draft-ietf-pce-applicability-actn-05.txt | draft-ietf-pce-applicability-actn-06.txt | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
PCE Working Group D. Dhody | PCE Working Group D. Dhody | |||
Internet-Draft Y. Lee | Internet-Draft Y. Lee | |||
Intended status: Informational Huawei Technologies | Intended status: Informational Huawei Technologies | |||
Expires: September 6, 2018 D. Ceccarelli | Expires: December 19, 2018 D. Ceccarelli | |||
Ericsson | Ericsson | |||
March 5, 2018 | June 17, 2018 | |||
Applicability of Path Computation Element (PCE) for Abstraction and | Applicability of Path Computation Element (PCE) for Abstraction and | |||
Control of TE Networks (ACTN) | Control of TE Networks (ACTN) | |||
draft-ietf-pce-applicability-actn-05 | draft-ietf-pce-applicability-actn-06 | |||
Abstract | Abstract | |||
Abstraction and Control of TE Networks (ACTN) refers to the set of | Abstraction and Control of TE Networks (ACTN) refers to the set of | |||
virtual network (VN) operations needed to orchestrate, control and | virtual network (VN) operations needed to orchestrate, control and | |||
manage large-scale multi-domain TE networks so as to facilitate | manage large-scale multi-domain TE networks so as to facilitate | |||
network programmability, automation, efficient resource sharing, and | network programmability, automation, efficient resource sharing, and | |||
end-to-end virtual service aware connectivity and network function | end-to-end virtual service aware connectivity and network function | |||
virtualization services. | virtualization services. | |||
skipping to change at page 1, line 45 ¶ | skipping to change at page 1, line 45 ¶ | |||
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 https://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 December 19, 2018. | |||
Copyright Notice | Copyright Notice | |||
Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the | Copyright (c) 2018 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 | |||
(https://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 | |||
skipping to change at page 2, line 26 ¶ | skipping to change at page 2, line 26 ¶ | |||
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 | 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 | |||
1.1. Path Computation Element (PCE) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 | 1.1. Path Computation Element (PCE) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 | |||
1.1.1. Role of PCE in SDN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 | 1.1.1. Role of PCE in SDN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 | |||
1.1.2. PCE in multi-domain and multi-layer deployments . . . 4 | 1.1.2. PCE in multi-domain and multi-layer deployments . . . 4 | |||
1.2. Abstraction and Control of TE Networks (ACTN) . . . . . . 4 | 1.1.3. Relationship to PCE based central control . . . . . . 4 | |||
1.3. PCE and ACTN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 | 1.2. Abstraction and Control of TE Networks (ACTN) . . . . . . 5 | |||
2. Architectural Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 | 1.3. PCE and ACTN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 | |||
2.1. Multi domain coordination via Hierarchy . . . . . . . . . 6 | 2. Architectural Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 | |||
2.2. Virtualization/Abstraction function . . . . . . . . . . . 7 | 2.1. Multi domain coordination via Hierarchy . . . . . . . . . 7 | |||
2.3. Customer mapping function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 | 2.2. Abstraction function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 | |||
2.4. Virtual Network Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 | 2.3. Customer mapping function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 | |||
3. Interface Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 | 2.4. Virtual Service Coordination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 | |||
4. Realizing ACTN with PCE (and PCEP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 | 3. Interface Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 | |||
5. Relationship to PCE based central control . . . . . . . . . . 14 | 4. Realizing ACTN with PCE (and PCEP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 | |||
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 | 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 | |||
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 | 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 | |||
8. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 | 7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 | |||
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 | 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 | |||
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 | 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 | |||
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 | 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 | |||
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 | Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 | |||
1. Introduction | 1. Introduction | |||
1.1. Path Computation Element (PCE) | 1.1. Path Computation Element (PCE) | |||
The Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) [RFC5440] | The Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) [RFC5440] | |||
provides mechanisms for Path Computation Elements (PCEs) [RFC4655] to | provides mechanisms for Path Computation Elements (PCEs) [RFC4655] to | |||
