1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
914
915
916
917
918
919
920
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
931
932
933
934
935
936
937
938
939
940
941
942
943
944
945
946
947
948
949
|
<pre>Network Working Group JL. Le Roux, Ed.
Request for Comments: 5089 France Telecom
Category: Standards Track JP. Vasseur, Ed.
Cisco System Inc.
Y. Ikejiri
NTT Communications
R. Zhang
BT
January 2008
<span class="h1">IS-IS Protocol Extensions for</span>
<span class="h1">Path Computation Element (PCE) Discovery</span>
Status of This Memo
This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
Abstract
There are various circumstances where it is highly desirable for a
Path Computation Client (PCC) to be able to dynamically and
automatically discover a set of Path Computation Elements (PCEs),
along with information that can be used by the PCC for PCE selection.
When the PCE is a Label Switching Router (LSR) participating in the
Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP), or even a server participating
passively in the IGP, a simple and efficient way to announce PCEs
consists of using IGP flooding. For that purpose, this document
defines extensions to the Intermediate System to Intermediate System
(IS-IS) routing protocol for the advertisement of PCE Discovery
information within an IS-IS area or within the entire IS-IS routing
domain.
<span class="grey">Le Roux, et al. Standards Track [Page 1]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-2" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5089">RFC 5089</a> IS-IS Protocol Extensions for PCE Discovery January 2008</span>
Table of Contents
<a href="#section-1">1</a>. Introduction ....................................................<a href="#page-2">2</a>
<a href="#section-2">2</a>. Terminology .....................................................<a href="#page-4">4</a>
<a href="#section-3">3</a>. Overview ........................................................<a href="#page-5">5</a>
<a href="#section-3.1">3.1</a>. PCE Discovery Information ..................................<a href="#page-5">5</a>
<a href="#section-3.2">3.2</a>. Flooding Scope .............................................<a href="#page-5">5</a>
<a href="#section-4">4</a>. The IS-IS PCED Sub-TLV ..........................................<a href="#page-5">5</a>
<a href="#section-4.1">4.1</a>. PCE-ADDRESS Sub-TLV ........................................<a href="#page-6">6</a>
<a href="#section-4.2">4.2</a>. The PATH-SCOPE Sub-TLV .....................................<a href="#page-7">7</a>
<a href="#section-4.3">4.3</a>. PCE-DOMAIN Sub-TLV .........................................<a href="#page-9">9</a>
<a href="#section-4.4">4.4</a>. NEIG-PCE-DOMAIN Sub-TLV ...................................<a href="#page-10">10</a>
<a href="#section-4.5">4.5</a>. PCE-CAP-FLAGS Sub-TLV .....................................<a href="#page-10">10</a>
<a href="#section-5">5</a>. Elements of Procedure ..........................................<a href="#page-11">11</a>
<a href="#section-6">6</a>. Backward Compatibility .........................................<a href="#page-12">12</a>
<a href="#section-7">7</a>. IANA Considerations ............................................<a href="#page-12">12</a>
<a href="#section-8">8</a>. Security Considerations ........................................<a href="#page-12">12</a>
<a href="#section-9">9</a>. Manageability Considerations ...................................<a href="#page-13">13</a>
<a href="#section-9.1">9.1</a>. Control of Policy and Functions ...........................<a href="#page-13">13</a>
<a href="#section-9.2">9.2</a>. Information and Data Model ................................<a href="#page-13">13</a>
<a href="#section-9.3">9.3</a>. Liveness Detection and Monitoring .........................<a href="#page-13">13</a>
<a href="#section-9.4">9.4</a>. Verify Correct Operations .................................<a href="#page-13">13</a>
9.5. Requirements on Other Protocols and Functional
Components ................................................<a href="#page-13">13</a>
<a href="#section-9.6">9.6</a>. Impact on Network Operations ..............................<a href="#page-14">14</a>
<a href="#section-10">10</a>. Acknowledgments ...............................................<a href="#page-14">14</a>
<a href="#section-11">11</a>. References ....................................................<a href="#page-15">15</a>
<a href="#section-11.1">11.1</a>. Normative References .....................................<a href="#page-15">15</a>
<a href="#section-11.2">11.2</a>. Informative References ...................................<a href="#page-15">15</a>
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-1" href="#section-1">1</a>. Introduction</span>
[<a id="ref-RFC4655">RFC4655</a>] describes the motivations and architecture for a Path
Computation Element (PCE)-based path computation model for
Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS)
Traffic Engineered Label Switched Paths (TE LSPs). The model allows
for the separation of the PCE from a Path Computation Client (PCC)
(also referred to as a non co-located PCE) and allows for cooperation
between PCEs (where one PCE acts as a PCC to make requests of the
other PCE). This relies on a communication protocol between a PCC
and PCE, and also between PCEs. The requirements for such a
communication protocol can be found in [<a href="./rfc4657" title=""Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol Generic Requirements"">RFC4657</a>], and the
communication protocol is defined in [<a href="#ref-PCEP" title=""Path Computation Element (PCE) communication Protocol (PCEP) "">PCEP</a>].
