[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits] [IPR]

Versions: (draft-zhao-pce-central-controller-user-cases) 00 01 02 draft-ietf-teas-pcecc-use-cases

TEAS Working Group                                          Quintin Zhao
Internet-Draft                                                  Robin Li
Intended status: Experimental                        Boris Khasanov, Ed.
Expires: May 25, 2017                                Huawei Technologies
                                                                 King Ke
                                                    Tencent Holdings Ltd.
                                                             Luyuan Fang
                                                               Microsoft
                                                               Chao Zhou
                                                           Cisco Systems
                                                             Boris Zhang
                                                    Telus Communications
                                                        Artem Rachitskiy
                                                            Anton Gulida
                                                 Mobile TeleSystems JLLC
                                                        October 26, 2016


  The Use Cases for Using PCE as the Central Controller(PCECC) of LSPs
                   draft-zhao-teas-pcecc-use-cases-02

Abstract

   In certain networks deployment scenarios, service providers would
   like to keep all the existing MPLS functionalities in both MPLS and
   GMPLS network while reducing existing complexity.In this document,
   we propose to use the PCE as a central controller so that LSP can be
   calculated/signaled/initiated/downloaded/managed through a
   centralized PCE server to each network devices along the LSP path
   while leveraging the existing PCE technologies as much as possible.

   This draft describes the use cases for using the PCE as the central
   controller where LSPs are calculated/setup/initiated/downloaded/
   maintained through extending the current PCE architectures and
   extending the PCEP.


   Requirements Language

   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 [RFC2119].


   Status of This Memo

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

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

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




Zhao, et al.           Expires May 25, 2017               [Page 1]


Internet-Draft             Use Cases for PCECC            October 2016


   This Internet-Draft will expire on May 25, 2017.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.1.  Background  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.2.  Using the PCE as the Central Controller (PCECC) Approach    4
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   3.  PCEP Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   4.  Use Cases of PCECC for Label Resource Reservations  . . . . .   8
   5.  Using PCECC for SR without the IGP Extension  . . . . . . . .   9
     5.1.  Use Cases of PCECC for SR Best Effort(BE) Path  . . . . .  10
     5.2.  Use Cases of PCECC for SR Traffic Engineering (TE) Path .  11
   6.  Use Cases of PCECC for TE LSP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   7.  Use Cases of PCECC for Multicast LSPs . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     7.1.  Using PCECC for P2MP/MP2MP LSPs' Setup  . . . . . . . . .  14
     7.2.  Use Cases of PCECC for the Resiliency of P2MP/MP2MP LSPs   15
       7.2.1.  PCECC for the End-to-End Protection of the P2MP/MP2MP
               LSPs  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
       7.2.2.  PCECC for the Local Protection of the P2MP/MP2MP LSPs  16
   8.  Use Cases of PCECC for LSP in the Network Migration . . . . .  17
   9.  Use Cases of PCECC for L3VPN and PWE3 . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
   10. Using PCECC for Traffic Classification Informations . . . . .  19
   11. Use case of PCECC for load balancing  . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
   12. Using reliable P2MP TE based multicast delivery for distributed
       computations (MapReduce-Hadoop). . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   22
   13. PCECC and Inter-AS TE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
   14. The Considerations for PCECC Procedure and PCEP extensions  .  25
   14. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
   15. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
   16. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
   17. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
     17.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
     17.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26




Zhao, et al.           Expires May 25, 2017               [Page 2]


Internet-Draft             Use Cases for PCECC             October 2016


1.  Introduction

1.1.  Background

   In many network deployment scenarios, service providers would like
   to have the ability to dynamically adapt to a wide range of
   customer's requests for the sake of flexible network service
   delivery. SDN provides such flexibility and programmability for
   that case.

   By migrating to the SDN enabled network from the existing network,
   service providers and network operators must have a solution which
   they can easily evolve from the existing network into the fully SDN
   enabled network while keeping scalability of the network services,
   guarantee robustness, availability, flexibility etc.

   Taking into account the smooth transition from existing network
   to the new SDN enabled network  with optimal cost,
   re-usage of the existing PCE components in network to be
   function of the central (SDN) controller is one choice,
   that not only achieves the goal of having centralized control
   but also leverages the existing PCE network components.

   The Path Computation Element communication Protocol (PCEP) provides
   mechanisms for Path Computation Elements (PCEs) to perform route
   computations in response to Path Computation Clients (PCCs) requests.
   PCEP Extensions for PCE-initiated LSP Setup in a Stateful PCE Model
   draft [I-D. draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce] describes a set of
   extensions to PCEP to enable active control of MPLS-TE and GMPLS
   tunnels.

   [I-D.crabbe-pce-pce-initiated-lsp] describes the setup and teardown
   of PCE-initiated LSPs under the active stateful PCE model, without
   the need for local configuration on the PCC, thus allowing for a
   dynamic MPLS network that is centrally controlled and deployed.

   [I-D.ali-pce-remote-initiated-gmpls-lsp] complements [I-D. draft-
   crabbe-pce-pce-initiated-lsp] by addressing the requirements for
   remote-initiated GMPLS LSPs.

   Segment Routing (SR)  technology leverages the source routing and
   tunneling paradigms. A source node can choose a path without relying
   on hop-by-hop signaling protocols such as LDP or RSVP-TE.  Each path
   is specified as a set of "segments" advertised by link-state routing




Zhao, et al.           Expires May 25, 2017               [Page 3]


Internet-Draft             Use Cases for PCECC            October 2016


   protocols (IS-IS or OSPF).  [I-D.filsfils-spring-segment-routing]
   provides an introduction to SR technology.  The corresponding IS-IS
   and OSPF extensions are specified in [I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-
   extensions] and [I-D.psenak-ospf-segment-routing-extensions],
   respectively.

   A Segment Routed path (SR path) can be derived from an IGP Shortest
   Path Tree (SPT).  Segment Routed Traffic Engineering paths (SR-TE
   paths) may not follow IGP SPT.  Such paths may be chosen by a
   suitable network planning tool and provisioned on the source node of
   the SR-TE path.

   It is possible to use a stateful PCE for computing one or more SR-TE
   paths taking into account various constraints and objective
   functions.  Once a path is chosen, the stateful PCE can instantiate
   an SR-TE path on a PCC using PCEP extensions specified in [I-
   D.crabbe-pce-pce-initiated-lsp] using the SR specific PCEP extensions
   described in [I-D.sivabalan-pce-segment-routing].

   By using the solutions provided from above drafts, LSP in both MPLS
   and GMPLS network can be setup/delete/maintained/synchronized through
   a centrally controlled MPLS network.

   The PCECC solution proposed in this document allows creation of dynamic
   MPLS network that is eventually controlled and deployed without the
   RSVP-TE protocol or extended IGP protocol with node/adjacency segment
   identifiers while providing all the key MPLS functionalities needed by
   the service providers.
   These key MPLS features include MPLS P2P LSP, P2MP/MP2MP LSP, MPLS
   protection mechanism etc.  In the case that one LSP path consists
   legacy network nodes and the new network nodes which are centrally
   controlled, the PCECC solution provides a smooth transition way for
   users.

1.2.  Using the PCE as the Central Controller (PCECC) Approach

   PCECC not only can remove the existing MPLS signaling totally
   from the control plane without losing any MPLS functionalities,
   but also will achieve this goal through utilizing the existing PCEP
   without introducing a new protocol into the network.

   The following diagram illustrates the PCECC architecture.



