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

Versions: (draft-dhody-pce-pcep-domain-sequence) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 RFC 7897

PCE Working Group                                               D. Dhody
Internet-Draft                                                  U. Palle
Intended status: Experimental                        Huawei Technologies
Expires: November 1, 2015                                    R. Casellas
                                                                    CTTC
                                                          April 30, 2015


               Standard Representation of Domain-Sequence
                 draft-ietf-pce-pcep-domain-sequence-08

Abstract

   The ability to compute shortest constrained Traffic Engineering Label
   Switched Paths (TE LSPs) in Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and
   Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) networks across multiple domains has been
   identified as a key requirement.  In this context, a domain is a
   collection of network elements within a common sphere of address
   management or path computational responsibility such as an Interior
   Gateway Protocol (IGP) area or an Autonomous System (AS).  This
   document specifies a standard representation and encoding of a
   Domain-Sequence, which is defined as an ordered sequence of domains
   traversed to reach the destination domain to be used by Path
   Computation Elements (PCEs) to compute inter-domain constrained
   shortest paths across a predetermined sequence of domains . This
   document also defines new subobjects to be used to encode domain
   identifiers.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on November 1, 2015.







Dhody, et al.           Expires November 1, 2015                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft                 DOMAIN SEQ                     April 2015


Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2015 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 Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.1.  Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     1.2.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  Detail Description  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.1.  Domains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.2.  Domain-Sequence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.3.  Domain-Sequence Representation  . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     3.4.  Include Route Object (IRO)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
       3.4.1.  Subobjects  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
         3.4.1.1.  Autonomous system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
         3.4.1.2.  IGP Area  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
       3.4.2.  Update in IRO specification . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
       3.4.3.  IRO for Domain-Sequence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     3.5.  Exclude Route Object (XRO)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
       3.5.1.  Subobjects  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
         3.5.1.1.  Autonomous system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
         3.5.1.2.  IGP Area  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     3.6.  Explicit Exclusion Route Subobject (EXRS) . . . . . . . .  14
     3.7.  Explicit Route Object (ERO) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   4.  Other Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     4.1.  Inter-Area Path Computation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     4.2.  Inter-AS Path Computation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
       4.2.1.  Example 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
       4.2.2.  Example 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
     4.3.  Boundary Node and Inter-AS-Link . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
     4.4.  PCE Serving multiple Domains  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
     4.5.  P2MP  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
     4.6.  Hierarchical PCE  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
     4.7.  Relationship to PCE Sequence  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
     4.8.  Relationship to RSVP-TE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24



Dhody, et al.           Expires November 1, 2015                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft                 DOMAIN SEQ                     April 2015


   5.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
     5.1.  New Subobjects  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
   7.  Manageability Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
     7.1.  Control of Function and Policy  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
     7.2.  Information and Data Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
     7.3.  Liveness Detection and Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
     7.4.  Verify Correct Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
     7.5.  Requirements On Other Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
     7.6.  Impact On Network Operations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
   8.  Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27
   9.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27
     9.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27
     9.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  28
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  29

1.  Introduction

   A Path Computation Element (PCE) may be used to compute end-to-end
   paths across multi-domain environments using a per-domain path
   computation technique [RFC5152].  The backward recursive path
   computation (BRPC) mechanism [RFC5441] also defines a PCE-based path
   computation procedure to compute inter-domain constrained path for
   (G)MPLS TE LSPs.  However, both per-domain and BRPC techniques assume
   that the sequence of domains to be crossed from source to destination
   is known, either fixed by the network operator or obtained by other
   means.  Also for inter-domain point-to-multi-point (P2MP) tree
   computation, [RFC7334] assumes the domain-tree is known in priori.

   The list of domains (Domain-Sequence) in point-to-point (P2P) or a
   domain tree in point-to-multipoint (P2MP) is usually a constraint in
   inter-domain path computation procedure.

   The Domain-Sequence (the set of domains traversed to reach the
   destination domain) is either administratively predetermined or
   discovered by some means like H-PCE.

   [RFC5440] defines the Include Route Object (IRO) and the Explicit
   Route Object (ERO).  [RFC5521] defines the Exclude Route Object (XRO)
   and the Explicit Exclusion Route Subobject (EXRS).  The use of
   Autonomous System (AS) (albeit with a 2-Byte AS number) as an
   abstract node representing a domain is defined in [RFC3209], this
   document specifies new subobjects to include or exclude domains
   including IGP area or an Autonomous Systems (4-Byte as per
   [RFC6793]).

   Further, the domain identifier may simply act as delimiter to specify
   where the domain boundary starts and ends in some cases.



Dhody, et al.           Expires November 1, 2015                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft                 DOMAIN SEQ                     April 2015


   This document further illustrates how the new subobjects defined in
   this document, along with the existing subobjects, are incorporated
   in IRO, XRO and ERO to represent a Domain-Sequence.

   This is a companion document to Resource ReserVation Protocol -
   Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) extensions for the domain identifiers
   [DOMAIN-SUBOBJ].

1.1.  Scope

   The procedures described in this document are experimental.  The
   experiment is intended to enable research for the usage of Domain-
   Sequence at the PCEs for inter-domain paths.  For this purpose this
   document specify new domain subobjects as well as how they
   incorporate with existing subobjects to represent a Domain-Sequence.

   This document does not change the procedures for handling existing
   subobjects in PCEP.

   The new subobjects introduced by this document will not be understood
   by a legacy implementation.  If one of the subobjects is received in
   a PCEP object that does not understand it, it will behave as
   described in Section 3.4.3.  Therefore, it is assumed that this
   experiment will be conducted only when both the PCE and the PCC form
   part of the experiment.  It is possible that a PCC or PCE can operate
   with peers some of which form part of the experiment and some that do
   not.  In this case, since no capabilities exchange is used to
   identify which nodes can use these extensions, manual configuration
   should be used to determine which peerings form part of the
   experiment.

   When the result of implementation and deployment are available, this
   document will be updated and refined, and then be moved from
   Experimental to Standard Track.

1.2.  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 [RFC2119].

2.  Terminology

   The following terminology is used in this document.

   ABR:  OSPF Area Border Router.  Routers used to connect two IGP
      areas.




