[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [Email] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 03

TEAS Working Group                                      Y. Lee (Editor)
                                                   Dhruv Dhody (Editor)
Internet Draft                                                   Huawei
Intended Status: Informational
Expires: April 2016                                  Daniele Ceccarelli
                                                               Ericsson

                                                         Haomian. Zheng
                                                             Xian Zhang
                                                                 Huawei

                                                       October 13, 2015



    Architecture and Requirement for Distribution of Link-State and TE
                           Information via PCEP.



                      draft-leedhody-teas-pcep-ls-00


Abstract

   In order to compute and provide optimal paths, Path Computation
   Elements (PCEs) require an accurate and timely Traffic Engineering
   Database (TED). Traditionally this Link State and TE information has
   been obtained from a link state routing protocol (supporting traffic
   engineering extensions).

   This document provides possible architectural alternatives for link-
   state and TE information distribution and their potential impacts on
   PCE, network nodes, routing protocols etc.



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.





Lee & Dhody, et al.     Expires April 13, 2016                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft  PCEP LS & TE Distribution Architecture         Oct 2015


   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

   This Internet-Draft will expire on April 13, 2009.

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
   2. Applicability..................................................4
   3. Architecture Options...........................................5
      3.1. Option 1.1: All Nodes Send Local Link-State and TE Info to
      all PCEs......................................................10
      3.2. Option 1.2: Each Node Sends Local Link-State and TE Info to
      one PCE.......................................................10
      3.3. Option 2.1: Designated Node(s) Send Local and Remote Link-
      State and TE Info to all PCEs.................................11
      3.4. Key Architectural Issues.................................11
         3.4.1. Nodes Finding PCEs..................................11
         3.4.2. Node TE Information Update Procedures...............11
         3.4.3. PCE Link-state (and TE) Resource Information
         Maintenance Procedures.....................................12
   4. Requirements for PCEP extension...............................12
   5. New Functions to distribute link-state and TE via PCEP........13


Lee & Dhody, et al.    Expires January 13, 2015                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft  PCEP LS & TE Distribution Architecture         Oct 2015


   6. Security Considerations.......................................13
   7. IANA Considerations...........................................14
   8. References....................................................14
      8.1. Normative References.....................................14
      8.2. Informative References...................................15
   Author's Addresses...............................................16

1. Introduction

   In Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS
   (GMPLS), a Traffic Engineering Database (TED) is used in computing
   paths for connection oriented packet services and for circuits. The
   TED contains all relevant information that a Path Computation
   Element (PCE) needs to perform its computations. It is important
   that the TED should be complete and accurate anytime so that the PCE
   can perform path computations.

   In MPLS and GMPLS networks, Interior Gateway routing Protocols
   (IGPs) have been used to create and maintain a copy of the TED at
   each node. One of the benefits of the PCE architecture [RFC4655] is
   the use of computationally more sophisticated path computation
   algorithms and the realization that these may need enhanced
   processing power not necessarily available at each node
   participating in an IGP.

   Section 4.3 of [RFC4655] describes the potential load of the TED on
   a network node and proposes an architecture where the TED is
   maintained by the PCE rather than the network nodes. However it does
   not describe how a PCE would obtain the information needed to
   populate its TED. PCE may construct its TED by participating in the
   IGP ([RFC3630] and [RFC5305] for MPLS-TE; [RFC4203] and [RFC5307]
   for GMPLS). An alternative is offered by [BGP-LS].

   [RFC7399] touches upon this issue: "It has also been proposed that
   the PCE Communication Protocol (PCEP) [RFC5440] could be extended to
   serve as an information collection protocol to supply information
   from network devices to a PCE. The logic is that the network devices
   may already speak PCEP and so the protocol could easily be used to
   report details about the resources and state in the network,
   including the LSP state discussed in Sections 14 and 15."