perform path computations in response to Path Computation Clients | perform path computations in response to Path Computation Clients | |||
(PCCs) requests. | (PCCs) requests. | |||
skipping to change at page 3, line 37 ¶ | skipping to change at page 3, line 37 ¶ | |||
interactions. [RFC8281] describes the setup, maintenance and | interactions. [RFC8281] describes the setup, maintenance and | |||
teardown of PCE-initiated LSPs under the stateful PCE model. | teardown of PCE-initiated LSPs under the stateful PCE model. | |||
[RFC8231] also describes the active stateful PCE. The active PCE | [RFC8231] also describes the active stateful PCE. The active PCE | |||
functionality allows a PCE to reroute an existing LSP or make changes | functionality allows a PCE to reroute an existing LSP or make changes | |||
to the attributes of an existing LSP, or a PCC to delegate control of | to the attributes of an existing LSP, or a PCC to delegate control of | |||
specific LSPs to a new PCE. | specific LSPs to a new PCE. | |||
1.1.1. Role of PCE in SDN | 1.1.1. Role of PCE in SDN | |||
Software-Defined Networking (SDN) refers to a separation between the | Software-Defined Networking (SDN) [RFC7149] refers to a separation | |||
control elements and the forwarding components so that software | between the control elements and the forwarding components so that | |||
running in a centralized system called a controller, can act to | software running in a centralized system called a controller, can act | |||
program the devices in the network to behave in specific ways. A | to program the devices in the network to behave in specific ways. A | |||
required element in an SDN architecture is a component that plans how | required element in an SDN architecture is a component that plans how | |||
the network resources will be used and how the devices will be | the network resources will be used and how the devices will be | |||
programmed. It is possible to view this component as performing | programmed. It is possible to view this component as performing | |||
specific computations to place flows within the network given | specific computations to place flows within the network given | |||
knowledge of the availability of network resources, how other | knowledge of the availability of network resources, how other | |||
forwarding devices are programmed, and the way that other flows are | forwarding devices are programmed, and the way that other flows are | |||
routed. It is concluded in [RFC7399], that this is the same function | routed. It is concluded in [RFC7399], that this is the same function | |||
that a PCE might offer in a network operated using a dynamic control | that a PCE might offer in a network operated using a dynamic control | |||
plane. This is the function and purpose of a PCE, and the way that a | plane. This is the function and purpose of a PCE, and the way that a | |||
PCE integrates into a wider network control system including SDN is | PCE integrates into a wider network control system including SDN is | |||
skipping to change at page 4, line 41 ¶ | skipping to change at page 4, line 41 ¶ | |||
[I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-hpce] state the considerations for stateful | [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-hpce] state the considerations for stateful | |||
PCE(s) in hierarchical PCE architecture. In particular, the behavior | PCE(s) in hierarchical PCE architecture. In particular, the behavior | |||
changes and additions to the existing stateful PCE mechanisms | changes and additions to the existing stateful PCE mechanisms | |||
(including PCE- initiated LSP setup and active PCE usage) in the | (including PCE- initiated LSP setup and active PCE usage) in the | |||
context of networks using the H-PCE architecture. | context of networks using the H-PCE architecture. | |||
[RFC5623] describes a framework for applying the PCE-based | [RFC5623] describes a framework for applying the PCE-based | |||
architecture to inter-layer to (G)MPLS TE. It provides suggestions | architecture to inter-layer to (G)MPLS TE. It provides suggestions | |||
for the deployment of PCE in support of multi-layer networks. It | for the deployment of PCE in support of multi-layer networks. It | |||
also describes the relationship between PCE and a functional | also describes the relationship between PCE and a functional | |||
component in charge of the control and management of the VNT, called | component in charge of the control and management of the Virtual | |||
the Virtual Network Topology Manager (VNTM). | Network Topology (VNT) [RFC5212], called the VNT Manager (VNTM). | |||
1.1.3. Relationship to PCE based central control | ||||
[RFC8283] introduces the architecture for PCE as a central controller | ||||
(PCECC), it further examines the motivations and applicability for | ||||
PCEP as a southbound interface, and introduces the implications for | ||||
the protocol. The section 2.1.3 of [RFC8283] describe an hierarchy | ||||
of PCE-based controller as per the Hierarchy of PCE framework defined | ||||
in [RFC6805]. | ||||
1.2. Abstraction and Control of TE Networks (ACTN) | 1.2. Abstraction and Control of TE Networks (ACTN) | |||
[I-D.ietf-teas-actn-requirements] describes the high-level ACTN | [I-D.ietf-teas-actn-requirements] describes the high-level ACTN | |||
requirements. [I-D.ietf-teas-actn-framework] describes the | requirements. [I-D.ietf-teas-actn-framework] describes the | |||
architecture model for ACTN including the entities (Customer Network | architecture model for ACTN including the entities (Customer Network | |||