Zhao, et al.           Expires May 25, 2017               [Page 4]


Internet-Draft             Use Cases for PCECC            October 2016


   +----------------------------------------------------------------+
   |                         PCECC                                  |
   |    +-----------------------------------------------------+     |
   |    |  LSP-Database    RSVP-TE Signal Control Module      |     |
   |    |  TE-Database     LDP signaling Control Module       |     |
   |    |  Label-Database  LSP/label/TE MGRs                  |     |
   |    +-----------------------------------------------------+     |
   |    ^              ^           ^             ^        ^         |
   | IGP|LDP/RSVP-TE   |PCEP       |PCEP     PCEP|     IGP|LDP/     |
   |    |PCEP          |           |             |        |RSVP-TE/ |
   |    V              V           V             V        V PCE     |
   | +--------+   +--------+   +--------+   +--------+   +--------+ |
   | |NODE 1  |   | NODE 2 |   | NODE 3 |   | NODE 4 |   | NODE 5 | |
   | |        |...|        |...|        |...|        |...|        | |
   | | Legacy |IGP|        |IGP|        |IGP|  PCC4  |IGP| Legacy | |
   | |  Node  |   |        |   |        |   |        |   |  Node  | |
   | +--------+   +--------+   +--------+   +--------+   +--------+ |
   |                                                                |
   +----------------------------------------------------------------+


   Through the draft, we call the combination of the functionality for
   global label range signaling and the functionality of LSP
   setup/download/cleanup using the combination of global labels and
   local labels as PCECC functionality.

   Current MPLS label has local meaning.  That is, MPLS label allocated
   locally and signaled through the LDP/RSVP-TE/BGP etc. dynamic
   signaling protocol.

   As the SDN(Service-Driven Network) technology develops, MPLS global
   label has been proposed again for new solutions.  [I-D.li-mpls-
   global-label-usecases] proposes possible usecases of MPLS global
   label.  MPLS global label can be used for identification of the
   location, the service and the network in different application
   scenarios.  From these usecases we can see that no matter SDN or
   traditional application scenarios, the new solutions based on MPLS
   global label can facilitate service provisions.
   The solution choices are described in [I-D.li-mpls-global-label-
   framework].

   To ease the label allocation and signaling mechanism, also with the
   new applications such as concentrated LSP controller is introduced,
   PCE can be conveniently used as a central controller and MPLS global
   label range negotiator.






Zhao, et al.           Expires May 25, 2017               [Page 5]


Internet-Draft             Use Cases for PCECC            October 2016


   The later section of this draft describes the user cases for PCE
   server and PCE clients to have the global label range negotiation and
   local label range negotiation functionality.

   To empower networking with centralized controllable modules, there
   are many choices for downloading the forwarding entries to the data
   plane, one way is the use of the OpenFlow protocol, which helps
   devices to populate their forwarding tables according to a set of
   instructions to the data plane.  There are other candidate protocols
   to convey specific configuration information towards devices also.
   Since the PCEP protocol is already deployed in some of the service
   providers networks, leverage the PCEP to populated the MPLS forwarding
   table is a possible good choice.

   For the centralized network, the performance achieved through
   distributed system can not be easy matched if all of the forwarding
   path is computed, downloaded and maintained by the centralized
   controller.  The performance can be improved by supporting part of
   the forwarding path in the PCECC network through the segment routing
   mechanism except that the adjacency IDs for all the network nodes and
   links are propagated through the centralized controller instead of
   using the IGP extension.

   The node and link adjacency IDs can be negotiated through the PCECC
   with each PCECC clients and these IDs can be just taken from the
   global label range which has been negotiated already.

   With the capability of supporting SR within the PCECC architecture,
   all the p2p forwarding path protection use cases described in the
   draft [I-D.ietf-spring-resiliency-use-cases] will be supported too
   within the PCECC network.  These protection alternatives include end-
   to-end path protection, local protection without operator management
   and local protection with operator management.

   With the capability of global label and local label existing at the
   same time in the PCECC network, PCECC will use compute, setup and
   maintain the P2MP and MP2MP LSP using the local label range for each
   network nodes.

   With the capability of setting up/maintaining the P2MP/MP2MP LSP
   within the PCECC network, it is easy to provide the end-end managed
   path protection service and the local protection with the operation
   management in the PCECC network for the P2MP/MP2MP LSP, which
   includes both the RSVP-TE P2MP based LSP and also the mLDP based LSP.







Zhao, et al.           Expires May 25, 2017               [Page 6]


Internet-Draft             Use Cases for PCECC             October 2016


2.  Terminology

   The following terminology is used in this document.

   IGP:  Interior Gateway Protocol.  Either of the two routing
      protocols, Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) or Intermediate System
      to Intermediate System (IS-IS).

   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.

   TE:  Traffic Engineering.

3.  PCEP Requirements

   Following key requirements associated PCECC should be considered when
   designing the PCECC based solution:

   1.  Path Computation Element (PCE) clients supporting this draft MUST
       have the capability to advertise its PCECC capability to the
       PCECC.

   2.  Path Computation Element (PCE) supporting this draft MUST have
       the capability to negotiate a global label range for a group of
       clients.

   3.  Path Computation Client (PCC) MUST be able ask for global label
       range assigned in path request message .

   4.  PCE are not required to support label reserve service.
       Therefore, it MUST be possible for a PCE to reject a Path
       Computation Request message with a reason code that indicates no
       support for label reserve service.

   5.  PCEP SHOULD provide a means to return global label range and LSP
       label assignments of the computed path in the reply message.

   6.  PCEP SHOULD provide a means to download the MPLS forwarding entry
       to the PCECC's clients.







Zhao, et al.           Expires May 25, 2017               [Page 7]


Internet-Draft             Use Cases for PCECC            October 2016


4.  Use Cases of PCECC for Label Resource Reservations

   Example 1 to 2 are based on network configurations illustrated using
   the following figure:


   +------------------------------+    +------------------------------+
   |         PCE DOMAIN 1         |    |         PCE DOMAIN 2         |
   |          +--------+          |    |          +--------+          |
   |          |        |          |    |          |        |          |
   |          | PCECC1 |  ----------------------- | PCECC2 |          |
   |          |        |          |    |          |        |          |
   |          |        |          |    |          |        |          |
   |          +--------+          |    |          +--------+          |
   |         ^          ^         |    |         ^          ^         |
   |        /            \        |    |        /            \        |
   |       V              V       |    |       V              V       |
   | +--------+        +--------+ |    | +--------+        +--------+ |
   | |NODE 11 |        | NODE 1n| |    | |NODE 21 |        | NODE 2n| |
   | |        | ...... |        | |    | |        | ...... |        | |
   | | PCECC  |        |  PCECC | |    | | PCECC  |        |PCECC   | |
   | |Enabled |        | Enabled|      | |Enabled |        |Enabled | |
   | +--------+        +--------+ |    | +--------+        +--------+ |
   |                              |    |                              |
   +------------------------------+    +------------------------------+


   Example 1: Shared Global Label Range Reservation

   o  PCECC Clients nodes report MPLS label capability to the central
      controller PCECC.

   o  The central controller PCECC collects MPLS label capability of all
      nodes.  Then PCECC can calculate the shared MPLS global label
      range for all the PCECC client nodes.

   o  In the case that the shared global label range need to be
      negotiated across multiple domains, the central controllers of
      these domains need to be communicate to negotiate a common global
      label range.

   o  The central controller PCECC notifies the shared global label
      range to all PCECC client nodes.

   Example 2: Global Label Allocation

   o  PCECC Client node1 send global label allocation request to the
      central controller PCECC1.