   This document proposes alternative architecture approaches for
   learning and maintaining the Link State (and TE)  information
   directly on a PCE from network nodes as an alternative to IGPs and
   BGP transport and investigate the impact from the PCE, routing
   protocol, and network node perspectives.



Lee & Dhody, et al.    Expires January 13, 2015                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft  PCEP LS & TE Distribution Architecture         Oct 2015


2. Applicability

   Recent development of a stateful PCE Model changes the PCE operation
   from path computation alone to include the support of PCE-initiated
   LSPs. With a stateful PCE model, it is also noted that LSP-DB is
   maintained by the PCE. For LSP state synchronization of stateful
   PCEs in GMPLS networks, the LSP attributes, such as its bandwidth,
   associated route as well as protection information etc, should be
   updated by PCCs to PCE LSP database (LSP-DB) [S-PCE-GMPLS]. To
   support all these recent changes in a stateful PCE model, a direct
   PCE interface to each PCC has to be supported. Relevant TE resource
   and sate information can also be transported from each node to PCE
   using this PCC-PCE interface via PCEP. Any resource changes in the
   node and links can also be quickly updated to PCE using this
   interface. Convergence time of IGP in GMPLS networks may not be
   quick enough to support on-line dynamic connectivity required for
   some applications.

   New application areas for GMPLS and PCE in optical transport
   networks include Wavelength Switched Optical Networking (WSON) and
   Optical Transport Networks (OTN). WSON scenarios can be divided into
   routing wavelength assignment (RWA) problems where a PCE requires
   detailed information about switching node asymmetries and wavelength
   constraints as well as detailed up to date information on wavelength
   usage per link [RFC6163]. As more data is anticipated to be made
   available to PCE with addition of OTN and Flex-grid and possible
   with some optical impairment data even with the minimum set
   specified in [G.680], the total amount of data requires
   significantly more information to be held in the TED than is
   required for other traffic engineered networks. Related to this
   issue published by [HWANG] indicated that long convergence time and
   large number of LSAs flooded in the network might cause scalability
   problems in OSPF-TE and impose limitations on OSPF-TE applications.

   There are two main applicability of this alternative proposed by
   this draft:

   o  Where there is no IGP or BGP-LS running at the PCE to learn
      Link-state (and TE) resource and state information.

   o  Where there is IGP or BGP-LS running but with a need for a
      faster link-state (and TE) resource and state population and
      convergence at the PCE.

      *  A PCE may receive partial Link-state (and TE) resource and



Lee & Dhody, et al.    Expires January 13, 2015                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft  PCEP LS & TE Distribution Architecture         Oct 2015


         state information (say basic TE) from IGP-TE and other
         information (optical and impairment) from PCEP.

      *  A PCE may receive full Link-state (and TE) resource and state
         information from both IGP-TE and PCEP.

   A PCC may further choose to send only local TE resource and state
   information or both local and remote learned TE resource and state
   information. How a PCE manages the TE resource and state information
   is implementation specific and thus out of scope of this document.

   This is also applicable for transporting (abstract) Link-State and
   TE information from child PCE to a Parent PCE in H-PCE [RFC6805]; as
   well as for Physical Network Controller (PNC) to Multi-Domain
   Service Coordinator (MDSC) in Abstraction and Control of TE Networks
   (ACTN) [ACTN].

   This draft does not advocate that the alternative methods specified
   in this draft should completely replace the IGP-TE as the method of
   creating the TED. The split between the data to be distributed via
   an IGP-TE and the information conveyed via one of the alternatives
   in this document depends on the nature of the network situation. One
   could potentially choose to have some traffic engineering
   information distributed via an IGP-TE while other more specialized
   traffic information is only conveyed to the PCEs via an alternative
   interface discussed here.

   In addition, the methods specified in this draft is only relevant to
   a set of architecture options where routing decisions are wholly or
   partially made in the PCE. On the other hand, the networks that do
   not support IGP-TE/BGP-LS, the method proposed by this draft may be
   very relevant.