The PCE architecture requires that a PCC be aware of the location of
one or more PCEs in its domain, and, potentially, of PCEs in other
domains, e.g., in the case of inter-domain TE LSP computation.
<span class="grey">Le Roux, et al. Standards Track [Page 2]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-3" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5089">RFC 5089</a> IS-IS Protocol Extensions for PCE Discovery January 2008</span>
A network may contain a large number of PCEs, each with potentially
distinct capabilities. In such a context, it is highly desirable to
have a mechanism for automatic and dynamic PCE discovery that allows
PCCs to automatically discover a set of PCEs, along with additional
information about each PCE that may be used by a PCC to perform PCE
selection. Additionally, it is valuable for a PCC to dynamically
detect new PCEs, failed PCEs, or any modification to the PCE
information. Detailed requirements for such a PCE discovery
mechanism are provided in [<a href="./rfc4674" title=""Requirements for Path Computation Element (PCE) Discovery"">RFC4674</a>].
Note that the PCE selection algorithm applied by a PCC is out of the
scope of this document.
When PCCs are LSRs participating in the IGP (OSPF or IS-IS), and PCEs
are either LSRs or servers also participating in the IGP, an
effective mechanism for PCE discovery within an IGP routing domain
consists of utilizing IGP advertisements.
This document defines extensions to IS-IS [<a href="#ref-ISO" title=""Intermediate System to Intermediate System Intra-Domain Routeing Exchange Protocol for use in Conjunction with the Protocol for Providing the Connectionless-mode Network Service"">ISO</a>] to allow a PCE in an
IS-IS routing domain to advertise its location, along with some
information useful to a PCC for PCE selection, so as to satisfy
dynamic PCE discovery requirements set forth in [<a href="./rfc4674" title=""Requirements for Path Computation Element (PCE) Discovery"">RFC4674</a>].
Generic capability advertisement mechanisms for IS-IS are defined in
[<a href="./rfc4971" title=""Intermediate System to Intermediate System (IS-IS) Extensions for Advertising Router Information"">RFC4971</a>]. These allow a router to advertise its capabilities within
an IS-IS area or an entire IS-IS routing domain. This document
leverages this generic capability advertisement mechanism to fully
satisfy the dynamic PCE discovery requirements.
This document defines a new sub-TLV (named the PCE Discovery (PCED))
to be carried within the IS-IS Router Capability TLV ([<a href="./rfc4971" title=""Intermediate System to Intermediate System (IS-IS) Extensions for Advertising Router Information"">RFC4971</a>]).
The PCE information advertised is detailed in <a href="#section-3">Section 3</a>. Protocol
extensions and procedures are defined in Sections <a href="#section-4">4</a> and <a href="#section-5">5</a>.
The IS-IS extensions defined in this document allow for PCE discovery
within an IS-IS routing domain. Solutions for PCE discovery across
AS boundaries are beyond the scope of this document, and are for
further study.
This document defines a set of sub-TLVs that are nested within each
other. When the degree of nesting TLVs is 2 (a TLV is carried within
another TLV) the TLV carried within a TLV is called a sub-TLV.
Strictly speaking, when the degree of nesting is 3, a sub-sub-TLV is
carried within a sub-TLV that is itself carried within a TLV. For
the sake of terminology simplicity, a TLV carried within another TLV
is called a sub-TLV regardless of the degree of nesting.
<span class="grey">Le Roux, et al. Standards Track [Page 3]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-4" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5089">RFC 5089</a> IS-IS Protocol Extensions for PCE Discovery January 2008</span>
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-2" href="#section-2">2</a>. Terminology</span>
ABR: IS-IS Area Border Router.
AS: Autonomous System.
IGP: Interior Gateway Protocol. Either of the two routing protocols,
Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) or Intermediate System to
Intermediate system (IS-IS).
Intra-area TE LSP: A TE LSP whose path does not cross an IGP area
boundary.
Intra-AS TE LSP: A TE LSP whose path does not cross an AS boundary.
Inter-area TE LSP: A TE LSP whose path transits two or more IGP
areas. That is, a TE LSP that crosses at least one IGP area
boundary.
