Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) R. Gandhi, Ed.
Request for Comments: 9059 Cisco Systems, Inc.
Category: Standards Track C. Barth
ISSN: 2070-1721 Juniper Networks
B. Wen
Comcast
June 2021
Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for
Associated Bidirectional Label Switched Paths (LSPs)
Abstract
This document defines Path Computation Element Communication Protocol
(PCEP) extensions for grouping two unidirectional MPLS-TE Label
Switched Paths (LSPs), one in each direction in the network, into an
associated bidirectional LSP. These PCEP extensions can be applied
either using a stateful PCE for both PCE-initiated and PCC-initiated
LSPs or using a stateless PCE. The PCEP procedures defined are
applicable to the LSPs using RSVP-TE for signaling.
Status of This Memo
This is an Internet Standards Track document.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9059.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2021 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
(https://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
2. Conventions Used in This Document
2.1. Key Word Definitions
2.2. Terminology
3. Overview
3.1. Single-Sided Initiation
3.1.1. PCE-Initiated Single-Sided Bidirectional LSP
3.1.2. PCC-Initiated Single-Sided Bidirectional LSP
3.2. Double-Sided Initiation
3.2.1. PCE-Initiated Double-Sided Bidirectional LSP
3.2.2. PCC-Initiated Double-Sided Bidirectional LSP
3.3. Co-routed Associated Bidirectional LSP
3.4. Summary of PCEP Extensions
3.5. Operational Considerations
4. Protocol Extensions
4.1. ASSOCIATION Object
4.2. Bidirectional LSP Association Group TLV
5. PCEP Procedure
5.1. PCE-Initiated LSPs
5.2. PCC-Initiated LSPs
5.3. Stateless PCE
5.4. Bidirectional (B) Flag
5.5. PLSP-ID Usage
5.6. State Synchronization
5.7. Error Handling
6. Security Considerations
7. Manageability Considerations
7.1. Control of Function and Policy
7.2. Information and Data Models
7.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring
7.4. Verify Correct Operations
7.5. Requirements on Other Protocols
7.6. Impact on Network Operations
8. IANA Considerations
8.1. Association Types
8.2. Bidirectional LSP Association Group TLV
8.2.1. Flag Field in Bidirectional LSP Association Group TLV
8.3. PCEP Errors
9. References
9.1. Normative References
9.2. Informative References
Acknowledgments
Authors' Addresses
1. Introduction
[RFC5440] describes the Path Computation Element Communication
Protocol (PCEP) as a communication mechanism between a Path
Computation Client (PCC) and a Path Computation Element (PCE), or
between PCE and PCC, that enables computation of Multiprotocol Label
Switching (MPLS) - Traffic Engineering (TE) Label Switched Paths
(LSPs).
[RFC8231] specifies extensions to PCEP to enable stateful control of
MPLS-TE LSPs. It describes two modes of operation: passive stateful
PCE and active stateful PCE. In [RFC8231], the focus is on active
stateful PCE where LSPs are provisioned on the PCC and control over
them is delegated to a PCE. Further, [RFC8281] describes the setup,
maintenance, and teardown of PCE-initiated LSPs for the stateful PCE
model.
[RFC8697] introduces a generic mechanism for creating a grouping of
LSPs. This grouping can then be used to define associations between
sets of LSPs or between a set of LSPs and a set of attributes, and it
is equally applicable to the stateful PCE (active and passive modes)
and the stateless PCE.
The MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) requirements document [RFC5654]
specifies that "MPLS-TP MUST support unidirectional, co-routed
bidirectional, and associated bidirectional point-to-point transport
paths". [RFC7551] defines RSVP signaling extensions for binding
forward and reverse unidirectional LSPs into an associated
bidirectional LSP. The fast reroute (FRR) procedures for associated
bidirectional LSPs are described in [RFC8537].
This document defines PCEP extensions for grouping two unidirectional
MPLS-TE LSPs into an associated bidirectional LSP for both single-
sided and double-sided initiation cases either when using a stateful
PCE for both PCE-initiated and PCC-initiated LSPs or when using a
stateless PCE. The procedures defined are applicable to the LSPs
using Resource Reservation Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)
for signaling [RFC3209]. Specifically, this document defines two new
Association Types, Single-Sided Bidirectional LSP Association and
Double-Sided Bidirectional LSP Association, as well as the
Bidirectional LSP Association Group TLV, to carry additional
information for the association.
The procedure for associating two unidirectional Segment Routing (SR)
paths to form an associated bidirectional SR path is defined in
[BIDIR-PATH] and is outside the scope of this document.
2. Conventions Used in This Document
2.1. Key Word Definitions
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
2.2. Terminology
The reader is assumed to be familiar with the terminology defined in
[RFC5440], [RFC7551], [RFC8231], and [RFC8697].
3. Overview
As shown in Figure 1, forward and reverse unidirectional LSPs can be
grouped to form an associated bidirectional LSP. Node A is the
ingress node for LSP1 and egress node for LSP2, whereas node D is the
ingress node for LSP2 and egress node for LSP1. There are two
methods of initiating the Bidirectional LSP Association, single-sided
and double-sided, as defined in [RFC7551] and described in the
following sections.
