draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-extensions-01.txt   draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-extensions-02.txt 
Network Working Group F. Zhang, Ed. Network Working Group F. Zhang
Internet-Draft Q. Zhao Internet-Draft Q. Zhao
Intended status: Experimental Huawei Intended status: Experimental Huawei
Expires: August, 2014 O. Gonzalez de Dios, Ed. Expires: July, 2015 O. Gonzalez de Dios
Telefonica I+D Telefonica I+D
R. Casellas R. Casellas
CTTC CTTC
D. King D. King
Old Dog Consulting Old Dog Consulting
February 14, 2014 January 27, 2015
Extensions to Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) for Extensions to Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) for
Hierarchical Path Computation Elements (PCE) Hierarchical Path Computation Elements (PCE)
draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-extensions-01 draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-extensions-02
Abstract Abstract
The Hierarchical Path Computation Element (H-PCE) architecture, The Hierarchical Path Computation Element (H-PCE) architecture,
provides a mechanism to allow the optimum sequence of domains to be provides a mechanism to allow the optimum sequence of domains to be
selected,and the optimum end-to-end path to be derived through the selected,and the optimum end-to-end path to be derived through the
use of a hierarchical relationship between domains. use of a hierarchical relationship between domains.
This document defines the Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) This document defines the Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP)
extensions for the purpose of implementing Hierarchical PCE extensions for the purpose of implementing Hierarchical PCE
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 http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://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 in August, 2014. This Internet-Draft will expire in July, 2015.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
skipping to change at page 2, line 43 skipping to change at page 2, line 43
3.1.3. Domain-ID TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.1.3. Domain-ID TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.1.4. PCE-ID TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3.1.4. PCE-ID TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.2. RP object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3.2. RP object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.2.1. RP Object Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3.2.1. RP Object Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.2.2. Domain-ID TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3.2.2. Domain-ID TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.3. Metric Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10 3.3. Metric Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10
3.4. PCEP-ERROR Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10 3.4. PCEP-ERROR Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10
3.4.1. Hierarchy PCE Error-Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10 3.4.1. Hierarchy PCE Error-Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10
3.5. NO-PATH Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10 3.5. NO-PATH Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10
4. H-PCE Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10 4. H-PCE Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10
4.1. OPEN Procedure between Child PCE and Parent PCE . . . . .11 4.1. OPEN Procedure between Child PCE and Parent PCE . . . . .10
4.2. Procedure to Obtain Domain Sequence . . . . . . . . . . .11 4.2. Procedure to Obtain Domain Sequence . . . . . . . . . . .11
5. Error Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11 5. Error Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11
6. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12 6. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12 6.1. Control of Function and Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12 6.1.1. Child PCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12
9. Contributing Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12 6.1.2. Parent PCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13
10. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12 6.1.3. Policy Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13
11. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13 6.2. Information and Data Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13 6.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . .13
6.4. Verifying Correct Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13
6.5. Impact on Network Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14
9. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15
10. Contributing Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16
11. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16
12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17
12.1 Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17
12.2 Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
[RFC6805] describes a Hierarchical PCE (H-PCE) architecture which can [RFC6805] describes a Hierarchical PCE (H-PCE) architecture which can
be used for computing end-to-end paths for inter-domain MPLS Traffic be used for computing end-to-end paths for inter-domain MPLS Traffic
Engineering (TE) and GMPLS Label Switched Paths (LSPs). Engineering (TE) and GMPLS Label Switched Paths (LSPs).
Within the hierarchical PCE architecture, the parent PCE is used to Within the hierarchical PCE architecture, the parent PCE is used to
compute a multi-domain path based on the domain connectivity compute a multi-domain path based on the domain connectivity
information. A child PCE may be responsible for a single domain or information. A child PCE may be responsible for a single domain or
skipping to change at page 4, line 42 skipping to change at page 4, line 51
[RFC6805] identifies high-level requirements of PCEP extensions [RFC6805] identifies high-level requirements of PCEP extensions
required to support the hierarchical PCE model. required to support the hierarchical PCE model.
2.1. PCEP Requests 2.1. PCEP Requests
The PCReq messages are used by a PCC or PCE to make a path The PCReq messages are used by a PCC or PCE to make a path
computation request to a PCE. In order to achieve the full computation request to a PCE. In order to achieve the full
functionality of the H-PCE procedures, the PCReq message needs to functionality of the H-PCE procedures, the PCReq message needs to
include: include:
o Qualification of PCE Requests. o Qualification of PCE Requests;
o Multi-domain Objective Functions (OF);
o Multi-domain Objective Functions (OF).
o Multi-domain Metrics. o Multi-domain Metrics.