Inter-AS TE LSP: A TE LSP whose path transits two or more ASes or
sub-ASes (BGP confederations). That is, a TE LSP that crosses at
least one AS boundary.
IS-IS LSP: Link State PDU.
LSR: Label Switching Router.
PCC: Path Computation Client. Any client application requesting a
path computation to be performed by a Path Computation Element.
PCE: Path Computation Element. An entity (component, application, or
network node) that is capable of computing a network path or route
based on a network graph and applying computational constraints.
PCED: PCE Discovery.
PCE-Domain: In a PCE context, this refers to any collection of
network elements within a common sphere of address management or path
computational responsibility (referred to as a "domain" in
[<a href="./rfc4655" title=""A Path Computation Element (PCE)-Based Architecture"">RFC4655</a>]). Examples of PCE-Domains include IGP areas and ASes.
This should be distinguished from an IS-IS routing domain as defined
by [<a href="#ref-ISO" title=""Intermediate System to Intermediate System Intra-Domain Routeing Exchange Protocol for use in Conjunction with the Protocol for Providing the Connectionless-mode Network Service"">ISO</a>].
PCEP: Path Computation Element communication Protocol.
TE LSP: Traffic Engineered Label Switched Path.
TLV: Type-Length-Variable data encoding.
<span class="grey">Le Roux, et al. Standards Track [Page 4]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-5" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5089">RFC 5089</a> IS-IS Protocol Extensions for PCE Discovery January 2008</span>
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [<a href="./rfc2119" title=""Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels"">RFC2119</a>].
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-3" href="#section-3">3</a>. Overview</span>
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.1" href="#section-3.1">3.1</a>. PCE Discovery Information</span>
The PCE discovery information is composed of:
- The PCE location: an IPv4 and/or IPv6 address that is used to
reach the PCE. It is RECOMMENDED to use an address that is always
reachable if there is any connectivity to the PCE;
- The PCE path computation scope (i.e., intra-layer, inter-area,
inter-AS, or inter-layer);
- The set of one or more PCE-Domain(s) into which the PCE has
visibility and for which the PCE can compute paths;
- The set of zero, one, or more neighbor PCE-Domain(s) toward which
the PCE can compute paths;
- A set of communication capabilities (e.g., support for request
prioritization) and path computation-specific capabilities (e.g.,
supported constraints).
PCE discovery information is, by nature, fairly static and does not
change with PCE activity. Changes in PCE discovery information may
occur as a result of PCE configuration updates, PCE
deployment/activation, PCE deactivation/suppression, or PCE failure.
Hence, this information is not expected to change frequently.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.2" href="#section-3.2">3.2</a>. Flooding Scope</span>
The flooding scope for PCE information advertised through IS-IS can
be a single L1 area, an L1 area and the L2 sub-domain, or the entire
IS-IS routing domain.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-4" href="#section-4">4</a>. The IS-IS PCED Sub-TLV</span>
The IS-IS PCED sub-TLV contains a non-ordered set of sub-TLVs.
The format of the IS-IS PCED sub-TLV and its sub-TLVs is identical to
the TLV format used by the Traffic Engineering Extensions to IS-IS
[<a href="./rfc3784" title=""Intermediate System to Intermediate System (IS-IS) Extensions for Traffic Engineering (TE)"">RFC3784</a>]. That is, the TLV is comprised of 1 octet for the type, 1
octet specifying the TLV length, and a value field. The Length field
defines the length of the value portion in octets.
<span class="grey">Le Roux, et al. Standards Track [Page 5]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-6" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5089">RFC 5089</a> IS-IS Protocol Extensions for PCE Discovery January 2008</span>
The IS-IS PCED sub-TLV has the following format:
TYPE: 5
LENGTH: Variable
VALUE: Set of sub-TLVs
Five sub-TLVs are defined:
Sub-TLV type Length Name
1 variable PCE-ADDRESS sub-TLV
2 3 PATH-SCOPE sub-TLV
3 variable PCE-DOMAIN sub-TLV
4 variable NEIG-PCE-DOMAIN sub-TLV
5 variable PCE-CAP-FLAGS sub-TLV
The PCE-ADDRESS and PATH-SCOPE sub-TLVs MUST always be present within
the PCED sub-TLV.
The PCE-DOMAIN and NEIG-PCE-DOMAIN sub-TLVs are optional. They MAY
be present in the PCED sub-TLV to facilitate selection of
inter-domain PCEs.