Zhao, et al.           Expires May 25, 2017               [Page 8]


Internet-Draft             Use Cases for PCECC             October 2016


   o  The central controller PCECC1 allocates the global label for FEC1
      from the shared global label range and sends the reply to the
      client node1.

   o  The central controller PCECC1 notifies the allocated label for
      FEC1 to all PCECC client nodes within domain 1.

5.  Using PCECC for SR without the IGP Extension

   For the centralized network, the performance achieved through
   distributed system can not be easy matched if all of the forwarding
   path is computed, downloaded and maintained by the centralized
   controller.  The performance can be improved by supporting part of
   the forwarding path in the PCECC network through the segment routing
   mechanism except that node segment ids and adjacency segment IDs for
   all the network are allocated dynamically and propagated through the
   centralized controller instead of using the IGP extension.

   When the PCECC is used for the distribution of the node segment ID
   and adjacency segment ID, the node segment ID is allocated from the
   global label pool.  For the allocation of adjacency segment ID, there
   are two choices, the first choice is that it is allocated from the
   local label pool, the second choice is that it is allocated from the
   global label pool.  The advantage for the second choice is that the
   depth of the label stack for the forwarding path encoding will be
   reduced since adjacency segment ID can signal the forwarding path
   without adding the node segment ID in front of it.  In this version
   of the draft, we use the fist choice for now.  We may update the
   draft to reflect the use of the second choice.

   Same as the SR solutions, when PCECC is used as the central
   controller, the support of FRR on any topology can be pre-computated
   and setup without any additional signaling (other than the regular
   IGP/BGP protocols) including the support of shared risk constraints,
   support of node and link protection and support of microloop
   avoidance.

   The following example illustrate the use case where the node segment
   ID and adjacency segment ID are allocated from the global label
   allocated for SR path.











Zhao, et al.           Expires May 25, 2017               [Page 9]


Internet-Draft             Use Cases for PCECC             October 2016


                          192.0.2.1/32
                          +----------+
                          | R1(1001) |
                          +----------+
                               |
                          +----------+
                          | R2(1002) |  192.0.2.2/32
                          +----------+
                         *   |   *    *
                        *    |   *     *
                       *link1|   *      *
        192.0.2.4/32  *      |   *link2  *  192.0.2.5/32
           +-----------+ 9001|   *     +-----------+
           | R4(1004)  |     |   *     | R5(1005)  |
           +-----------+     |   *     +-----------+
                      *      |   *9003  *   +
                       *     |   *     *    +
                        *    |   *    *     +
                        +-----------+   +-----------+
           192.0.2.3/32 | R3(1003)  |   |R6(1006)   |192.0.2.6/32
                        +-----------+   +-----------+
                             |
                        +-----------+
                        | R8(1008)  |  192.0.2.8/32
                        +-----------+


5.1.  Use Cases of PCECC for SR Best Effort(BE) Path

   In this mode of the solution, the PCECC just need to allocate the
   node segment ID and adjacency ID without calculating the explicit
   path for the SR path.  The ingress of the forwarding path just need
   to encapsulate the destination node segment ID on top of the packet.
   All the intermediate nodes will forward the packet based on the final
   destination node segment id.  It is similar to the LDP LSP forwarding
   except that label swapping is using the same global label both for
   the in segment and out segment in each hop.

   The p2p SR BE path examples are explained as bellow:

   Note that the node segment id for each node from the shared global
   labels ranges negotiated already.

   Example 1:

   R1 may send a packet to R8 simply by pushing an SR header with
   segment list {1008}.  The path can be: R1-R2-R3-R8 or R1-R2-R5-R8
   depending on the route calculation on node R2.



Zhao, et al.           Expires May 25, 2017              [Page 10]


Internet-Draft             Use Cases for PCECC            October 2016


   Example 2: local link/node protection:

   For the packet which has destination of R3 and after that, R2 may
   preinstalled the backup forwarding entry to protect the R4 node, the
   pre-installed the backup path can go through either node5 or link1 or
   link2 between R2 and R3.  The backup path calculation is locally
   decided by R2 and any existing IP FRR algorithms can be used here.

5.2.  Use Cases of PCECC for SR Traffic Engineering (TE) Path

   In the case of traffic engineering path is needed, the PCECC need to
   allocate the node segment ID and adjacency ID, and at the same time
   PCECC calculates the explicit path for the SR path and pass this
   explicit path represented with a sequence of node segment id and
   adjacency id.  The ingress of the forwarding path need to encapsulate
   the stack of node segment id and adjacency id on top of the packet.
   For the case where strict traffic engineering path is needed, all the
   intermediate nodes and links will be specified through the stack of
   labels so that the packet is forwarded exactly as it is wanted.

   Even though it is similar to TE LSP forwarding where forwarding path
   is engineered, but the Qos is only guaranteed through the enforce of
   the bandwidth admission control.  As for the RSVP-TE LSP case, Qos is
   guaranteed through the link bandwidth reservation in each hop of the
   forwarding path.

   The p2p SR traffic engineering path examples are explained as bellow:

   Note that the node segment id for each node is allocated from the
   shared global labels ranges negotiated already and adjacency segment
   ids for each link are allocated from the local label pool for each
   node.

   Example 1:

   R1 may send a packet P1 to R8 simply by pushing an SR header with
   segment list {1008}.  The path should be: R1-R2-R3-R8.

   Example 2:

   R1 may send a packet P2 to R8 by pushing an SR header with segment
   list {1002, 9001, 1008}.  The path should be: R1-R2-(1)link-R3-R8.

   Example 3:

   R1 may send a packet P3 to R8 while avoiding the links between R2 and
   R3 by pushing an SR header with segment list {1004, 1008}.  The path
   should be : R1-R2-R4-R3-R8



Zhao, et al.           Expires May 25, 2017              [Page 11]


Internet-Draft             Use Cases for PCECC            October 2016


   The p2p local protection examples for SR TE path are explained as
   below:

   Example 4: local link protection:

   o  R1 may send a packet P4 to R8 by pushing an SR header with segment
      list {1002, 9001, 1008}.  The path should be: R1-R2-(1)link-R3-R8.

   o  When node R2 receives the packet from R1 which has the header of
      R2- (1)link-R3-R8, and also find out there is a link failure of
      link1, then it will send out the packet with header of R3-R8
      through link2.

   Example 5: local node protection:

   o  R1 may send a packet P5 to R8 by pushing an SR header with segment
      list {1004, 1008}.  The path should be : R1-R2-R4-R3-R8.

   o  When node R2 receives the packet from R1 which has the header of
      {1004, 1008}, and also find out there is a node failure for node4,
      then it will send out the packet with header of {1005, 1008} to
      node5 instead of node4.

6.  Use Cases of PCECC for TE LSP

   In the previous sections, we have discussed the cases where the SR
   path is setup through the PCECC.  Although those cases give the
   simplicity and scalability, but there are existing functionalities
   for the traffic engineering path such as the bandwidth guarantee
   through the full forwarding path and the multicast forwarding path
   which SR based solution cannot solve.  Also there are cases where the
   depth of the label stack may have been an issue for existing
   deployment and certain vendors.

   So to address these issues, PCECC architecture should also support
   the TE LSP and multicast LSP functionalities.  To achieve this, the
   existing PCEP can be used to communicate between the PCE server and
   PCE's client PCC for exchanging the path request and reply
   information regarding to the TE LSP info.  In this case, the TE LSP
   info is not only the path info itself, but it includes the full
   forwarding info.  Instead of letting the ingress of LSP to initiate
   the LSP setup through the RSVP-TE signaling protocol, with minor
   extensions, we can use the PCEP to download the complete TE LSP
   forwarding entries for each node in the network.