Dhody, et al.           Expires November 1, 2015                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft                 DOMAIN SEQ                     April 2015


   AS:  Autonomous System.

   ASBR:  Autonomous System Boundary Router.

   BN:  Boundary Node, Can be an ABR or ASBR.

   BRPC:  Backward Recursive Path Computation

   Domain:  As per [RFC4655], any collection of network elements within
      a common sphere of address management or path computational
      responsibility.  Examples of domains include Interior Gateway
      Protocol (IGP) area and Autonomous System (AS).

   Domain-Sequence:  An ordered sequence of domains traversed to reach
      the destination domain.

   ERO:  Explicit Route Object

   H-PCE:  Hierarchical PCE

   IGP:  Interior Gateway Protocol.  Either of the two routing
      protocols, Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) or Intermediate System
      to Intermediate System (IS-IS).

   IRO:  Include Route Object

   IS-IS:  Intermediate System to Intermediate System.

   OSPF:  Open Shortest Path First.

   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 based on a network graph and applying computational
      constraints.

   P2MP:  Point-to-Multipoint

   P2P:  Point-to-Point

   RSVP:  Resource Reservation Protocol

   TE LSP:  Traffic Engineering Label Switched Path.

   XRO:  Exclude Route Object




Dhody, et al.           Expires November 1, 2015                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft                 DOMAIN SEQ                     April 2015


3.  Detail Description

3.1.  Domains

   [RFC4726] and [RFC4655] define domain as a separate administrative or
   geographic environment within the network.  A domain could be further
   defined as a zone of routing or computational ability.  Under these
   definitions a domain might be categorized as an AS or an IGP area.
   Each AS can be made of several IGP areas.  In order to encode a
   Domain-Sequence, it is required to uniquely identify a domain in the
   Domain-Sequence.  A domain can be uniquely identified by area-id or
   AS number or both.

3.2.  Domain-Sequence

   A Domain-Sequence is an ordered sequence of domains traversed to
   reach the destination domain.

   A Domain-Sequence can be applied as a constraint and carried in a
   path computation request to PCE(s).  A Domain-Sequence can also be
   the result of a path computation.  For example, in the case of
   Hierarchical PCE (H-PCE) [RFC6805], Parent PCE could send the Domain-
   Sequence as a result in a path computation reply.

   In a P2P path, the domains listed appear in the order that they are
   crossed.  In a P2MP path, the domain tree is represented as a list of
   Domain-Sequences.

   A Domain-Sequence enables a PCE to select the next domain and the PCE
   serving that domain to forward the path computation request based on
   the domain information.

   Domain-Sequence can include Boundary Nodes (ABR or ASBR) or Border
   links (Inter-AS-links) to be traversed as an additional constraint.

   Thus a Domain-Sequence can be made up of one or more of -

   o  AS Number

   o  Area ID

   o  Boundary Node ID

   o  Inter-AS-Link Address

   These are encoded in the new subobjects defined in this document as
   well as the existing subobjects to represent a Domain-Sequence.




Dhody, et al.           Expires November 1, 2015                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft                 DOMAIN SEQ                     April 2015


   Consequently, a Domain-Sequence can be used:

   1.  by a PCE in order to discover or select the next PCE in a
       collaborative path computation, such as in BRPC [RFC5441];

   2.  by the Parent PCE to return the Domain-Sequence when unknown;
       this can then be an input to the BRPC procedure [RFC6805];

   3.  by a Path Computation Client (PCC) or a PCE, to constraint the
       domains used in inter-domain path computation, explicitly
       specifying which domains to be expanded or excluded;

   4.  by a PCE in the per-domain path computation model [RFC5152] to
       identify the next domain;

3.3.  Domain-Sequence Representation

   Domain-Sequence appears in PCEP messages, notably in -

   o  Include Route Object (IRO): As per [RFC5440], IRO can be used to
      specify a set of network elements to be traversed to reach the
      destination, which includes subobjects used to specify the Domain-
      Sequence.

   o  Exclude Route Object (XRO): As per [RFC5521], XRO can be used to
      specify certain abstract nodes, to be excluded from whole path,
      which includes subobjects used to specify the Domain-Sequence.

   o  Explicit Exclusion Route Subobject (EXRS): As per [RFC5521], EXRS
      can be used to specify exclusion of certain abstract nodes
      (including domains) between a specific pair of nodes.  EXRS are a
      subobject inside the IRO.

   o  Explicit Route Object (ERO): As per [RFC5440], ERO can be used to
      specify a computed path in the network.  For example, in the case
      of H-PCE [RFC6805], a Parent PCE can send the Domain-Sequence as a
      result, in a path computation reply using ERO.

3.4.  Include Route Object (IRO)

   As per [RFC5440], IRO (Include Route Object) can be used to specify
   that the computed path needs to traverse a set of specified network
   elements or abstract nodes.








Dhody, et al.           Expires November 1, 2015                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft                 DOMAIN SEQ                     April 2015


3.4.1.  Subobjects

   Some subobjects are defined in [RFC3209], [RFC3473], [RFC3477] and
   [RFC4874], but new subobjects related to Domain-Sequence are needed.

   This document extends the support for 4-Byte AS numbers and IGP
   Areas.

                Type   Subobject
                 TBD1  Autonomous system number (4 Byte)
                 TBD2  OSPF Area id
                 TBD3  ISIS Area id

3.4.1.1.  Autonomous system

   [RFC3209] already defines 2 byte AS number.

   To support 4 byte AS number as per [RFC6793] following subobject is
   defined:

    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |L|    Type     |     Length    |         Reserved              |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                          AS-ID (4 bytes)                      |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


   L: The L bit is an attribute of the subobject as defined in [RFC3209]
      and usage in IRO subobject updated in [IRO-UPDATE].

   Type:  (TBD1 by IANA) indicating a 4-Byte AS Number.

   Length:  8 (Total length of the subobject in bytes).

   Reserved:  Zero at transmission, ignored at receipt.

   AS-ID:  The 4-Byte AS Number.  Note that if 2-Byte AS numbers are in
      use, the low order bits (16 through 31) MUST be used and the high
      order bits (0 through 15) MUST be set to zero.