2.1.1. Qualification of PCEP Requests 2.1.1. Qualification of PCEP Requests
As described in section 4.8.1 of [RFC6805], the H-PCE architecture As described in section 4.8.1 of [RFC6805], the H-PCE architecture
introduces new request qualifications, which are: introduces new request qualifications, which are:
o It MUST be possible for a child PCE to indicate that a request it o It MUST be possible for a child PCE to indicate that a request it
sends to a parent PCE should be satisfied by a domain sequence sends to a parent PCE should be satisfied by a domain sequence
skipping to change at page 6, line 14 skipping to change at page 6, line 20
A parent PCE MUST be capable of ensuring homogeneity, across domains, A parent PCE MUST be capable of ensuring homogeneity, across domains,
when applying OF codes for strict OF intra-domain requests. when applying OF codes for strict OF intra-domain requests.
2.1.3. Multi-domain Metrics 2.1.3. Multi-domain Metrics
For inter-domain path computation, there are several path metrics of For inter-domain path computation, there are several path metrics of
interest [Editor's note: Current framework only mentions metric interest [Editor's note: Current framework only mentions metric
objectives. The metric itself should be also defined]: objectives. The metric itself should be also defined]:
o Domain count (number of domains crossed). o Domain count (number of domains crossed);
o Border Node count. o Border Node count.
A PCC may be able to limit the number of domains crossed by applying A PCC may be able to limit the number of domains crossed by applying
a limit on these metrics. a limit on these metrics.
2.2. Parent PCE Capability Discovery 2.2. Parent PCE Capability Discovery
Parent and child PCE relationships are likely to be configured. Parent and child PCE relationships are likely to be configured.
However, as mentioned in [RFC6805], it would assist network operators However, as mentioned in [RFC6805], it would assist network operators
skipping to change at page 7, line 4 skipping to change at page 7, line 10
The PCE ID information and PCE domain identifiers may be provided The PCE ID information and PCE domain identifiers may be provided
during the PCEP session establishment procedure or the domain during the PCEP session establishment procedure or the domain
connectivity information collection procedure. connectivity information collection procedure.
3. PCEP Extensions (Encoding) 3. PCEP Extensions (Encoding)
3.1. OPEN object 3.1. OPEN object
3.1.1. OF Codes 3.1.1. OF Codes
This H-PCE experiment will be carried out using the following OF This H-PCE experiment will be carried out using the following OF
codes: codes:
o MTD o MTD
* Name: Minimize the number of Transit Domains. * Name: Minimize the number of Transit Domains
* Objective Function Code. * Objective Function Code
* Description: Find a path P such that it passes through the * Description: Find a path P such that it passes through the
lnumber of transit domains. number of transit domains
o MBN o MBN
* Name: Minimize the number of border nodes. * Name: Minimize the number of border nodes.
* Objective Function Code. * Objective Function Code
* Description: Find a path P such that it passes through the * Description: Find a path P such that it passes through the
least number of border nodes. least number of border nodes
o DDR o DDR
* Name: Disallow Domain Re-entry (DDR) * Name: Disallow Domain Re-entry (DDR)
* Objective Function Code. * Objective Function Code
* Description: Find a path P such that does not entry a domain * Description: Find a path P such that does not entry a domain
more than once. more than once
3.1.2. OPEN Object Flags 3.1.2. OPEN Object Flags
This H-PCE experiment will also require two OPEN object flags: This H-PCE experiment will also require two OPEN object flags:
o Parent PCE Request bit (to be assigned by IANA, recommended bit o Parent PCE Request bit (to be assigned by IANA, recommended bit
0): if set, it would signal that the child PCE wishes to use the 0): if set, it would signal that the child PCE wishes to use the
peer PCE as a parent PCE. peer PCE as a parent PCE.
o Parent PCE Indication bit (to be assigned by IANA, recommended bit o Parent PCE Indication bit (to be assigned by IANA, recommended bit
skipping to change at page 9, line 40 skipping to change at page 9, line 40
whether it is an IPv4 or an IPv6 PCE, the address type is not whether it is an IPv4 or an IPv6 PCE, the address type is not
needed.] needed.]
