< draft-zhang-pce-resource-sharing-09.txt   draft-zhang-pce-resource-sharing-10.txt >
PCE Working Group Xian Zhang PCE Working Group Xian Zhang
Internet Draft Haomian Zheng Internet Draft Haomian Zheng
Category: Standards track Huawei Technologies Category: Standards track Huawei Technologies
Oscar Gonzales de Dios Oscar Gonzales de Dios
Victor Lopez Victor Lopez
Telefonica I+D Telefonica I+D
Yunbin Xu
CAICT
Expires: August 13, 2019 February 13, 2019 Expires: February 19, 2019 August 19, 2019
Extensions to Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) to Support Extensions to Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) to Support
Resource Sharing-based Path Computation Resource Sharing-based Path Computation
draft-zhang-pce-resource-sharing-09 draft-zhang-pce-resource-sharing-10
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with
the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. the 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), its areas, and its working groups. Note that Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts. Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six
months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents
documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as
as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on August 13, 2019. This Internet-Draft will expire on February 19, 2020.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 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 (http://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
skipping to change at page 2, line 39 skipping to change at page 2, line 39
with better efficiency can be achieved together with the association with better efficiency can be achieved together with the association
object in PCEP. object in PCEP.
This document extends the Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) This document extends the Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP)
in order to support resource sharing-based path computation, which in order to support resource sharing-based path computation, which
is a special case in the association path computation. is a special case in the association path computation.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction and Motivation .................................. 3 1. Introduction and Motivation .................................. 3
2. Motivation .................................................. 4 2. Motivation ................................................... 4
2.1. Single Domain Use Case .................................. 4 2.1. Single Domain Use Case................................... 4
2.2. Multiple Domains Use Case ............................... 7 2.2. Multiple Domains Use Case ............................... 7
2.3. Bulk Path Computation Use Case .......................... 8 2.3. Bulk Path Computation Use Case .......................... 8
3. Extensions to PCEP .......................................... 10 3. Extensions to PCEP .......................................... 10
3.1. Association group and type ............................. 10 3.1. Association group and type ............................. 10
3.2. Resource Sharing TLV ................................... 10 3.2. Resource Sharing TLV ................................... 10
3.3. Processing Rules ....................................... 11 3.3. Processing Rules ....................................... 11
4. Security Considerations ..................................... 12 4. Security Considerations .................................... 12
5. IANA Considerations ......................................... 13 5. IANA Considerations ......................................... 13
5.1. Association Object Type Indicators ..................... 13 5.1. Association Object Type Indicators ..................... 13
6. References .................................................. 14 6. References .................................................. 14
6.1. Normative References ................................... 14 6.1. Normative References ................................... 14
6.2. Informative References ................................. 14 6.2. Informative References ................................. 14
7. Authors' Addresses .......................................... 15 7. Authors' Addresses .......................................... 15
1. Introduction and Motivation 1. Introduction and Motivation
A Path Computation Element (PCE) provides an alternative way for A Path Computation Element (PCE) provides an alternative way for
skipping to change at page 6, line 6 skipping to change at page 6, line 6
existing PCEP mechanism. However, if there is no such separate path, existing PCEP mechanism. However, if there is no such separate path,
existing PCEP will reply error. A secondary option for this case is existing PCEP will reply error. A secondary option for this case is
to set up an LSP and complete such re-optimization with resource to set up an LSP and complete such re-optimization with resource
sharing, even if some interruption introduced. Given the resource sharing, even if some interruption introduced. Given the resource
from the LSP to be interrupted, there may be some solutions instead from the LSP to be interrupted, there may be some solutions instead
of Path Compute error due to the lack of resource. of Path Compute error due to the lack of resource.