3.4.1.2.  IGP Area

   Since the length and format of Area-id is different for OSPF and
   ISIS, following two subobjects are defined:





Dhody, et al.           Expires November 1, 2015                [Page 8]


Internet-Draft                 DOMAIN SEQ                     April 2015


   For OSPF, the area-id is a 32 bit number.  The subobject is encoded
   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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |L|    Type     |     Length    |         Reserved              |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                    OSPF Area Id (4 bytes)                     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   L: The L bit is an attribute of the subobject as defined in [RFC3209]
      and usage in IRO subobject updated in [IRO-UPDATE].

   Type:  (TBD2 by IANA) indicating a 4-Byte OSPF Area ID.

   Length:  8 (Total length of the subobject in bytes).

   Reserved:  Zero at transmission, ignored at receipt.

   OSPF Area Id:  The 4-Byte OSPF Area ID.

   For IS-IS, the area-id is of variable length and thus the length of
   the Subobject is variable.  The Area-id is as described in IS-IS by
   ISO standard [ISO10589].  The subobject is encoded 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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |L|    Type     |     Length    |  Area-Len     |  Reserved     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   //                        IS-IS Area ID                        //
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   L: The L bit is an attribute of the subobject as defined in [RFC3209]
      and usage in IRO subobject updated in [IRO-UPDATE].

   Type:  (TBD3 by IANA) indicating IS-IS Area ID.

   Length:  Variable.  The Length MUST be at least 8, and MUST be a
      multiple of 4.

   Area-Len:  Variable (Length of the actual (non-padded) IS-IS Area
      Identifier in octets; Valid values are from 2 to 11 inclusive).

   Reserved:  Zero at transmission, ignored at receipt.



Dhody, et al.           Expires November 1, 2015                [Page 9]


Internet-Draft                 DOMAIN SEQ                     April 2015


   IS-IS Area Id:  The variable-length IS-IS area identifier.  Padded
      with trailing zeroes to a four-byte boundary.

3.4.2.  Update in IRO specification

   [RFC5440] describes IRO as an optional object used to specify network
   elements to be traversed by the computed path.  It further state that
   the L bit of such subobject has no meaning within an IRO.  It also
   did not mention if IRO is an ordered or un-ordered list of
   subobjects.

   An update to IRO specification [IRO-UPDATE] makes IRO as an ordered
   list, as well as support for loose bit (L-bit) is added.

   The use of IRO for Domain-Sequence, assumes the updated specification
   for IRO, as per [IRO-UPDATE].

3.4.3.  IRO for Domain-Sequence

   Some subobjects for the IRO are defined in [RFC3209], [RFC3477], and
   [RFC4874]; further some new subobjects related to Domain-Sequence are
   also added in this document as mentioned in Section 3.4.

   The subobject type for IPv4, IPv6, and unnumbered Interface ID can be
   used to specify Boundary Nodes (ABR/ASBR) and Inter-AS-Links.  The
   subobject type for the AS Number (2 or 4 Byte) and the IGP Area are
   used to specify the domain identifiers in the Domain-Sequence.

   The IRO can incorporate the new domain subobjects with the existing
   subobjects in a sequence of traversal.

   Thus an IRO, comprising of subobjects that represents a Domain-
   Sequence, define the domains involved in an inter-domain path
   computation, typically involving two or more collaborative PCEs.

   A Domain-Sequence can have varying degrees of granularity.  It is
   possible to have a Domain-Sequence composed of, uniquely, AS
   identifiers.  It is also possible to list the involved IGP areas for
   a given AS.

   In any case, the mapping between domains and responsible PCEs is not
   defined in this document.  It is assumed that a PCE that needs to
   obtain a "next PCE" from a Domain-Sequence is able to do so (e.g. via
   administrative configuration, or discovery).

   A PCC builds an IRO to encode the Domain-Sequence, so that the
   cooperating PCEs could compute an inter-domain shortest constrained
   path across the specified sequence of domains.



Dhody, et al.           Expires November 1, 2015               [Page 10]


Internet-Draft                 DOMAIN SEQ                     April 2015


   For each inclusion, the PCC clears the L-bit to indicate that the PCE
   is required to include the domain, or sets the L-bit to indicate that
   the PCC simply desires that the domain be included in the Domain-
   Sequence.

   If a PCE receives an IRO in a Path Computation request (PCReq)
   message that contains subobjects defined in this document, that it
   does not recognize, it will respond according to the rules for a
   malformed object as per [RFC5440].  The PCE MAY also include the IRO
   in the PCErr to indicate in which case the IRO SHOULD be terminated
   immediately after the unrecognized subobject.

   PCE MUST act according to the requirements expressed in the
   subobject.  That is, if the L-bit is clear, the PCE(s) MUST produce a
   path that follows the Domain-Sequence in order identified by the
   subobjects in the path.  If the L-bit is set, the PCE(s) SHOULD
   produce a path along the Domain-Sequence unless it is not possible to
   construct a path complying with the other constraints expressed in
   the request.

   A successful path computation reported in a path computation reply
   message (PCRep) MUST include an ERO to specify the path that has been
   computed as specified in [RFC5440] following the sequence of domains.

   In a PCRep, PCE MAY also supply IRO (with Domain-Sequence
   information) with the NO-PATH object indicating that the set of
   elements (domains) of the request's IRO prevented the PCEs from
   finding a path.

   Following processing rules apply for Domain-Sequence in IRO -

   o  The Area subobject is optional.

   o  The AS subobject is optional.

   o  If an Area subobject is present then it changes the Area for all
      subsequent subobjects that do not change the area themselves.
      Subobjects that may change the Area are:

      *  IP addresses that are present in another Area (via IPv4/IPv6
         subobject)

      *  Area ID (via OSPF/ISIS area subobjects)

      *  AS number of another AS (via AS subobjects)






Dhody, et al.           Expires November 1, 2015               [Page 11]


Internet-Draft                 DOMAIN SEQ                     April 2015


   o  If an Area subobject is not preceded by an AS subobject then the
      receiver MUST act as though there is no change in AS from the
      previous subobject.

   o  If an AS subobject is present then it changes the AS for all
      subsequent subobjects that do not change the AS themselves.
      Subobjects that may change the AS are:

      *  IP addresses that are present in another AS (via IPv4/IPv6
         subobject)

      *  Unnumbered interfaces that are present in another AS (via
         Unnumbered Interface ID subobject)

      *  AS number (via AS subobjects)

   o  AS and Area subobjects may be interspersed with other subobjects
      without change to the previously specified processing of those
      subobjects in the IRO.