The PCE-CAP-FLAGS sub-TLV is optional and MAY be present in the PCED
sub-TLV to facilitate the PCE selection process.
Any unrecognized sub-TLV MUST be silently ignored.
The PCED sub-TLV is carried within an IS-IS CAPABILITY TLV defined in
[<a href="./rfc4971" title=""Intermediate System to Intermediate System (IS-IS) Extensions for Advertising Router Information"">RFC4971</a>].
No additional sub-TLVs will be added to the PCED TLV in the future.
If a future application requires the advertisement of additional PCE
information in IS-IS, this will not be carried in the CAPABILITY TLV.
The following sub-sections describe the sub-TLVs that may be carried
within the PCED sub-TLV.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.1" href="#section-4.1">4.1</a>. PCE-ADDRESS Sub-TLV</span>
The PCE-ADDRESS sub-TLV specifies an IP address that can be used to
reach the PCE. It is RECOMMENDED to make use of an address that is
always reachable, provided the PCE is alive and reachable.
The PCE-ADDRESS sub-TLV is mandatory; it MUST be present within the
PCED sub-TLV. It MAY appear twice, when the PCE has both an IPv4 and
IPv6 address. It MUST NOT appear more than once for the same address
type. If it appears more than once for the same address type, only
the first occurrence is processed and any others MUST be ignored.
<span class="grey">Le Roux, et al. Standards Track [Page 6]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-7" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5089">RFC 5089</a> IS-IS Protocol Extensions for PCE Discovery January 2008</span>
The PCE-ADDRESS sub-TLV has the following format:
TYPE: 1
LENGTH: 5 for an IPv4 address or 17 for an IPv6 address.
VALUE: This comprises one octet indicating the address-type and 4
or 16 octets encoding the IPv4 or IPv6 address to be used
to reach the PCE.
Address-type:
1 IPv4
2 IPv6
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.2" href="#section-4.2">4.2</a>. The PATH-SCOPE Sub-TLV</span>
The PATH-SCOPE sub-TLV indicates the PCE path computation scope,
which refers to the PCE's ability to compute or take part in the
computation of paths for intra-area, inter-area, inter-AS, or
inter-layer TE LSPs.
The PATH-SCOPE sub-TLV is mandatory; it MUST be present within the
PCED sub-TLV. There MUST be exactly one instance of the PATH-SCOPE
sub-TLV within each PCED sub-TLV. If it appears more than once only
the first occurrence is processed and any others MUST be ignored.
The PATH-SCOPE sub-TLV contains a set of bit flags indicating the
supported path scopes, and four fields indicating PCE preferences.
The PATH-SCOPE sub-TLV has the following format:
TYPE: 2
LENGTH: 3
VALUE: This comprises a 1-octet flags field where each flag
represents a supported path scope, followed by a 2-octet
preferences field indicating PCE preferences.
Here is the structure of the flags field:
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0|1|2|3|4|5|Res|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
<span class="grey">Le Roux, et al. Standards Track [Page 7]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-8" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5089">RFC 5089</a> IS-IS Protocol Extensions for PCE Discovery January 2008</span>
Bit Path Scope
0 L bit: Can compute intra-area paths.
1 R bit: Can act as PCE for inter-area TE LSP computation.
2 Rd bit: Can act as a default PCE for inter-area TE LSP
computation.
3 S bit: Can act as PCE for inter-AS TE LSP computation.
4 Sd bit: Can act as a default PCE for inter-AS TE LSP
computation.
5 Y bit: Can act as PCE for inter-layer TE LSP
computation.
6-7 Reserved for future use.
Here is the structure of the preferences field:
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|PrefL|PrefR|PrefS|PrefY| Res |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
PrefL field: PCE's preference for intra-area TE LSP computation.
PrefR field: PCE's preference for inter-area TE LSP computation.
PrefS field: PCE's preference for inter-AS TE LSP computation.
Pref-Y field: PCE's preference for inter-layer TE LSP computation.
Res: Reserved for future use.
The L, R, S, and Y bits are set when the PCE can act as a PCE for
intra-area, inter-area, inter-AS, or inter-layer TE LSP computation,
respectively. These bits are non-exclusive.
When set, the Rd bit indicates that the PCE can act as a default PCE
for inter-area TE LSP computation (that is, the PCE can compute a
path toward any neighbor area). Similarly, when set, the Sd bit
indicates that the PCE can act as a default PCE for inter-AS TE LSP
computation (the PCE can compute a path toward any neighbor AS).
When the Rd and Sd bit are set, the PCED sub-TLV MUST NOT contain a
NEIG-PCE-DOMAIN sub-TLV (see <a href="#section-4.4">Section 4.4</a>).
