6 addresses       This document

          21         PROC-TIME    1                       This document

          22         OVERLOAD     1                       This document

8.3.  New Error-Values

   A registry was created for the Error-type and Error-value of the PCEP
   Error Object.

   A new Error-value for the PCErr message Error-types=5 (Policy
   Violation) (see [RFC5440]) is defined in this document (Error-value



Vasseur, et al.           Expires June 19, 2010                [Page 21]


Internet-Draft      draft-ietf-pce-monitoring-07.txt       December 2009


   to be assigned by IANA).

  Error-Type   Meaning                       Error-value    Reference
     5         Policy violation              3              This document
               Monitoring message supported
               but rejected due to
               policy violation

   A new Error-value for the PCErr message Error-types=6 (Mandatory
   Object missing) (see [RFC5440]) is defined in this document (Error-
   Type and Error-value to be assigned by IANA).

  Error-type   Meaning                       Error-value    Reference
     6         Mandatory Object missing      4              This document
               MONITORING Object missing

8.4.  MONITORING Object Flag Field

   IANA is requested to create a registry to manage the Flag field of
   the MONITORING object.

   New bit numbers may be allocated only by an IETF review.  Each bit
   should be tracked with the following qualities:

   o  Bit number (counting from bit 0 as the most significant bit)

   o  Capability Description

   o  Defining RFC

   Several bits are defined for the MONITORING Object flag field in this
   document:

   Codespace of the Flag field (MONITORING Object)
     Bit      Description         Reference
     0-18     Unassigned
      19      Incomplete          This document
      20      Overload            This document
      21      Processing Time     This document
      22      General             This document
      23      Liveness            This document

8.5.  PROC-TIME Object Flag Field

   IANA is requested to create a registry to manage the Flag field of
   the PROC-TIME object.

   New bit numbers may be allocated only by an IETF review.  Each bit



Vasseur, et al.           Expires June 19, 2010                [Page 22]


Internet-Draft      draft-ietf-pce-monitoring-07.txt       December 2009


   should be tracked with the following qualities:

   o  Bit number (counting from bit 0 as the most significant bit)

   o  Capability Description

   o  Defining RFC

   One bit is defined for the PROC-TIME Object flag field in this
   document:

   Codespace of the Flag field (PROC-TIME Object)
     Bit      Description             Reference
     0-14     Unassigned
      15      Estimated               This document


8.6.  OVERLOAD Object Flag field

   IANA is requested to create a registry to manage the Flag field of
   the OVERLOAD object.

   New bit numbers may be allocated only by an IETF review.  Each bit
   should be tracked with the following qualities:

   o  Bit number (counting from bit 0 as the most significant bit)

   o  Capability Description

   o  Defining RFC

   No Flag are currently defined for the OVERLOAD Object flag field in
   this document.

   Codespace of the Flag field (OVERLOAD Object)
     Bit      Description             Reference
     0-7      Unassigned


9.  Security Considerations

   The use of monitoring data can be used for various attacks such as
   denial of service attacks (for example by setting the C bit and
   overload duration field of the OVERLOAD object to stop PCCs from
   using a PCE).  Thus it is recommended to make use of the security
   mechanisms discussed in [RFC5440] to secure a PCEP session
   (authenticity, integrity, privacy, DoS protection, etc) to secure the
   PCMonReq, PCMonRep messages and PCE state metric objects defined in



Vasseur, et al.           Expires June 19, 2010                [Page 23]


Internet-Draft      draft-ietf-pce-monitoring-07.txt       December 2009


   this document.  An implementation SHOULD allow limiting the rate at
   which PCMonReq or PCReq messages carrying monitoring requests
   received from a specific peer are processed (input shaping), or from
   another domain (see also section 7.6).


10.  Acknowledgments

   The authors would like to thank Eiji Oki, Mach Chen, Fabien
   Verhaeghe, Dimitri Papadimitriou and Francis Dupont for their useful
   comments.  Special thank to Adrian Farrel for his detailed review.


11.  References

11.1.  Normative References

   [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.

   [RFC5521]  Oki, E., Takeda, T., and A. Farrel, "Extensions to the
              Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) for
              Route Exclusions", RFC 5521, April 2009.

   [RFC5541]  Le Roux, JL., Vasseur, JP., and Y. Lee, "Encoding of
              Objective Functions in the Path Computation Element
              Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5541, June 2009.

11.2.  Informative References

   [RFC4655]  Farrel, A., Vasseur, J., and J. Ash, "A Path Computation
              Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655, August 2006.

   [RFC5088]  Le Roux, JL., Vasseur, JP., Ikejiri, Y., and R. Zhang,
              "OSPF Protocol Extensions for Path Computation Element
              (PCE) Discovery", RFC 5088, January 2008.

   [RFC5089]  Le Roux, JL., Vasseur, JP., Ikejiri, Y., and R. Zhang,
              "IS-IS Protocol Extensions for Path Computation Element
              (PCE) Discovery", RFC 5089, January 2008.



Vasseur, et al.           Expires June 19, 2010                [Page 24]


Internet-Draft      draft-ietf-pce-monitoring-07.txt       December 2009


   [RFC5441]  Vasseur, JP., Zhang, R., Bitar, N., and JL. Le Roux, "A
              Backward-Recursive PCE-Based Computation (BRPC) Procedure
              to Compute Shortest Constrained Inter-Domain Traffic
              Engineering Label Switched Paths", RFC 5441, April 2009.


Authors' Addresses

   JP Vasseur (editor)
   Cisco Systems, Inc
   1414 Massachusetts Avenue
   Boxborough, MA  01719
   USA

   Email: jpv@cisco.com


   JL Le Roux
   France Telecom
   2, Avenue Pierre-Marzin
   Lannion,   22307
   FRANCE

   Email: jeanlouis.leroux@orange-ftgroup.com


   Yuichi Ikejiri
   NTT Communications Corporation
   1-1-6, Uchisaiwai-cho, Chiyoda-ku
   Tokyo,   100-8019
   Japan

   Email: : y.ikejiri@ntt.com


















Vasseur, et al.           Expires June 19, 2010                [Page 25]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129b, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/