3.5.  Exclude Route Object (XRO)

   The Exclude Route Object (XRO) [RFC5521] is an optional object used
   to specify exclusion of certain abstract nodes or resources from the
   whole path.

3.5.1.  Subobjects

   Some subobjects to be used in XRO as defined in [RFC3209], [RFC3477],
   [RFC4874], and [RFC5520], but new subobjects related to Domain-
   Sequence are needed.

   This document extends the support for 4-Byte AS numbers and IGP
   Areas.


                Type   Subobject
                 TBD1  Autonomous system number (4 Byte)
                 TBD2  OSPF Area id
                 TBD3  ISIS Area id

3.5.1.1.  Autonomous system

   The new subobjects to support 4 byte AS and IGP (OSPF / ISIS) Area
   MAY also be used in the XRO to specify exclusion of certain domains
   in the path computation procedure.





Dhody, et al.           Expires November 1, 2015               [Page 12]


Internet-Draft                 DOMAIN SEQ                     April 2015


    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |X|    Type     |     Length    |         Reserved              |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                          AS-ID (4 bytes)                      |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


   The X-bit indicates whether the exclusion is mandatory or desired.

   0: indicates that the AS specified MUST be excluded from the path
      computed by the PCE(s).

   1: indicates that the AS specified SHOULD be avoided from the inter-
      domain path computed by the PCE(s), but MAY be included subject to
      PCE policy and the absence of a viable path that meets the other
      constraints.

   All other fields are consistent with the definition in Section 3.4.

3.5.1.2.  IGP Area

   Since the length and format of Area-id is different for OSPF and
   ISIS, following two subobjects are defined:

   For OSPF, the area-id is a 32 bit number.  The subobject is encoded
   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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |X|    Type     |     Length    |         Reserved              |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                    OSPF Area Id (4 bytes)                     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   The X-bit indicates whether the exclusion is mandatory or desired.

   0: indicates that the OSFF Area specified MUST be excluded from the
      path computed by the PCE(s).

   1: indicates that the OSFF Area specified SHOULD be avoided from the
      inter-domain path computed by the PCE(s), but MAY be included
      subject to PCE policy and the absence of a viable path that meets
      the other constraints.

   All other fields are consistent with the definition in Section 3.4.



Dhody, et al.           Expires November 1, 2015               [Page 13]


Internet-Draft                 DOMAIN SEQ                     April 2015


   For IS-IS, the area-id is of variable length and thus the length of
   the subobject is variable.  The Area-id is as described in IS-IS by
   ISO standard [ISO10589].  The subobject is encoded 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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |X|    Type     |     Length    |  Area-Len     |  Reserved     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   //                        IS-IS Area ID                        //
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   The X-bit indicates whether the exclusion is mandatory or desired.

   0: indicates that the ISIS Area specified MUST be excluded from the
      path computed by the PCE(s).

   1: indicates that the ISIS Area specified SHOULD be avoided from the
      inter-domain path computed by the PCE(s), but MAY be included
      subject to PCE policy and the absence of a viable path that meets
      the other constraints.

   All other fields are consistent with the definition in Section 3.4.

   All the processing rules are as per [RFC5521].

   Note that, if a PCE receives an XRO in a PCReq message that contains
   subobjects defined in this document, that it does not recognize, it
   will respond according to the rules for a malformed object as per
   [RFC5440].  The PCE MAY also include the XRO in the PCErr to indicate
   in which case the XRO SHOULD be terminated immediately after the
   unrecognized subobject.

3.6.  Explicit Exclusion Route Subobject (EXRS)

   Explicit Exclusion Route Subobject (EXRS) [RFC5521] is used to
   specify exclusion of certain abstract nodes between a specific pair
   of nodes.

   The EXRS subobject can carry any of the subobjects defined for
   inclusion in the XRO, thus the new subobjects to support 4 byte AS
   and IGP (OSPF / ISIS) Area can also be used in the EXRS.  The
   meanings of the fields of the new XRO subobjects are unchanged when
   the subobjects are included in an EXRS, except that scope of the
   exclusion is limited to the single hop between the previous and
   subsequent elements in the IRO.



Dhody, et al.           Expires November 1, 2015               [Page 14]


Internet-Draft                 DOMAIN SEQ                     April 2015


   All the processing rules are as per [RFC5521].

   Note that, if a PCE that supports the EXRS in an IRO, parses an IRO,
   and encounters an EXRS that contains subobjects defined in this
   document, that it does not recognize, it will act according to the
   setting of the X-bit in the subobject as per [RFC5521].

3.7.  Explicit Route Object (ERO)

   The Explicit Route Object (ERO) [RFC5440] is used to specify a
   computed path in the network.  PCEP ERO subobject types correspond to
   RSVP-TE ERO subobject types as defined in [RFC3209], [RFC3473],
   [RFC3477], [RFC4873], [RFC4874], and [RFC5520].  The subobjects
   related to Domain-Sequence are further defined in [DOMAIN-SUBOBJ].

   The new subobjects to support 4 byte AS and IGP (OSPF / ISIS) Area
   can also be used in the ERO to specify an abstract node (a group of
   nodes whose internal topology is opaque to the ingress node of the
   LSP).  Using this concept of abstraction, an explicitly routed LSP
   can be specified as a sequence of domains.

   In case of Hierarchical PCE [RFC6805], a Parent PCE can be requested
   to find the Domain-Sequence.  Refer example in Section 4.6.  The ERO
   in reply from parent PCE can then be used in Per-Domain path
   computation or BRPC.

