PCE Working Group                                          X. Zhang, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                       Huawei Technologies
Intended status: Informational                             I. Minei, Ed.
Expires: March 29, December 12, 2014                           Juniper Networks,                                  Google, Inc.
                                                      September 25, 2013
                                                           June 10, 2014

       Applicability of a Stateful Path Computation Element (PCE)
                   draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-app-01
                   draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-app-02

Abstract

   A stateful Path Computation Element (PCE) maintains information about
   Label Switched Path (LSP) characteristics and resource usage within a
   network in order to provide traffic engineering calculations for its
   associated Path Computation Clients (PCCs).  This document describes
   general considerations for a stateful PCE deployment and examines its
   applicability and benefits, as well as its challenges and limitations
   through a number of use cases.  Path Computation Element  PCE communication Protocol (PCEP)
   extensions required for stateful PCE usage are covered in separate
   documents.

Status of this This Memo

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

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

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

   This Internet-Draft will expire on March 29, December 12, 2014.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2013 2014 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
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Overview of the Stateful PCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . Protocol Extensions  . . . . . .   4
   4.  Deployment Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     4.1.  Multi-PCE Deployments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     4.2.  LSP State Synchronization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     4.3.  PCE Survivability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   5.  Application Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     5.1.  Optimization of LSP Placement . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7   6
       5.1.1.  Throughput Maximization and Bin Packing . . . . . . .  8   7
       5.1.2.  Deadlock  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
       5.1.3.  Minimum Perturbation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11  10
       5.1.4.  Predictability  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12  11
     5.2.  Auto-bandwidth Adjustment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     5.3.  Bandwidth Scheduling  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     5.4.  Recovery  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
       5.4.1.  Protection  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
       5.4.2.  Restoration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
       5.4.3.  SRLG Diversity  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     5.5.  Maintenance of Virtual Network Topology (VNT) . . . . . .  17
     5.6.  LSP Re-optimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     5.7.  Resource Defragmentation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
     5.8.  Point-to-Multi-Point Applications . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
     5.9.  Impairment-Aware Routing and Wavelength Assignment
           (IA-RWA) (IA-
           RWA)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
   7.  Contributing Authors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
   8.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
   9.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
     9.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
     9.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24

1.  Introduction

   [RFC4655] defines the architecture for a Path Computation Element
   (PCE)-based model for the computation of Multiprotocol Label
   Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering
   Label Switched Paths (TE LSPs).  To perform such a constrained
   computation, a PCE stores the network topology (i.e., TE links and
   nodes) and resource information (i.e., TE attributes) in its TE
   Database (TED).  [RFC5440] describes the Path Computation Element
   Protocol (PCEP) for interaction between a Path Computation Client
   (PCC) and a PCE, or between two PCEs, enabling computation of TE LSPs
   in the context of MPLS networks.
   LSPs.  Extensions for support of GMPLS in PCEP are defined in
   [I-D.ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions].

   As per [RFC4655], a PCE can be either stateful or stateless.
   Stateless PCEs have been shown to be useful  A
   stateful PCE maintains two sets of information for use in many scenarios,
   including constraint-based path computation
   computation.  The first is the Traffic Engineering Database (TED)
   which includes the topology and resource state in multi-domain/
   multi-layer networks.  Compared to a stateless PCE, the network.  This
   information can be obtained by a stateful PCE
   has access to not only using the network state, but also to same
   mechanisms as a stateless PCE (see [RFC4655]).  The second is the set of
   active paths and their reserved resources.  Furthermore, LSP
   State Database (LSP-DB), in which a stateful PCE might also retain information regarding stores attributes of all
   active LSPs under construction in order to reduce churn the network, such as their paths through the network,
   bandwidth/resource usage, switching types and resource contention. LSP constraints.  This
   state information allows the PCE to compute constrained paths while
   considering individual LSPs and their interactions. inter-dependency.  However,
   this requires reliable state synchronization mechanisms between the
   PCE and the network, between the PCE and
   PCC, the PCCs, and between
   cooperating PCEs, with potentially significant control plane overhead
   and maintenance of a large amount of state data, as explained in
   [RFC4655].

   This document describes how a stateful PCE can be used to solve
   various problems for MPLS-TE and GMPLS networks, and the benefits it
   brings to such deployments.  Note that alternative solutions relying
   on stateless PCEs may also be possible for some of these use cases,
   and will be mentioned for completeness where appropriate.

2.  Terminology

   This document uses the following terms defined in [RFC5440]: PCC,
   PCE, PCEP peer.

   This document uses the following terms defined in
   [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce]: Passive Stateful PCE, Active Stateful
   PCE, Delegation, Revocation, Delegation Timeout Interval, LSP State
   Report, LSP Update Request, LSP State Database.

   This document defines the following term:

   Minimum Cut Set:  the minimum set of links for a specific source
      destination pair which, when removed from the network, results in
      a specific source being completely isolated from specific
      destination.  The summed capacity of these links is equivalent to
      the maximum capacity from the source to the destination by the
      max-flow min-cut theorem.

3.  Overview of the Stateful PCE Protocol Extensions

   This section is included for the convenience of the reader, please
   refer to the referenced documents for details of the operation.

   [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] specifies a set of extensions to PCEP to
   enable stateful control of tunnels within and across PCEP sessions in
   compliance with [RFC4657].  It includes mechanisms to effect tunnel
   state synchronization between PCCs and PCEs, delegation of control
   over tunnels to PCEs, and PCE control of timing and sequence of path
   computations within and across PCEP sessions.

   [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] applies equally to MPLS-TE and GMPLS
   LSPs.

   [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] LSPs
   and distinguishes between an active and a passive stateful PCE.  A
   passive stateful PCE uses LSP state information learned from PCCs to optimize path
   computations but does not actively update LSP state.  In contrast, an
   active stateful PCE may issue recommendations to the network.  For
   example, an active stateful PCE may utilize the delegation mechanism to update LSP parameters in those
   PCCs that delegated control over their LSPs to the PCE.

   Several new functions are added in PCEP to support both active and
   passive stateful PCEs.  They are described in
   [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce].  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:

   Stateful Capability negotiation (E-C,C-E):  both the PCC and the PCE
      must announce during PCEP session establishment that they support PCEP
      stateful PCE PCEP extensions.

   LSP state synchronization (C-E):  after the session between the a PCC and
      a stateful PCE is initialized, the PCE must learn the state of
      a PCC's LSPs before it can perform path computations or
      computation and update LSP attributes in a PCC.