Zhao, et al.           Expires May 25, 2017              [Page 12]


Internet-Draft             Use Cases for PCECC            October 2016


                          192.0.2.1/32
                         +----------+
                         | R1(1001) |
                         +----------+
                           |       |
                       6001|link1  |
                           |   6002|link2
                          +----------+
                          | R2(1002) |  192.0.2.2/32
                          +----------+
                   link3 *   |   *    * link4
                   7002 *    |   *     *7001
                       *link1|   *      *
        192.0.2.4/32  *      |   *link2  *  192.0.2.5/32
           +-----------+ 5001|   *     +-----------+
           | R4(1004)  |     |   *     | R5(1005)  |
           +-----------+     |   *     +-----------+
                      *      |   *5003  *       +
                   9001*     |   *     *link1   +
                        *    |   *    *9002     +
                        +-----------+   +-----------+
           192.0.2.3/32 | R3(1003)  |   |R6(1006)   |192.0.2.6/32
                        +-----------+   +-----------+
                         |         |
                     3001|link1    |
                         |     3002|link2
                        +-----------+
                        | R8(1008)  |  192.0.2.8/32
                        +-----------+


   TE LSP Setup Example

   o  Node1 sends a path request message for the setup of TE LSP from R1
      to R8.

   o  PCECC program each node along the path from R1 to R8 with the
      primary path: {R1, link1, 6001}, {R2, link3, 7002], {R4, link0,
      9001}, {R3, link1, 3001}, {R8}.

   o  For the end to end protection, PCECC program each node along the
      path from R1 to R8 with the secondary path: {R1, link2, 6002},
      {R2, link4, 7001], {R5, link1, 9002}, {R3, link2, 3002}, {R8}.

   o  It is also possible to have a secondary backup path for the local
      node protection setup by PCECC.  For example, the primary path is
      still same as what we have setup so far, then to protect the node
      R4 locally, PCECC can program the secondary path like this: {R1,



Zhao, et al.           Expires May 25, 2017              [Page 13]


Internet-Draft             Use Cases for PCECC            October 2016


      link1, 6001}, {R2, link1, 5001}, {R3, link1, 3001}, {R8}. By doing
      this, the node R4 is locally protected.

7.  Use Cases of PCECC for Multicast LSPs

   The current multicast LSPs are setup either using the RSVP-TE P2MP or
   mLDP protocols.  The setup of these LSPs not only need a lot of
   manual configurations, but also it is also complex when the
   protection is considered.  By using the PCECC solution, the multicast
   LSP can be computed and setup through centralized controller which
   has the full picture of the topology and bandwidth usage for each
   link.  It not only reduces the complex configurations comparing the
   distributed RSVP-TE P2MP or mLDP signal lings, but also it can
   compute the disjoint primary path and secondary path efficiently.

7.1.  Using PCECC for P2MP/MP2MP LSPs' Setup

   With the capability of global label and local label existing at the
   same time in the PCECC network, PCECC will use compute, setup and
   maintain the P2MP and MP2MP lsp using the local label range for each
   network nodes.


                          +----------+
                          |    R1    | Root node of the multicast LSP
                          +----------+
                              |6000
                          +----------+
           Transit Node   |    R2    |
                          +----------+
                          *  |   *  *
                     9001*   |   *   *9002
                        *    |   *    *
           +-----------+     |   *     +-----------+
           |    R4     |     |   *     |    R5     | Transit Nodes
           +-----------+     |   *     +-----------+
                      *      |   *      *     +
                   9003*     |   *     *      +9004
                        *    |   *    *       +
                        +-----------+  +-----------+
                        |    R3     |  |    R5     | Leaf Node
                        +-----------+  +-----------+
                         9005|
                        +-----------+
                        |    R8     | Leaf Node
                        +-----------+





Zhao, et al.           Expires May 25, 2017              [Page 14]


Internet-Draft             Use Cases for PCECC            October 2016


   The P2MP examples are explained here:

   Step1: R1 may send a packet P1 to R2 simply by pushing an label of
   6000 to the packet.

   Step2: After R2 receives the packet with label 6000, it will
   forwarding to R4 by pushing header of 9001 and R5 by pusing header of
   9002.

   Step3: After R4 receives the packet with label 9001, it will
   forwarding to R3 by pushing header of 9003.  After R5 receives the
   packet with label 9002, it will forwarding to R5 by pushing header of
   9004.

   Step3: After R3 receives the packet with label 9003, it will
   forwarding to R8 by pushing header of 9005

7.2.  Use Cases of PCECC for the Resiliency of P2MP/MP2MP LSPs

7.2.1.  PCECC for the End-to-End Protection of the P2MP/MP2MP LSPs

   In this section we describe the end-end managed path protection
   service and the local protection with the operation management in the
   PCECC network for the P2MP/MP2MP LSP, which includes both the RSVP-TE
   P2MP based LSP and also the mLDP based LSP.

   An end-to-end protection (for nodes and links) principle can be
   applied for computing backup P2MP or MP2MP LSPs.  During computation
   of the primarily multicast trees, PCECC server may also be taken into
   consideration to compute a secondary tree.  A PCE may compute the
   primary and backup P2MP or MP2Mp LSP together or sequentially.




















Zhao, et al.           Expires May 25, 2017              [Page 15]


Internet-Draft             Use Cases for PCECC            October 2016


                               +----+  +----+
              Root node of LSP | R1 |--| R11|
                               +----+  +----+
                                 /         +
                              10/           +20
                               /             +
                       +----------+        +-----------+
        Transit Node   |    R2    |        |     R3    |
                       +----------+        +-----------+
                         |        \       +         +
                         |         \     +          +
                       10|        10\   +20       20+
                         |           \ +            +
                         |            \             +
                         |           + \            +
                       +-----------+      +-----------+ Leaf Nodes
                       |    R4     |      |    R5     | (Downstream LSR)
                       +-----------+      +-----------+


   In the example above, when the PCECC setup the primary multicast tree
   from the root node R1 to the leafs, which is R1->R2->{R4, R5}, at
   same time, it can setup the backup tree, which is R11->R3->{R4, R5}.
   Both the these two primary forwarding tree and secondary forwarding
   tree will be downloaded to each routers along the primary path and
   the secondary path.  The traffic will be forwarded through the
   R1->R2->{R4, R5} path normally, and when there is a node in the
   primary tree, then the root node R1 will switch the flow to the
   backup tree, which is R11->R3->{R4, R5}.  By using the PCECC, the
   path computation and forwarding path downloading can all be done
   without the complex signaling used in the P2MP RSVP-TE or mLDP.

7.2.2.  PCECC for the Local Protection of the P2MP/MP2MP LSPs

   In this section we describe the local protection service in the PCECC
   network for the P2MP/MP2MP LSP.

   While the PCECC sets up the primary multicast tree, it can also build
   the back LSP among PLR, the protected node, and MPs (the downstream
   nodes of the protected node).  In the cases where the amount of
   downstream nodes are huge, this mechanism can avoid unnecessary
   packet duplication on PLR, so that protect the network from traffic
   congestion risk.