   If a PCC receives an ERO in a Path Computation response (PCRep)
   message that contains subobject defined in this document, that it
   does not recognize, it will respond according to the rules for a
   malformed object as per [RFC5440].  The PCC MAY also include the ERO
   in the PCErr to indicate in which case the ERO SHOULD be terminated
   immediately after the unrecognized subobject.

4.  Other Considerations

   The examples in this section are for illustration purposes only; to
   highlight how the new subobjects could be encoded.  They are not
   meant to be an exhaustive list of all possible usecases and
   combinations.

4.1.  Inter-Area Path Computation

   In an inter-area path computation where the ingress and the egress
   nodes belong to different IGP areas within the same AS, the Domain-
   Sequence could be represented using a ordered list of Area
   subobjects.





Dhody, et al.           Expires November 1, 2015               [Page 15]


Internet-Draft                 DOMAIN SEQ                     April 2015


    -----------------                              -----------------
   |                 |                            |                 |
   |          +--+   |                            |     +--+        |
   | +--+     |  |   |                            |     |  |        |
   | |  |     +--+   |                            |     +--+   +--+ |
   | +--+            |                            |            |  | |
   |                 |                            |            +--+ |
   |        +--+     |                            |                 |
   |        |  |     |                            |     +--+        |
   |        +--+     |                            |     |  |        |
   |                 | -------------------------- |     +--+        |
   |                +--+                       +--+                 |
   |                |  |         +--+          |  |                 |
   |Area 2          +--+         |  |          +--+  Area 4         |
    ----------------- |          +--+            | -----------------
                      |                          |
                      |                +--+      |
                      |    +--+        |  |      |
                      |    |  |        +--+      |
                      |    +--+                  |
                      |                          |
                      |                          |
                      |                          |
                      |                          |
                      |           +--+           |
                      |           |  |           |
                      |           +--+           |
    ----------------- |                          | ------------------
   |                 +--+                      +--+                  |
   |                 |  |                      |  |                  |
   |                 +--+    Area 0            +--+                  |
   |                 | -------------------------- |     +--+         |
   |          +--+   |                            |     |  |         |
   |          |  |   |                            |     +--+         |
   | +--+     +--+   |                            |                  |
   | |  |            |                            |            +--+  |
   | +--+            |                            |            |  |  |
   |                 |                            |            +--+  |
   |       +--+      |                            |                  |
   |       |  |      |                            |     +--+         |
   |       +--+      |                            |     |  |         |
   |                 |                            |     +--+         |
   |                 |                            |                  |
   | Area 1          |                            |  Area 5          |
    -----------------                              ------------------


                   Figure 1: Inter-Area Path Computation



Dhody, et al.           Expires November 1, 2015               [Page 16]


Internet-Draft                 DOMAIN SEQ                     April 2015


   AS Number is 100.

   This could be represented in the IRO as:


     +---------+ +---------+ +---------+
     |IRO      | |Sub      | |Sub      |
     |Object   | |Object   | |Object   |
     |Header   | |Area 0   | |Area 4   |
     |         | |         | |         |
     |         | |         | |         |
     +---------+ +---------+ +---------+

     or

     +---------+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+
     |IRO      | |Sub      | |Sub      | |Sub      |
     |Object   | |Object   | |Object   | |Object   |
     |Header   | |Area 2   | |Area 0   | |Area 4   |
     |         | |         | |         | |         |
     |         | |         | |         | |         |
     +---------+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+

     or

     +---------+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+
     |IRO      | |Sub      | |Sub      | |Sub      | |Sub      |
     |Object   | |Object AS| |Object   | |Object   | |Object   |
     |Header   | |100      | |Area 2   | |Area 0   | |Area 4   |
     |         | |         | |         | |         | |         |
     |         | |         | |         | |         | |         |
     +---------+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+


   The Domain-Sequence can further include encompassing AS information
   in the AS subobject.

4.2.  Inter-AS Path Computation

   In inter-AS path computation, where ingress and egress belong to
   different AS, the Domain-Sequence could be represented using an
   ordered list of AS subobjects.  The Domain-Sequence can further
   include decomposed area information in the Area subobject.








Dhody, et al.           Expires November 1, 2015               [Page 17]


Internet-Draft                 DOMAIN SEQ                     April 2015


4.2.1.  Example 1

   As shown in Figure 2, where AS has a single area, AS subobject in the
   domain-sequence can uniquely identify the next domain and PCE.



              AS A                AS E                AS C
         <------------->      <---------->      <------------->

                  A4----------E1---E2---E3---------C4
                 /           /                       \
               /            /                          \
             /            /       AS B                   \
           /            /      <---------->                \
     Ingress------A1---A2------B1---B2---B3------C1---C2------Egress
           \                                    /          /
             \                                /          /
               \                            /          /
                 \                        /          /
                  A3----------D1---D2---D3---------C3

                              <---------->
                                  AS D

     * All AS have one area (area 0)


                    Figure 2: Inter-AS Path Computation

   This could be represented in the IRO as:




















Dhody, et al.           Expires November 1, 2015               [Page 18]


Internet-Draft                 DOMAIN SEQ                     April 2015


   +-------+ +-------+ +-------+
   |IRO    | |Sub    | |Sub    |
   |Object | |Object | |Object |
   |Header | |AS B   | |AS C   |
   |       | |       | |       |
   +-------+ +-------+ +-------+

   or

   +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+
   |IRO    | |Sub    | |Sub    | |Sub    |
   |Object | |Object | |Object | |Object |
   |Header | |AS A   | |AS B   | |AS C   |
   |       | |       | |       | |       |
   +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+

   or

   +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+
   |IRO    | |Sub    | |Sub    | |Sub    | |Sub    | |Sub    | |Sub    |
   |Object | |Object | |Object | |Object | |Object | |Object | |Object |
   |Header | |AS A   | |Area 0 | |AS B   | |Area 0 | |AS C   | |Area 0 |
   |       | |       | |       | |       | |       | |       | |       |
   +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+

   Note that to get a domain disjoint path, the ingress could also
   request the backup path with -

   +-------+ +-------+
   |XRO    | |Sub    |
   |Object | |Object |
   |Header | |AS B   |
   |       | |       |
   +-------+ +-------+

   As described in Section 3.4.3, domain subobject in IRO changes the
   domain information associated with the next set of subobjects; till
   you encounter a subobject that changes the domain too.  Consider the
   following IRO:

   +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+
   |IRO    | |Sub    | |Sub    | |Sub    | |Sub    | |Sub    |
   |Object | |Object | |Object | |Object | |Object | |Object |
   |Header | |AS B   | |IP     | |IP     | |AS C   | |IP     |
   |       | |       | |B1     | |B3     | |       | |C1     |
   +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+





Dhody, et al.           Expires November 1, 2015               [Page 19]


Internet-Draft                 DOMAIN SEQ                     April 2015


   On processing subobject "AS B", it changes the AS of the subsequent
   subobjects till we encounter another subobject "AS C" which changes
   the AS for its subsequent subobjects.