   LSP update request (E-C):  A PCE requests modification  However, if the goal
      of attributes the PCE is to provide accurate path information based on the
      most up-to-date state of the network, the PCE SHOULD wait until it
      learns the state of the PCC's LSP states before doing so.

   LSP update request (E-C):  A PCE requests the modification of one or
      more attributes (e.g., route) on a PCC's LSP.

   LSP state report (C-E):  a PCC sends an LSP state report to a PCE
      whenever the state of an LSP changes.

   LSP control delegation (C-E,E-C):  a PCC grants to a PCE the right to
      update LSP attributes on one or more LSPs; the PCE becomes the
      authoritative source of the LSP's attributes as long as the
      delegation is in effect; the PCC may withdraw the delegation or
      the PCE may give up the delegation.

   [I-D.sivabalan-pce-disco-stateful] defines the extensions needed to
   support auto-discovery of stateful PCEs when using IGP for PCE
   discovery.

4.  Deployment Considerations

   This section discusses generic issues with stateful PCE deployments,
   and how specific protocol mechanisms can be used to address them.

4.1.  Multi-PCE Deployments

   Stateless and stateful PCEs can co-exist in the same network and be
   in charge of path computation of different types.  To solve the
   problem of distinguishing between the two types of PCEs, either
   discovery or configuration may be used.  The capability negotiation
   in [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] ensures correct operation when the PCE
   address is configured on the PCC.

   Multiple stateful PCEs can co-exist in the same network.  These PCEs
   may provide redundancy for load sharing, resilience, or partitioning
   of computation features.  Regardless of the reason for multiple PCEs,
   an LSP is only delegated to one of the PCEs at any given point in
   time.  [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] describes how LSPs can be re-
   delegated between PCEs, and the procedures on a PCE failure.
   [I-D.ietf-pce-questions] discusses various approaches for
   synchronizing state among the PCEs when multiple PCEs are used for
   load sharing or backup and compute LSPs for the same network.

4.2.  LSP State Synchronization

   A stateful PCE maintains two sets of information for use in path
   computation.

   The first is the Traffic Engineering Database (TED)
   which includes the topology and resource state in population of the network.  This
   information can be obtained by a stateful PCE LSP-DB using the same
   mechanisms as a stateless PCE (see [RFC4655]).  The second information received from PCCs is
   supported by the LSP
   State Database (LSP-DB), in which a PCE stores attributes of all
   active LSPs in the network, such as their paths through the network,
   bandwidth/resource usage, switching types and LSP constraints.  The stateful PCE extensions defined in
   [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce]
   support population of this database using information received from
   PCCs , i.e., via LSP state report messages.
   Population of the LSP database via other means is not precluded.

   Because the accuracy of the computations depends on the accuracy of
   the databases used, it is worth noting that the PCE view lags behind
   the true state of the network, because the updates must reach the PCE
   from the network.  Thus, the use of stateful PCE reduces but cannot
   eliminate the possibility of crankbacks, nor can it guarantee optimal
   computations all the time.  [I-D.ietf-pce-questions] discusses these
   limitations and potential ways to alleviate them.

   In case of multiple PCEs with different capabilities, co-existing in
   the same network, such as a passive stateful PCE and an active
   stateful PCE, it is useful to refer to a LSP, be it delegated or not,
   by a unique identifier instead of providing detailed information
   (e.g., route, bandwidth etc.) associated with it, when these PCEs
   cooperate on path computation, such as for loading sharing.

4.3.  PCE Survivability

   For a stateful PCE, an important issue is to get the LSP state
   information resynchronized after a restart.
   [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] includes support of defines a synchronization
   function, function and
   procedure, allowing the a PCC to synchronize its LSP state with the PCE.
   This can be applied equally to a Label Edge Router (LER) client network nodes or another PCE,
   allowing for support of multiple ways of re-acquiring the LSP database on a restart.  For example, the state can be
   retrieved from the network nodes, or from another stateful PCE.
   Because synchronization may also be skipped, if a PCE implementation
   has the means to retrieve its database in a different way (for
   example from a backup copy stored locally), the state can be restored
   without further overhead in the network.  A hybrid approach where the
   bulk of the state is recovered locally, and a small amount of state
   is reacquired from the network network, is also possible.  Note that locally
   recovering the state would still require some degree of
   resynchronization to ensure that the recovered state is indeed up-to-
   date.  Depending on the resynchronization mechanism used, there may
   be an additional load on the PCE, and there may be a delay in
   reaching the synchronized state, which may negatively affect survivabiliy.
   survivability.  Different resynchronization methods are suited for
   different deployments and objectives.

5.  Application Scenarios

   In the following sections, several use cases are described,
   showcasing scenarios that benefit from the deployment of a stateful
   PCE.

5.1.  Optimization of LSP Placement

   The following use cases demonstrate a need for visibility into global
   LSP states in PCE path computations, and for a PCE control of
   sequence and timing in altering LSP path characteristics within and
   across PCEP sessions.  Reference topologies for the use cases
   described later in this section are shown in Figures 1 and 2.

   Some of the use cases below are focused on MPLS-TE deployments, but
   may also apply to GMPLS.  Unless otherwise cited, use cases assume
   that all LSPs listed exist at the same LSP priority.

   The main benefit in the cases below comes from moving away from an
   asynchronous PCC-driven mode of operation to a model that allows for
   central control over LSP computations and setup, maintenance, and focuses
   specifically on the active stateful PCE model of operation.

          +-----+
          |  A  |
          +-----+
                 \
                  +-----+                      +-----+
                  |  C  |----------------------|  E  |
                  +-----+                      +-----+
                 /        \      +-----+      /
          +-----+          +-----|  D  |-----+
          |  B  |                +-----+
          +-----+

                      Figure 1: Reference topology 1

               +-----+        +-----+        +-----+
               |  A  |        |  B  |        |  C  |
               +--+--+        +--+--+        +--+--+
                  |              |              |
                  |              |              |
               +--+--+        +--+--+        +--+--+
               |  E  +--------+  F  +--------+  G  |
               +-----+        +-----+        +-----+

                      Figure 2: Reference topology 2

5.1.1.  Throughput Maximization and Bin Packing

   Because LSP attribute changes in [RFC5440] are driven by PCReq
   messages under control of a PCC's local timers, the sequence of
   resource reservation arrivals occurring in the network will be
   randomized.  This, coupled with a lack of global LSP state visibility
   on the part of a stateless PCE may result in suboptimal throughput in
   a given network topology, as will be shown in the example below.