When the R bit is clear, the Rd bit SHOULD be clear on transmission
and MUST be ignored on receipt. When the S bit is clear, the Sd bit
SHOULD be clear on transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt.
The PrefL, PrefR, PrefS and PrefY fields are each three bits long and
allow the PCE to specify a preference for each computation scope,
<span class="grey">Le Roux, et al. Standards Track [Page 8]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-9" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5089">RFC 5089</a> IS-IS Protocol Extensions for PCE Discovery January 2008</span>
where 7 reflects the highest preference. Such preferences can be
used for weighted load balancing of path computation requests. An
operator may decide to configure a preference for each computation
scope at each PCE so as to balance the path computation load among
them. The algorithms used by a PCC to balance its path computation
requests according to such PCE preferences are out of the scope of
this document and are a matter for local or network-wide policy. The
same or different preferences may be used for each scope. For
instance, an operator that wants a PCE capable of both inter-area and
inter-AS computation to be preferred for use for inter-AS
computations may configure PrefS higher than PrefR.
When the L, R, S, or Y bits are cleared, the PrefL, PrefR, PrefS, and
PrefY fields SHOULD respectively be set to 0 on transmission and MUST
be ignored on receipt.
Both reserved fields SHOULD be set to zero on transmission and MUST
be ignored on receipt.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.3" href="#section-4.3">4.3</a>. PCE-DOMAIN Sub-TLV</span>
The PCE-DOMAIN sub-TLV specifies a PCE-Domain (area and/or AS) where
the PCE has topology visibility and through which the PCE can compute
paths.
The PCE-DOMAIN sub-TLV SHOULD be present when PCE-Domains for which
the PCE can operate cannot be inferred by other IGP information: for
instance, when the PCE is inter-domain capable (i.e., when the R bit
or S bit is set) and the flooding scope is the entire routing domain
(see <a href="#section-5">Section 5</a> for a discussion of how the flooding scope is set and
interpreted).
A PCED sub-TLV may include multiple PCE-DOMAIN sub-TLVs when the PCE
has visibility into multiple PCE-Domains.
The PCE-DOMAIN sub-TLV has the following format:
TYPE: 3
LENGTH: Variable
VALUE: This is composed of one octet indicating the domain-type
(area ID or AS Number) and a variable length IS-IS area ID
or a 32-bit AS number, identifying a PCE-Domain where the
PCE has visibility and can compute paths.
Two domain types are defined:
1 Area ID
2 AS Number
<span class="grey">Le Roux, et al. Standards Track [Page 9]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-10" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5089">RFC 5089</a> IS-IS Protocol Extensions for PCE Discovery January 2008</span>
The Area ID is the area address as defined in [<a href="#ref-ISO" title=""Intermediate System to Intermediate System Intra-Domain Routeing Exchange Protocol for use in Conjunction with the Protocol for Providing the Connectionless-mode Network Service"">ISO</a>].
When the AS number is coded in two octets, the AS Number field MUST
have its first two octets set to 0.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.4" href="#section-4.4">4.4</a>. NEIG-PCE-DOMAIN Sub-TLV</span>
The NEIG-PCE-DOMAIN sub-TLV specifies a neighbor PCE-Domain (area or
AS) toward which a PCE can compute paths. It means that the PCE can
take part in the computation of inter-domain TE LSPs with paths that
transit this neighbor PCE-Domain.
A PCED sub-TLV may include several NEIG-PCE-DOMAIN sub-TLVs when the
PCE can compute paths towards several neighbor PCE-Domains.
The NEIG-PCE-DOMAIN sub-TLV has the same format as the PCE-DOMAIN
sub-TLV:
TYPE: 4
LENGTH: Variable
VALUE: This comprises one octet indicating the domain-type (area
ID or AS Number) and a variable length IS-IS area ID or a
32-bit AS number, identifying a PCE-Domain toward which
the PCE can compute paths.
Two domain types are defined:
1 Area ID
2 AS Number
The Area ID is the area address as defined in [<a href="#ref-ISO" title=""Intermediate System to Intermediate System Intra-Domain Routeing Exchange Protocol for use in Conjunction with the Protocol for Providing the Connectionless-mode Network Service"">ISO</a>].
When the AS number is coded in two octets, the AS Number field MUST
have its first two octets set to 0.