3. Architecture Options

   (1) There are two general architectural alternatives based on how
   nodes get their local link-state (and TE) resource information to
   the PCEs:

     (1.1) All Nodes send local link-state (and TE) resource
     information to all PCEs;

     (1.2) All Nodes send local link-state (and TE) resource
     information to a designated PCE and have the PCEs share this
     information with each other.


Lee & Dhody, et al.    Expires January 13, 2015                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft  PCEP LS & TE Distribution Architecture         Oct 2015


   (2) Further, a designated node (PCC) can share both local and remote
   link-state (and TE) information to the PCEs, the remote information
   might be learned at the node via IGP:

     (2.1) Designated Node(s) send local and remote link-state (and TE)
     resource information to all PCEs;

   An important functionality that needs to be addressed in each of
   these approaches is how a new PCE gets initialized in a reasonably
   timely fashion.

   Figures 1-2 show examples of two options for nodes to share local TE
   resource information with multiple PCEs. As in the IGP case we
   assume that switching nodes know their local properties and state
   including the state of all their local links. In these figures the
   data plane links are shown with the character "o"; Link-state and TE
   resource information flow from nodes to PCE by the characters "|",
   "-", "/", or "\"; and PCE to PCE link-state and TE information, if
   any, by the character "i".






























Lee & Dhody, et al.    Expires January 13, 2015                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft  PCEP LS & TE Distribution Architecture         Oct 2015




                ----                        ----
              //    \\                    //    \\
             /        \                  /        \
            |   PCE    \                |   PCE    |
            |          |\               /          |
             |        X  \             / \        /
             |\\    // \  \           /  /|\    /X
             |  --+-\  \   \          /// | -+--  \
             |    |  \\ \   \\       //   |  |    \
             |    |    \\     \     //   |   |     \
            |     |      \\    \   /     |   |     \
            |     |      \ \\   \//      |   |      \
            |     |       \  \\ /\/      |   |      \
            |     |       \   /X\/\     |    |       \
            |     |        \ /  /\ \    |   |         \
            |     |        X/  /  \\\   |   |         \
            |     |       / \ /     \\  |   |          \
            |     |     //  \ /       \\|   |          \
            |     |    /     X         \\\  |           \
            |     |  //     /\         |\\\\|           \
           | +----+-/-+    /  \        |+-\-|----+       \
           | |        |   /   \        ||        |        \
           | |   N1   ooooooooooooooooooo  N2    oo       \
           | |        ooooooooooooooooooo        ooo       \
           | |        | /       \     | |        |ooo      \
           | +---oo---+/         \    | +------\-+  ooo     \
           |    ooo   /          \   |          \    ooo    \
           |   ooo    /           \  |           \    ooo    \
           |   oo    /     *      \  |            \    ooo    \
           |   oo   /              \ |             \    ooo   \
          |   ooo  /               \ |              \\    ooo  \
          |   oo  /               * \                 \    ooo \
          |  ooo  /                 \                  \    ooo \
          |  oo  /                  |\                  \    ooo\
         ++--oo-/-+                 |\    *              \+---oo-\-+
         |        |                |  \                   \        |
         |        oooo             |  \                oooo   Nn   |
         |  N3    ooooooooo      +-+---\--+       ooooooooo        |
         |        |   ooooooooo  |        |  oooooooooo   |        |
         +--------+       oooooooo  N4    oooooooo        +--------+
                              oooo        oooo
                                 |        |
                                 +--------+
    Figure 1 . Nodes send local Link-state and TE information directly
                                to all PCEs


Lee & Dhody, et al.    Expires January 13, 2015                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft  PCEP LS & TE Distribution Architecture         Oct 2015