   Reference topology 2 in Figure 2 and Tables 1 and 2 show an example
   in which throughput is at 50% of optimal as a result of lack of
   visibility and synchronized control across PCC's.  In this scenario,
   the decision must be made as to whether to route any portion of the
   E-G demand, as any demand routed for this source and destination will
   decrease system throughput.

                       +------+--------+----------+
                       | Link | Metric | Capacity |
                       +------+--------+----------+
                       | A-E  |   1    |    10    |
                       | B-F  |   1    |    10    |
                       | C-G  |   1    |    10    |
                       | E-F  |   1    |    10    |
                       | F-G  |   1    |    10    |
                       +------+--------+----------+

             Table 1: Link parameters for Throughput use case

          +------+-----+-----+-----+--------+----------+-------+
          | Time | LSP | Src | Dst | Demand | Routable |  Path |
          +------+-----+-----+-----+--------+----------+-------+
          |  1   |  1  |  E  |  G  |   10   |   Yes    | E-F-G |
          |  2   |  2  |  A  |  B  |   10   |    No    |  ---  |
          |  3   |  1  |  F  |  C  |   10   |    No    |  ---  |
          +------+-----+-----+-----+--------+----------+-------+

              Table 2: Throughput use case demand time series

   In many cases throughput maximization becomes a bin packing problem.
   While bin packing itself is an NP-hard problem, a number of common
   heuristics which run in polynomial time can provide significant
   improvements in throughput over random reservation event
   distribution, especially when traversing links which are members of
   the minimum cut set for a large subset of source destination pairs.

   Tables 3 and 4 show a simple use case using Reference Topology 1 in
   Figure 1, where LSP state visibility and control of reservation order
   across PCCs would result in significant improvement in total
   throughput.

                       +------+--------+----------+
                       | Link | Metric | Capacity |
                       +------+--------+----------+
                       | A-C  |   1    |    10    |
                       | B-C  |   1    |    10    |
                       | C-E  |   10   |    5     |
                       | C-D  |   1    |    10    |
                       | D-E  |   1    |    10    |
                       +------+--------+----------+

             Table 3: Link parameters for Bin Packing use case

         +------+-----+-----+-----+--------+----------+---------+
         | Time | LSP | Src | Dst | Demand | Routable |   Path  |
         +------+-----+-----+-----+--------+----------+---------+
         |  1   |  1  |  A  |  E  |   5    |   Yes    | A-C-D-E |
         |  2   |  2  |  B  |  E  |   10   |    No    |   ---   |
         +------+-----+-----+-----+--------+----------+---------+

             Table 4: Bin Packing use case demand time series

5.1.2.  Deadlock

   This section discusses a use case of cross-LSP impact under degraded
   operation.  Most existing RSVP-TE implementations will not tear down
   established LSPs in the event of the failure of the bandwidth
   increase procedure detailed in [RFC3209].  This behavior is directly
   implied to be correct in [RFC3209] and is often desirable from an
   operator's perspective, because either a) the destination prefixes
   are not reachable via any means other than MPLS or b) this would
   result in significant packet loss as demand is shifted to other LSPs
   in the overlay mesh.

   In addition, there are currently few implementations offering dynamic
   ingress admission control (policing of the traffic volume mapped onto
   an LSP) at the LER.  Having ingress admission control on a per LSP
   basis is not necessarily desirable from an operational perspective,
   as a) one must over-provision tunnels significantly in order to avoid
   deleterious effects resulting from stacked transport and flow control
   systems (for example for tunnels that are dynamically resized based
   on current traffic) and b) there is currently no efficient commonly
   available northbound interface for dynamic configuration of per LSP
   ingress admission control.

   Lack of ingress admission control coupled with the behavior in
   [RFC3209] may result in LSPs operating out of profile for significant
   periods of time.  It is reasonable to expect that these out-of-
   profile LSPs will be operating in a degraded state and experience
   traffic loss, but because they end up sharing common network
   interfaces with other LSPs operating within their bandwidth
   reservations, they will end up thus impacting the operation of the in-
   profile in-profile LSPs,
   even when there is unused network capacity elsewhere in the network.
   Furthermore, this behavior will cause information loss in the TED
   with regards to the actual available bandwidth on the links used by
   the out-of-profile LSPs, as the reservations on the links no longer
   reflect the capacity used.

   Reference Topology 1 in Figure 1 and Tables 5 and 6 show a use case
   that demonstrates this behavior.  Two LSPs, LSP 1 and LSP 2 are
   signaled with demand 2 and routed along paths A-C-D-E and B-C-D-E
   respectively.  At a later time, the demand of LSP 1 increases to 20.
   Under such a demand, the LSP cannot be resignaled.  However, the
   existing LSP will not be torn down.  In the absence of ingress
   policing, traffic on LSP 1 will cause degradation for traffic of LSP
   2 (due to oversubscription on the links C-D and D-E), as well as
   information loss in the TED with regard to the actual network state.

   The problem could be easily ameliorated by global visibility of LSP
   state coupled with PCC-external demand measurements and placement of
   two LSPs on disjoint links.  Note that while the demand of 20 for LSP
   1 could never be satisfied in the given topology, what could be
   achieved would be isolation from the ill-effects of the
   (unsatisfiable) increased demand.

                       +------+--------+----------+
                       | Link | Metric | Capacity |
                       +------+--------+----------+
                       | A-C  |   1    |    10    |
                       | B-C  |   1    |    10    |
                       | C-E  |   10   |    5     |
                       | C-D  |   1    |    10    |
                       | D-E  |   1    |    10    |
                       +------+--------+----------+

       Table 5: Link parameters for the 'Degraded operation' example

         +------+-----+-----+-----+--------+----------+---------+
         | Time | LSP | Src | Dst | Demand | Routable |   Path  |
         +------+-----+-----+-----+--------+----------+---------+
         |  1   |  1  |  A  |  E  |   2    |   Yes    | A-C-D-E |
         |  2   |  2  |  B  |  E  |   2    |   Yes    | B-C-D-E |
         |  3   |  1  |  A  |  E  |   20   |    No    |   ---   |
         +------+-----+-----+-----+--------+----------+---------+

              Table 6: Degraded operation demand time series

5.1.3.  Minimum Perturbation

   As a result of both the lack of visibility into global LSP state and
   the lack of control over event ordering across PCE sessions,
   unnecessary perturbations may be introduced into the network by a
   stateless PCE.  Tables 7 and 8 show an example of an unnecessary
   network perturbation using Reference Topology 1 in Figure 1.  In this
   case an unimportant (high LSP priority value) LSP (LSP1) is first set
   up along the shortest path.  At time 2, which is assumed to be
   relatively close to time 1, a second more important (lower LSP-
   priority value) LSP (LSP2) is established, preempting LSP1,
   potentially causing traffic loss.  LSP1 is then reestablished on the
   longer A-C-E path.

