[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]
Versions: (draft-yasukawa-pce-vpn-req) 00 01
02
Network Working Group S. Yasukawa
Internet Draft NTT
Category: Informational A. Farrel (Ed.)
Created: October 19, 2009 Old Dog Consulting
Expires: April 19, 2010
PCC-PCE Communication Requirements for VPNs
draft-ietf-pce-vpn-req-01.txt
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
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
Abstract
The Path Computation Element (PCE) provides path computation
functions in support of traffic engineering in Multiprotocol Label
Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) networks.
An important application of MPLS and GMPLS networks is Virtual
Private Networks (VPNs) that may be constructed using Label Switched
Paths (LSPs) in the MPLS and GMPLS networks as VPN tunnels. PCE may
be applied as a tool to compute the paths of such tunnels in order to
achieve better use of the network resources and to provide better
levels of service to the VPN customers.
Generic requirements for a communication protocol between Path
Computation Clients (PCCs) and PCEs are presented in "Path
Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol Generic
Requirements". This document complements the generic requirements and
presents a detailed set of PCC-PCE communication protocol
requirements that are specific to the application of PCE to VPNs.
Yasukawa and Farrel [Page 1]
draft-ietf-pce-vpn-req-01.txt October 2009
Contents
1. Introduction ................................................... 3
2. Terminology .................................................... 4
2.1. Conventions used in this document ............................ 4
2.2. Specific Terminology ......................................... 4
3. Core Network Requirements in Support of VPNs ................... 4
3.1. VPN-Specific Behavior ........................................ 5
3.1.1. Per-VPN Policy ............................................. 5
3.1.2. Per-VPN Constraints and Algorithms ......................... 5
3.1.3. Per-VPN Resources .......................................... 5
3.1.4. LSP Protection Schemes and Resource Sharing ................ 5
3.2. Customer Control of The Core Network ......................... 6
3.3. Private Address Spaces ....................................... 6
3.4. CE-CE Service Protection Schemes ............................. 6
3.5. Aggregation Schemes .......................................... 7
3.5.1. Sharing Core Tunnels ....................................... 7
3.5.2. Handling Core Scalability .................................. 7
3.6. Multicast Considerations ..................................... 8
3.6.1. Unicast or Multicast LSPs .................................. 8
3.6.2. P2MP Traffic Engineering ................................... 9
3.6.3. Aggregation onto P2MP LSPs ................................. 9
3.7. VPN Establishment/Addition/Deletion .......................... 9
3.8. Interworking Between Multiple VPN Domains ................... 10
4. PCECP Requirements for PCE Support of VPNs .................... 10
4.1. Identification of VPN ....................................... 10
4.2. Identification of Related VPNs .............................. 10
4.3. Scoping of Addresses ........................................ 11
4.4. Cooperation between Customer PCE and Core PCE ............... 11
4.5. Path Diversity .............................................. 11
4.6. Point-to-Multipoint ......................................... 11
4.7. Incorporating Path Calculation During VPN Membership
Discovery ................................................. 11
5. Manageability Considerations .... ............................. 12
5.1 Control of Function and Policy ............................... 12
5.2 Information and Data Models .................................. 12
5.3 Liveness Detection and Monitoring ............................ 12
5.4 Verifying Correct Operation .................................. 12
5.5 Requirements on Other Protocols and Functional Components .... 12
5.6 Impact on Network Operation .................................. 13
5.7 Other Considerations ......................................... 13
6. Security Considerations ....................................... 13
7. IANA Considerations ........................................... 14
8. Acknowledgments ............................................... 14
9. References .................................................... 14
9.1. Normative References ........................................ 14
9.2. Informative References ...................................... 14
10. Author's Address ............................................. 16
Yasukawa and Farrel [Page 2]
draft-ietf-pce-vpn-req-01.txt October 2009
1. Introduction
The Virtual Private Network (VPN) is an important service offered by
network providers to their customers. A lot of different VPN
technologies such as IP-VPN and VPLS [RFC2764], [RFC4761], [RFC4762]
have been developed and are deployed into many service providers'
networks to enhance their service capabilities. VPN technologies have
also has been extended to support multicast services [RFC4834] and
layer 1 servics [RFC4847].
Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) [RFC3031] and Generalized MPLS
(GMPLS) [RFC3945] are often used to provide VPN solutions within
provider core networks because Label Switched Paths (LSPs) provide
traffic trunks that can be used to connect customers' VPN sites.
These LSPs can be traffic engineered to help meet service level
agreements (SLAs) and to enhance the manageability of providers'
networks.
To meet customer demands and to realize competitive VPN network
infrastructures, one promising possibility for service providers
(SPs) is to deploy a common IP/MPLS network infrastructure for
several VPN services. To realize this, the core network operator
faces the following challenges.
- The SP must accommodate multiple VPN services which might have
different network policies within a common IP/MPLS core network.
This may require sophisticated traffic engineering (TE) mechanisms
for the TE-LSPs that support more than one VPN.
- The SP must introduce automatic VPN establishment/addition/deletion
mechanisms on top of an IP/MPLS core network to reduce their
Operational Expenditure (OPEX). This requires some automatic path
calculation and setup mechanisms during the VPN establishment/
addition/deletion processes.
- The SP must introduce VPN interworking functions that enable
interworking between multiple domains of the same VPN service
(e.g., Inter-AS operation), and interworking between multiple VPN
service networks.
Designing TE-LSPs is a key technical component to meet these
challenges. The Path Computation Element (PCE) defined in [RFC4655]
is an entity that is capable of computing network paths and routes
based on a network graph, and applying computational constraints.
PCE is applicable of computating traffic engineered paths for MPLS
and GMPLS LSPs, and so it is natural to seek to apply the same
technology to support VPNs.
Yasukawa and Farrel [Page 3]
draft-ietf-pce-vpn-req-01.txt October 2009
In the PCE architecture, the Path Computation Element Communication
Protocol (PCECP) is used to exchange path computation requests and
responses between Path Computation Clients (PCCs) and PCEs, and also
between PCEs. Generic requirements for PCECP are presented in
[RFC4657]. PCECP is described in [RFC5440].
This document presents a set of requirements for the Path Computation
Element Communication Protocol (PCECP) when PCE is used in support of
VPNs.
Specific requirements for PCECP in support of point-to-multipoint
path computation such as might be used in support of multicast VPNs
are described in [PCE-P2MP-REQ].
2. Terminology
2.1. Conventions used in this document
For clarity of specification of requirements, 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].
2.2. Specific Terminology
PCE terminology is defined in [RFC4655].
Applicable MPLS terminology may be found in [RFC3031] and [RFC2702].
GMPLS terminology is defined in [RFC3945]
VPN terminology can be found in [RFC4026] with additional terms in
[RFC4834] and [RFC4847].
The reader is assumed to be familiar with this terminology.
3. Core Network Requirements in Support of VPNs
This section is not intended to describe the function of VPNs, nor to
provide a full description of how core networks support VPNs. Its
purpose is to enumerate the principal features and functions that are
used to support VPNs within a core network and with which PCE might
be able to assist. This material is only present to give context to
Section 4 that lists the specific PCECP requirements in support of
VPNs.
Yasukawa and Farrel [Page 4]
draft-ietf-pce-vpn-req-01.txt October 2009
3.1. VPN-Specific Behavior
3.1.1. Per-VPN Policy
A core network may apply different policies to the VPN connections
established on behalf of different VPNs. Some policy decisions may be
made at the time of path computation and could, therefore, be
implemented through PCE provided that PCE has access to the correct
policy information (perhaps through a policy server [RFC5394]), and
is aware of the associated VPN ID.
3.1.2. Per-VPN Constraints and Algorithms
It is conceivable that different path computation behavior might be
applied for the VPN connections belonging to different VPNs. This
might, for example, reflect the different SLAs made for the
different VPN services/customers. PCE can implement such differences
in computational characteristics through specific requests or by
being configured to provide different default behaviors according to
the VPN ID.