                         iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
        iiiiii   ----  iii                 iiiii        ----
       ii    ii//    \\i                       iiiiiiii/    \\
      ii      /        \                             /        \
      i      |   PCE1   |                           |   PCE2   |
     i       |          |                           |          |ii
     i        \        /                             X        /  ii
    i          \\    //                            // \\    //    ii
    i            -//-                             /     --+-       i
    i           //                              //        |        i
   i     +-----/--+                       +----/---+       |        i
   i     |        |                       |        |       |        i
   i     |   N1   ooooooooooooooooooooooooo  N2    oooo    |        i
   i     |        ooooooooooooooooooooooooo        oooo    |        i
   i     |        |                       |        |  oo    |       i
   i     +---oo---+                       +--------+   oo   |        i
   i         oo                                        oo   |        i
   i         oo                                          oo  |        i
   i        oo           *                               oo  |        i
   i       oo                                            oo   |       i
   i       oo                                            oo   |       i
   i       oo                   *                         oo  |       i
   i       oo                                              oo  |      i
   i   +---oo---+                       *               +---oo-+-+    i
   i   |        |                                       |        |    i
   i   |        oooo                                 oooo   Nn   |    i
   i   |  N3    oooooooo       +--------+       ooooooooo        |    i
   ii  |        |    oooooo    |        |  ooooooooooo  |        |   ii
    i  +---\----+       oooooooo  N4    ooooooooo       +--------+   i
    i       \              ooooo        oooo                         i
    ii       \                 |        |                            i
     i        \\               +--------+                           ii
     ii         \              ---                                  i
      ii         \   ----   ---                                     i
       ii         \//    \--                                       i
        ii        /        \                                      ii
          ii     |   PCE3   |                                  iiii
            iiiii|          |                              iiiii
                  \        /                             iii
                   \\    // iiiiiiiii                 iii
                     ----           iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

   Figure 2 . Nodes send local Link-state and TE information to one PCE
                  and have the PCEs share TED information



Lee & Dhody, et al.    Expires January 13, 2015                [Page 8]


Internet-Draft  PCEP LS & TE Distribution Architecture         Oct 2015



          ----                        ----
        /      \                    /      \
       /        \                  /        \
      |   PCE    \                |   PCE    |
      |                         --+          |
       \        /            /     \        /
         \     /            /        \    /
          +-++             /          ----
            |             /
            |            /
            |           /
            |          /
            |         /
            |        /
            |       /
            |      /
            |     /
            |    /
            |   /
            |  /
       +----+-/-+                 +--------+
       |        +                 |        |
       |   N1   ooooooooooooooooooo  N2    oo
       |        ooooooooooooooooooo        ooo
       |        +                 |        |ooo
       +--+oo+--+                 +--------+  ooo
          ooo                                  ooo
         ooo                                    ooo
         oo                                      ooo
         oo                                       ooo
        ooo                                         ooo
        oo                                           oo
       ooo                                            ooo
       oo                                              ooo
   +---oo---+                                       +---oo---+
   |        |                                       |        |
   |        oo                                   oooo   Nn   |
   |  N3    ooooooooo      +--------+       ooooooooo        |
   |        |   ooooooooo  |        |  oooooooooo   |        |
   +--------+       oooooooo  N4    oooooooo        +--------+
                        oooo        oooo
                           |        |
                           +--------+

    Figure 3. Designated Node sends local and remote Link-state and TE
                     information directly to all PCEs


Lee & Dhody, et al.    Expires January 13, 2015                [Page 9]


Internet-Draft  PCEP LS & TE Distribution Architecture         Oct 2015




3.1. Option 1.1: All Nodes Send Local Link-State and TE Info to all
   PCEs

   Architectural alternative 1 shown in Figure 1 illustrates nodes
   sending their local link-state (and TE) resource information to all
   PCEs within their domain. As the number of PCEs grows we have
   scalability concerns. However, if we are only talking about 2-3
   PCEs, then we do not have this scalability concern. In particular,
   each node needs to keep track of which PCE it has sent information
   to and update that information periodically.

   If a new PCE is added to the domain all nodes must send all its
   local link-state and TE resource information to that PCE rather than
   just sending status updates.