3.2. RP object 3.2. RP object
3.2.1. RP Object Flags 3.2.1. RP Object Flags
The following RP object flags are defined for this H-PCE experiment: The following RP object flags are defined for this H-PCE experiment:
o Domain Path Request bit: if set, it means the child PCE wishes to o Domain Path Request bit: if set, it means the child PCE wishes to
get the domain sequence. get the domain sequence;
o Destination Domain Query bit: if set, it means the parent PCE o Destination Domain Query bit: if set, it means the parent PCE
wishes to get the destination domain ID. wishes to get the destination domain ID.
3.2.2. Domain-ID TLV 3.2.2. Domain-ID TLV
The format of this TLV is defined in Section 3.1.3. This TLV can be The format of this TLV is defined in Section 3.1.3. This TLV can be
carried in an OPEN object to indicate a (list of) managed domains, or carried in an OPEN object to indicate a (list of) managed domains, or
carried in a RP object to indicate the destination domain ID when a carried in a RP object to indicate the destination domain ID when a
child PCE responds to the parent PCE's destination domain query by a child PCE responds to the parent PCE's destination domain query by a
PCRep message. PCRep message.
[Editors note. In some cases, the Parent PCE may need to allocate a [Editors note. In some cases, the Parent PCE may need to allocate a
node which is not necessarily the destination node.] node which is not necessarily the destination node.]
3.3. Metric Object 3.3. Metric Object
There are two new metrics defined in this document for H-PCE: There are two new metrics defined in this document for H-PCE:
o Domain count (number of domains crossed). o Domain count (number of domains crossed);
o Border Node Count (number of border nodes crossed). o Border Node Count (number of border nodes crossed).
3.4. PCEP-ERROR object 3.4. PCEP-ERROR object
3.4.1. Hierarchy PCE Error-Type 3.4.1. Hierarchy PCE Error-Type
A new PCEP Error-Type is used for this H-PCE experiment and is A new PCEP Error-Type is used for this H-PCE experiment and is
defined below: defined below:
skipping to change at page 10, line 47 skipping to change at page 10, line 44
The object may contain a NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV to provide additional The object may contain a NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV to provide additional
information about why a (domain) path computation has failed. information about why a (domain) path computation has failed.
Three new bit flags are defined to be carried in the Flags field in Three new bit flags are defined to be carried in the Flags field in
the NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV carried in the NO-PATH Object. the NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV carried in the NO-PATH Object.
o Bit 23: When set, the parent PCE indicates that destination domain o Bit 23: When set, the parent PCE indicates that destination domain
unknown; unknown;
o Bit 22: When set, the parent PCE indicates unresponsive child o Bit 22: When set, the parent PCE indicates unresponsive child
PCE(s); PCE(s);
o Bit 21: When set, the parent PCE indicates no available resource o Bit 21: When set, the parent PCE indicates no available resource
available in one or more domain(s). available in one or more domain(s).
4. H-PCE Procedures 4. H-PCE Procedures
4.1. OPEN Procedure between Child PCE and Parent PCE
4.1. OPEN Procedure between Child PCE and Parent PCE
If a child PCE wants to use the peer PCE as a parent, it can set the If a child PCE wants to use the peer PCE as a parent, it can set the
parent PCE request bit in the OPEN object carried in the Open message parent PCE request bit in the OPEN object carried in the Open message
during the PCEP session creation procedure. If the peer PCE does not during the PCEP session creation procedure. If the peer PCE does not
want to provide the parent function to the child PCE, it must send a want to provide the parent function to the child PCE, it must send a
PCErr message to the child PCE and clear the parent PCE indication PCErr message to the child PCE and clear the parent PCE indication
bit in the OPEN object. bit in the OPEN object.
If the parent PCE can provide the parent function to the peer PCE, it If the parent PCE can provide the parent function to the peer PCE, it
may set the parent PCE indication bit in the OPEN object carried in may set the parent PCE indication bit in the OPEN object carried in
the Open message during the PCEP session creation procedure. the Open message during the PCEP session creation procedure.
skipping to change at page 12, line 27 skipping to change at page 12, line 24
o The objective functions specified in the path request cannot be o The objective functions specified in the path request cannot be
met. met.