3.1.3. Per-VPN Resources
In order to make it simpler to guarantee service levels core network
resources may be assigned as reserved for use in support of a
specific VPN or to be shared amongst only a subset of the total
number of VPNs. This division of resources has an obvious impact on
path computation and, provided the information can be made available
to PCE in its traffic engineering database (TED) and that the VPN ID
is supplied along with the path computation request, PCE can provide
a path that conforms to the per-VPN resource allocation
configuration.
3.1.4. LSP Protection Schemes and Resource Sharing
The SLA negotiated between network provider and VPN customer will
dictate the level of LSP protection required within the network. A
PCE can be used to compute protected (i.e., resource disjoint) paths.
Some protection schemes (1:n, extra traffic, etc.) allow resources
used for protection paths to be shared. It may be a condition of the
SLA that protection resources used to support one VPN are not shared
outside that VPN, or are shared only with a subset of other VPNs.
This might be a condition imposed for security or to improve
protection guarantees. PCE can compute protection paths limited to a
subset of the network resources. Full support of this function would,
however, either require that PCE keep track of the VPNs that use
shareable resources by updating its TED, or that PCE is fully
Yasukawa and Farrel [Page 5]
draft-ietf-pce-vpn-req-01.txt October 2009
stateful.
3.2. Customer Control of The Core Network
The customer network may wish to exert some control over the path of
the VPN connection in the core network using techniques such as those
in [RFC4206] and [RFC4208]. Such control may be expressed as
inclusion constraints to the computation of the path of the VPN
connection LSP, and PCE can compute paths with such constraints.
3.3. Private Address Spaces
VPNs may operate private address spaces. This has only two
consequences for the core network.
- In order that a PE-to-PE LSP can be set up across the core network
it is necessary to convert the tuple {VPN ID, destination CE
address} to the target destination PE address. and this may require
access to "reachablity information". That is, it may be necessary
to know through which PEs a given CE can be reached in order to
perform this mapping.
Provided that the PCE is configured with or learns the appropriate
mapping tables and knows the VPN ID, it can provide this
translation as part of path computation. The target address would
need to be flagged as a CE address and not as the destination of
the core LSP.
- The customer network may exert some control over the path of the
VPN connection in the core network as described in Section 3.2. In
this case, the core addresses supplied by the customer network to
the source PE in an explicit route may be expressed using the
customer VPN's private address space. Again, the PCE is capable of
providing the required translation as part of the path computation
operation.
3.4. CE-CE Service Protection Schemes
The LSP protection described in Section 3.1.4 applies to PE-PE
connections. It is also possible that the VPN will wish to operate
CE-CE protection by forming separate CE-CE connections over the core
network, usually by connecting each CE to more than one PE. Such
CE-CE connections need to use disjoint paths within the core network,
but unless the VPN exerts control over these paths (see Section 3.2)
the responsibility for ensuring diversity is delegated to the core
network. Since the CE-CE connections are established separately, the
core network cannot compute a pair of mutually disjoint paths.
Instead, the second path must be computed to avoid the resources of
Yasukawa and Farrel [Page 6]
draft-ietf-pce-vpn-req-01.txt October 2009
the first path. PCE can perform such a computation using the details
of the first path as exclusions in the second computation.
3.5. Aggregation Schemes
Support of VPNs with very many access points may cause significant
scaling issues for a core network. Similarly, the support of a large
number of VPNs may cause problems.
Aggregation solutions may be applied to improve scaling within the
core network, for example, by utilizing one PE-PE tunnel to carry the
traffic for multiple VPNs.
These aggregation schemes require careful analysis of traffic loads
to ensure that the VPNs each meet their service requirements and this
may necesitate special computations based on aggregate demands. A PCE
can perform such computations.
3.5.1. Sharing Core Tunnels
Where a pair of PEs both provide access to a set of VPNs, there is no
requirement for multiple LSP tunnels across the core between the PEs.
Traffic between the VPN sites can share a tunnel.