The NEIG-PCE-DOMAIN sub-TLV MUST be present at least once with
domain-type set to 1 if the R bit is set and the Rd bit is cleared,
and MUST be present at least once with domain-type set to 2 if the S
bit is set and the Sd bit is cleared.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.5" href="#section-4.5">4.5</a>. PCE-CAP-FLAGS Sub-TLV</span>
The PCE-CAP-FLAGS sub-TLV is an optional sub-TLV used to indicate PCE
capabilities. It MAY be present within the PCED sub-TLV. It MUST
NOT be present more than once. If it appears more than once, only
the first occurrence is processed and any others MUST be ignored.
<span class="grey">Le Roux, et al. Standards Track [Page 10]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-11" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5089">RFC 5089</a> IS-IS Protocol Extensions for PCE Discovery January 2008</span>
The value field of the PCE-CAP-FLAGS sub-TLV is made up of an array
of units of 32-bit flags numbered from the most significant bit as
bit zero, where each bit represents one PCE capability.
The PCE-CAP-FLAGS sub-TLV has the following format:
TYPE: 5
LENGTH: Multiple of 4
VALUE: This contains an array of units of 32-bit flags numbered
from the most significant as bit zero, where each bit
represents one PCE capability.
The PCE capability registry is managed by IANA; it is common with
OSPF and defined in [<a href="./rfc5088" title=""OSPF Protocol Extensions for Path Computation Element (PCE) Discovery"">RFC5088</a>].
Reserved bits SHOULD be set to zero on transmission and MUST be
ignored on receipt.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-5" href="#section-5">5</a>. Elements of Procedure</span>
The PCED sub-TLV is advertised within an IS-IS Router Capability TLV
defined in [<a href="./rfc4971" title=""Intermediate System to Intermediate System (IS-IS) Extensions for Advertising Router Information"">RFC4971</a>]. As such, elements of procedures are inherited
from those defined in [<a href="./rfc4971" title=""Intermediate System to Intermediate System (IS-IS) Extensions for Advertising Router Information"">RFC4971</a>].
The flooding scope is controlled by the S flag in the IS-IS Router
Capability TLV (see [<a href="./rfc4971" title=""Intermediate System to Intermediate System (IS-IS) Extensions for Advertising Router Information"">RFC4971</a>]). When the scope of the PCED sub-TLV
is area local, it MUST be carried within an IS-IS Router Capability
TLV having the S bit cleared. When the scope of the PCED sub-TLV is
the entire IS-IS routing domain, it MUST be carried within an IS-IS
Router Capability TLV having the S bit set. Note that when only the
L bit of the PATH-SCOPE sub-TLV is set, the flooding scope MUST be
area local.
Note that an L1L2 node may include a PCED TLV in a Router Capability
TLV with the S bit cleared in both in its L1 and L2 LSPs. This
allows the flooding scope to be restricted to the L1 area and the L2
sub-domain.
When the PCE function is deactivated, the IS-IS speaker advertising
this PCE MUST originate a new IS-IS LSP that no longer includes the
corresponding PCED TLV.
The PCE address (i.e., the address indicated within the PCE-ADDRESS
sub-TLV) SHOULD be reachable via some prefixes advertised by IS-IS.
The PCED sub-TLV information regarding a specific PCE is only
considered current and useable when the router advertising this
<span class="grey">Le Roux, et al. Standards Track [Page 11]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-12" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5089">RFC 5089</a> IS-IS Protocol Extensions for PCE Discovery January 2008</span>
information is itself reachable via IS-IS calculated paths at the
level of the LSP in which the PCED sub-TLV appears.
A change in the state of a PCE (activate, deactivate, parameter
change) MUST result in a corresponding change in the PCED sub-TLV
information advertised by an IS-IS router (inserted, removed,
updated) in its LSP. The way PCEs determine the information they
advertise, and how that information is made available to IS-IS, is
out of the scope of this document. Some information may be
configured (e.g., address, preferences, scope) and other information
may be automatically determined by the PCE (e.g., areas of
visibility).
A change in information in the PCED sub-TLV MUST NOT trigger any SPF
computation at a receiving router.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-6" href="#section-6">6</a>. Backward Compatibility</span>
The PCED sub-TLV defined in this document does not introduce any
interoperability issues.
An IS-IS router not supporting the PCED sub-TLV will just silently
ignore the sub-TLV as specified in [<a href="./rfc4971" title=""Intermediate System to Intermediate System (IS-IS) Extensions for Advertising Router Information"">RFC4971</a>].
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-7" href="#section-7">7</a>. IANA Considerations</span>
IANA has defined a registry for the sub-TLVs carried in the IS-IS
Router Capability TLV defined in [<a href="./rfc4971" title=""Intermediate System to Intermediate System (IS-IS) Extensions for Advertising Router Information"">RFC4971</a>]. IANA has assigned a new
sub-TLV codepoint for the PCED sub-TLV carried within the Router
Capability TLV.