A simple illustration is provided in Figure 1: A simple illustration is provided in Figure 1:
+--------------+ +--------------+
| | | |
| Stateful PCE | | Stateful PCE |
| | | |
+--------------+ +--------------+
+------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+
| N1 +----------+ N2 +-----X----+ N3 | | N1 +----------+ N2 +-----X---+ N3 |
+--+---+ +---+--+ +---+--+ +--+---+ +---+--+ +---+--+
| | | | | |
| +---------+ | | +---------+ |
| | | | | |
| +------+ +------+ | | +------+ +------+ |
+-----+ N5 +----------+ N4 +-----+ +-----+ N5 +----------+ N4 +-----+
+------+ +------+ +------+ +------+
Figure 1: A Single Domain Example Figure 1: A Single Domain Example
skipping to change at page 7, line 15 skipping to change at page 7, line 15
2.2. Multiple Domains Use Case 2.2. Multiple Domains Use Case
Figure 2 shows a two-layer network example, with each layer managed Figure 2 shows a two-layer network example, with each layer managed
by a PCE. As Discussed in Section 3 of [RFC5623], there are three by a PCE. As Discussed in Section 3 of [RFC5623], there are three
models for inter-layer path computation. They are single PCE models for inter-layer path computation. They are single PCE
computation, multiple PCE with inter-PCE communication and multiple computation, multiple PCE with inter-PCE communication and multiple
PCE without inter-PCE communication, respectively. For the single PCE without inter-PCE communication, respectively. For the single
PCE computation, the process would be similar to that of the use PCE computation, the process would be similar to that of the use
case in Section 2.1. Thus, this model is not discussed further. case in Section 2.1. Thus, this model is not discussed further.
----- -----
.................................| LSR | .................................| LSR |
.: | H5 | .: | H5 |
.: /----- .: /-----
.: / | .: / |
----- -----.: ----- -----/ | ----- -----.: ----- -----/ |
| LSR |--| LSR |.......................| LSR |--| LSR | / | LSR |--| LSR |.......................| LSR |--| LSR | /
| H1 | | H2 | | H3 | | H4 | / | H1 | | H2 | | H3 | | H4 | /
----- -----\ /----- ----- / ----- -----\ /----- ----- /
\ / / \ / /
\ / / \ / /
skipping to change at page 10, line 37 skipping to change at page 10, line 37
be carried within a PCReq message from the network element (or other be carried within a PCReq message from the network element (or other
PCCs) so as to indicate the desired resource sharing requirements to PCCs) so as to indicate the desired resource sharing requirements to
be applied by the stateful PCE during path computation. be applied by the stateful PCE during path computation.
0 1 2 3 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 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type = [TBD2] | Length | | Type = TBD2 | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Flags |B|S|N|L| | Flags |B|S|N|L|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Optional TLVs | | Optional TLVs |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
skipping to change at page 14, line 12 skipping to change at page 14, line 12
3 Bandwidth Share [this document] 3 Bandwidth Share [this document]
6. References 6. References
6.1. Normative References 6.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to indicate
requirements levels", RFC 2119, March 1997. requirements levels", RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J.-P., and Ash, J., "A Path [RFC3209] Awduche, D., et, al., "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
Computation Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655, Tunnels", RFC3209, December 2001.
August 2006.
[RFC5440] Vasseur, J.-P., and Le Roux, JL., "Path Computation [RFC5440] Vasseur, J.-P., and Le Roux, JL., "Path Computation
Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440, Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440,
March 2009. March 2009.
[RFC8231] Crabbe, E., Medved, J., Minei, I., and R. Varga, "PCEP [RFC8231] Crabbe, E., Medved, J., Minei, I., and R. Varga, "PCEP
Extensions for Stateful PCE", RFC8231, June 2017. Extensions for Stateful PCE", RFC8231, June 2017.
[RFC8281] Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Sivabalan, S., and R. Varga, "PCEP [RFC8281] Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Sivabalan, S., and R. Varga, "PCEP
Extensions for PCE-initiated LSP Setup in a Stateful PCE Extensions for PCE-initiated LSP Setup in a Stateful PCE
skipping to change at page 14, line 44 skipping to change at page 14, line 43
communication Protocol extension for signaling LSP communication Protocol extension for signaling LSP
diversity constraint", Work in Progress. diversity constraint", Work in Progress.