3.2. Option 1.2: Each Node Sends Local Link-State and TE Info to one
   PCE

   In this architectural alternative, shown in Figure 2, each node
   would be associated with one PCE. This implies that each PCE will
   only have partial link-state (and TE) resource information directly
   from the nodes.  It would be the responsibility of a node to get its
   local information to its associated PCE, then the PCEs within a
   domain would then need to share the partial link-state (and
   TE)resource information they learned from their associated nodes
   with each other so that they can create and maintain the complete
   link-state (and TE)resource information.

   To allow for this sharing of information PCEs would need to peer
   with each other. PCE discovery extensions [RFC4674] could be used to
   allow PCEs to find other PCEs. If a new PCE is added to the domain
   it would need to peer with at least one other PCE and then PCE
   synchronization mechanism could then be used to initialize the new
   PCEs link-state (and TE)resource information.

   A number of approaches can be used to ensure control plane
   resilience in this architecture. (1) Each node can be configured
   with a primary and a secondary PCE to send its information to; In
   case of failure of communications with the primary PCE the node
   would send its information to a secondary PCE (warm standby). (2)
   Each node could be configured to send its information to two
   different PCEs (hot standby).





Lee & Dhody, et al.    Expires January 13, 2015               [Page 10]


Internet-Draft  PCEP LS & TE Distribution Architecture         Oct 2015


3.3. Option 2.1: Designated Node(s) Send Local and Remote Link-State
   and TE Info to all PCEs

   In this architectural alternative, shown in Figure 3, illustrates
   designated node(s) sending their local and remote link-state (and
   TE) resource information to all PCEs within their domain. Designated
   Node may learn remote information via IGP or BGP-LS. More than one
   designated node may be used to ensure control plane resilience in
   this architecture.



3.4. Key Architectural Issues

3.4.1. Nodes Finding PCEs

   In all cases, nodes need to send TE information directly to PCEs.
   Path Computation Clients (PCCs) and network nodes participating in
   an IGP (with or without TE extensions) have a mechanism to discover
   a PCE and its capabilities.  [RFC4674] outlines the general
   requirements for this mechanism and extensions have been defined to
   provide information so that PCCs can obtain key details about
   available PCEs in OSPF [RFC5088] and in IS-IS [RFC5089].

   After finding candidate PCEs, a node would need to see which if any
   of the PCEs actually want to receive TE information directly from
   this node.

3.4.2. Node TE Information Update Procedures

   First a node must establish an association between itself and a PCE
   that will be maintaining a link-state and TE information. It is the
   responsibility of the node to share link-state (and TE) information.
   This includes local information, e.g., links and node properties or
   remote information learned from neighbors. General and technology
   specific information models would specify the content of this
   information while the specific protocols would determine the format.
   Note that data plane neighbor information would be passed to the PCE
   embedded in TE link information.

   There will be cases where the node would have to send to the PCE
   only a subset of TE link information depending on the path
   computation option. For instance, if the node is responsible for
   routing while the PCE is responsible for wavelength assignment for
   the route, the node would only need to send the PCE the WSON link
   usage information. This path computation option is referred to as



Lee & Dhody, et al.    Expires January 13, 2015               [Page 11]


Internet-Draft  PCEP LS & TE Distribution Architecture         Oct 2015


   separate Fouting (R) and Wavelength Assignment (WA) option in
   [RFC7449].

3.4.3. PCE Link-state (and TE) Resource Information Maintenance
   Procedures

   The PCE is responsible for creating and maintaining the link-state
   (and TE) resource information that it will use. Key functions
   include:

     1. Establishing and authenticating communications between the PCE
        and sources of link-state (and TE) resource information.

     2. Timely updates of the link-state (and TE) resource with
        information received from nodes, peers or other entities.