                       +------+--------+----------+
                       | Link | Metric | Capacity |
                       +------+--------+----------+
                       | A-C  |   1    |    10    |
                       | B-C  |   1    |    10    |
                       | C-E  |   10   |    10    |
                       | C-D  |   1    |    10    |
                       | D-E  |   1    |    10    |
                       +------+--------+----------+

      Table 7: Link parameters for the 'Minimum-Perturbation' example

    +------+-----+-----+-----+--------+----------+----------+---------+
    | Time | LSP | Src | Dst | Demand | LSP Prio | Routable |   Path  |
    +------+-----+-----+-----+--------+----------+----------+---------+
    |  1   |  1  |  A  |  E  |   7    |    7     |   Yes    | A-C-D-E |
    |  2   |  2  |  B  |  E  |   7    |    0     |   Yes    | B-C-D-E |
    |  3   |  1  |  A  |  E  |   7    |    7     |   Yes    |  A-C-E  |
    +------+-----+-----+-----+--------+----------+----------+---------+

         Table 8: Minimum-Perturbation LSP and demand time series

   A stateful PCE can help in this scenario by evaluating computing both requests routes at
   the same time (due to their proximity in time).  This will ensure
   placement time.  The advantages of using a stateful PCE over
   exploiting a stateless PCE via Global Concurrent Optimization(GCO)
   are three folds.  First is the ability to accommodate concurrent path
   computation from different PCCs.  Second is the reduction of control
   plane overhead since the stateful PCE has the route information of
   the affected LSPs.  Thirdly, the stateful PCE can use the LSP-DB to
   further optimize the placement of LSPs.  This will ensure placement
   of the more important LSP along the shortest path, avoiding the more important LSP along the shortest path, avoiding
   the setup
   and subsequent preemption of the lower priority LSP.  Similarly, when
   a new higher priority LSP which requires preemption of existing lower
   priority LSP(s), a stateful PCE can determine the minimum number of
   lower priority LSP(s) to reroute using the make-before-break (MBB)
   mechanism without disrupting any service and then set up the higher
   priority LSP.

5.1.4.  Predictability

   Randomization of reservation events caused by lack of control over
   event ordering across PCE sessions results in poor predictability in
   LSP routing.  An offline system applying a consistent optimization
   method will produce predictable results to within either the boundary
   of forecast error when (when reservations are over-provisioned by
   reasonable margins margins) or to the variability of the signal and the
   forecast error when (when applying some hysteresis in order to minimize
   churn.
   churn).  Predictable results are valuable for being able to simulate
   the network and reliably test it under various scenarios, especially
   under various failure modes and planned maintenances when predictable
   path characteristics are desired under contention for network
   resources.

   Reference Topology 1 and Tables 9, 10 and 11 show the impact of event
   ordering and predictability of LSP routing.

                       +------+--------+----------+
                       | Link | Metric | Capacity |
                       +------+--------+----------+
                       | A-C  |   1    |    10    |
                       | B-C  |   1    |    10    |
                       | C-E  |   1    |    10    |
                       | C-D  |   1    |    10    |
                       | D-E  |   1    |    10    |
                       +------+--------+----------+

         Table 9: Link parameters for the 'Predictability' example

         +------+-----+-----+-----+--------+----------+---------+
         | Time | LSP | Src | Dst | Demand | Routable |   Path  |
         +------+-----+-----+-----+--------+----------+---------+
         |  1   |  1  |  A  |  E  |   7    |   Yes    |  A-C-E  |
         |  2   |  2  |  B  |  E  |   7    |   Yes    | B-C-D-E |
         +------+-----+-----+-----+--------+----------+---------+

           Table 10: Predictability LSP and demand time series 1

         +------+-----+-----+-----+--------+----------+---------+
         | Time | LSP | Src | Dst | Demand | Routable |   Path  |
         +------+-----+-----+-----+--------+----------+---------+
         |  1   |  2  |  B  |  E  |   7    |   Yes    |  B-C-E  |
         |  2   |  1  |  A  |  E  |   7    |   Yes    | A-C-D-E |
         +------+-----+-----+-----+--------+----------+---------+

           Table 11: Predictability LSP and demand time series 2

   As can be shown in the example, both LSPs are routed in both cases,
   but along very different paths.  This would be a challenge if
   reliable simulation of the network is attempted.  A stateful PCE can
   solve this through control over LSP ordering.

5.2.  Auto-bandwidth Adjustment

   The bandwidth requirement of LSPs often change over time, requiring
   resizing the LSP.  Currently  In most implementations available today, the head-end head-
   end node performs this function by monitoring the actual bandwidth
   usage, triggering a recomputation and resignaling when a threshold is
   reached.  This operation is referred as auto-bandwidth adjustment.
   The head-end node either recomputes the path locally, or it requests
   a recomputation from a PCE by sending a Path Computation Request (PCReq) PCReq message.  In the latter
   case, the PCE computes a new path and provides the new route
   suggestion.  Upon receiving the reply from the PCE, the PCC re-
   signals the LSP in Shared-Explicit (SE) mode along the newly computed
   path.  If  With a passive stateful PCE is used, only stateless PCE, the new bandwidth
   information is needed head-end node needs to trigger a path re-computation since provide the LSP
   information is already known to
   current used bandwidth and the PCE. route information via path computation
   request messages.  Note that in this scenario, the head-end node is
   the one that drives the LSP resizing based on local information, and
   that the difference between using a stateless and a passive stateful
   PCE is in the level of optimization of the LSP placement as discussed
   in the previous section.