Controller(CNC), Multi-domain Service Coordinator(MDSC), and | Controller(CNC), Multi-domain Service Coordinator(MDSC), and | |||
Provisioning Network Controller (PNC) and their interfaces. | Provisioning Network Controller (PNC) and their interfaces. | |||
The ACTN reference architecture identified a three-tier control | The ACTN reference architecture identified a three-tier control | |||
hierarchy as depicted in Figure 1: | hierarchy as depicted in Figure 1: | |||
+---------+ +---------+ +---------+ | +---------+ +---------+ +---------+ | |||
| CNC | | CNC | | CNC | | | CNC | | CNC | | CNC | | |||
+---------+ +---------+ +---------+ | +---------+ +---------+ +---------+ | |||
\ | / | \ | / | |||
Business \ | / | \ | / | |||
Boundary =============\==============|==============/============ | Boundary =============\==============|==============/============ | |||
Between \ | / | Between \ | / | |||
Customer & ------- | CMI ------- | Customer & ------- | CMI ------- | |||
Network Provider \ | / | Network Operator \ | / | |||
+---------------+ | +---------------+ | |||
| MDSC | | | MDSC | | |||
+---------------+ | +---------------+ | |||
/ | \ | / | \ | |||
------------ | MPI ------------- | ------------ | MPI ------------- | |||
/ | \ | / | \ | |||
+-------+ +-------+ +-------+ | +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ | |||
| PNC | | PNC | | PNC | | | PNC | | PNC | | PNC | | |||
+-------+ +-------+ +-------+ | +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ | |||
| SBI / | / \ | | SBI / | / \ | |||
skipping to change at page 6, line 13 ¶ | skipping to change at page 7, line 13 ¶ | |||
ACTN interfaces. | ACTN interfaces. | |||
1.3. PCE and ACTN | 1.3. PCE and ACTN | |||
This document examines the PCE and ACTN architecture and describes | This document examines the PCE and ACTN architecture and describes | |||
how the PCE architecture is applicable to ACTN. It also lists the | how the PCE architecture is applicable to ACTN. It also lists the | |||
PCEP extensions that are needed to use PCEP as an ACTN interface. | PCEP extensions that are needed to use PCEP as an ACTN interface. | |||
This document also identifies any gaps in PCEP, that exist at the | This document also identifies any gaps in PCEP, that exist at the | |||
time of publication of this document. | time of publication of this document. | |||
Further, ACTN, Stateful H-PCE, and PCECC are based on the same basic | ||||
hierarchy framework and thus compatible with each other. | ||||
2. Architectural Considerations | 2. Architectural Considerations | |||
ACTN [I-D.ietf-teas-actn-framework] architecture is based on | ACTN [I-D.ietf-teas-actn-framework] architecture is based on | |||
hierarchy and recursiveness of controllers. It defines three types | hierarchy and recursiveness of controllers. It defines three types | |||
of controllers (depending on the functionalities they implement). | of controllers (depending on the functionalities they implement). | |||
The main functionalities are - | The main functionalities are - | |||
o Multi domain coordination function | o Multi domain coordination function | |||
o Virtualization/Abstraction function | o Abstraction function | |||
o Customer mapping/translation function | o Customer mapping/translation function | |||
o Virtual service coordination function | o Virtual service coordination function | |||
Section 3 of [I-D.ietf-teas-actn-framework] describes these | Section 3 of [I-D.ietf-teas-actn-framework] describes these | |||
functions. | functions. | |||
It should be noted that, this document lists all possible ways in | It should be noted that, this document lists all possible ways in | |||
which PCEP could be used for each of the above functions, but all | which PCEP could be used for each of the above functions, but all | |||
functions are not required to be implemented via PCEP. Operator may | functions are not required to be implemented via PCEP. Operator may | |||
choose to use the PCEP for multi domain coordination via stateful | choose to use the PCEP for multi domain coordination via stateful | |||
H-PCE but use RESTCONF [RFC8040] or BGP-LS [RFC7752] to get the | H-PCE but use RESTCONF [RFC8040] or BGP-LS [RFC7752] to get the | |||
topology and support virtualization/abstraction function. | topology and support abstraction function. | |||
2.1. Multi domain coordination via Hierarchy | 2.1. Multi domain coordination via Hierarchy | |||
With the definition of domain being "everything that is under the | With the definition of domain being "everything that is under the | |||
control of the single logical controller", as per | control of the single logical controller", as per | |||
[I-D.ietf-teas-actn-framework], it is needed to have a control entity | [I-D.ietf-teas-actn-framework], it is needed to have a control entity | |||
that oversees the specific aspects of the different domains and to | that oversees the specific aspects of the different domains and to | |||
build a single abstracted end-to-end network topology in order to | build a single abstracted end-to-end network topology in order to | |||
coordinate end-to-end path computation and path/service provisioning. | coordinate end-to-end path computation and path/service provisioning. | |||
skipping to change at page 7, line 24 ¶ | skipping to change at page 8, line 26 ¶ | |||
coordination function. This includes domain sequence selection; E2E | coordination function. This includes domain sequence selection; E2E | |||