     3. Verifying the validity of link-state (and TE) resource
        information, i.e., ensure that the network information obtained
        from nodes or elsewhere is relatively timely, or not stale. By
        analogy with similar functionality provided by IGPs this can be
        done via a process where discrete "chunks" of TE resource
        information are "aged" and discard when expired. This combined
        with nodes periodically resending their local TE resource
        information leads to a timely update of TE resource
        information.

4. Requirements for PCEP extension


   Following key requirements associated with link-state and TED
   distribution are identified for PCEP:

   o  The PCEP speaker supporting this draft MUST be a mechanism to
       advertise the Link-State and TE distribution capability.


   o  PCC supporting this draft MUST have the capability to report the
       link-state and TED to the PCE.  This includes self originated
       information and remote information learned via routing
       protocols. PCC MUST be capable to do the initial bulk sync at
       the time of session initialization as well as changes after.


   o  A PCE MAY learn link-state and TE from PCEP as well as from
       existing mechanism like IGP/BGP-LS.  PCEP extension MUST have a
       mechanism to link the information learned via other means.
       There MUST NOT be any changes to the existing link-state and TE


Lee & Dhody, et al.    Expires January 13, 2015               [Page 12]


Internet-Draft  PCEP LS & TE Distribution Architecture         Oct 2015


       population mechanism via IGP/BGP-LS.  PCEP extension SHOULD keep
       the properties in a protocol (IGP or BGP-LS) neutral way, such
       that an implementation may not need to know about any OSPF or
       IS-IS or BGP protocol specifics.


   o  It SHOULD be possible to encode only the changes in link-state
       and TE properties (after the initial sync) in PCEP messages.


   o  The same mechanism should be used for both MPLS TE as well as
       GMPLS, optical and impairment aware properties.



5. New Functions to distribute link-state and TE via PCEP


   Several new functions are required in PCEP to support distribution
   of link-state and TE information.  A function can be initiated
   either from a PCC towards a PCE (C-E) or from a PCE towards a PCC
   (E-C).

   The new functions are:

   o Capability advertisement (E-C,C-E): both the PCC and the PCE must
     announce during PCEP session establishment that they support PCEP
     extensions for distribution of link-state and TE information
     defined in this document.


   o Link-State and TE synchronization (C-E): after the session between
     the PCC and a PCE is initialized, the PCE must learn Link-State
     and TE information before it can perform path computations.  In
     case of stateful PCE it is RECOMENDED that this operation be done
     before LSP state synchronization.


   o Link-State and TE Report (C-E): a PCC sends a LS and TE report to
     a PCE whenever the Link-State and TE information changes.



6. Security Considerations

   This draft discusses an alternative technique for PCEs to build and
   maintain a link-state and traffic engineering database. In this


Lee & Dhody, et al.    Expires January 13, 2015               [Page 13]


Internet-Draft  PCEP LS & TE Distribution Architecture         Oct 2015


   approach network nodes would directly send traffic engineering
   information to a PCE. It may be desirable to protect such
   information from disclosure to unauthorized parties in addition it
   may be desirable to protect such communications from interference
   (modification) since they can be critical to the operation of the
   network. In particular, this information is the same or similar to
   that which would be disseminated via a link state routing protocol
   with traffic engineering extensions.

7. IANA Considerations

   This version of this document does not introduce any items for IANA
   to consider.

8. References

8.1. Normative References

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

   [RFC4674] Le Roux, J., Ed., "Requirements for Path Computation
             Element (PCE) Discovery", RFC 4674, October 2006.

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

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

   [RFC5250] Berger, L., Bryskin, I., Zinin, A., and R. Coltun, "The
             OSPF Opaque LSA Option", RFC 5250, July 2008.

   [RFC5305]  Li, T. and H. Smit, "IS-IS Extensions for Traffic
             Engineering", RFC 5305, October 2008.

   [RFC5440]  Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation
             Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440,
             March 2009.