   A more interesting smart bandwidth adjustment case is one where the
   LSP resizing decision is done by an external entity, with access to
   additional information such as historical trending data, application-
   specific information about expected demands or policy information, as
   well as knowledge of the actual desired flow volumes.  In this case
   an active stateful PCE provides an advantage in both the computation
   with knowledge of all LSPs in the domain and in the ability to
   trigger bandwidth modification of the LSP.

5.3.  Bandwidth Scheduling

   Bandwidth scheduling allows network operators to reserve resources in
   advance according to the agreements with their customers, and allow
   them to transmit data with specified starting time and duration, for
   example for a scheduled bulk data replication between data centers.

   Traditionally, this can be supported by NMS operation through path
   pre-establishment and activation on the agreed starting time.
   However, this does not provide efficient network usage since the
   established paths exclude the possibility of being used by other
   services even when they are not used for undertaking any service.  It
   can also be accomplished through GMPLS protocol extensions by
   carrying the related request information (e.g., starting time and
   duration) across the network.  Nevertheless, this method inevitably
   increases the complexity of signaling and routing process.

   A passive stateful PCE can support this application with better
   efficiency since it can alleviate the burden of processing on network
   elements.  This requires the PCE to maintain the scheduled LSPs and
   their associated resource usage, as well as the ability of head-ends
   to trigger signaling for LSP setup/deletion at the correct time.
   This approach requires coarse time synchronization between PCEs and
   PCCs.  If an active stateful PCE is available, the PCE can trigger
   the setup/deletion of scheduled requests in a centralized manner,
   without modification of existing head-end behaviors, by notifying the
   PCCs to set up or tear down the paths.

5.4.  Recovery

   The recovery use cases discussed in the following sections show how
   leveraging a stateful PCE can simplify the computation of recovery
   path(s).  In particular, two characteristics of a stateful PCE are
   used: 1) using information stored in the LSP-DB for determining
   shared protection resources and 2) performing computations with
   knowledge of all LSPs in a domain.

5.4.1.  Protection

   For protection purposes,

   If a PCC may send can specify in a request to a PCE whether the computation is for
   computing a set of paths
   working or for protection, and a given LSP.  Alternatively, PCC can report the resource by a
   working or protection path, then the following text applies.  A PCC
   can send multiple requests to the PCE, asking for two LSPs and use
   them as working and backup LSPs paths separately.  Either way, the
   resources bound to backup paths can be shared by different LSPs to
   improve the overall network efficiency, such as m:n protection or
   pre-configured shared mesh recovery techniques as specified in
   [RFC4427].  If resource sharing is supported for LSP protection, the
   information relating to existing LSPs is required to avoid allocation
   of shared protection resources to two LSPs that might fail together
   and cause protection contention issues.  A stateless PCE can
   accommodate this use case by having the PCC pass this information as
   a constraint in the path computation request.  A passive stateful PCE
   can more easily accommodate this need using the information stored in
   its LSP-DB.  Furthermore, an active stateful PCE can help with (re)-optimizization (re)-
   optimizization of protection resource sharing as well as LSP
   maintenance operation with fewer impact on protection resources.

                 +----+
                 |PCE |
                 +----+

            +------+          +------+          +------+
            |  A   +----------+  B   +----------+  C   |
            +--+---+          +---+--+          +---+--+
               |                  |                 |
               |        +---------+                 |
               |        |                           |
               |     +--+---+          +------+     |
               +-----+  E   +----------+  D   +-----+
                     +------+          +------+

                      Figure 3: Reference topology 3

   For example, in the network depicted in Figure 3 , 3, suppose there
   exists LSP1 with working path LSP1_working following A->E and with
   backup path LSP1_backup following A->B->E.  A request arrives asking
   for a working and backup path pair to be computed for LSP2, for a
   request LSP2 from B to
   E.  If the PCE decides LSP2_working follows B->A->E, then the backup
   path LSP2_backup should not use share the same protection resource with
   LSP1 since LSP2 shares part of its resource (specifically A->E) with
   LSP1 (i.e., these two LSPs are in the same shared risk group).  Alternatively, there  There
   is no such constraint if B->C->D->E is chosen for LSP2_working.

   If a stateless PCE is used, the head node B needs to be aware of the
   existence of LSPs which share the route of LSP2_working and of the
   details of their protection resources.  B must pass this information
   to the PCE as a constraint so as to request a path with diversity.
   Alternatively, a stateless PCE may able to compute carry out Shared
   Risk Link Group (SRLG)-diversified paths if TED is extended so that
   it includes the SRLG information that are protected by a given backup
   resource, but at the expense of a high complexity in routing.  On the
   other hand, a stateful PCE can get the LSPs information by itself
   given that the LSP identifier(s) and can achieve the goal of finding
   SRLG-diversified protection paths for both LSPs.  This is made
   possible by comparing the LSP resource usage exploiting the LSP DB LSP-DB
   accessible by the stateful PCE.

5.4.2.  Restoration

   In case of a link failure, such as a fiber cut, multiple LSPs may
   fail at the same time.  Thus, the source nodes of the affected LSPs
   will be informed of the failure by the nodes detecting the failure.
   These source nodes will send requests to a PCE for rerouting.  In
   order to reuse the resource taken by an existing LSP, the source node
   can send a PCReq message including the XRO object Exclude Route Object (XRO)
   with F Fail (F) bit set, together with the RRO object, object containing the
   current route information, as specified in [RFC5521].

   If a stateless PCE is exploited, it might respond to the rerouting
   requests separately if they arrive at different times.  Thus, it
   might result in sub-optimal resource usage.  Even worse, it might
   unnecessarily block some of the rerouting requests due to
   insufficient resources for later-arrived rerouting messages.  If a
   passive stateful PCE is used to fulfill this task, it the procedure can re-compute
   be simplified.  The PCCs reporting the affected LSPs concurrently while reusing part failures can include LSP
   identifiers instead of detailed information and the existing PCE can find
   relevant LSP information by inspecting the LSP-DB.  Moreover, the PCE
   can re-compute the affected LSPs concurrently while reusing part of
   the existing LSPs resources when it is informed of the failed link
   identifier provided by the first request.  This is made possible
   since the passive stateful PCE can check what other LSPs are affected
   by the failed link and their route information by inspecting its LSP-DB. LSP-
   DB.  As a result, a better performance, performance can be achieved, such as
   better resource usage, usage or minimal probability of blocking upcoming new
   rerouting requests sent as a result of the link failure, can be achieved.