In this case, the parent PCE MAY need to send a negative path In this case, the parent PCE MAY need to send a negative path
computation reply specifying the reason. This can be achieved by computation reply specifying the reason. This can be achieved by
including NO-PATH object in the PCRep message. Extension to NO-PATH including NO-PATH object in the PCRep message. Extension to NO-PATH
object is needed to include the aforementioned reasons. object is needed to include the aforementioned reasons.
6. Manageability Considerations 6. Manageability Considerations
TBD. General PCE and PCEP management considerations are discussed in
[RFC4655] and [RFC5440]. There are additional management
considerations for H-PCE which are described in [RFC6805], and
repeated in this section.
The administrative entity responsible for the management of the
parent PCEs must be determined for the following cases:
o multi-domains (e.g., IGP areas or multiple ASes) within a single
service provider network, the management responsibility for the
parent PCE would most likely be handled by the service provider,
o multiple ASes within different service provider networks, it may
be necessary for a third party to manage the parent PCEs according
to commercial and policy agreements from each of the participating
service providers.
[To be discussed further.]
6.1. Control of Function and Policy
[To be discussed further.]
6.1.1. Child PCE
Support of the hierarchical procedure will be controlled by the
management organization responsible for each child PCE. A child
PCE must be configured with the address of its parent PCE in order
for it to interact with its parent PCE. The child PCE must also
be authorized to peer with the parent PCE.
6.1.2. Parent PCE
The parent PCE must only accept path computation requests from
authorized child PCEs. If a parent PCE receives requests from an
unauthorized child PCE, the request should be dropped. This means
that a parent PCE must be configured with the identities and
security credentials of all of its child PCEs, or there must be
some form of shared secret that allows an unknown child PCE to be
authorized by the parent PCE.
6.1.3. Policy Control
It may be necessary to maintain a policy module on the parent PCE
[RFC5394]. This would allow the parent PCE to apply commercially
relevant constraints such as SLAs, security, peering preferences, and
monetary costs.
It may also be necessary for the parent PCE to limit end-to-end path
selection by including or excluding specific domains based on
commercial relationships, security implications, and reliability.
6.2. Information and Data Models
A PCEP MIB module is defined in [RFC7420] that describes managed
objects for modeling of PCEP communication. A H-PCE MIB module,
or additional data model will be required to report parent PCE
and child PCE information, including:
o parent PCE configuration and status,
o child PCE configuration and information,
o notifications to indicate session changes between parent PCEs and
child PCEs, and
o notification of parent PCE TED updates and changes.
6.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring
The hierarchical procedure requires interaction with multiple PCEs.
Once a child PCE requests an end-to-end path, a sequence of events
occurs that requires interaction between the parent PCE and each
child PCE. If a child PCE is not operational, and an alternate
transit domain is not available, then a failure must be reported.
6.4. Verifying Correct Operation
Verifying the correct operation of a parent PCE can be performed by
monitoring a set of parameters. The parent PCE implementation should
provide the following parameters monitored by the parent PCE:
o number of child PCE requests,
o number of successful hierarchical PCE procedures completions on a
per-PCE-peer basis,
o number of hierarchical PCE procedure completion failures on a per-
PCE-peer basis, and
o number of hierarchical PCE procedure requests from unauthorized
child PCEs.
6.5. Impact on Network Operation
The hierarchical PCE procedure is a multiple-PCE path computation
scheme. Subsequent requests to and from the child and parent PCEs do
not differ from other path computation requests and should not have
any significant impact on network operations.
7. IANA Considerations 7. IANA Considerations
Due to the experimental nature of this draft no IANA requests are Due to the experimental nature of this draft no IANA requests are
made. made.
8. Security Considerations 8. Security Considerations
To be added. The hierarchical PCE procedure relies on PCEP and inherits the
security requirements defined in [RFC5440]. As PCEP operates
over TCP, it may also make use of TCP security mechanisms,
including Transport Layer Security (TLS).
9. Contributing Authors H-PCE operation also relies on information used to build the TED.
Attacks on a parent or child PCE may be achieved by falsifying
or impeding this flow of information. If the child PCE listens to
the IGP for populating the TED, then normal IGP security measures
may be applied, and it should be noted that an IGP routing
system is generally assumed to be a trusted domain such that router
subversion is not a risk. The parent PCE TED is constructed as
described in this document and may involve:
o multiple parent-child relationships using PCEP
o the parent PCE listening to child domain IGPs (with the same
security features as a child PCE listening to its IGP)
o an external mechanism (such as [BGP-LS]), which will need to be
authorized and secured.