   Consider another IRO:

   +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+
   |IRO    | |Sub    | |Sub    | |Sub    | |Sub    |
   |Object | |Object | |Object | |Object | |Object |
   |Header | |AS D   | |IP     | |IP     | |IP     |
   |       | |       | |D1     | |D3     | |C3     |
   +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+

   Here as well, on processing "AS D", it changes the AS of the
   subsequent subobjects till you encounter another subobject "C3" which
   belong in another AS and changes the AS for its subsequent
   subobjects.

   Further description for the Boundary Node and Inter-AS-Link can be
   found in Section 4.3.

4.2.2.  Example 2

   In Figure 3, AS 200 is made up of multiple areas.

                  |
                  |  +-------------+                +----------------+
                  |  |Area 2       |                |Area 4          |
                  |  |         +--+|                |          +--+  |
                  |  |         |  ||                |          | B|  |
                  |  |  +--+   +--+|                |   +--+   +--+  |
                  |  |  |  |       |                |   |  |         |
                  |  |  +--+       |                |   +--+         |
                  |  |        +--+ |                |          +--+  |
                  |  |        |  | |                |          |  |  |
                  |  |        +--+ |                |   +--+   +--+  |
                  |  |  +--+       |+--------------+|   |  |         |
                  |  |  |  |       +--+          +--+   +--+         |
   +-------------+|  |  +--+       |  |          |  |                |
   |             ||  |             +--+          +--+                |
   |         +--+||  +-------------+|              |+----------------+
   |         |  |||                 |     +--+     |
   |         +--+||                 |     |  |     |
   |    +--+     ||                 |     +--+     |
   |    |  |  +---+                +--+            |
   |    +--+  |   |----------------|  |            |
   |          +---+   Inter-AS     +--+   +--+     |
   |+--+         ||    Links        |     |  |     |



Dhody, et al.           Expires November 1, 2015               [Page 20]


Internet-Draft                 DOMAIN SEQ                     April 2015


   ||A |      +---+                +--+   +--+     |
   |+--+      |   |----------------|  |            |
   |          +---+                +--+   +--+     |
   |    +--+     ||  +------------+ |     |  |     |+----------------+
   |    |  |     ||  |Area 3      +--+    +--+   +--+ Area 5         |
   |    +--+     ||  |            |  |           |  |                |
   |             ||  |            +--+           +--+                |
   |         +--+||  |       +--+ | |  Area 0      ||   +--+         |
   |         |  |||  |       |  | | +--------------+|   |  |         |
   |         +--+||  |       +--+ |                 |   +--+         |
   |             ||  |            |                 |          +--+  |
   |Area 0       ||  |   +--+     |                 |   +--+   |  |  |
   +-------------+|  |   |  |     |                 |   |  |   +--+  |
                  |  |   +--+  +--+                 |   +--+         |
                  |  |         |  |                 |                |
                  |  |         +--+                 |          +--+  |
                  |  |   +--+     |                 |          | C|  |
                  |  |   |  |     |                 |          +--+  |
                  |  |   +--+     |                 |                |
                  |  |            |                 |                |
                  |  +------------+                 +----------------+
                  |
                  |
       AS 100     |  AS 200
                  |

                    Figure 3: Inter-AS Path Computation

   The Domain-Sequence for the LSP (A-B) can be carried in the IRO as
   shown below:


   +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+
   |IRO    | |Sub    | |Sub    | |Sub    |
   |Object | |Object | |Object | |Object |
   |Header | |AS 200 | |Area 0 | |Area 4 |
   |       | |       | |       | |       |
   +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+

   or

   +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+
   |IRO    | |Sub    | |Sub    | |Sub    | |Sub    | |Sub    |
   |Object | |Object | |Object | |Object | |Object | |Object |
   |Header | |AS 100 | |Area 0 | |AS 200 | |Area 0 | |Area 4 |
   |       | |       | |       | |       | |       | |       |
   +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+




Dhody, et al.           Expires November 1, 2015               [Page 21]


Internet-Draft                 DOMAIN SEQ                     April 2015


   The Domain-Sequence for the LSP (A-C) can be carried in the IRO as
   shown below:


   +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+
   |IRO    | |Sub    | |Sub    | |Sub    |
   |Object | |Object | |Object | |Object |
   |Header | |AS 200 | |Area 0 | |Area 5 |
   |       | |       | |       | |       |
   +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+

   or

   +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+
   |IRO    | |Sub    | |Sub    | |Sub    | |Sub    | |Sub    |
   |Object | |Object | |Object | |Object | |Object | |Object |
   |Header | |AS 100 | |Area 0 | |AS 200 | |Area 0 | |Area 5 |
   |       | |       | |       | |       | |       | |       |
   +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+

4.3.  Boundary Node and Inter-AS-Link

   A PCC or PCE can include additional constraints covering which
   Boundary Nodes (ABR or ASBR) or Border links (Inter-AS-link) to be
   traversed while defining a Domain-Sequence.  In which case the
   Boundary Node or Link can be encoded as a part of the Domain-
   Sequence.

   Boundary Nodes (ABR / ASBR) can be encoded using the IPv4 or IPv6
   prefix subobjects usually the loopback address of 32 and 128 prefix
   length respectively.  An Inter-AS link can be encoded using the IPv4
   or IPv6 prefix subobjects or unnumbered interface subobjects.