path computation; Controller (PCE) initiated path setup and | path computation; Controller (PCE) initiated path setup and | |||
reporting. This is also applicable to multi-layer coordination in | reporting. This is also applicable to multi-layer coordination in | |||
case of IP+optical networks. | case of IP+optical networks. | |||
[I-D.litkowski-pce-state-sync]" describes the procedures to allow a | [I-D.litkowski-pce-state-sync]" describes the procedures to allow a | |||
stateful communication between PCEs for various use-cases. The | stateful communication between PCEs for various use-cases. The | |||
procedures and extensions are also applicable to Child and Parent PCE | procedures and extensions are also applicable to Child and Parent PCE | |||
communication and thus useful for ACTN as well. | communication and thus useful for ACTN as well. | |||
2.2. Virtualization/Abstraction function | 2.2. Abstraction function | |||
To realize ACTN, an abstracted view of the underlying network | To realize ACTN, an abstracted view of the underlying network | |||
resources needs to be built. This includes global network-wide | resources needs to be built. This includes global network-wide | |||
abstracted topology based on the underlying network resources of each | abstracted topology based on the underlying network resources of each | |||
domain. This also include abstract topology created as per the | domain. This also include abstract topology created as per the | |||
customer service connectivity requests and represented as a network | customer service connectivity requests and represented as a network | |||
slice allocated to each customer. | slice allocated to each customer. | |||
In order to compute and provide optimal paths, PCEs require an | In order to compute and provide optimal paths, PCEs require an | |||
accurate and timely Traffic Engineering Database (TED). | accurate and timely Traffic Engineering Database (TED). | |||
skipping to change at page 8, line 9 ¶ | skipping to change at page 9, line 11 ¶ | |||
[I-D.dhodylee-pce-pcep-ls] proposes another approaches for learning | [I-D.dhodylee-pce-pcep-ls] proposes another approaches for learning | |||
and maintaining the Link-State and TE information as an alternative | and maintaining the Link-State and TE information as an alternative | |||
to IGPs and BGP flooding, using PCEP itself. The child PCE can use | to IGPs and BGP flooding, using PCEP itself. The child PCE can use | |||
this mechanism to transport Link-State and TE information from child | this mechanism to transport Link-State and TE information from child | |||
PCE to a Parent PCE using PCEP. | PCE to a Parent PCE using PCEP. | |||
In ACTN, there is a need to control the level of abstraction based on | In ACTN, there is a need to control the level of abstraction based on | |||
the deployment scenario and business relationship between the | the deployment scenario and business relationship between the | |||
controllers. The mechanism used to disseminate information from PNC | controllers. The mechanism used to disseminate information from PNC | |||
(child PCE) to MDSC (parent PCE) should support abstraction. | (child PCE) to MDSC (parent PCE) should support abstraction. | |||
[I-D.lee-teas-actn-abstraction] describes a few alternative | [I-D.ietf-teas-actn-framework] describes a few alternative approaches | |||
approaches of abstraction. The resulting abstracted topology can be | of abstraction. The resulting abstracted topology can be encoded | |||
encoded using the PCEP-LS mechanisms [I-D.dhodylee-pce-pcep-ls] and | using the PCEP-LS mechanisms [I-D.dhodylee-pce-pcep-ls] and its | |||
its optical network extension [I-D.lee-pce-pcep-ls-optical]. PCEP-LS | optical network extension [I-D.lee-pce-pcep-ls-optical]. PCEP-LS is | |||
is an attractive option when the operator would wish to have a single | an attractive option when the operator would wish to have a single | |||
control plane protocol (PCEP) to achieve ACTN functions. | control plane protocol (PCEP) to achieve ACTN functions. | |||
[I-D.ietf-teas-actn-framework] discusses two ways to build abstract | [I-D.ietf-teas-actn-framework] discusses two ways to build abstract | |||
topology from an MDSC standpoint with interaction with PNCs. The | topology from an MDSC standpoint with interaction with PNCs. The | |||
primary method is called authomatic generation of abstract topology | primary method is called automatic generation of abstract topology by | |||
by configuration. with this method, automatic generation is based on | configuration. With this method, automatic generation is based on | |||
the abstraction/summarization of the whole domain by the PNC and its | the abstraction/summarization of the whole domain by the PNC and its | |||
advertisement on the MPI. The seconday method is called on-demand | advertisement on the MPI. The secondary method is called on-demand | |||
generation of supplementary topology via Path Compute Request/Reply. | generation of supplementary topology via Path Compute Request/Reply. | |||
This method may be needed to obtain further complementary information | This method may be needed to obtain further complementary information | |||
such as potential connectivity from child PCEs in order to facilitate | such as potential connectivity from child PCEs in order to facilitate | |||
an end-to-end path provisioning. PCEP is well suited to support both | an end-to-end path provisioning. PCEP is well suited to support both | |||
methods. | methods. | |||
2.3. Customer mapping function | 2.3. Customer mapping function | |||