Zhao, et al.           Expires May 25, 2017              [Page 16]


Internet-Draft             Use Cases for PCECC            October 2016


                               +------------+
                               |     R1     | Root Node
                               +------------+
                                      .
                                      .
                                      .
                               +------------+ Point of Local Repair/
                               |     R10     | Switchover Point
                               +------------+ (Upstream LSR)
                                 /         +
                              10/           +20
                               /             +
                       +----------+        +-----------+
        Protected Node |    R20   |        |     R30   |
                       +----------+        +-----------+
                         |        \       +         +
                         |         \     +          +
                       10|        10\   +20       20+
                         |           \ +            +
                         |            \             +
                         |           + \            +
                       +-----------+      +-----------+ Merge Point
                       |    R40    |      |    R50    | (Downstream LSR)
                       +-----------+      +-----------+
                             .                  .
                             .                  .


   In the example above, when the PCECC setup the primary multicast path
   around the PLR node R10 to protect node R20, which is R10->R20->{R40,
   R50}, at same time, it can setup the backup path R10->R30->{R40,
   R50}.  Both the these two primary forwarding path and secondary
   forwarding path will be downloaded to each routers along the primary
   path and the secondary path.  The traffic will be forwarded through
   the R10->R20->{R40, R50} path normally, and when there is a node
   failure for node R20, then the PLR node R10 will switch the flow to
   the backup path, which is R10->R30->{R40, R50}.  By using the PCECC,
   the path computation and forwarding path downloading can all be done
   without the complex signaling used in the P2MP RSVP-TE or mLDP.

8.  Use Cases of PCECC for LSP in the Network Migration

   One of the main advantages for PCECC solution is that it has backward
   compatibility naturally since the PCE server itself can function as a
   proxy node of MPLS network for all the new nodes which don't support
   the existing MPLS signaling protocol anymore.





Zhao, et al.           Expires May 25, 2017              [Page 17]


Internet-Draft             Use Cases for PCECC            October 2016


   As it is illustrated in the following example, the current network
   will migrate to a total PCECC controlled network gradually by
   replacing the legacy nodes.  During the migration, the legacy nodes
   still need to signal using the existing MPLS protocol such as LDP and
   RSVP-TE, and the new nodes setup their portion of the forwarding path
   through PCECC directly.  With the PCECC function as the proxy of
   these new nodes, MPLS signaling can populate through network as
   normal.

   Example described in this section is based on network configurations
   illustrated using the following figure:


   +------------------------------------------------------------------+
   |                         PCE DOMAIN                               |
   |    +-----------------------------------------------------+       |
   |    |                       PCECC                         |       |
   |    +-----------------------------------------------------+       |
   |     ^                                     ^            ^         |
   |     | PCEP                                |   PCEP     |         |
   |     V    <-----RSVP------>                V            V         |
   | +--------+   +--------+   +--------+   +--------+   +--------+   |
   | | NODE 1 |   | NODE 2 |   | NODE 3 |   | NODE 4 |   | NODE 5 |   |
   | |        |...|        |...|        |...|        |...|        |   |
   | | Legacy |if1| Legacy |if2|Legacy  |if3| PCECC  |if4| PCECC  |   |
   | |  Node  |   |  Node  |   |Enabled |   |Enabled |   | Enabled|   |
   | +--------+   +--------+   +--------+   +--------+   +--------+   |
   |                                                                  |
   +------------------------------------------------------------------+


   Example: PCECC Initiated LSP Setup In the Network Migration

   In this example, there are five nodes for the TE LSP from head end
   (Node1) to the tail end (Node5). Where the Node4 and Node5 are centrally
   controlled and other nodes are legacy nodes.

   o  Node1 sends a path request message towards PCECC for the setup of LSP
      destinating to Node5.

   o  PCECC sends to node1 a reply message for LSP setup with the path:
    (Node1, if1),(Node2, if2), (Node3, if3), (Node4, if4), Node5.

   o  Node1, Node2, Node3 will setup the LSP to Node5 using the local
     labels as usual.

   o  Then the PCECC will program the outsegment of Node3, the insegment/
      ousegment of Node4, and the insegment for Node5.



Zhao, et al.           Expires May 25, 2017              [Page 18]


Internet-Draft             Use Cases for PCECC            October 2016


9.  Use Cases of PCECC for L3VPN and PWE3

   The existing services using MPLS LSP tunnels based on MPLS signalling
   mechanism such L3VPN, PWE3 and IPv6 can be simplified by using the
   PCECC to negoitate the label assignments for the L3VPN, PWE3 and
   Ipv6.

   In the case of L3VPN, VPN labels can be negotiated and distributed
   through the PCECC PCEP among the PE router instead of using the BGP
   protocols.

   Example described in this section is based on network configurations
   illustrated using the following figure:



               +-------------------------------------------+
               |                   PCE DOMAIN              |
               |    +-----------------------------------+  |
               |    |                PCECC              |  |
               |    +-----------------------------------+  |
               |           ^          ^              ^     |
               |PWE3/L3VPN | PCEP PCEP|LSP PWE3/L3VPN|PCEP |
               |           V          V              V     |
    +--------+ |     +--------+   +--------+   +--------+  |  +--------+
    |  CE    | |     | PE1    |   | NODE x |   | PE2    |  |  |   CE   |
    |        |...... |        |...|        |...|        |.....|        |
    | Legacy | |if1  | PCECC  |if2|PCCEC   |if3| PCECC  |if4  | Legacy |
    |  Node  | |     | Enabled|   |Enabled |   |Enabled |  |  |  Node  |
    +--------+ |     +--------+   +--------+   +--------+  |  +--------+
               |                                           |
               +-------------------------------------------+


   Example: Using PCECC for L3VPN and PWE3

   In the cast PWE3, instead of using the LDP signalling protocols, the
   lable and port pairs assigned to each pseudowire can be negotiated
   through PCECC among the PE rotuers and the corresponding forwarding
   entries will be distributed into each PE routers through the extended
   PCEP protocols.

10.  Using PCECC for Traffic Classification Information

   When a TE-LSP is set up, the head end needs to know:

   o  how to use it




Zhao, et al.           Expires May 25, 2017              [Page 19]


Internet-Draft             Use Cases for PCECC           October 2016


   o  What traffic to send on the LSP

   o  Whether it is a virtual link

   o  Whether to advertise it in the IGP

   o  What bits of this information to signal to the tail end

   PCEP allows an Active PCE to set up or modify LSPs.  But we have no
   way to tell the head end how to use the LSP. This is because of
   history.  It used to be the LER that made the request of the PCE, so
   it knew why it wanted the LSP.

   With the PCECC architecture by extending the PCEP protocols, it is
   easy to carry this information such as how to use the LSP, how to
   advertise the LSP and other extra signaling information.

11. PCECC Load Balancing (LB) Use Case

   Very often many service providers use TE tunnels for solving issues
   with non-deterministic paths in their networks. One example of such
   applications is usage of TEs in the mobile backhaul (MBH).
   Let's consider the following typicall topology.