   In order to further reduce the amount of LSP rerouting messages flow
   in the network, the notification can be performed at the node(s)
   which detect the link failure.  For example, suppose there are two
   LSPs in the network as shown in Figure 3: (i) LSP1: A->E->D->C; (ii)
   LSP2: B->E->D. They traverse the failed link between E-D.  When D
   detects the failure, it can send a notification message to a stateful
   PCE.  Note that the stateful PCE stores the path information of the
   LSPs that are affected by the link failure, so it does not need to
   acquire this information from D. Moreover, it can make use of the
   bandwidth resources occupied by the affected LSPs when performing
   path recalculation.  After D receives the new paths from the PCE, it
   notifies the ingress nodes of the LSPs, i.e., A and B, and specifies
   the new paths which should be used as the rerouting paths.  To
   support this, it would require extensions to the existing signaling
   protocols.

   Alternatively, if

   If the target is to avoid resource contention within the time-window
   of high number of LSP rerouting requests, a stateful PCE can retain
   the under-construction LSP resource usage information for a given
   time and exclude it from being used for forthcoming LSPs request.  In
   this way, it can ensure that the resource will not be double-booked
   and thus the issue of resource contention and computation crank-backs
   can be resolved. alleviated.

5.4.3.  SRLG Diversity

   An alternative way to achieve efficient resilience is to maintain
   SRLG disjointness between LSPs, irrespective of whether these LSPs
   share the source and destination nodes or not.  This can be achieved
   at provisioning time, if the routes of all the LSPs are requested
   together, using a synchronized computation of the different LSPs with
   SRLG disjointness constraint.  If the LSPs need to be provisioned at
   different times (more general, the routes are requested at different times, e.g. in the case of a restoration), the PCC can specify, as constraints to the path
   computation a set of Shared Risk Link Groups
   (SRLGs) SRLGs using the Exclude Route Object [RFC5521].
   However, for the latter to be effective, it is needed that the entity
   that requests the route to the PCE maintains updated SRLG information
   of all the LSPs to which it must maintain the disjointness.  A
   stateless PCE can compute an SRLG-disjoint path by inspecting the TED
   and precluding the links with the same SRLG values specified in the
   PCReq message sent by a PCC.

   A passive stateful PCE maintains the updated SRLG information of the
   established LSPs in a centralized manner.  Therefore, the PCC can
   specify as constraints to the path computation the SRLG disjointness
   of a set of already established LSPs by only providing the LSP
   identifiers.  Similarly, a passive stateful PCE can also accommodate
   disjointness using other contraints, constraints, such as link, node or path
   segment etc.

5.5.  Maintenance of Virtual Network Topology (VNT)

   In Multi-Layer Networks (MLN), a Virtual Network Topology (VNT)
   [RFC5212] consists of a set of one or more TE LSPs in the lower layer
   which provides TE links to the upper layer.  In [RFC5623], the PCE-
   based architecture is proposed to support path computation in MLN
   networks in order to achieve inter-layer TE.

   The establishment/teardown of a TE link in VNT needs to take into
   consideration the state of existing LSPs and/or new LSP request(s) in
   the higher layer.  Hence, when a stateless PCE cannot find the route
   for a request based on the upper layer topology information, it does
   not have enough information to decide whether to set up or remove a
   TE link or not, which then can result in non-optimal usage of
   resource.  On the other hand, a passive stateful PCE can make a
   better decision of when and how to modify the VNT either to
   accommodate new LSP requests or to re-optimize resource usage across
   layers irrespective of the PCE models as described in [RFC5623].
   Furthermore, given the active capability, the stateful PCE can issue
   VNT modification suggestions in order to accommodate path setup
   requests or re-optimize resource usage across layers.

5.6.  LSP Re-optimization

   In order to make efficient usage of network resources, it is
   sometimes desirable to re-optimize one or more LSPs dynamically.  In
   the case of a stateless PCE, in order to optimize network resource
   usage dynamically through online planning, a PCC must send a request
   to the PCE together with detailed path/bandwidth information of the
   LSPs that need to be concurrently optimized.  This means the PCC must
   be able to determine when and which LSPs should be optimized.  In the
   case of a passive stateful PCE, given the LSP state information in
   the LSP database, the process of dynamic optimization of network
   resources can be automated simplified without requiring the PCC to supply
   detailed LSP state
   information or to trigger the request. information.  Moreover, an active stateful PCE can
   even make the process automated by triggering the request since a
   stateful PCE can maintain information for all LSPs that are in the
   process of being set up and since it may have the ability to control timing
   and sequence of LSP setup/deletion, the optimization procedures can
   be performed more intelligently and effectively.  A stateful PCE can
   also determine which LSP should be re-optimized based on network
   events.  For example, when a LSP is torn down, its resources are
   freed.  This can trigger the stateful PCE to automatically determine
   which LSP should be reoptimized so that the recently freed resources
   may be allocated to it.

   A special case of LSP re-optimization is Global Concurrent
   Optimization (GCO) GCO [RFC5557].  Global
   control of LSP operation sequence in [RFC5557] is predicated on the
   use of what is effectively a stateful (or semi-stateful) NMS.  The
   NMS can be either not local to the network nodes, in which case
   another northbound interface is required for LSP attribute changes,
   or local/collocated, in which case there are significant issues with
   efficiency in resource usage.  A stateful PCE adds a few features
   that:

   o  Roll the NMS visibility into the PCE and remove the requirement
      for an additional northbound interface

   o  Allow the PCE to determine when re-optimization is needed, with
      which level (GCO or a more incremental optimization)

   o  Allow the PCE to determine which LSPs should be re-optimized

   o  Allow a PCE to control the sequence of events across multiple
      PCCs, allowing for bulk (and truly global) optimization, LSP
      shuffling etc.

5.7.  Resource Defragmentation

   In networks with link bundles, if

   If LSPs are dynamically allocated and released over time, the
   resource becomes fragmented.  The  In networks with link bundle, the
   overall available resource on a (bundle) link might be sufficient for
   a new LSP request, but if the available resource is not continuous,
   the request is rejected.  In order to perform the defragmentation
   procedure, stateful PCEs can be used, since global visibility of LSPs
   in the network is required to accurately assess resources on the
   LSPs, and perform de-fragmentation while ensuring a minimal
   disruption of the network.  This use case cannot be accommodated by a
   stateless PCE since it does not possess the detailed information of
   existing LSPs in the network.