In ACTN, there is a need to map customer virtual network (VN) | In ACTN, there is a need to map customer virtual network (VN) | |||
requirements into network provisioning request to the PNC. That is, | requirements into network provisioning request to the PNC. That is, | |||
skipping to change at page 9, line 10 ¶ | skipping to change at page 10, line 12 ¶ | |||
child PCE further propagates the initiate request to the LSR. The | child PCE further propagates the initiate request to the LSR. The | |||
customer request is received by the MDSC (parent PCE) and based on | customer request is received by the MDSC (parent PCE) and based on | |||
the business logic, global abstracted topology, network conditions | the business logic, global abstracted topology, network conditions | |||
and local policy, the MDSC (parent PCE) translates this into per | and local policy, the MDSC (parent PCE) translates this into per | |||
domain LSP initiation request that a PNC (child PCE) can understand | domain LSP initiation request that a PNC (child PCE) can understand | |||
and act on. This can be done via the PCInitiate message. | and act on. This can be done via the PCInitiate message. | |||
PCEP extensions for associating opaque policy between PCEP peer | PCEP extensions for associating opaque policy between PCEP peer | |||
[I-D.ietf-pce-association-policy] can be used. | [I-D.ietf-pce-association-policy] can be used. | |||
2.4. Virtual Network Operations | 2.4. Virtual Service Coordination | |||
Virtual service coordination function in ACTN incorporates customer | Virtual service coordination function in ACTN incorporates customer | |||
service-related information into the virtual network service | service-related information into the virtual network service | |||
operations in order to seamlessly operate virtual networks while | operations in order to seamlessly operate virtual networks while | |||
meeting customer's service requirements. | meeting customer's service requirements. | |||
[I-D.leedhody-pce-vn-association] describes the need for associating | [I-D.leedhody-pce-vn-association] describes the need for associating | |||
a set of LSPs with a VN "construct" to facilitate VN operations in | a set of LSPs with a VN "construct" to facilitate VN operations in | |||
PCE architecture. This association allows the PCEs to identify which | PCE architecture. This association allows the PCEs to identify which | |||
LSPs belong to a certain VN. | LSPs belong to a certain VN. | |||
skipping to change at page 9, line 39 ¶ | skipping to change at page 10, line 41 ¶ | |||
considered for all the LSPs belonging to a VN/customer and optimize | considered for all the LSPs belonging to a VN/customer and optimize | |||
them all together. | them all together. | |||
3. Interface Considerations | 3. Interface Considerations | |||
As per [I-D.ietf-teas-actn-framework], to allow virtualization and | As per [I-D.ietf-teas-actn-framework], to allow virtualization and | |||
multi domain coordination, the network has to provide open, | multi domain coordination, the network has to provide open, | |||
programmable interfaces, in which customer applications can create, | programmable interfaces, in which customer applications can create, | |||
replace and modify virtual network resources and services in an | replace and modify virtual network resources and services in an | |||
interactive, flexible and dynamic fashion while having no impact on | interactive, flexible and dynamic fashion while having no impact on | |||
other customers. The 3 ACTN interfaces are - | other customers. The two ACTN interfaces are - | |||
o The CNC-MDSC Interface (CMI) is an interface between a Customer | o The CNC-MDSC Interface (CMI) is an interface between a Customer | |||
Network Controller and a Multi Domain Service Coordinator. It | Network Controller and a Multi Domain Service Coordinator. It | |||
requests the creation of the network resources, topology or | requests the creation of the network resources, topology or | |||
services for the applications. The MDSC may also report potential | services for the applications. The MDSC may also report potential | |||
network topology availability if queried for current capability | network topology availability if queried for current capability | |||
from the Customer Network Controller. | from the Customer Network Controller. | |||
o The MDSC-PNC Interface (MPI) is an interface between a Multi | o The MDSC-PNC Interface (MPI) is an interface between a Multi | |||
Domain Service Coordinator and a Provisioning Network Controller. | Domain Service Coordinator and a Provisioning Network Controller. | |||
skipping to change at page 12, line 21 ¶ | skipping to change at page 13, line 21 ¶ | |||
o VN Instantiate: MDSC is requested to instantiate a VN, the minimal | o VN Instantiate: MDSC is requested to instantiate a VN, the minimal | |||
information that is required would be a VN identifier and a set of | information that is required would be a VN identifier and a set of | |||
end points. Various path computation, setup constraints and | end points. Various path computation, setup constraints and | |||
objective functions may also be provided. In PCE terms, a VN | objective functions may also be provided. In PCE terms, a VN | |||
Instantiate can be considered as a set of paths belonging to the | Instantiate can be considered as a set of paths belonging to the | |||
same VN. As described in Section 2.4 and | same VN. As described in Section 2.4 and | |||