                               TE1 -------------->
 +---------+    +--------+    +--------+    +--------+    +------+  +---+
 | Access  |----| Access |----| AGG 1  |----| AGG N-1|----|Core 1|--|SR1|
 | SubNode1|    | Node 1 |    +--------+    +--------+    +------+  +---+
 +---------+    +--------+         | |           | ^          |
      |   Access    |    Access    | AGG Ring 1  | |          |
      |  SubRing 1  |    Ring 1    | |           | |          |
 +---------+    +--------+    +--------+         | |          |
 | Access  |    | Access |    | AGG 2  |         | |          |
 | SubNode2|    | Node 2 |    +--------+         | |          |
 +---------+    +--------+         | |           | |          |
      |             |              | |           | |          |
      |             |              | +----TE2----|-+          |
 +---------+    +--------+    +--------+    +--------+    +------+  +---+
 | Access  |    | Access |----| AGG 3  |----| AGG N  |----|Core N|--|SRn|
 | SubNodeN|----| Node N |    +--------+    +--------+    +------+  +---+
 +---------+    +--------+

   This MBH architecture uses L2 access rings and subrings. L3 starts at
   aggregation. For the sake of simplicity here we have only one access
   subring,access ring and aggregation ring (AGG1...AGGN), connected
   by Nx10GE interfaces. Aggregation domain runs its own IGP. There are
   two Egress routers (AGG N-1,AGG N) that are connected to the Core
   domain via L2 interfaces. Core also have connections to service routers,

Zhao, et al.           Expires May 25, 2017              [Page 20]


Internet-Draft             Use Cases for PCECC            October 2016

   RSVP TEs are used for MPLS transport inside the ring. There could be
   at least 2 tunnels (one way) from each AGG router to egress AGG
   routers. There are also many L2 access rings connected to AGG routers.

   Service deployment made by means of either L2VPNs (VPLS) or L3VPNs.
   Those services use MPLS TE as transport towards egress AGG routers.
   TE tunnels could be also used as transport towards service routers in
   case of seamless MPLS based architecture in the future.

   There is a need to solve the following tasks:
   o  Perform automatic  LB amongst TE tunnels according to current
   traffic load
   o  TE bandwidth (BW) management: Provide guaranteed BW for specific
   service: HSI,IPTV, etc., provide time-based BW reservation (BoD)
   o  Simplify development of TE tunnels  (go away from  manual
   provisioning)
   o  Provide flexibility for Service Router placement (anywhere
   in the network by creation of  transport LSPs to them)

   Since other tasks are considered in other PCECC use cases above,
   hereafter we will focus only on load balancing (LB) task. LB task
   could be solved by means of PCECC in the following way:

   o  After application or network service or operator will ask SDN
   controller (PCECC) for LSP based LB between AGG X and AGG N/AGG N-1
   (egress AGG routers which have connections to core) via North
   Bound Interface (NBI such as REST API), PCECC SHOULD ask for
   constrains for that particular calculation (i.e. LSP type: traditional
   CR-LSP or SR-TE LSP, bandwidth, inclusion or exclusion specific links
   or nodes, number of paths, shortest path or minimum cost tree, need
   for disjoint LSP paths etc.).
   o  PCECC MUST calculate N P2P LSPs according to given constrains,
   calculation is based on results of Objective Function (OF), that
   includes same source and destination  routers IDs, same or different
   bandwidth (BW) , different links (in case of disjoint paths) and other
   constrains from Step 1.
   o  Depending on given LSP type (CR-LSP or SR-TE), PCECC SHOULD create
   different labels (aka different label spaces, it MAY also require
   label space negotiation procedure between PCECC and PCCs) for
   calculated LSPs from egress nodes AGG N-1 and AGG N towards ingress
   AGG X node.
   o  PCECC SHOULD send PCInitiate PCEP message [I-D.crabbe-pce-pce-
   initiated-lsp] towards ingress AGG X router(PCC) for each of N LSPs
   and receives PCRpt PCEP message [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] back from
   him.
   o  If LSP type is CR-LSP, PCECC  MUST send PCLabelUpd
   [I-D.zhao-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller] PCEP message  to
   each node along the path with label information for each of N LSPs.
   If LSP type is SR-TE, PCECC also MUST send  PCLabelUpd  PCEP message

 Zhao, et al.           Expires May 25, 2017              [Page 21]


Internet-Draft             Use Cases for PCECC             October 2016

   to each node along the path with label information (Node-ID and
   Adjacency-ID segment (label) list) specific to that node. Then PCECC
   SHOULD send PCUpd PCEP message to the ingress AGG X router with
   information about new LSP and AGG X(PCC) SHOULD send PCEP PCRpt back
   with LSP status:Up.
   o  Now each router along the LSP has corresponding label forwarding
   state for each of N LSPs.
   o  AGG X as ingress router now have N LSPs towards AGG N and AGG N-1
   which are available for installing to router's RIB and LB of traffic
   between them. Traffic distribution between those LSPs depends on
   particular realization of hash-function on that router.
   o  Since PCECC MUST know as LSDB as TEDB (TE state) he can manage and
   prevent possible oversubscriptions and limit number of available LB
   states.

12. Using reliable P2MP TE based multicast delivery for distributed
 computations (MapReduce-Hadoop)

   MapReduce model of distributed computations in computing clusters is
   widely deployed. In Hadoop 1.0 architecture MapReduce operations on
   big data performs by means of Master-Slave architecture in the Hadoop
   Distributed File System (HDFS),where NameNode has the knowledge about
   resources of the cluster and where actual data (chunks) for particular
   task are located (which DataNode). Each chunk of data (64MB or more)
   should have 3 saved copies in different DataNodes based on their
   proximity.

   Proximity level currently has semi-manual allocation and based on
   Rack IDs (Assumption is that closer data are better because of access
   speed/smaller latency).

   JobTracker node is responsible for computation tasks, scheduling across
   DataNodes and also have Rack-awareness. Currently transport protocols
   between NameNode/JobTracker and DataNodes are based on IP unicast.
   It has simplicity as pros but has numerous drawbacks related with
   its flat approach.

   It is clear that we should go beyond of one DC for Hadoop cluster creation
   and move towards distributed clusters. In that case we need to handle
   performance and latency issues.
   Latency depends on speed of light in fiber links and also latency
   introduced by intermediate devices in between. The last one is
   closely correlated with network device architecture and performance.
   Current performance of NPU based routers should be enough for creating
   distribute Hadoop clusters with predicted latency. Performance of SW
   based routers (mainly as VNF) together with additional HW features such
   as DPDK are promising but require additional research and testing.

   Zhao, et al.           Expires May 25, 2017              [Page 22]


Internet-Draft             Use Cases for PCECC              October 2016

   Main question is how can we create simple but effective architecture for
   distributed Hadoop cluster?

   There are number of researches [Multicast Tree Map-Reduce...] which show
   how usage of multicast tree could improve speed of resource or cluster
   members discovery inside the cluster as well as increase redundancy in
   communications between cluster nodes.

   Is traditional IP based multicast enough for that? We doubt it because it
   requires additional control plane (IGMP, PIM) and a lot of signaling, that
   is not suitable for high performance computations, that are very sensitive
   to latency.

   P2MP TE tunnels looks much more suitable as potential solution for creation
   of multicast based communications between Master and Slave nodes inside
   cluster. Obviously these P2MP tunnels should be dynamically created and
   turned down (no manual intervention). Here is there PCECC comes to play.
   His main task is to create optimal topology of each partucular request for
   MapReduce computation and also create P2MP tunnels with needed parameters
   such as badnwidth and delay.

   This solution would require to use MPLS label based forwarding inside the
   cluster. Usage of label based forwarding inside DC was proposed by Yandex
   [MPLS in DC...] Technically it is already possible because mpls on switches
   is already supported by some vendors, mpls aslo exists on Linux and OVS.