   A

   Another case of particular interest to GMPLS-based transport networks is the frequency optical spectrum
   defragmentation in flexible grid. grid networks.  In Flexible grid networks [I-D.ogrcetal-ccamp-flexi-grid-fwk],
   [I-D.ietf-ccamp-flexi-grid-fwk], LSPs with different
   slot widths optical spectrum
   sizes (such as 12.5G, 25G 12.5GHz, 25GHz etc.) can co-exist so as to accommodate
   the services with different bandwidth requests.  Therefore, even if
   the overall spectrum size can meet the service request, it may not be
   usable if it the available spectrum resource is not contiguous. contiguous, but
   rather fragmented into smaller pieces.  Thus, with the help of
   existing LSP state information, a stateful PCE can make the resource
   grouped together to be usable.  Moreover, a stateful PCE can
   proactively choose routes for upcoming path requests to reduce the
   chance of spectrum fragmentation.

5.8.  Point-to-Multi-Point Applications

   PCE has been identified as an appropriate technology for the
   determination of the paths of point-to-multipoint (P2MP) TE LSPs
   [RFC5671].  The application scenarios and use-cases described in
   Section 5.1, Section 5.4 and Section 5.6 are also applicable to P2MP
   TE LSPs.

   In addition to these, the stateful nature of a PCE simplifies the
   information conveyed in PCEP messages since it is possible to refer
   to the LSPs via an identifier.  For P2MP, this is an added advantage,
   where the size of the PCEP message is much larger.  In case of
   stateless PCEs, modification of a P2MP tree requires encoding of all
   leaves along with the paths in PCReq message.  But using a stateful
   PCE with P2MP capability, the PCEP message can be used to convey only
   the modifications (the other information can be retrieved from the
   identifier via the LSP-DB).

5.9.  Impairment-Aware Routing and Wavelength Assignment (IA-RWA)

   In WSONs Wavelength Switched Optical Networks (WSONs) [RFC6163], a
   wavelength-switched LSP traverses one or more fiber links.  The bit
   rates of the client signals carried by the wavelength LSPs may be the
   same or different.  Hence, a fiber link may transmit a number of
   wavelength LSPs with equal or mixed bit rate signals.  For example, a
   fiber link may multiplex the wavelengths with only 10G 10Gb/s signals,
   mixed 10G 10Gb/s and 40G 40Gb/s signals, or mixed 40G 40Gb/s and
   100G 100Gb/s signals.

   IA-RWA in WSONs refers to the RWA process (i.e., lightpath computation)
   that takes into account the optical layer/transmission imperfections
   by considering as additional (i.e., physical layer) constraints.  To
   be more specific, linear and non-linear effects associated with the
   optical network elements should be incorporated into the route and
   wavelength assignment procedure.  For example, the physical
   imperfection can result in the interference of two adjacent
   lightpaths.  Thus, a guard band should be reserved between them to
   alleviate these effects.  The width of the guard band between two
   adjacent wavelengths depends on their characteristics, such as
   modulation formats and bit rates.  Two adjacent wavelengths with
   different characteristics (e.g., different bit rates) may need a
   wider guard band and with same characteristics may need a narrower
   guard band.  For example, 50GHz spacing may be acceptable for two
   adjacent wavelengths with 40G signals.  But for two adjacent
   wavelengths with different bit rates (e.g., 10G and 40G), a larger
   spacing such as 300GHz spacing may be needed.  Hence, the
   characteristics (states) of the existing wavelength LSPs should be
   considered for a new RWA request in WSON.

   In summary, when stateful PCEs are used to perform the IA-RWA
   procedure, they need to know the characteristics of the existing
   wavelength LSPs.  The impairment information relating to existing and
   to-be-established LSPs can be obtained by nodes in WSON networks via
   external configuration or other means such as monitoring or
   estimation based on a vendor-specific impair model.  However, WSON
   related routing protocols, i.e.,
   [I-D.ietf-ccamp-wson-signal-compatibility-ospf] and
   [I-D.ietf-ccamp-gmpls-general-constraints-ospf-te], only advertise
   limited information (i.e., availability) of the existing wavelengths,
   without defining the supported client bit rates.  It will incur
   substantial amount of control plane overhead if routing protocols are
   extended to support dissemination of the new information relevant for
   the IA-RWA process.  In this scenario, stateful PCE(s) would be a
   more appropriate mechanism to solve this problem.  Stateful PCE(s)
   can exploit impairment information of LSPs stored in LSP-DB to
   provide accurate RWA calculation.

6.  Security Considerations

   The PCEP extensions in support of stateful PCE and the delegation of
   path control, result in more information being available for a
   hypothetical adversary and a number of additional attack surfaces
   which must be protected.  [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] discusses
   different attack vectors and defines protocol mechanisms to protect
   against them.  It also lays out implementation requirements for
   configuration capabilities that allow the operator to control the PCC
   behavior when faced with an attack.  This document does not introduce
   any new security considerations beyond those discussed in
   [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce].

7.  Contributing Authors

   The following people all contributed significantly to this document
   and are listed below in alphabetical order:

   Ramon Casellas
   CTTC - Centre Tecnologic de Telecomunicacions de Catalunya
   Av.  Carl Friedrich Gauss n7
   Castelldefels, Barcelona 08860
   Spain
   Email: ramon.casellas@cttc.es
   Edward Crabbe
   Google, Inc.
   1600 Amphitheatre Parkway
   Mountain View, CA 94043
   US
   Email: edc@google.com

   Dhruv Dhody
   Huawei Technology
   Leela Palace
   Bangalore, Karnataka 560008
   INDIA
   EMail: dhruv.dhody@huawei.com

   Oscar Gonzalez de Dios
   Telefonica Investigacion y Desarrollo
   Emilio Vargas 6
   Madrid, 28045
   Spain
   Phone: +34 913374013
   Email: ogondio@tid.es

   Young Lee
   Huawei
   1700 Alma Drive, Suite 100
   Plano, TX 75075
   US
   Phone: +1 972 509 5599 x2240
   Fax: +1 469 229 5397
   EMail: leeyoung@huawei.com

   Jan Medved
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   170 West Tasman Dr.
   San Jose, CA 95134
   US
   Email: jmedved@cisco.com

   Robert Varga
   Pantheon Technologies LLC
   Mlynske Nivy 56
   Bratislava 821 05
   Slovakia
   Email: robert.varga@pantheon.sk

   Fatai Zhang
   Huawei Technologies
   F3-5-B R&D Center, Huawei Base
   Bantian, Longgang District
   Shenzhen 518129 P.R.China
   Phone: +86-755-28972912
   Email: zhangfatai@huawei.com

   Xiaobing Zi
   Email: unknown

8.  Acknowledgements

   We would like to thank Cyril Margaria, Adrian Farrel, JP Vasseur and
   Ravi Torvi for the useful comments and discussions.

