< draft-chen-pce-h-connect-access-04.txt   draft-chen-pce-h-connect-access-05.txt >
PCE Working Group H. Chen PCE Working Group H. Chen
Internet-Draft Huawei Technologies Internet-Draft Futurewei
Intended status: Standards Track M. Toy Intended status: Standards Track M. Toy
Expires: September 6, 2018 Verizon Expires: January 8, 2020 Verizon
X. Liu X. Liu
Jabil Volta Networks
L. Liu L. Liu
Fujitsu Fujitsu
Z. Li Z. Li
China Mobile China Mobile
March 5, 2018 July 7, 2019
PCEP Link State Abstraction PCEP Link State Abstraction
draft-chen-pce-h-connect-access-04 draft-chen-pce-h-connect-access-05
Abstract Abstract
This document presents extensions to the Path Computation Element This document presents extensions to the Path Computation Element
Communication Protocol (PCEP) for a child PCE to abstract its domain Communication Protocol (PCEP) for a child PCE to abstract its domain
information to its parent for supporting a hierarchical PCE system. information to its parent for supporting a hierarchical PCE system.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on September 6, 2018. This Internet-Draft will expire on January 8, 2020.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Connections and Accesses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. Connections and Accesses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4.1. Information on Inter-domain Link . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4.1. Information on Inter-domain Link . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.2. Information on ABR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4.2. Information on ABR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.3. Information on Access Point . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4.3. Information on Access Point . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Extensions to PCEP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5. Extensions to PCEP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5.1. Messages for Abstract Information . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5.1. Messages for Abstract Information . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.2. Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5.2. Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.2.1. Child Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5.2.1. Child Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.2.2. Parent Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5.2.2. Parent Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8. Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 8. Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Appendix A. Message Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Appendix A. Message Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
A.1. Extension to Existing Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 A.1. Extension to Existing Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
A.1.1. TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 A.1.1. TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
A.1.2. Sub-TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 A.1.2. Sub-TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
A.2. New Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 A.2. New Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
A.2.1. CONNECTION and ACCESS Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 A.2.1. CONNECTION and ACCESS Object . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
A hierarchical PCE architecture is described in RFC 6805, in which a A hierarchical PCE architecture is described in RFC 6805, in which a
parent PCE maintains an abstract domain topology, which contains its parent PCE maintains an abstract domain topology, which contains its
child domains (seen as vertices in the topology) and the connections child domains (seen as vertices in the topology) and the connections
among them. among them.
For a domain for which a child PCE is responsible, connections For a domain for which a child PCE is responsible, connections
attached to the domain may comprise inter-domain links and Area attached to the domain may comprise inter-domain links and Area
skipping to change at page 9, line 47 skipping to change at page 9, line 38
cloud or an abstract node. The information inside each of the cloud or an abstract node. The information inside each of the
domains is hidden from the parent. There are connections among the domains is hidden from the parent. There are connections among the
domains and the access points in the domains to be accessible in the domains and the access points in the domains to be accessible in the
topology. topology.
For a new P2P link from node A to B with no link ID configured, when For a new P2P link from node A to B with no link ID configured, when
receiving a message containing the link from a child, the parent receiving a message containing the link from a child, the parent
stores the link from A into its TED, where A is attached to the stores the link from A into its TED, where A is attached to the
child's domain as a cloud. It finds the link's remote end B using child's domain as a cloud. It finds the link's remote end B using
the remote IP address of the link. After finding B, it associates the remote IP address of the link. After finding B, it associates
the link attached to A with B and the link attached to B with A. This the link attached to A with B and the link attached to B with A.
creates a bidirectional connection between A and B. This creates a bidirectional connection between A and B.
For a new P2P link from node A to B with link ID configured, when For a new P2P link from node A to B with link ID configured, when
receiving a message containing the link, the parent stores the link receiving a message containing the link, the parent stores the link
from A into its TED. It finds the link's remote end B using the link from A into its TED. It finds the link's remote end B using the link
ID (i.e., B's ID). ID (i.e., B's ID).