  Zhao, et al.           Expires May 25, 2017              [Page 23]


Internet-Draft             Use Cases for PCECC             October 2016


   The following framework can make this task:

                      +--------+
                      |  APP   |
                      +--------+
                           | NBI (REST API,...)
                           |
               PCEP       +----------+  REST API
        +---------+   +---|  PCECC   |----------+
        | Client  |---|---|          |          |
        +---------+   |   +----------+          |
                |     |       | |  |            |
                +-----|---+   |PCEP|            |
             +--------+   |   | |  |            |
             |            |   | |  |            |
             | REST API   |   | |  |            |
             |            |   | |  |            |
   +-------------+        |   | |  |           +----------+
   | Job Tracker |        |   | |  |           | NameNode |
   |             |        |   | |  |           |          |
   +-------------+        |   | |  |           +----------+
           +------------------+ |  +-----------+
           |              |     |              |
       |---+-----P2MP TE--+-----|-----------|  |
   +-----------+       +-----------+      +-----------+
   | DataNode1 |       | DataNode2 |      | DataNodeN |
   |TaskTracker|       |TaskTracker| .... |TaskTracker|
   +-----------+       +-----------+      +-----------+




   Communication between Master nodes (JobTracker and NameNode)
   and PCECC via REST API MAY be either done directly or via
   cluster manager such as Mesos.

   Phase 1: Distributed cluster resources discovery
   During this phase Master Nodes SHOULD identify and find available
   Slave nodes according to computing request from application (APP).
   NameNode SHOULD query PCECC about available DataNodes, NameNode MAY
   provide additional constrains to PCECC such as topological proximity,
   redundancy level.

  Zhao, et al.           Expires May 25, 2017              [Page 23]


Internet-Draft             Use Cases for PCECC            October 2016

   PCECC SHOULD analyze the topology of distributed cluster and perform
   constrain based path calculation [RFC7334] from client towards most
   suitable NameNodes. PCECC SHOULD reply to NameNode the list of most
   suitable DataNodes and their resource capabilities. Topology discovery
   mechanism for PCECC will be added later to that framework.

   Phase 2: PCECC SHOULD create P2MP LSP from client towards those
   DataNodes by means of PCLabelUpd [I-D.zhao-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce
   -controller] PCEP messages following previously calculated path.

   Phase 3. NameNode SHOULD send this information to client, PCECC informs
  client about optimal P2MP path towards DataNodes via PCEP PCUpd message.

   Phase 4. Client sends data blocks to those DataNodes for writing via
   created P2MP tunnel.

   When this task will be finished, P2MP tunnel MAY be turned down.

13. PCECC and Inter-AS TE

   There are three signalling options for establishing Inter-AS TE LSP:
   contiguous TE LSP [RFC5151], stitched inter-AS TE LSP [RFC5150],
   nested TE LSP [RFC4206].

   Requirements for PCE-based Inter-AS setup [RFC5376] describe the approach
   and PCEP fucntionality that are needed for establishing Inter-AS TE LSPs.

   [RFC5376] also gives Inter- and Intra-AS PCE Reference Model that is
   provided below in shorten form for the sake of simplicity.

        Inter-AS       Inter-AS
        PCC <-->PCE1<--------->PCE2
         ::      ::             ::
         ::      ::             ::
         R1----ASBR1====ASBR3---R3---ASBR5
         |   AS1 |        |    PCC     |
         |       |        |    AS2     |
         R2----ASBR2====ASBR4---R4---ASBR6
         ::                     ::
         ::                     ::
      Intra-AS               Intra-AS
         PCE                    PCE

    Shorten form of Inter- and Intra-AS PCE Reference Model [RFC5376]

   Hereatfter we will discuss a simplified Inter-AS case when both AS1 and
   AS2 belong to the same service provider administration. In that case Inter
   and Intra-AS PCEs could be combined in one single PCE if such combined PCE
   performance is enough for handling all Path Computation Requests. Even
   more in that particular case we potentially could use single PCE for both
   ASes if his scalability and performance are enough, we just will need
   interfaces (PCEP and BGP-LS) to both domains. SDN controller's redundancy
   mechanisms are out of scope in our case. Thus routers in AS1 and AS2 (PCCs)
   will send Path Computation Requests towards same PCE.





  Zhao, et al.           Expires May 25, 2017              [Page 24]


Internet-Draft             Use Cases for PCECC            October 2016

                +----BGP-LS------+ +------BGP-LS-----+
                |                | |                 |
         +-PCEP-|----++-+-------PCECC-----PCEP--++-+-|-------+
       +-:------|----::-:-+                  +--::-:-|-------:---+
       | :      v    :: : |                  |  :: : v       :   |
       | :     RR1   :: : |                  |  :: : RR2     :   |
       | v           v: : |      LSP1        |  :: v         v   |
       | R1---------ASBR1=======================ASBR3--------R3  |
       | |            v : |                  |  :v            |  |
       | +----------ASBR2=======================ASBR4---------+  |
       | |   Region 1   : |                  |  : Region 1    |  |
       |----------------:-|                  |--:-------------|--|
       | |              v |       LSP2       |  v             |  |
       | +----------ASBR5=======================ASBR6---------+  |
       |     Region 2     |                  |       Region 2    |
       +------------------+ <--------------> +-------------------+
          MPLS Domain 1          Inter-AS         MPLS Domain 2
       <=======AS1=======>                    <========AS2=======>

                  Particular case of Inter-AS PCE Reference Model

   In one particular case of PCECC Inter-AS TE scenario service provider
   controls both domains (AS1 and AS2), each of them have own IGP and MPLS
   transport. The need is to setup Inter-AS LSPs for transporting different
   services on top of them (Voice,L3 VPN etc.) Inter-AS links with different
   capacity exist in several regions. The task is not only to provision
   those Inter-AS LSPs with given  constrains but also calculate the path
   and pre-setup the backup Inter-AS LSPs that will be used if main LSP fails.

   For the figure above it would be that LSP1 from R1 to R3 SHOULD go via ASBR1
   and ASBR3, and it is the main Inter-AS LSP. R1-R3 LSP2 that SHOULD go via
   ASBR5 and ASBR6 is the backup one. Depending on Inter-AS TE type, backup LSP
   could be used either by head-end R1 or ASBR1.

   After the addition of PCECC functionality to PCE (SDN controller), PCECC
   based Inter-AS TE model SHOULD follow as PCECC usecase for TE LSP (case 6
   above) as requirements of [RFC5376] with the following details:
   o  Since PCECC MUST know the topology of both domains AS1 and AS2, PCECC
   MUST establish BGP-LS peering with routers (or RRs) in both domains
   o  PCECC MUST have SBI (PCEP) connectivity towards all routers in both
   domains (see also section 4 in [RFC5376])
   o  After operator's application or service orchetsrator will create request
   for topology of specific service, PCECC SHOULD receive that request via NBI
   (NBI type is implementation dependent, MAY be NETCONF/Yang, REST etc.). Then
   PCECC SHOULD calculate Objective Function (OF) for optimal path with given
   constrains (i.e. LSP type, bandwidth etc.), including those from [RFC5376]:
   priority, AS sequence, preffered ASBR, disjoint paths, protection. On this
   step we would have two paths: R1-ASBR1-ASBR3-R3, R1-ASBR5-ASBR6-R3
   o  Depending on given LSP type (CR-LSP or SR-TE), PCECC SHOULD create
   different labels (aka different label spaces, it MAY also require
   label space negotiation procedure between PCECC and PCCs) for
   calculated LSPs from egress node in one AS towards ingress in another AS.
   o  PCECC SHOULD send PCInitiate PCEP message [I-D.crabbe-pce-pce-
   initiated-lsp] towards ingress router R1 (PCC) in AS1
   and receive PCRpt PCEP message [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] back from
   him.
   o  If LSP type is CR-LSP, PCECC  MUST send PCLabelUpd
   [I-D.zhao-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller] PCEP message  to
   each node along the path (ASBR1-ASBR3-R3, ASBR5-ASBR6-R3) in both ASes with
   label information for that LSP.
   If LSP type is SR-TE, PCECC also MUST send  PCLabelUpd  PCEP message
   to each node along the path in aboth Ases with label information (Node-ID and
   Adjacency-ID segment (label) list) specific to that node.
   o  Then PCECC SHOULD send PCUpd PCEP message to the ingress router R1 in AS1
   with information about new LSP and the R1 router SHOULD send PCEP PCRpt back
   with LSP1 and LSP2 status:Up.
   o  After that step R1 SHOULD have main and backup TEs (LSP1 and LSP2) towards
   R3 up. It is up to implementation how to put this TEs to R1's RIB and how to
   make switchover to backup LSP2 if LSP1 fails.