Any multi-domain operation necessarily involves the exchange of
information across domain boundaries. This is bound to represent a
significant security and confidentiality risk especially when the
child domains are controlled by different commercial concerns. PCEP
allows individual PCEs to maintain confidentiality of their domain
path information using path-keys [RFC5520], and the H-PCE
architecture is specifically designed to enable as much isolation of
domain topology and capabilities information as is possible.
For further considerations of the security issues related to inter-AS
path computation, see [RFC5376].
[To be discussed further.]
9. Implementation Status
The H-PCE architecture and protocol procedures describe in this I-D
were implemented and tested for a variety of optical research
applications.
This work was led by:
o Ramon Casellas <ramon.casellas@cttc.es>
o Centre Tecnologic de Telecomunicacions de Catalunya (CTTC)
The H-PCE instances (parent and child) were multi-threaded
asynchronous processes. Implemented in C++11, using C++ Boost
Libraries. The targeted system used to deploy and run H-PCE
applications was a POSIX system (Debian GNU/Linux operating
system).
Some parts of the software may require a Linux Kernel, the
availability of a Routing Controller running collocated in the same
host and the usage of libnetfilter / libipq and GNU/Linux
firewalling capabilities. Most of the functionality, including
algorithms is done by means of plugins (e.g., as shared libraries
or .so files in Unix systems).
The CTTC PCE supports the H-PCE architecture, but also supports
stateful PCE with active capabilities, as an OpenFlow controller,
and has dedicated plugins to support monitoring, BRPC, P2MP, path
keys, back end PCEs. Management of the H-PCE entities was supported
via HTTP and CLI via Telnet.
Further details of the H-PCE prototyping and experimentation can be
found in the following scientific papers:
R. Casellas, R. Martinez, R. Munoz, L. Liu, T. Tsuritani, I.
Morita, "Inter-layer traffic engineering with hierarchical-PCE in
MPLS-TP over wavelength switched optical networks" , Optics
Express, Vol. 20, No. 28, December 2012.
R. Casellas, R. Martinez, R. Munoz, L. Liu, T. Tsuritani, I. Morita,
M. Msurusawa, "Dynamic virtual link mesh topology aggregation in
multi-domain translucent WSON with hierarchical-PCE", Optics Express
Journal, Vol. 19, No. 26, December 2011.
R. Casellas, R. Munoz, R. Martinez, R. Vilalta, L. Liu, T. Tsuritani,
I. Morita, V. Lopez, O. Gonzalez de Dios, J. P. Fernandez-Palacios,
"SDN based Provisioning Orchestration of OpenFlow/GMPLS Flexi-grid
Networks with a Stateful Hierarchical PCE", in Proceedings of Optical
Fiber Communication Conference and Exposition (OFC), 9-13 March,
2014, San Francisco (EEUU). Extended Version to appear in Journal
Of Optical Communications and Networking January 2015
F. Paolucci, O. Gonzalez de Dios, R. Casellas, S. Duhovnikov, P.
Castoldi, R. Munoz, R. Martinez, "Experimenting Hierarchical PCE
Architecture in a Distributed Multi-Platform Control Plane Testbed" ,
in Proceedings of Optical Fiber Communication Conference and
Exposition (OFC) and The National Fiber Optic Engineers Conference
(NFOEC), 4-8 March, 2012, Los Angeles, California (USA).
R. Casellas, R. Martinez, R. Munoz, L. Liu, T. Tsuritani, I. Morita,
M. Tsurusawa, "Dynamic Virtual Link Mesh Topology Aggregation in
Multi-Domain Translucent WSON with Hierarchical-PCE", in
Proceedings of 37th European Conference and Exhibition on Optical
Communication (ECOC 2011), 18-22 September 2011, Geneve (
Switzerland).
R. Casellas, R. Munoz, R. Martinez, "Lab Trial of Multi-Domain Path
Computation in GMPLS Controlled WSON Using a Hierarchical PCE", in
Proceedings of OFC/NFOEC Conference (OFC2011), 10 March 2011, Los
Angeles (USA).