A stateful PCE that is requested to compute the path of a new PE-PE
LSP might be able to indicate that an existing LSP would be suitable.
This function, however, might be more appropriately implemented in a
descint "VPN Manager" component.
3.5.2. Handling Core Scalability
Core network scalability may become an issue when mesh connectivity
is required between very many PEs since this may result in
exceptionally many LSPs crossing the middle of the network. One
mechanism to handle this is to build a mesh of hierarchical LSP
tunnels within the core of the core network, and to use these to
provide forwarding adjacencies [RFC4206] or to operate a layered
(client/server) network [RFC5212].
PCE can compute the paths of PE-PE LSPs that use these core tunnels
as forwarding adjacencies. Alternatively, when a multi-layered
approach is taken, PCE may be an ideal computation tool where
inter-layer or separate layer TE visibility is available
[PCE-INTER-LAYER].
Yasukawa and Farrel [Page 7]
draft-ietf-pce-vpn-req-01.txt October 2009
3.6. Multicast Considerations
VPNs may be required to support multicast traffic [RFC4834]. Various
solutions have been proposed including some that use traffic
engineered MPLS LSPs within the core network.
3.6.1. Unicast or Multicast LSPs
VPN connectivity for multicast VPNs may be provided by unicast or
multicast LSPs. Data sourced through a CE and passed to a PE must be
distributed across the network and delivered through multiple PEs to
many CEs that participate in the same VPN. There are three models as
follows.
a. PE Replication.
In this model multicast traffic is replicated by the ingress PE
and distributed on unicast (point-to-point) LSPs to the egress
PEs. The egress PEs may, themselves, be responsible for further
replication if there are multiple attached CEs.
This model does not place any different requirements on the
traffic engineering model from unicast VPNs, and a PCE can be used
to compute the paths of the PE-PE TE-LSPs.
b. Rendezvous Point Replication
Replication can be placed within the network through the use of a
rendezvous point. A unicast LSP carries data from the ingress PE
to the rendezvous point where it is replicated and distributed to
egress PEs along other unicast LSPs.
Rendezvous points may also be used to support multicast VPNs with
multiple data sources. Further, a hierarchy of such points of
replication could be constructed to achieve better network
utilization.
Again, the point-to-point LSPs are no different from the TE-LSPs
described before, and a PCE can be used to compute their paths. A
PCE might also be used to select an appropriate rendezvous point
for a traffic flow in a VPN, and where a hierarchy of replication
points is used, PCE could coordinate them so that no egress PCE
receives duplicate data. These latter functions, however, are more
suited to a VPN Manager component leaving PCE to perform path
computation operations consistent with its specification in
[RFC4655].
Yasukawa and Farrel [Page 8]
draft-ietf-pce-vpn-req-01.txt October 2009
c. Multicast LSPs
Most efficient use of the core network can be made by establishing
multicast LSPs, otherwise known as point-to-multipoint (P2MP)
LSPs. These provide a distribution tree from the ingress PE to the
egress PEs. Data replication happens within the forwarding plane
at branch nodes (see Section 3.6.2).
It is possible to combine these three models in any mix. A PCE may be
particularly helpful in identifying existing shareable LSPs that can
determine what mixture of models to use.
3.6.2. P2MP Traffic Engineering
The computation of the routes for P2MP trees is non-trivial as
suitable branch nodes must be located within the core network. The
computation is made more complex by various factors including
different replication capabilities of the core network nodes and
different objective optimization criteria (such as least sum cost
paths known as Steiner trees, and shortest paths to each
destination).
The complexity of the P2MP computation makes it particularly suitable
to offload to a dedicated PCE [PCE-P2MP-REQ].
3.6.3. Aggregation onto P2MP LSPs
Aggregation of traffic from multicast VPNs onto core P2MP LSPs is
more complicated than for unicast traffic. In the unicast case (see
Section 3.5.1) it is possible for all traffic between a pair of PEs
to share the same tunnel, but in the multicast case, sharing a tunnel
requires that there is a common set of egress PEs or that receiving
PEs can discard unwanted traffic. Various solutions to this problem
are possible: each requires that the paths of P2MP LSPs are computed
and that is something with which PCE can assist. But the fundamental
problem of determining how many tunnels to use and how to multiplex
traffic onto the tunnels is a function best performed by a distinct
VPN Manager component.