14.  The Considerations for PCECC Procedure and PCEP extensions

   The PCECC's procedures and PCEP extensions is defined in [I-D.zhao-
   pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller].

15.  IANA Considerations

   This document does not require any action from IANA.

   Zhao, et al.           Expires May 25, 2017              [Page 25]


Internet-Draft             Use Cases for PCECC                October 2016

16.  Security Considerations

   TBD.

17.  Acknowledgments

   We would like to thank Robert Tao, Changjiang Yan, Tieying Huang,
   Adrian Farrel, Sergio Belotti and Dieter Beller, Andrey Elperin and Evgeniy
   Brodskiy for their useful comments and suggestions.

18.  References

18.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC5440]  Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation
              Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5440, March 2009,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5440>.



18.2.  Informative References

   [RFC5441]  Vasseur, JP., Ed., Zhang, R., Bitar, N., and JL. Le Roux,
              "A Backward-Recursive PCE-Based Computation (BRPC)
              Procedure to Compute Shortest Constrained Inter-Domain
              Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths", RFC 5441,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5441, April 2009,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5441>.

   [RFC5541]  Le Roux, JL., Vasseur, JP., and Y. Lee, "Encoding of
              Objective Functions in the Path Computation Element
              Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5541,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5541, June 2009,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5541>.

   [RFC5376]  N. Bitar, R. Zhang, K. Kumaki "Inter-AS Requirements for the
              Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCECP)",
              RFC 5376, DOI 10.17487/RFC5376, November 2008
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5376>.

   [I-D.filsfils-spring-segment-routing]
              Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Bashandy, A., Decraene, B.,
              Litkowski, S., Horneffer, M., Milojevic, I., Shakir, R.,
              Ytti, S., Henderickx, W., Tantsura, J., and E. Crabbe,
              "Segment Routing Architecture", draft-filsfils-spring-
              segment-routing-04 (work in progress), July 2014.

   [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce]
              Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Medved, J., and R. Varga, "PCEP
              Extensions for Stateful PCE", draft-ietf-pce-stateful-
              pce-14 (work in progress), May 2016.

   [I-D.crabbe-pce-pce-initiated-lsp]
              Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Sivabalan, S., and R. Varga, "PCEP
              Extensions for PCE-initiated LSP Setup in a Stateful PCE
              Model", draft-crabbe-pce-pce-initiated-lsp-05 (work in
              progress), October 2015.

   [I-D.ali-pce-remote-initiated-gmpls-lsp]
              Ali, Z., Sivabalan, S., Filsfils, C., Varga, R., Lopez,
              V., Dios, O., and X. Zhang, "Path Computation Element
              Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for remote-
              initiated GMPLS LSP Setup", draft-ali-pce-remote-
              initiated-gmpls-lsp-03 (work in progress), February 2014.

   [I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions]
              Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Bashandy, A., Gredler, H.,
              Litkowski, S., Decraene, B., and J. Tantsura, "IS-IS
              Extensions for Segment Routing", draft-ietf-isis-segment-
              routing-extensions-06 (work in progress), December 2015.





Zhao, et al.           Expires May 25, 2017              [Page 26]


Internet-Draft             Use Cases for PCECC            October 2016


   [I-D.psenak-ospf-segment-routing-extensions]
              Psenak, P., Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Gredler, H.,
              Shakir, R., Henderickx, W., and J. Tantsura, "OSPF
              Extensions for Segment Routing", draft-psenak-ospf-
              segment-routing-extensions-05 (work in progress), June
              2014.

   [I-D.sivabalan-pce-segment-routing]
              Sivabalan, S., Medved, J., Filsfils, C., Crabbe, E.,
              Raszuk, R., Lopez, V., and J. Tantsura, "PCEP Extensions
              for Segment Routing", draft-sivabalan-pce-segment-
              routing-03 (work in progress), July 2014.

   [I-D.li-mpls-global-label-usecases]
              Li, Z., Zhao, Q., Yang, T., Raszuk, R., and L. Fang,
              "Usecases of MPLS Global Label", draft-li-mpls-global-
              label-usecases-03 (work in progress), October 2015.

   [I-D.li-mpls-global-label-framework]
              Li, Z., Zhao, Q., Chen, X., Yang, T., and R. Raszuk, "A
              Framework of MPLS Global Label", draft-li-mpls-global-
              label-framework-02 (work in progress), July 2014.

   [I-D.zhao-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller]
              Zhao, Q., Li, Z., Dhody, D., and C. Zhou, "PCEP Procedures
              and Protocol Extensions for Using PCE as a Central
              Controller (PCECC) of LSPs", draft-zhao-pce-pcep-
              extension-for-pce-controller-03 (work in progress), March
              2016.

   [I-D.ietf-spring-resiliency-use-cases]
              Francois, P., Filsfils, C., Decraene, B., and R. Shakir,
              "Use-cases for Resiliency in SPRING", draft-ietf-spring-
              resiliency-use-cases-02 (work in progress), December 2015.

   [MPLS in DC...]
              Afanasiev, D., Ginsburg, D., "MPLS in DC and inter-DC
              networks: the unified forwarding mechanism for network
              programmability at scale "

   [Multicast Tree Map-Reduce...]
              Lee, Kyungyong., Dr. Boykin, P. Oscar., Dr.Figueiredo, Renato J.,
              "Multicast Tree Map-Reduce: Self-organizing Resource Discovery
              and Monitoring using Structured P2P Systems"

Authors' Addresses

   Quintin Zhao
   Huawei Technologies
   125 Nagog Technology Park
   Acton, MA  01719
   US

   EMail: quintin.zhao@huawei.com

Zhao, et al.           Expires May 25, 2017              [Page 27]

Internet-Draft             Use Cases for PCECC             October 2016


   Robin Li
   Huawei Technologies
   Huawei Bld., No.156 Beiqing Rd.
   Beijing  100095
   China

   EMail: lizhenbin@huawei.com

   Boris Khasanov
   Huawei Technologies
   Moskovskiy Prospekt 97A
   St.Petersburg 196084
   Russia

   EMail: khasanov.boris@huawei.com

   King Ke
   Tencent Holdings Ltd.
   Shenzhen
   China

   EMail: kinghe@tencent.com

   Luyuan Fang
   Microsoft

   EMail: lufang@microsoft.com

   Chao Zhou
   Cisco Systems

   EMail: chao.zhou@cisco.com

   Boris Zhang
   Telus Communications

   EMail: Boris.zhang@telus.com

   Artem Rachitskiy
   Mobile TeleSystems JLLC
   Nezavisimosti ave., 95
   Minsk 220043
   Belarus

   EMail:  arachitskiy@mts.by

   Anton Gulida
   Mobile TeleSystems JLLC
   Nezavisimosti ave., 95
   Minsk 220043
   Belarus

   EMail:  agulida@mts.by


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.126, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/