Value Sub-TLV References
----- -------- ----------
5 PCED sub-TLV (this document)
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-8" href="#section-8">8</a>. Security Considerations</span>
This document defines IS-IS extensions for PCE discovery within an
administrative domain. Hence the security of the PCE discovery
relies on the security of IS-IS.
Mechanisms defined to ensure authenticity and integrity of IS-IS LSPs
[<a href="./rfc3567" title=""Intermediate System to Intermediate System (IS-IS) Cryptographic Authentication"">RFC3567</a>] and their TLVs, can be used to secure the PCED sub-TLV as
well.
IS-IS provides no encryption mechanism for protecting the privacy of
LSPs and, in particular, the privacy of the PCE discovery
information.
<span class="grey">Le Roux, et al. Standards Track [Page 12]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-13" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5089">RFC 5089</a> IS-IS Protocol Extensions for PCE Discovery January 2008</span>
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-9" href="#section-9">9</a>. Manageability Considerations</span>
Manageability considerations for PCE Discovery are addressed in
<a href="./rfc4674#section-4.10">Section 4.10 of [RFC4674]</a>.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-9.1" href="#section-9.1">9.1</a>. Control of Policy and Functions</span>
Requirements for the configuration of PCE discovery parameters on
PCCs and PCEs are discussed in <a href="./rfc4674#section-4.10.1">Section 4.10.1 of [RFC4674]</a>.
In particular, a PCE implementation SHOULD allow the following
parameters to be configured on the PCE:
-The PCE IPv4/IPv6 address(es) (see <a href="#section-4.1">Section 4.1</a>).
-The PCE Scope, including the inter-domain functions (inter-area,
inter-AS, inter-layer), the preferences, and whether the PCE can
act as default PCE (see <a href="#section-4.2">Section 4.2</a>).
-The PCE-Domains (see <a href="#section-4.3">Section 4.3</a>).
-The neighbor PCE-Domains (see <a href="#section-4.4">Section 4.4</a>).
-The PCE capabilities (see <a href="#section-4.5">Section 4.5</a>).
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-9.2" href="#section-9.2">9.2</a>. Information and Data Model</span>
A MIB module for PCE Discovery is defined in [<a href="#ref-PCED-MIB" title=""Definitions of Managed Objects for Path Computation Element Discovery"">PCED-MIB</a>].
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-9.3" href="#section-9.3">9.3</a>. Liveness Detection and Monitoring</span>
This document specifies the use of IS-IS as a PCE Discovery Protocol.
The requirements specified in [<a href="./rfc4674" title=""Requirements for Path Computation Element (PCE) Discovery"">RFC4674</a>] include the ability to
determine liveness of the PCE Discovery protocol. Normal operation
of the IS-IS protocol meets these requirements.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-9.4" href="#section-9.4">9.4</a>. Verify Correct Operations</span>
The correlation of information advertised against information
received can be achieved by comparing the information in the PCED
sub-TLV received by the PCC with that stored at the PCE using the
PCED MIB [<a href="#ref-PCED-MIB" title=""Definitions of Managed Objects for Path Computation Element Discovery"">PCED-MIB</a>]. The number of dropped, corrupt, and rejected
information elements are available through the PCED MIB.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-9.5" href="#section-9.5">9.5</a>. Requirements on Other Protocols and Functional Components</span>
The IS-IS extensions defined in this document do not imply any
requirements on other protocols.
<span class="grey">Le Roux, et al. Standards Track [Page 13]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-14" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5089">RFC 5089</a> IS-IS Protocol Extensions for PCE Discovery January 2008</span>
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-9.6" href="#section-9.6">9.6</a>. Impact on Network Operations</span>
Frequent changes in PCE information advertised in the PCED sub-TLV
may have a significant impact on IS-IS and might destabilize the
operation of the network by causing the PCCs to swap between PCEs.
As discussed in <a href="./rfc4674#section-4.10.4">Section 4.10.4 of [RFC4674]</a>, it MUST be possible to
apply at least the following controls:
- Configurable limit on the rate of announcement of changed
parameters at a PCE.
- Control of the impact on PCCs, such as through rate-limiting
the processing of PCED sub-TLVs.
- Configurable control of triggers that cause a PCC to swap to
another PCE.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-10" href="#section-10">10</a>. Acknowledgments</span>
We would like to thank Lucy Wong, Adrian Farrel, Les Ginsberg, Mike
Shand, Lou Berger, David Ward, Ross Callon, and Lisa Dusseault for
their useful comments and suggestions.