   For Figure 1, an ABR (say 203.0.113.1) to be traversed can be
   specified in IRO as:


        +---------+ +---------+ +---------++---------+ +---------+
        |IRO      | |Sub      | |Sub      ||Sub      | |Sub      |
        |Object   | |Object   | |Object   ||Object   | |Object   |
        |Header   | |Area 2   | |IPv4     ||Area 0   | |Area 4   |
        |         | |         | |203.0.   ||         | |         |
        |         | |         | |112.1    ||         | |         |
        +---------+ +---------+ +---------++---------+ +---------+


   For Figure 3, an inter-AS-link (say 198.51.100.1 - 198.51.100.2) to
   be traversed can be specified as:



Dhody, et al.           Expires November 1, 2015               [Page 22]


Internet-Draft                 DOMAIN SEQ                     April 2015


          +---------+  +---------+ +---------+ +---------+
          |IRO      |  |Sub      | |Sub      | |Sub      |
          |Object   |  |Object AS| |Object   | |Object AS|
          |Header   |  |100      | |IPv4     | |200      |
          |         |  |         | |198.51.  | |         |
          |         |  |         | |100.2    | |         |
          +---------+  +---------+ +---------+ +---------+

4.4.  PCE Serving multiple Domains

   A single PCE can be responsible for multiple domains; for example PCE
   function deployed on an ABR could be responsible for multiple areas.
   A PCE which can support adjacent domains can internally handle those
   domains in the Domain-Sequence without any impact on the other
   domains in the Domain-Sequence.

4.5.  P2MP

   [RFC7334] describes an experimental inter-domain P2MP path
   computation mechanism where the path domain tree is described as a
   series of Domain-Sequences, an example is shown in the below figure:

      D1-D3-D6, D1-D3-D5 and D1-D2-D4.
                  D1
                 /  \
                D2  D3
               /   /  \
              D4  D5  D6

   The domain sequence handling described in this document could be
   applied to P2MP path domain tree.

4.6.  Hierarchical PCE

   In case of H-PCE [RFC6805], the parent PCE can be requested to
   determine the Domain-Sequence and return it in the path computation
   reply, using the ERO. .  For the example in section 4.6 of [RFC6805],
   the Domain-Sequence can possibly appear as:













Dhody, et al.           Expires November 1, 2015               [Page 23]


Internet-Draft                 DOMAIN SEQ                     April 2015


   +---------+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+
   |ERO      | |Sub      | |Sub      | |Sub      |
   |Object   | |Object   | |Object   | |Object   |
   |Header   | |Domain 1 | |Domain 2 | |Domain 3 |
   |         | |         | |         | |         |
   |         | |         | |         | |         |
   +---------+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+

   or

   +---------+ +---------+ +---------+
   |ERO      | |Sub      | |Sub      |
   |Object   | |Object   | |Object   |
   |Header   | |BN 21    | |Domain 3 |
   |         | |         | |         |
   |         | |         | |         |
   +---------+ +---------+ +---------+


4.7.  Relationship to PCE Sequence

   Instead of a Domain-Sequence, a sequence of PCEs MAY be enforced by
   policy on the PCC, and this constraint can be carried in the PCReq
   message (as defined in [RFC5886]).

   Note that PCE-Sequence can be used along with Domain-Sequence in
   which case PCE-Sequence MUST have higher precedence in selecting the
   next PCE in the inter-domain path computation procedures.

4.8.  Relationship to RSVP-TE

   [RFC3209] already describes the notion of abstract nodes, where an
   abstract node is a group of nodes whose internal topology is opaque
   to the ingress node of the LSP.  It further defines a subobject for
   AS but with a 2-Byte AS Number.

   [DOMAIN-SUBOBJ] extends the notion of abstract nodes by adding new
   subobjects for IGP Areas and 4-byte AS numbers.  These subobjects can
   be included in Explicit Route Object (ERO), Exclude Route object
   (XRO) or Explicit Exclusion Route Subobject (EXRS) in RSVP-TE.

   In any case subobject type defined in RSVP-TE are identical to the
   subobject type defined in the related documents in PCEP.








Dhody, et al.           Expires November 1, 2015               [Page 24]


Internet-Draft                 DOMAIN SEQ                     April 2015


5.  IANA Considerations

5.1.  New Subobjects

   IANA maintains the "Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers"
   at http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml.  Within this
   registry IANA maintains two sub-registries:

   o  "IRO Subobjects": http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/
      pcep.xhtml#iro-subobject

   o  "XRO Subobjects": http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/
      pcep.xhtml#xro-subobject

   Upon approval of this document, IANA is requested to make identical
   additions to these registries as follows:

       Subobject Type                          Reference
       TBD1      4 byte AS number              [This I.D.]
       TBD2      OSPF Area ID                  [This I.D.]
       TBD3      IS-IS Area ID                 [This I.D.]

6.  Security Considerations

   This document specifies a standard representation of Domain-Sequence
   and new subobjects, which could be used in inter-domain PCE scenarios
   as explained in other RFC and drafts.  The new subobjects and Domain-
   Sequence mechanisms defined in this document allow finer and more
   specific control of the path computed by a cooperating PCE(s).  Such
   control increases the risk if a PCEP message is intercepted,
   modified, or spoofed because it allows the attacker to exert control
   over the path that the PCE will compute or to make the path
   computation impossible.  Therefore, the security techniques described
   in [RFC5440] are considered more important.

   Note, however, that the Domain-Sequence mechanisms also provide the
   operator with the ability to route around vulnerable parts of the
   network and may be used to increase overall network security.

7.  Manageability Considerations

7.1.  Control of Function and Policy

   The exact behaviour with regards to desired inclusion and exclusion
   of domains MUST be available for examination by an operator and MAY
   be configurable.  Manual configurations is needed to identify which
   PCEP peers understand the new domain subobjects defined in this
   document.



Dhody, et al.           Expires November 1, 2015               [Page 25]


Internet-Draft                 DOMAIN SEQ                     April 2015


7.2.  Information and Data Models

   A MIB module for management of the PCEP is being specified in a
   separate document [RFC7420].  That MIB module allows examination of
   individual PCEP messages, in particular requests, responses and
   errors.  The MIB module MUST be extended to include the ability to
   view the Domain-Sequence extensions defined in this document.