3.7. VPN Establishment/Addition/Deletion
BGP-based auto-discovery mechanisms are widely deployed in VPNs for
membership discovery. The auto-discovery mechanism is used not only
to automatically detect VPN membership, but also to automatically
establish PE-to-PE tunnels after detecting VPN membership. Combining
this auto-discovery mechanism and the LSP establishment mechanism,
one can establish the VPN's PE-to-PE LSPs automatically. But one
challenge of this approach is that when multiple independent PEs set
Yasukawa and Farrel [Page 9]
draft-ietf-pce-vpn-req-01.txt October 2009
up PE-to-PE LSPs independently, it is impossible to set up the LSPs
to be optimal considering network-wide constraints. To accomplish
this network-wide optimization, some centralized path computation
element is necessary to coordinate the computation of the paths of
the LSPs, and PCE can perform this function.
3.8. Interworking Between Multiple VPN Domains
To enable interworking between multiple VPN domains (such as Inter-AS
procedures for IP-VPNs, or multi-hop pseudowire procedures for VPLS)
some smart, end-to-end-based path calculation is necessary. A PCE can
perform this kind of path calculation, for example, through
cooperation with other PCEs.
4. PCECP Requirements for PCE Support of VPNs
This section sets out requirements that must be met by the PCE
Communications Protocol (PCECP) when PCE is used to support path
computation for VPNs. These requirements supplement those common
requirements described in [RFC4657], and are complementary to
additional requirements present in other requirements documents such
as [RFC4927], [RFC5376], and [PCE-INTER-LAYER].
4.1. Identification of VPN
Since computations may be specific to the VPN that will use the core
LSP, it MUST be possible to specify the VPN ID on a path computation
request.
4.2. Identification of Related VPNs
Certain computations of paths for VPN connections may need to exclude
or include core resource sharing or traffic aggregation by
identifying specific other VPNs. Thus is MUST be possible to specify
a list of related VPN IDs on a path computation request.
This list SHOULD be accompanied by a context so that it is possible
to provide lists of related VPNs for different purposes on the same
path computation request. Contexts identified at this time are as
follows:
- Allowed to share network resources with LSPs for the listed VPNs.
- Prohibited from sharing network resources with LSPs for the listed
VPNs.
- Allowed to carry traffic for the other listed VPNs.
- Prohibited from carrying traffic for the other listed VPNs.
Further contexts may be defined in the future and the protocol field
Yasukawa and Farrel [Page 10]
draft-ietf-pce-vpn-req-01.txt October 2009
that defines context SHOULD be reasonably extensible.
4.3. Scoping of Addresses
If the addresses used in any part of a path computation request or
response are not within the scope of the network for which the
computation is to be performed (for example, they are customer VPN
addresses for core network nodes) this needs to be identified to the
PCE. A path computation request MUST allow the PCC to indicate that
certain addresses are in the scope of the customer VPN.
4.4. Cooperation between Customer PCE and Core PCE
In order for cooperation between customer and core PCEs to be most
efficient, it SHOULD be possible for an initial path computation
request sent from a PCC to the first PCE to identify the other PCEs
with which the first PCE should cooperate.
It SHOULD also be possible for a path computation response to
identify other PCEs for use at further stages in the LSP
establishment process. This information would need to be carried in
signaling messages to be available at downstream nodes (such as the
PEs), but how this information is conveyed in signaling messages is
beyond the scope of this document.
4.5. Path Diversity
Path protection schemes require that path computation requests MUST
be able to indicate diversity requirements.
PE-PE protection requires that a single path computation request MUST
be able to request multiple paths meeting specified diversity
requirements. This requirement is already covered in [RFC4657].
CE-CE protection requires that a path computation request MUST be
able to request specific diversity from another, previously computed
path by specifying the links and nodes of that path. This requirement
for exclusions is already covered in [RFC4657].