Lee & Dhody, et al.    Expires January 13, 2015               [Page 14]


Internet-Draft  PCEP LS & TE Distribution Architecture         Oct 2015


8.2. Informative References

   [JMS]    Java Message Service, Version 1.1, April 2002, Sun
             Microsystems.

   [RFC3630]  Katz, D., Kompella, K., and D. Yeung, "Traffic
             Engineering (TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC 3630,
             September 2003.

   [RFC4203]  Kompella, K., Ed. and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "OSPF Extensions
             in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
             (GMPLS)", RFC 4203, October 2005.

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

   [BGP-LS] Gredler, H., Medved, J., Previdi, S., Farrel, A., and
             S.Ray, "North-Bound Distribution of Link-State and TE
             information using BGP", draft-ietf-idr-ls-distribution,
             work in progress.

   [PCE-Initiated] E. Crabbe, et. al., "PCEP Extensions for PCE-
             initiated LSP Setup in a Stateful PCE Model", draft-ietf-
             pce-pce-initiated-lsp, work in progress.

   [S-PCE-GMPLS] X. Zhang, et. al, "Path Computation Element (PCE)
             Protocol Extensions for Stateful PCE Usage in GMPLS-
             controlled Networks", draft-ietf-pce-pcep-stateful-pce-
             gmpls, work in progress.

   [RFC7399] A. Farrel and D. king, "Unanswered Questions in the Path
             Computation Element Architecture", RFC 7399, October 2015.

   [RFC7449]  Y. Lee, G. Bernstein, "Path Computation Element
             Communication Protocol (PCEP) Requirements for Wavelength
             Switched Optical Network (WSON) Routing and Wavelength
             Assignment", RFC 7449, February 2015.

   [RFC4456] Bates, T., Chen, E., and R. Chandra, "BGP Route
             Reflection: An Alternative to Full Mesh Internal BGP
             (IBGP)", RFC 4456, April 2006.

   [RFC6163]  Y. Lee, G. Bernstein, W. Imajuku, "Framework for GMPLS
             and PCE Control of Wavelength Switched Optical Networks",
             RFC 6163,




Lee & Dhody, et al.    Expires January 13, 2015               [Page 15]


Internet-Draft  PCEP LS & TE Distribution Architecture         Oct 2015


   [HWANG]  S. Hwang, et al, "An Experimental Analysis on OSPF-TE
             Convergence Time", Proc. SPIE 7137, Network Architectures,
             Management, and Applications, November 19, 2008.

   [G.680] ITU-T Recommendation G.680, Physical transfer functions of
             optical network elements, July 2007.

   [ACTN] Y. Lee, D. Dhody, S. Belotti, K. Pithewan, and D. Ceccarelli,
             "Requirements for Abstraction and Control of TE Networks",
             draft-ietf-teas-actn-requirements, work in progress,
             October 1, 2015.

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



Author's Addresses


   Young Lee (Editor)
   Huawei Technologies
   5340 Legacy Drive, Building 3
   Plano, TX 75023, USA

   Email: leeyoung@huawei.com


   Dhruv Dhody (Editor)
   Huawei Technologies
   Divyashree Technopark, Whitefield
   Bangalore, Karnataka  560037
   India

   EMail: dhruv.ietf@gmail.com


   Daniele Ceccarelli
   Ericsson
   Torshamnsgatan,48
   Stockholm
   Sweden

   EMail: daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com


Lee & Dhody, et al.    Expires January 13, 2015               [Page 16]


Internet-Draft  PCEP LS & TE Distribution Architecture         Oct 2015



   Haomian Zheng
   Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.
   F3-1-B R&D Center, Huawei Base,
   Bantian, Longgang District
   Shenzhen 518129 P.R.China

   Email: zhenghaomian@huawei.com


   Xian Zhang
   Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.
   F3-1-B R&D Center, Huawei Base,
   Bantian, Longgang District
   Shenzhen 518129 P.R.China

   Email: zhangxian@huawei.com
































Lee & Dhody, et al.    Expires January 13, 2015               [Page 17]


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