7.3.  Liveness Detection and Monitoring

   Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new liveness
   detection and monitoring requirements in addition to those already
   listed in [RFC5440].

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

   In case of per-domain path computation [RFC5152], where the full path
   of an inter-domain TE LSP cannot be, or is not determined at the
   ingress node, a signaling message may use the domain identifiers.
   The Subobjects defined in this document SHOULD be supported by RSVP-
   TE.  [DOMAIN-SUBOBJ] extends the notion of abstract nodes by adding
   new subobjects for IGP Areas and 4-byte AS numbers.

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

7.6.  Impact On Network Operations

   The mechanisms described in this document can provide the operator
   with the ability to exert finer and more specific control of the path
   computation by inclusion or exclusion of domain subobjects.  There
   may be some scaling benefit when a single domain subobject may
   substitute for many subobjects and can reduce the overall message
   size and processing.

   Backward compatibility issues associated with the new subobjects
   arise when a PCE does not recognize them, in which case PCE responds
   according to the rules for a malformed object as per [RFC5440].  For
   successful operations the PCEs in the network would need to be
   upgraded.




Dhody, et al.           Expires November 1, 2015               [Page 26]


Internet-Draft                 DOMAIN SEQ                     April 2015


8.  Acknowledgments

   Authors would like to especially thank Adrian Farrel for his detailed
   reviews as well as providing text to be included in the document.

   Further, we would like to thank Pradeep Shastry, Suresh Babu, Quintin
   Zhao, Fatai Zhang, Daniel King, Oscar Gonzalez, Chen Huaimo,
   Venugopal Reddy, Reeja Paul, Sandeep Boina, Avantika and Sergio
   Belotti for their useful comments and suggestions.

9.  References

9.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC3209]  Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.,
              and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
              Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001.

   [RFC3473]  Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
              (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic
              Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473, January 2003.

   [RFC3477]  Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Signalling Unnumbered Links
              in Resource ReSerVation Protocol - Traffic Engineering
              (RSVP-TE)", RFC 3477, January 2003.

   [RFC5440]  Vasseur, JP. and JL. Le Roux, "Path Computation Element
              (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440, March
              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.

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

   [RFC6805]  King, D. and A. Farrel, "The Application of the Path
              Computation Element Architecture to the Determination of a
              Sequence of Domains in MPLS and GMPLS", RFC 6805, November
              2012.





Dhody, et al.           Expires November 1, 2015               [Page 27]


Internet-Draft                 DOMAIN SEQ                     April 2015


   [ISO10589]
              ISO, "Intermediate system to Intermediate system routing
              information exchange protocol for use in conjunction with
              the Protocol for providing the Connectionless-mode Network
              Service (ISO 8473)", ISO/IEC 10589:2002, 1992.

   [IRO-UPDATE]
              Dhody, D., "Update to Include Route Object (IRO)
              specification in Path Computation Element communication
              Protocol (PCEP. (draft-dhody-pce-iro-update-02)", December
              2014.

   [DOMAIN-SUBOBJ]
              Dhody, D., Palle, U., Kondreddy, V., and R. Casellas,
              "Domain Subobjects for Resource ReserVation Protocol -
              Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE). (draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-
              domain-subobjects-00)", April 2015.

9.2.  Informative References

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

   [RFC4726]  Farrel, A., Vasseur, J., and A. Ayyangar, "A Framework for
              Inter-Domain Multiprotocol Label Switching Traffic
              Engineering", RFC 4726, November 2006.

   [RFC4873]  Berger, L., Bryskin, I., Papadimitriou, D., and A. Farrel,
              "GMPLS Segment Recovery", RFC 4873, May 2007.

   [RFC4874]  Lee, CY., Farrel, A., and S. De Cnodder, "Exclude Routes -
              Extension to Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic
              Engineering (RSVP-TE)", RFC 4874, April 2007.

   [RFC5152]  Vasseur, JP., Ayyangar, A., and R. Zhang, "A Per-Domain
              Path Computation Method for Establishing Inter-Domain
              Traffic Engineering (TE) Label Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC
              5152, February 2008.

   [RFC5520]  Bradford, R., Vasseur, JP., and A. Farrel, "Preserving
              Topology Confidentiality in Inter-Domain Path Computation
              Using a Path-Key-Based Mechanism", RFC 5520, April 2009.

   [RFC5886]  Vasseur, JP., Le Roux, JL., and Y. Ikejiri, "A Set of
              Monitoring Tools for Path Computation Element (PCE)-Based
              Architecture", RFC 5886, June 2010.





Dhody, et al.           Expires November 1, 2015               [Page 28]


Internet-Draft                 DOMAIN SEQ                     April 2015


   [RFC6793]  Vohra, Q. and E. Chen, "BGP Support for Four-Octet
              Autonomous System (AS) Number Space", RFC 6793, December
              2012.

   [RFC7334]  Zhao, Q., Dhody, D., King, D., Ali, Z., and R. Casellas,
              "PCE-Based Computation Procedure to Compute Shortest
              Constrained Point-to-Multipoint (P2MP) Inter-Domain
              Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths", RFC 7334,
              August 2014.

   [RFC7420]  Koushik, A., Stephan, E., Zhao, Q., King, D., and J.
              Hardwick, "Path Computation Element Communication Protocol
              (PCEP) Management Information Base (MIB) Module", RFC
              7420, December 2014.

Authors' Addresses

   Dhruv Dhody
   Huawei Technologies
   Divyashree Techno Park, Whitefield
   Bangalore, Karnataka  560037
   India

   EMail: dhruv.ietf@gmail.com


   Udayasree Palle
   Huawei Technologies
   Divyashree Techno Park, Whitefield
   Bangalore, Karnataka  560037
   India

   EMail: udayasree.palle@huawei.com


   Ramon Casellas
   CTTC
   Av. Carl Friedrich Gauss n7
   Castelldefels, Barcelona    08860
   Spain

   EMail: ramon.casellas@cttc.es









Dhody, et al.           Expires November 1, 2015               [Page 29]


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