[I-D.leedhody-pce-vn-association] the VN association can help in | [I-D.leedhody-pce-vn-association] the VN association can help in | |||
identifying the set of paths that belong to a VN. The rest of the | identifying the set of paths that belong to a VN. The rest of the | |||
information like the endpoints, constraints and objective function | information like the endpoints, constraints and objective function | |||
is already defined in PCEP in terms of a single path. | (OF) is already defined in PCEP in terms of a single path. | |||
* Path Computation: As per the example in the Figure 2, the VN | * Path Computation: As per the example in the Figure 2, the VN | |||
instantiate requires two end to end paths between (A in Domain | instantiate requires two end to end paths between (A in Domain | |||
1 to B in Domain 3) and (A in Domain 1 to C in Domain 4). The | 1 to B in Domain 3) and (A in Domain 1 to C in Domain 4). The | |||
MDSC (or parent PCE) triggers the end to end path computation | MDSC (or parent PCE) triggers the end to end path computation | |||
for these two paths. MDSC can do path computation based on the | for these two paths. MDSC can do path computation based on the | |||
abstracted domain topology that it already has or it may use | abstracted domain topology that it already has or it may use | |||
the H-PCE procedures (Section 2.1) using the PCReq and PCRep | the H-PCE procedures (Section 2.1) using the PCReq and PCRep | |||
messages to get the end to end path with the help of the child | messages to get the end to end path with the help of the child | |||
PCEs (PNC). Either way, the resulted E2E paths may be broken | PCEs (PNC). Either way, the resulted E2E paths may be broken | |||
skipping to change at page 14, line 5 ¶ | skipping to change at page 15, line 5 ¶ | |||
o In case PNC generates an abstract topology to the MDSC, the | o In case PNC generates an abstract topology to the MDSC, the | |||
PCInitiate/PCUpd messages from the MDSC to a PNC will contain a | PCInitiate/PCUpd messages from the MDSC to a PNC will contain a | |||
path with abstract nodes and links. PNC would need to take that | path with abstract nodes and links. PNC would need to take that | |||
as an input for path computation to get a path with physical nodes | as an input for path computation to get a path with physical nodes | |||
and links. Similarly PNC would convert the path received from the | and links. Similarly PNC would convert the path received from the | |||
device (with physical nodes and links) into abstract path (based | device (with physical nodes and links) into abstract path (based | |||
on the abstract topology generated before with abstract nodes and | on the abstract topology generated before with abstract nodes and | |||
links) and reported to the MDSC. | links) and reported to the MDSC. | |||
5. Relationship to PCE based central control | 5. IANA Considerations | |||
[RFC8283] introduces the architecture for PCE as a central controller | ||||
(PCECC), it further examines the motivations and applicability for | ||||
PCEP as a southbound interface, and introduces the implications for | ||||
the protocol. The section 2.1.3 of [RFC8283] describe an hierarchy | ||||
of PCE-based controller as per the Hierarchy of PCE framework defined | ||||
in [RFC6805]. Both ACTN and PCECC is based on the same basic | ||||
framework and thus compatible with each other. | ||||
6. IANA Considerations | ||||
This is an informational document and thus does not have any IANA | This is an informational document and thus does not have any IANA | |||
allocations to be made. | allocations to be made. | |||
7. Security Considerations | 6. Security Considerations | |||
The ACTN framework described in [I-D.ietf-teas-actn-framework] | The ACTN framework described in [I-D.ietf-teas-actn-framework] | |||
defines key components and interfaces for managed traffic engineered | defines key components and interfaces for managed traffic engineered | |||
networks. It also list various security considerations such as | networks. It also list various security considerations such as | |||
request and control of resources, confidentially of the information, | request and control of resources, confidentially of the information, | |||
and availability of function which should be taken into | and availability of function which should be taken into | |||
consideration. | consideration. | |||
When PCEP is used on the MPI, this interface needs to be secured, use | When PCEP is used on the MPI, this interface needs to be secured, use | |||
of [RFC8253] is RECOMENDED. Each PCEP extension listed in this | of [RFC8253] is RECOMENDED. Each PCEP extension listed in this | |||
document, presents its individual security considerations, which | document, presents its individual security considerations, which | |||
continue to apply. | continue to apply. | |||
8. Acknowledgments | 7. Acknowledgments | |||
The authors would like to thank Jonathan Hardwick for the inspiration | The authors would like to thank Jonathan Hardwick for the inspiration | |||
behind this document. Further thanks to Avantika for her comments | behind this document. Further thanks to Avantika for her comments | |||
with suggested text. | with suggested text. | |||
9. References | 8. References | |||
9.1. Normative References | 8.1. Normative References | |||
[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, | |||
DOI 10.17487/RFC5440, March 2009, | DOI 10.17487/RFC5440, March 2009, | |||
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5440>. | <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5440>. | |||