4.6. Point-to-Multipoint
The requirements for PCECP to support path computation for P2MP LSPs
are presented in [PCE-P2MP-REQ].
4.7. Incorporating Path Calculation During VPN Membership Discovery
In order for a PE (PCC) to request a PCE to calculate PE-to-PE VPN
paths, and in order for the PE to set up these LSPs during the VPN
Yasukawa and Farrel [Page 11]
draft-ietf-pce-vpn-req-01.txt October 2009
establishment/addition/deletion process, the PCE MUST monitor VPN
membership discovery. In this context, "monitor" means that the PCE's
network map MUST be updated to include VPN membership information.
For further discussion of how the PCE network map may be constructed
refer to [RFC4655].
5. Manageability Considerations
The use of PCECP to compute paths in support of VPNs extends the
manageability considerations for PCECP.
5.1 Control of Function and Policy
No additional controls of function or policy are required over and
above those that are required for basic operation of PCECP. However,
it should be noted that separate controls may be required for each
VPN that is supported. Further, the customer may require access to
some or all of the controls for their VPN.
5.2 Information and Data Models
The PCECP may be modeled and controlled through MIB modules. It may
be desirable to divide such modeling and control per VPN. In
particular, where access to, or control of MIB data is provided to
customers so that they can gather statistics or manage the behavior
of PCEs for their VPN, clear separation must be enforced so that
customers have no control over or visibility into each other's VPN
operation.
5.3 Liveness Detection and Monitoring
No additional liveness detection and monitoring facilities are
required to be added to PCECP because of VPN support.
5.4 Verifying Correct Operation
There are no additional requirements for verifying the correct
operation of the PCECP.
If information is made available to allow an operator to verify the
correct computation of a path, care must be taken over precisely what
information is exposed to customers so as to preserve customer
confidentiality. This topic, however, falls outside the scope of
manageability considerations for the PCECP.
5.5 Requirements on Other Protocols and Functional Components
The manageability of PCECP places certain requirements on the
Yasukawa and Farrel [Page 12]
draft-ietf-pce-vpn-req-01.txt October 2009
manageability of other protocols, in particular on the underlying
transport protocol. The application of PCE to VPNs does not extend
PCECP's requirements to be able to manage other protocols or
functional components.
It should be noted that the applicability of PCE to VPNs has
significant impact on the management and operation of other protocols
used for PCE discovery, VPN membership discovery and advertisement,
and LSP signaling. These topics are out of scope for this document.
5.6 Impact on Network Operation
As described in [RFC4655], the use of PCE may impact the operation of
a network. Additionally, there are consequences of applying PCE to
VPNs.
The PCECP is required to handle issues of congestion that are caused
by significant numbers of computation requests issued in a small
period of time. In practice, separate PCEs might be used to service
the requirements of different VPNs with the result that this problem
might not be so significant.
Otherwise, the extensions to PCECP to cover the use of PCE for VPNs
do not have additional impact on the operation of the core network.
5.7 Other Considerations
No other management considerations arise.
6. Security Considerations
Security is an important feature for VPNs. VPN customers expect and
require that their data and service information is kept secure from
interception or interference by other users of the provider network.
Since the provider network will possibly support multiple VPNs as
well as other services, the traffic of an individual VPN and the
computation information that applies to that VPN are vulnerable
within the provider network. It is important that the PCECP exchanges
are protected so that there is no visibility of computation
information and so that VPN traffic cannot be diverted, for example
by the spoofing or manipulation of a computed path.
These requirements do not place any additional security requirements
on the PCECP above those described in [RFC4657], but the
application of PCE in support of VPNs does require that those
security requirements be correctly implemented and applied.
Yasukawa and Farrel [Page 13]
draft-ietf-pce-vpn-req-01.txt October 2009
7. IANA Considerations
This document makes no requests for IANA action.
8. Acknowledgments
TBD
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to indicate
requirements levels", RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2702] Awduche, D., Malcolm, J., Agogbua, J., O'Dell, M., and
McManus, J., "Requirements for Traffic Engineering Over
MPLS", RFC 2702, September 1999.