6.2. Informative References 6.2. Informative References
[RFC4428] Papadimitriou, D., Mannie., E., "Analysis of Generalized [RFC4428] Papadimitriou, D., Mannie., E., "Analysis of Generalized
Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)-based Recovery Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)-based Recovery
Mechanisms (including Protection and Restoration)", Mechanisms (including Protection and Restoration)",
RFC4428, March 2006. RFC4428, March 2006.
[RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J.-P., and Ash, J., "A Path
Computation Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655,
August 2006.
[RFC5623] Oki., E., Takeda, T., Le Roux, JL., Farrel, A., "Framework [RFC5623] Oki., E., Takeda, T., Le Roux, JL., Farrel, A., "Framework
for PCE-Based Inter-Layer MPLS and GMPLS Traffic for PCE-Based Inter-Layer MPLS and GMPLS Traffic
Engineering", RFC5623, September 2009. Engineering", RFC5623, September 2009.
[RFC6952] Jethanandani, M., Patel, K., Zheng, L., "Analysis of BGP, [RFC6952] Jethanandani, M., Patel, K., Zheng, L., "Analysis of BGP,
LDP, PCEP, and MSDP Issues According to the Keying and LDP, PCEP, and MSDP Issues According to the Keying and
Authentication for Routing Protocols (KARP) Design Guide", Authentication for Routing Protocols (KARP) Design Guide",
RFC6952, May 2013. RFC6952, May 2013.
[RFC7399] Farrel, A., King, D., "Unanswered Questions in the Path
Computation Element Architecture", RFC7399, October, 2014.
[H-PCE] Dhody, D., Lee, Y., Ceccarelli, D., Shin, J., King, D., [H-PCE] Dhody, D., Lee, Y., Ceccarelli, D., Shin, J., King, D.,
Gonzalez de Dios, O., "Hierarchical Stateful Path Gonzalez de Dios, O., "Hierarchical Stateful Path
Computation Element (PCE)", draft-ietf-pce-stateful-hpce- Computation Element (PCE)", Work in progress.
06, October 2018.
7. Authors' Addresses 7. Authors' Addresses
Xian Zhang Xian Zhang
Huawei Technologies Huawei Technologies
Email: zhang.xian@huawei.com Email: zhang.xian@huawei.com
Haomian Zheng Haomian Zheng
Huawei Technologies Huawei Technologies
Email: zhenghaomian@huawei.com Email: zhenghaomian@huawei.com
Oscar Gonzalez de Dios Oscar Gonzalez de Dios
Telefonica I+D/gCTIO Telefonica I+D/gCTIO
Distrito Telefonica Distrito Telefonica
E-28050 Madrid, Spain E-28050 Madrid, Spain
EMail: oscar.gonzalezdedios@telefonica.com EMail: oscar.gonzalezdedios@telefonica.com
Victor Lopez Victor Lopez
Telefonica I+D/gCTIO Telefonica I+D/gCTIO
skipping to change at page 15, line 31 skipping to change at page 15, line 36
Oscar Gonzalez de Dios Oscar Gonzalez de Dios
Telefonica I+D/gCTIO Telefonica I+D/gCTIO
Distrito Telefonica Distrito Telefonica
E-28050 Madrid, Spain E-28050 Madrid, Spain
EMail: oscar.gonzalezdedios@telefonica.com EMail: oscar.gonzalezdedios@telefonica.com
Victor Lopez Victor Lopez
Telefonica I+D/gCTIO Telefonica I+D/gCTIO
Distrito Telefonica Distrito Telefonica
E-28050 Madrid, SpainEMail: victor.lopezalvarez@telefonica.com E-28050 Madrid, Spain
EMail: victor.lopezalvarez@telefonica.com
Yunbin Xu
CAICT
xuyunbin@caict.ac.cn
Contributor's Address : Contributor's Address :
Dhruv Dhody Dhruv Dhody
Huawei Technologies Huawei Technologies
Email: dhruv.dhody@huawei.com Email: dhruv.dhody@huawei.com
Igor Bryskin Igor Bryskin
Huawei Technologies Huawei Technologies
Email: Igor.Bryskin@huawei.com Email: Igor.Bryskin@huawei.com
 End of changes. 18 change blocks. 
25 lines changed or deleted 34 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/