9.2. Informative References | [RFC6805] King, D., Ed. and A. Farrel, Ed., "The Application of the | |||
Path Computation Element Architecture to the Determination | ||||
of a Sequence of Domains in MPLS and GMPLS", RFC 6805, | ||||
DOI 10.17487/RFC6805, November 2012, | ||||
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6805>. | ||||
[I-D.ietf-teas-actn-framework] | ||||
Ceccarelli, D. and Y. Lee, "Framework for Abstraction and | ||||
Control of Traffic Engineered Networks", draft-ietf-teas- | ||||
actn-framework-15 (work in progress), May 2018. | ||||
8.2. Informative References | ||||
[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>. | |||
[RFC4203] Kompella, K., Ed. and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "OSPF Extensions in | [RFC4203] Kompella, K., Ed. and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "OSPF Extensions in | |||
Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching | Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching | |||
(GMPLS)", RFC 4203, DOI 10.17487/RFC4203, October 2005, | (GMPLS)", RFC 4203, DOI 10.17487/RFC4203, October 2005, | |||
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4203>. | <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4203>. | |||
skipping to change at page 15, line 28 ¶ | skipping to change at page 16, line 28 ¶ | |||
Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655, | Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655, | |||
DOI 10.17487/RFC4655, August 2006, | DOI 10.17487/RFC4655, August 2006, | |||
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4655>. | <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4655>. | |||
[RFC5152] Vasseur, JP., Ed., Ayyangar, A., Ed., and R. Zhang, "A | [RFC5152] Vasseur, JP., Ed., Ayyangar, A., Ed., and R. Zhang, "A | |||
Per-Domain Path Computation Method for Establishing Inter- | Per-Domain Path Computation Method for Establishing Inter- | |||
Domain Traffic Engineering (TE) Label Switched Paths | Domain Traffic Engineering (TE) Label Switched Paths | |||
(LSPs)", RFC 5152, DOI 10.17487/RFC5152, February 2008, | (LSPs)", RFC 5152, DOI 10.17487/RFC5152, February 2008, | |||
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5152>. | <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5152>. | |||
[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, | ||||
DOI 10.17487/RFC5212, July 2008, | ||||
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5212>. | ||||
[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, October | Engineering", RFC 5305, DOI 10.17487/RFC5305, October | |||
2008, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5305>. | 2008, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5305>. | |||
[RFC5307] Kompella, K., Ed. and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "IS-IS Extensions | [RFC5307] Kompella, K., Ed. and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "IS-IS Extensions | |||
in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching | in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching | |||
(GMPLS)", RFC 5307, DOI 10.17487/RFC5307, October 2008, | (GMPLS)", RFC 5307, DOI 10.17487/RFC5307, October 2008, | |||
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5307>. | <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5307>. | |||
[RFC5441] Vasseur, JP., Ed., Zhang, R., Bitar, N., and JL. Le Roux, | [RFC5441] Vasseur, JP., Ed., Zhang, R., Bitar, N., and JL. Le Roux, | |||
skipping to change at page 16, line 5 ¶ | skipping to change at page 17, line 10 ¶ | |||
Procedure to Compute Shortest Constrained Inter-Domain | Procedure to Compute Shortest Constrained Inter-Domain | |||
Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths", RFC 5441, | Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths", RFC 5441, | |||
DOI 10.17487/RFC5441, April 2009, | DOI 10.17487/RFC5441, April 2009, | |||
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5441>. | <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5441>. | |||
[RFC5623] Oki, E., Takeda, T., Le Roux, JL., and A. Farrel, | [RFC5623] Oki, E., Takeda, T., Le Roux, JL., and A. Farrel, | |||
"Framework for PCE-Based Inter-Layer MPLS and GMPLS | "Framework for PCE-Based Inter-Layer MPLS and GMPLS | |||
Traffic Engineering", RFC 5623, DOI 10.17487/RFC5623, | Traffic Engineering", RFC 5623, DOI 10.17487/RFC5623, | |||
September 2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5623>. | September 2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5623>. | |||
[RFC6805] King, D., Ed. and A. Farrel, Ed., "The Application of the | [RFC7149] Boucadair, M. and C. Jacquenet, "Software-Defined | |||
Path Computation Element Architecture to the Determination | Networking: A Perspective from within a Service Provider | |||
of a Sequence of Domains in MPLS and GMPLS", RFC 6805, | Environment", RFC 7149, DOI 10.17487/RFC7149, March 2014, | |||
DOI 10.17487/RFC6805, November 2012, | <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7149>. | |||
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6805>. | ||||
[RFC7399] Farrel, A. and D. King, "Unanswered Questions in the Path | [RFC7399] Farrel, A. and D. King, "Unanswered Questions in the Path | |||
Computation Element Architecture", RFC 7399, | Computation Element Architecture", RFC 7399, | |||
DOI 10.17487/RFC7399, October 2014, | DOI 10.17487/RFC7399, October 2014, | |||
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7399>. | <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7399>. | |||