For a new broadcast link connecting multiple nodes with no link ID For a new broadcast link connecting multiple nodes with no link ID
configured, when the parent receives a message containing the link configured, when the parent receives a message containing the link
attached to node X, it stores the link from X into its TED. It finds attached to node X, it stores the link from X into its TED. It finds
the link's remote end P using the link's local IP address with the link's remote end P using the link's local IP address with
network mask. P is a Pseudo node identified by the local IP address network mask. P is a Pseudo node identified by the local IP address
of the designated node selected from the nodes connected to the link. of the designated node selected from the nodes connected to the link.
After finding P, it associates the link attached to X with P and the After finding P, it associates the link attached to X with P and the
link connected to P with X. If P is not found, a new Pseudo node P is link connected to P with X. If P is not found, a new Pseudo node P
created. The parent associates the link attached to X with P and the is created. The parent associates the link attached to X with P and
link attached to P with X. This creates a bidirectional connection the link attached to P with X. This creates a bidirectional
between X and P. connection between X and P.
The first node and second node from which the parent receives a The first node and second node from which the parent receives a
message containing the link is selected as the designed node and message containing the link is selected as the designed node and
backup designed node respectively. After the designed node is down, backup designed node respectively. After the designed node is down,
the backup designed node becomes the designed node and the node other the backup designed node becomes the designed node and the node other
than the designed node with the largest local IP address connecting than the designed node with the largest local IP address connecting
to the link is selected as the backup designed node. to the link is selected as the backup designed node.
When the old designed node is down and the backup designed node When the old designed node is down and the backup designed node
becomes the new designed node, the parent updates its TED through becomes the new designed node, the parent updates its TED through
skipping to change at page 11, line 15 skipping to change at page 11, line 6
8. Acknowledgement 8. Acknowledgement
The authors would like to thank Jescia Chen, Adrian Farrel, and Eric The authors would like to thank Jescia Chen, Adrian Farrel, and Eric
Wu for their valuable comments on this draft. Wu for their valuable comments on this draft.
9. References 9. References
9.1. Normative References 9.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/ Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
RFC2119, March 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC6805] King, D., Ed. and A. Farrel, Ed., "The Application of the [RFC6805] King, D., Ed. and A. Farrel, Ed., "The Application of the
Path Computation Element Architecture to the Determination Path Computation Element Architecture to the Determination
of a Sequence of Domains in MPLS and GMPLS", RFC 6805, of a Sequence of Domains in MPLS and GMPLS", RFC 6805,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6805, November 2012, DOI 10.17487/RFC6805, November 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6805>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6805>.
[RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation [RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation
Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440, Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440,
skipping to change at page 11, line 38 skipping to change at page 11, line 29
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5440>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5440>.
[RFC3630] Katz, D., Kompella, K., and D. Yeung, "Traffic Engineering [RFC3630] Katz, D., Kompella, K., and D. Yeung, "Traffic Engineering
(TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC 3630, (TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC 3630,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3630, September 2003, DOI 10.17487/RFC3630, September 2003,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3630>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3630>.
9.2. Informative References 9.2. Informative References
[RFC5305] Li, T. and H. Smit, "IS-IS Extensions for Traffic [RFC5305] Li, T. and H. Smit, "IS-IS Extensions for Traffic
Engineering", RFC 5305, DOI 10.17487/RFC5305, Engineering", RFC 5305, DOI 10.17487/RFC5305, October
October 2008, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5305>. 2008, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5305>.
[RFC5392] Chen, M., Zhang, R., and X. Duan, "OSPF Extensions in [RFC5392] Chen, M., Zhang, R., and X. Duan, "OSPF Extensions in
Support of Inter-Autonomous System (AS) MPLS and GMPLS Support of Inter-Autonomous System (AS) MPLS and GMPLS
Traffic Engineering", RFC 5392, DOI 10.17487/RFC5392, Traffic Engineering", RFC 5392, DOI 10.17487/RFC5392,
January 2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5392>. January 2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5392>.