[RFC3031] Rosen, E., Viswanathan, A., and Callon, R.,
"Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture", RFC 3031,
January 2001.
[RFC3945] Mannie, E., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
Architecture", RFC 3945, October 2004.
[RFC4026] Andersson, L., and Madsen, T., "Provider Provisioned
Virtual Private Network (VPN) Terminology", RFC 4026,
March 2005.
[RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J.P., and Ash, G., "A Path
Computation Element (PCE)-Based Architecture",
RFC 4655, August 2006.
[RFC4657] Ash, J., and Le Roux, J-L., "Path Computation Element
(PCE) Communication Protocol Generic Requirements",
RFC 4657, September 2006.
9.2. Informative References
[RFC2764] Gleeson, B., Lin, A., Heinanen, J., Armitage, G.,
and Malis, A., "A Framework for IP Based Virtual
Private Networks", RFC 2764, February 2000
[RFC4206] Kompella, K., and Rekhter, Y., "Label Switched Paths
(LSP) Hierarchy with Generalized Multi-Protocol
Label Switching (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE)",
RFC 4206, October 2005.
Yasukawa and Farrel [Page 14]
draft-ietf-pce-vpn-req-01.txt October 2009
[RFC4208] G. Swallow et al., "Generalized Multiprotocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) User-Network Interface (UNI):
Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering
(RSVP-TE) Support for the Overlay Model", RFC 4208,
October 2005.
[RFC4761] Kompella, K., and Rekhter, Y., "Virtual Private
LAN Service (VPLS) Using BGP for Auto-discovery and
Signaling", RFC 4761, January 2007.
[RFC4762] Lasserre, M., and Kompella, K., "Virtual Private
LAN Services over MPLS", RFC 4762, January 2007.
[RFC4847] Takeda, T., "Framework and Requirements for Layer 1
Virtual Private Networks", RFC 4847, April 2007.
[RFC4834] Morin, T., "Requirements for Multicast in Layer 3
Provider-Provisioned Virtual Private Networks
(PPVPNs)", RFC 4834, April 2007.
[RFC4927] Le Roux, J-L, Ed., "Path Computation Element
Communication Protocol (PCECP) Specific
Requirements for Inter-Area MPLS and GMPLS Traffic
Engineering", RFC 4927, June 2007.
[RFC5212] K. Shiomoto et al., "Requirements for GMPLS-Based
Multi-Region and Multi-Layer Networks (MRN/MLN)",
RFC 5212, July 2008.
[RFC5376] Bitar, N., et al., "Inter-AS Requirements for the
Path Computation Element Communication Protocol
(PCECP)", RFC 5376, November 2008.
[RFC5394] Bryskin, I., Papadimitriou, D., and Berger, L.,
"Policy-Enabled Path Computation Framework", RFC
5394, December 2008.
[RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., et al., "Path Computation Element
(PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440,
March 2009.
[PCE-INTER-LAYER] Oki, E., "PCC-PCE Communication Requirements for
Inter-Layer Traffic Engineering", draft-ietf-pce-
inter-layer-req, work in progress.
[PCE-P2MP-REQ] Yasukawa, S. and Farrel, A., "PCC-PCE Communication
Requirements for Point-to-Multipoint Traffic
Engineering", draft-ietf-pce-p2mp-req, work in
progress.
Yasukawa and Farrel [Page 15]
draft-ietf-pce-vpn-req-01.txt October 2009
10. Author's Address
Seisho Yasukawa (Ed.)
NTT Corporation
9-11, Midori-Cho 3-Chome
Musashino-Shi, Tokyo 180-8585,
Japan
Email: yasukawa.seisho@lab.ntt.co.jp
Adrian Farrel
Old Dog Consulting
EMail: adrian@olddog.co.uk
Full Copyright Statement
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 in effect on the date of
publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document.
Yasukawa and Farrel [Page 16]
Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129c, available from
https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/