[Note to the RFC Editor - This section is intended to be removed
before publication.]
10. Contributing Authors
Xian Zhang Xian Zhang
Huawei Huawei
zhang.xian@huawei.com zhang.xian@huawei.com
10. Acknowledgments 11. Acknowledgments
To be added. The Internet-Draft and implementation has been partially funded by
the European Commission under the project Industry-Driven Elastic and
Adaptive Lambda Infrastructure for Service and Transport Networks
(IDEALIST) of the Seventh Framework Program, with Grant Agreement
Number: 317999.
11. Normative References 12. References
12.1 Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V., [RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.,
and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001. Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001.
[RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J., and J. Ash, "A Path Computation [RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J., and J. Ash, "A Path Computation
Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655, August 2006. Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655, August 2006.
skipping to change at page 13, line 40 skipping to change at page 17, line 45
[RFC5886] Vasseur, JP., Le Roux, JL., and Y. Ikejiri, "A Set of [RFC5886] Vasseur, JP., Le Roux, JL., and Y. Ikejiri, "A Set of
Monitoring Tools for Path Computation Element (PCE)-Based Monitoring Tools for Path Computation Element (PCE)-Based
Architecture", RFC 5886, June 2010. Architecture", RFC 5886, June 2010.
[RFC6805] King, D. and A. Farrel, "The Application of the Path [RFC6805] King, D. and A. Farrel, "The Application of the Path
Computation Element Architecture to the Determination of a Computation Element Architecture to the Determination of a
Sequence of Domains in MPLS and GMPLS", RFC 6805, Sequence of Domains in MPLS and GMPLS", RFC 6805,
November 2012. November 2012.
12.2 Informative References
[RFC5376] Bitar, N., Zhang, R., and K. Kumaki, "Inter-AS
Requirements for the Path Computation Element
Communication Protocol (PCECP)", RFC 5376, November
2008.
[RFC5394] Bryskin, I., Papadimitriou, D., Berger, L., and J. Ash,
"Policy-Enabled Path Computation Framework", RFC 5394,
December 2008.
[RFC5520] Bradford, R., Ed., Vasseur, JP., and A. Farrel,
"Preserving Topology Confidentiality in Inter-Domain
Path Computation Using a Path-Key-Based Mechanism",
RFC 5520, April 2009.
[RFC7420] Koushik, A., Stephan, E., Zhao, Q., King, D., Hardwick,
J., "Path Computation Element Communication Protocol
(PCEP) Management Information Base (MIB) Module", RFC
7420, December 2014.
[BGP-LS] Gredler, H., Medved, J., Previdi, S., Farrel, A., and
S. Ray, "North-Bound Distribution of Link-State and TE
Information using BGP", Work in Progress, January 2015.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Fatai Zhang (editor) Fatai Zhang
Huawei Huawei
Huawei Base, Bantian, Longgang District Huawei Base, Bantian, Longgang District
Shenzhen, 518129 Shenzhen, 518129
China China
Phone: +86-755-28972912 Phone: +86-755-28972912
Email: zhangfatai@huawei.com Email: zhangfatai@huawei.com
Quintin Zhao Quintin Zhao
Huawei Huawei
125 Nagog Technology Park 125 Nagog Technology Park
Acton, MA 01719 Acton, MA 01719
US US
Phone: Phone:
Email: qzhao@huawei.com Email: qzhao@huawei.com
Oscar Gonzalez de Dios (editor) Oscar Gonzalez de Dios
Telefonica I+D Telefonica I+D
Don Ramon de la Cruz 82-84 Don Ramon de la Cruz 82-84
Madrid, 28045 Madrid, 28045
Spain Spain
Phone: +34913128832 Phone: +34913128832
Email: ogondio@tid.es Email: ogondio@tid.es
Ramon Casellas Ramon Casellas
CTTC CTTC
Av. Carl Friedrich Gauss n.7 Av. Carl Friedrich Gauss n.7
Castelldefels, Barcelona Castelldefels, Barcelona
Spain Spain
Phone: +34 93 645 29 00 Phone: +34 93 645 29 00
Email: ramon.casellas@cttc.es Email: ramon.casellas@cttc.es
Daniel King Daniel King
 End of changes. 34 change blocks. 
37 lines changed or deleted 284 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.41. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/