[RFC5316] Chen, M., Zhang, R., and X. Duan, "ISIS Extensions in [RFC5316] Chen, M., Zhang, R., and X. Duan, "ISIS Extensions in
Support of Inter-Autonomous System (AS) MPLS and GMPLS Support of Inter-Autonomous System (AS) MPLS and GMPLS
Traffic Engineering", RFC 5316, DOI 10.17487/RFC5316, Traffic Engineering", RFC 5316, DOI 10.17487/RFC5316,
December 2008, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5316>. December 2008, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5316>.
skipping to change at page 14, line 45 skipping to change at page 14, line 35
A new flag W (Withdraw) in the NRP object is defined to indicate A new flag W (Withdraw) in the NRP object is defined to indicate
whether the connections and access are withdrawn. When flag W is set whether the connections and access are withdrawn. When flag W is set
to one, the parent removes the connections and accesses contained in to one, the parent removes the connections and accesses contained in
the message after receiving it. When flag W is set to zero, the the message after receiving it. When flag W is set to zero, the
parent adds/updates the connections and accesses in the message after parent adds/updates the connections and accesses in the message after
receiving it. receiving it.
An alternative to flag W in the NRP object is a similar flag in each An alternative to flag W in the NRP object is a similar flag in each
CONNECTION and ACCESS object such as using one bit in Res flags for CONNECTION and ACCESS object such as using one bit in Res flags for
flag W. For example, when the flag is set to one in the object, the flag W. For example, when the flag is set to one in the object, the
parent removes the connections and accesses in the object after parent removes the connections and accesses in the object after
receiving it. When the flag is set to zero in the object, the parent receiving it. When the flag is set to zero in the object, the parent
adds/updates the connections and accesses in the object after adds/updates the connections and accesses in the object after
receiving it. receiving it.
In another option, one byte in a CONNECTION and ACCESS Object is In another option, one byte in a CONNECTION and ACCESS Object is
defined as flags field and one bit is used as flag W. The other defined as flags field and one bit is used as flag W. The other
undefined bits in the flags field MUST be set to zero. undefined bits in the flags field MUST be set to zero.
The objects in the new message are defined below. The objects in the new message are defined below.
A.2.1. CONNECTION and ACCESS Object A.2.1. CONNECTION and ACCESS Object
A new object, called CONNECTION and ACCESS Object (CA for short), is A new object, called CONNECTION and ACCESS Object (CA for short), is
defined. It has Object-Class ocTBD1. Four Object-Types are defined defined. It has Object-Class ocTBD1. Four Object-Types are defined
under CA object: under CA object:
skipping to change at page 16, line 40 skipping to change at page 16, line 27
Each of the Access IPv4/IPv6 Prefix TLVs describes an access IPv4/ Each of the Access IPv4/IPv6 Prefix TLVs describes an access IPv4/
IPv6 address prefix in the domain, which is accessible to outside of IPv6 address prefix in the domain, which is accessible to outside of
the domain. Flag W=1 indicates withdraw the address prefixes. W=0 the domain. Flag W=1 indicates withdraw the address prefixes. W=0
indicates new address prefixes. indicates new address prefixes.
The TLVs in the objects are the same as those described above. The TLVs in the objects are the same as those described above.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Huaimo Chen Huaimo Chen
Huawei Technologies Futurewei
Boston, MA, Boston, MA
USA USA
EMail: Huaimo.chen@huawei.com EMail: Huaimo.chen@futurewei.com
Mehmet Toy Mehmet Toy
Verizon Verizon
USA USA
EMail: mehmet.toy@verizon.com EMail: mehmet.toy@verizon.com
Xufeng Liu Xufeng Liu
Jabil Volta Networks
McLean, VA McLean, VA
USA USA
EMail: Xufeng_Liu@jabil.com EMail: xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com
Lei Liu Lei Liu
Fujitsu Fujitsu
USA USA
EMail: lliu@us.fujitsu.com EMail: liulei.kddi@gmail.com
Zhenqiang Li Zhenqiang Li
China Mobile China Mobile
No.32 Xuanwumenxi Ave., Xicheng District No.32 Xuanwumenxi Ave., Xicheng District
Beijing 100032 Beijing 100032
P.R. China P.R. China
EMail: li_zhenqiang@hotmail.com EMail: li_zhenqiang@hotmail.com
 End of changes. 21 change blocks. 
52 lines changed or deleted 53 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.47. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/