<span class="grey">Le Roux, et al. Standards Track [Page 14]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-15" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5089">RFC 5089</a> IS-IS Protocol Extensions for PCE Discovery January 2008</span>
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-11" href="#section-11">11</a>. References</span>
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-11.1" href="#section-11.1">11.1</a>. Normative References</span>
[<a id="ref-ISO">ISO</a>] "Intermediate System to Intermediate System Intra-Domain
Routeing Exchange Protocol for use in Conjunction with
the Protocol for Providing the Connectionless-mode
Network Service" ISO/IEC 10589:2002 Second Edition.
[<a id="ref-RFC2119">RFC2119</a>] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", <a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp14">BCP 14</a>, <a href="./rfc2119">RFC 2119</a>, March 1997.
[<a id="ref-RFC3567">RFC3567</a>] Li, T. and R. Atkinson, "Intermediate System to
Intermediate System (IS-IS) Cryptographic
Authentication", <a href="./rfc3567">RFC 3567</a>, July 2003.
[<a id="ref-RFC3784">RFC3784</a>] Smit, H. and T. Li, "Intermediate System to Intermediate
System (IS-IS) Extensions for Traffic Engineering (TE)",
<a href="./rfc3784">RFC 3784</a>, June 2004.
[<a id="ref-RFC4971">RFC4971</a>] Vasseur, JP., Ed., Shen, N., Ed., and R. Aggarwal, Ed.,
"Intermediate System to Intermediate System (IS-IS)
Extensions for Advertising Router Information", <a href="./rfc4971">RFC</a>
<a href="./rfc4971">4971</a>, July 2007.
[<a id="ref-RFC5088">RFC5088</a>] Le Roux, JL., Ed., Vasseur, JP., Ed., Ikejiri, Y., and
R. Zhang, "OSPF Protocol Extensions for Path Computation
Element (PCE) Discovery", <a href="./rfc5088">RFC 5088</a>, January 2008.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-11.2" href="#section-11.2">11.2</a>. Informative References</span>
[<a id="ref-PCED-MIB">PCED-MIB</a>] Stephan, E., "Definitions of Managed Objects for Path
Computation Element Discovery", Work in Progress, March
2007.
[<a id="ref-PCEP">PCEP</a>] Vasseur, JP., Ed., and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path
Computation Element (PCE) communication Protocol (PCEP)
", Work in Progress, November 2007.
[<a id="ref-RFC4655">RFC4655</a>] Farrel, A., Vasseur, JP., and J. Ash, "A Path
Computation Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", <a href="./rfc4655">RFC 4655</a>,
August 2006.
[<a id="ref-RFC4657">RFC4657</a>] Ash, J., Ed., and J. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation
Element (PCE) Communication Protocol Generic
Requirements", <a href="./rfc4657">RFC 4657</a>, September 2006.
<span class="grey">Le Roux, et al. Standards Track [Page 15]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-16" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5089">RFC 5089</a> IS-IS Protocol Extensions for PCE Discovery January 2008</span>
[<a id="ref-RFC4674">RFC4674</a>] Le Roux, J., Ed., "Requirements for Path Computation
Element (PCE) Discovery", <a href="./rfc4674">RFC 4674</a>, October 2006.
Authors' Addresses
Jean-Louis Le Roux (Editor)
France Telecom
2, avenue Pierre-Marzin
22307 Lannion Cedex
FRANCE
EMail: jeanlouis.leroux@orange-ftgroup.com
Jean-Philippe Vasseur (Editor)
Cisco Systems, Inc.
1414 Massachusetts avenue
Boxborough, MA 01719
USA
EMail: jpv@cisco.com
Yuichi Ikejiri
NTT Communications Corporation
1-1-6, Uchisaiwai-cho, Chiyoda-ku
Tokyo 100-8019
JAPAN
EMail: y.ikejiri@ntt.com
Raymond Zhang
BT
2160 E. Grand Ave.
El Segundo, CA 90025
USA
EMail: raymond.zhang@bt.com
<span class="grey">Le Roux, et al. Standards Track [Page 16]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-17" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5089">RFC 5089</a> IS-IS Protocol Extensions for PCE Discovery January 2008</span>
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in <a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp78">BCP 78</a>, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in <a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp78">BCP 78</a> and <a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp79">BCP 79</a>.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
<a href="http://www.ietf.org/ipr">http://www.ietf.org/ipr</a>.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Le Roux, et al. Standards Track [Page 17]
</pre>
|