[RFC7491] King, D. and A. Farrel, "A PCE-Based Architecture for | [RFC7491] King, D. and A. Farrel, "A PCE-Based Architecture for | |||
Application-Based Network Operations", RFC 7491, | Application-Based Network Operations", RFC 7491, | |||
DOI 10.17487/RFC7491, March 2015, | DOI 10.17487/RFC7491, March 2015, | |||
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7491>. | <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7491>. | |||
skipping to change at page 17, line 23 ¶ | skipping to change at page 18, line 29 ¶ | |||
and O. Dios, "Hierarchical Stateful Path Computation | and O. Dios, "Hierarchical Stateful Path Computation | |||
Element (PCE).", draft-ietf-pce-stateful-hpce-04 (work in | Element (PCE).", draft-ietf-pce-stateful-hpce-04 (work in | |||
progress), March 2018. | progress), March 2018. | |||
[I-D.ietf-teas-actn-requirements] | [I-D.ietf-teas-actn-requirements] | |||
Lee, Y., Ceccarelli, D., Miyasaka, T., Shin, J., and K. | Lee, Y., Ceccarelli, D., Miyasaka, T., Shin, J., and K. | |||
Lee, "Requirements for Abstraction and Control of TE | Lee, "Requirements for Abstraction and Control of TE | |||
Networks", draft-ietf-teas-actn-requirements-09 (work in | Networks", draft-ietf-teas-actn-requirements-09 (work in | |||
progress), March 2018. | progress), March 2018. | |||
[I-D.ietf-teas-actn-framework] | ||||
Ceccarelli, D. and Y. Lee, "Framework for Abstraction and | ||||
Control of Traffic Engineered Networks", draft-ietf-teas- | ||||
actn-framework-11 (work in progress), October 2017. | ||||
[I-D.ietf-teas-actn-info-model] | [I-D.ietf-teas-actn-info-model] | |||
Lee, Y., Belotti, S., Dhody, D., Ceccarelli, D., and B. | Lee, Y., Belotti, S., Dhody, D., Ceccarelli, D., and B. | |||
Yoon, "Information Model for Abstraction and Control of TE | Yoon, "Information Model for Abstraction and Control of TE | |||
Networks (ACTN)", draft-ietf-teas-actn-info-model-07 (work | Networks (ACTN)", draft-ietf-teas-actn-info-model-09 (work | |||
in progress), February 2018. | in progress), June 2018. | |||
[I-D.ietf-pce-inter-area-as-applicability] | [I-D.ietf-pce-inter-area-as-applicability] | |||
King, D., Meuric, J., Dugeon, O., Zhao, Q., Dhody, D., and | King, D., Meuric, J., Dugeon, O., Zhao, Q., Dhody, D., and | |||
O. Dios, "Applicability of the Path Computation Element to | O. Dios, "Applicability of the Path Computation Element to | |||
Inter-Area and Inter-AS MPLS and GMPLS Traffic | Inter-Area and Inter-AS MPLS and GMPLS Traffic | |||
Engineering", draft-ietf-pce-inter-area-as- | Engineering", draft-ietf-pce-inter-area-as- | |||
applicability-06 (work in progress), July 2016. | applicability-06 (work in progress), July 2016. | |||
[I-D.dhodylee-pce-pcep-ls] | [I-D.dhodylee-pce-pcep-ls] | |||
Dhody, D., Lee, Y., and D. Ceccarelli, "PCEP Extension for | Dhody, D., Lee, Y., and D. Ceccarelli, "PCEP Extension for | |||
skipping to change at page 18, line 14 ¶ | skipping to change at page 19, line 14 ¶ | |||
[I-D.leedhody-pce-vn-association] | [I-D.leedhody-pce-vn-association] | |||
Lee, Y., Dhody, D., Zhang, X., and D. Ceccarelli, "PCEP | Lee, Y., Dhody, D., Zhang, X., and D. Ceccarelli, "PCEP | |||
Extensions for Establishing Relationships Between Sets of | Extensions for Establishing Relationships Between Sets of | |||
LSPs and Virtual Networks", draft-leedhody-pce-vn- | LSPs and Virtual Networks", draft-leedhody-pce-vn- | |||
association-04 (work in progress), February 2018. | association-04 (work in progress), February 2018. | |||
[I-D.litkowski-pce-state-sync] | [I-D.litkowski-pce-state-sync] | |||
Litkowski, S., Sivabalan, S., and D. Dhody, "Inter | Litkowski, S., Sivabalan, S., and D. Dhody, "Inter | |||
Stateful Path Computation Element communication | Stateful Path Computation Element communication | |||
procedures", draft-litkowski-pce-state-sync-02 (work in | procedures", draft-litkowski-pce-state-sync-03 (work in | |||
progress), August 2017. | progress), April 2018. | |||
[I-D.ietf-pce-association-policy] | [I-D.ietf-pce-association-policy] | |||
Dhody, D., Sivabalan, S., Litkowski, S., Tantsura, J., and | Dhody, D., Sivabalan, S., Litkowski, S., Tantsura, J., and | |||
J. Hardwick, "Path Computation Element communication | J. Hardwick, "Path Computation Element communication | |||
Protocol extension for associating Policies and LSPs", | Protocol extension for associating Policies and LSPs", | |||
draft-ietf-pce-association-policy-02 (work in progress), | draft-ietf-pce-association-policy-02 (work in progress), | |||
February 2018. | February 2018. | |||
[I-D.lee-teas-actn-abstraction] | ||||
Lee, Y., Dhody, D., Ceccarelli, D., and O. Dios, | ||||
"Abstraction and Control of TE Networks (ACTN) Abstraction | ||||
Methods", draft-lee-teas-actn-abstraction-02 (work in | ||||
progress), June 2017. | ||||
[I-D.lee-pce-lsp-stitching-hpce] | [I-D.lee-pce-lsp-stitching-hpce] | |||
Lee, Y., Dhody, D., and D. Ceccarelli, "PCEP Extensions | Lee, Y., Dhody, D., and D. Ceccarelli, "PCEP Extensions | |||
for Stitching LSPs in Hierarchical Stateful PCE Model", | for Stitching LSPs in Hierarchical Stateful PCE Model", | |||
draft-lee-pce-lsp-stitching-hpce-01 (work in progress), | draft-lee-pce-lsp-stitching-hpce-01 (work in progress), | |||
December 2017. | December 2017. | |||
Authors' Addresses | Authors' Addresses | |||
Dhruv Dhody | Dhruv Dhody | |||
Huawei Technologies | Huawei Technologies | |||
End of changes. 31 change blocks. | ||||
79 lines changed or deleted | 86 lines changed or added | |||
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.46. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/ |