9.  References

9.1.  Normative References

   [I-D.ietf-pce-questions]
              Farrel, A. and D. King, "Unanswered Questions in the Path
              Computation Element Architecture",
              draft-ietf-pce-questions-00 draft-ietf-pce-
              questions-06 (work in progress), July 2013. June 2014.

   [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce]
              Crabbe, E., Medved, J., Minei, I., and R. Varga, "PCEP
              Extensions for Stateful PCE",
              draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-06 draft-ietf-pce-stateful-
              pce-08 (work in progress),
              August 2013. February 2014.

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

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

9.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.crabbe-pce-stateful-pce-mpls-te]
              Crabbe, E., Medved, J., Minei, I.,

   [I-D.ietf-ccamp-flexi-grid-fwk]
              Dios, O., Casellas, R., Zhang, F., Fu, X., Ceccarelli, D.,
              and R. Varga, "Stateful
              PCE extensions I. Hussain, "Framework and Requirements for MPLS-TE LSPs",
              draft-crabbe-pce-stateful-pce-mpls-te-01 GMPLS
              based control of Flexi-grid DWDM networks", draft-ietf-
              ccamp-flexi-grid-fwk-01 (work in progress), May 2013. February 2014.

   [I-D.ietf-ccamp-gmpls-general-constraints-ospf-te]
              Zhang, F., Lee, Y., Han, J., Bernstein, G., and Y. Xu,
              "OSPF-TE Extensions for General Network Element
              Constraints",
              draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-general-constraints-ospf-te-05 draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-general-constraints-
              ospf-te-08 (work in progress), June 2013. May 2014.

   [I-D.ietf-ccamp-wson-signal-compatibility-ospf]
              Lee, Y. and G. Bernstein, "GMPLS OSPF Enhancement for
              Signal and Network Element Compatibility for Wavelength
              Switched Optical Networks",
              draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signal-compatibility-ospf-11 draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signal-
              compatibility-ospf-15 (work in progress), February 2013. May 2014.

   [I-D.ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions]
              Margaria, C., Dios, O., and F. Zhang, "PCEP extensions for
              GMPLS", draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions-08 (work in
              progress), July 2013.

   [I-D.ogrcetal-ccamp-flexi-grid-fwk]
              Dios, O., Casellas, R., Zhang, F., Fu, X., Ceccarelli, D.,
              and I. Hussain, "Framework and Requirements for GMPLS
              based control of Flexi-grid DWDM networks",
              draft-ogrcetal-ccamp-flexi-grid-fwk-03 draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions-09 (work in
              progress),
              June 2013. February 2014.

   [I-D.sivabalan-pce-disco-stateful]
              Sivabalan, S., Medved, J., and X. Zhang, "IGP Extensions
              for Stateful PCE Discovery",
              draft-sivabalan-pce-disco-stateful-02 draft-sivabalan-pce-disco-
              stateful-03 (work in progress),
              July 2013. January 2014.

   [MPLS-PC]  Chaieb, I., Le Roux, JL., and B. Cousin, "Improved MPLS-TE
              LSP Path Computation using Preemption", Global Information
              Infrastructure Symposium, July 2007.

   [MXMN-TE]  Danna, E., Mandal, S., and A. Singh, "Practical linear
              programming algorithm for balancing the max-min fairness
              and throughput objectives in traffic engineering", pre-
              print, 2011.

   [NET-REC]  Vasseur, JP., Pickavet, M., and P. Demeester, "Network
              Recovery: Protection and Restoration of Optical, SONET-
              SDH, IP, and MPLS", The Morgan Kaufmann Series in
              Networking, June 2004.

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

   [RFC4427]  Mannie, E. and D. Papadimitriou, "Recovery (Protection and
              Restoration) Terminology for Generalized Multi-Protocol
              Label Switching (GMPLS)", RFC 4427, March 2006.

   [RFC4657]  Ash, J. and J. Le Roux, "Path Computation Element (PCE)
              Communication Protocol Generic Requirements", RFC 4657,
              September 2006.

   [RFC5212]  Shiomoto, K., Papadimitriou, D., Le Roux, JL., Vigoureux,
              M., and D. Brungard, "Requirements for GMPLS-Based Multi-
              Region and Multi-Layer Networks (MRN/MLN)", RFC 5212, July
              2008.

   [RFC5394]  Bryskin, I., Papadimitriou, D., Berger, L., and J. Ash,
              "Policy-Enabled Path Computation Framework", RFC 5394,
              December 2008.

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

   [RFC5557]  Lee, Y., Le Roux, JL., King, D., and E. Oki, "Path
              Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)
              Requirements and Protocol Extensions in Support of Global
              Concurrent Optimization", RFC 5557, July 2009.

   [RFC5623]  Oki, E., Takeda, T., Le Roux, JL., and A. Farrel,
              "Framework for PCE-Based Inter-Layer MPLS and GMPLS
              Traffic Engineering", RFC 5623, September 2009.

   [RFC5671]  Yasukawa, S. and A. Farrel, "Applicability of the Path
              Computation Element (PCE) to Point-to-Multipoint (P2MP)
              MPLS and GMPLS Traffic Engineering (TE)", RFC 5671,
              October 2009.

   [RFC6163]  Lee, Y., Bernstein, G., and W. Imajuku, "Framework for
              GMPLS and Path Computation Element (PCE) Control of
              Wavelength Switched Optical Networks (WSONs)", RFC 6163,
              April 2011.

Authors' Addresses

   Xian Zhang (editor)
   Huawei Technologies
   F3-5-B R&D Center, Huawei Industrial Base, Bantian, Longgang District
   Shenzhen, Guangdong  518129
   P.R.China

   Email: zhang.xian@huawei.com

   Ina Minei (editor)
   Juniper Networks,
   Google, Inc.
   1194 N. Mathilda Ave.
   Sunnyvale,
   1600 Amphitheatre Parkway
   Mountain View, CA  94089  94043
   US

   Email: ina@juniper.net inaminei@google.com