LSP1 --> LSP1 --> LSP1 -->
+-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+
| A +-----------+ B +-----------+ C +-----------+ D |
+-----+ +--+--+ +--+--+ +-----+
<-- LSP2 | | <-- LSP2
| |
| |
+--+--+ +--+--+
| E +-----------+ F |
+-----+ +-----+
<-- LSP2
Figure 1: Example of Associated Bidirectional LSP
3.1. Single-Sided Initiation
As specified in [RFC7551], in the single-sided case, the
bidirectional tunnel is provisioned only on one endpoint node (PCC)
of the tunnel. Both endpoint nodes act as PCCs. Both forward and
reverse LSPs of this tunnel are initiated with the Association Type
set to "Single-Sided Bidirectional LSP Association" on the
originating endpoint node. The forward and reverse LSPs are
identified in the Bidirectional LSP Association Group TLV of their
PCEP ASSOCIATION objects.
The originating endpoint node signals the properties for the reverse
LSP in the RSVP REVERSE_LSP object [RFC7551] of the forward LSP Path
message. The remote endpoint node then creates the corresponding
reverse tunnel and reverse LSP, and it then signals the reverse LSP
in response to the received RSVP-TE Path message. Similarly, the
remote endpoint node deletes the reverse LSP when it receives the
RSVP-TE message to delete the forward LSP [RFC3209].
As specified in [RFC8537], for fast reroute bypass tunnel assignment,
the LSP starting from the originating endpoint node is identified as
the forward LSP of the single-sided initiated bidirectional LSP.
3.1.1. PCE-Initiated Single-Sided Bidirectional LSP
+-----+
| PCE |
+-----+
Initiates: | \
Tunnel 1 (F) | \
(LSP1 (F, 0), LSP2 (R, 0)) | \
Association #1 v \
+-----+ +-----+
| A | | D |
+-----+ +-----+
+-----+
| PCE |
+-----+
Reports: ^ ^ Reports:
Tunnel 1 (F) | \ Tunnel 2 (F)
(LSP1 (F, P1), LSP2 (R, P2)) | \ (LSP2 (F, P3))
Association #1 | \ Association #1
+-----+ +-----+
| A | | D |
+-----+ +-----+
Legend: F = Forward LSP, R = Reverse LSP, (0,P1,P2,P3) = PLSP-IDs
Figure 2: Example of PCE-Initiated Single-Sided Bidirectional LSP
Using partial topology from Figure 1, as shown in Figure 2, the
forward Tunnel 1 and both forward LSP1 and reverse LSP2 are initiated
on the originating endpoint node A by the PCE. The PCEP-specific LSP
identifiers (PLSP-IDs) used are P1 and P2 on the originating endpoint
node A and P3 on the remote endpoint node D. The originating
endpoint node A reports Tunnel 1 and forward LSP1 and reverse LSP2 to
the PCE. The endpoint (PCC) node D reports Tunnel 2 and LSP2 to the
PCE.
3.1.2. PCC-Initiated Single-Sided Bidirectional LSP
+-----+
| PCE |
+-----+
Reports/Delegates: ^ ^ Reports:
Tunnel 1 (F) | \ Tunnel 2 (F)
(LSP1 (F, P1), LSP2 (R, P2)) | \ (LSP2 (F, P3))
Association #2 | \ Association #2
+-----+ +-----+
| A | | D |
+-----+ +-----+
Legend: F = Forward LSP, R = Reverse LSP, (P1,P2,P3) = PLSP-IDs
Figure 3: Example of PCC-Initiated Single-Sided Bidirectional LSP
Using partial topology from Figure 1, as shown in Figure 3, the
forward Tunnel 1 and both forward LSP1 and reverse LSP2 are initiated
on the originating endpoint node A (the originating PCC). The PLSP-
IDs used are P1 and P2 on the originating endpoint node A and P3 on
the remote endpoint node D. The originating endpoint (PCC) node A
may delegate the forward LSP1 and reverse LSP2 to the PCE. The
originating endpoint node A reports Tunnel 1 and forward LSP1 and
reverse LSP2 to the PCE. The endpoint (PCC) node D reports Tunnel 2
and LSP2 to the PCE.
3.2. Double-Sided Initiation
As specified in [RFC7551], in the double-sided case, the
bidirectional tunnel is provisioned on both endpoint nodes (PCCs) of
the tunnel. The forward and reverse LSPs of this tunnel are
initiated with the Association Type set to "Double-Sided
Bidirectional LSP Association" on both endpoint nodes. The forward
and reverse LSPs are identified in the Bidirectional LSP Association
Group TLV of their ASSOCIATION objects.
As specified in [RFC8537], for fast reroute bypass tunnel assignment,
the LSP with the higher source address [RFC3209] is identified as the
forward LSP of the double-sided initiated bidirectional LSP.
3.2.1. PCE-Initiated Double-Sided Bidirectional LSP
+-----+
| PCE |
+-----+
Initiates: | \ Initiates:
Tunnel 1 (F) | \ Tunnel 2 (F)
(LSP1 (F, 0)) | \ (LSP2 (F, 0))
Association #3 v v Association #3
+-----+ +-----+
| A | | D |
+-----+ +-----+
+-----+
| PCE |
+-----+
Reports: ^ ^ Reports:
Tunnel 1 (F) | \ Tunnel 2 (F)
(LSP1 (F, P4)) | \ (LSP2 (F, P5))
Association #3 | \ Association #3
+-----+ +-----+
| A | | D |
+-----+ +-----+
Legend: F = Forward LSP, (0,P4,P5) = PLSP-IDs
Figure 4: Example of PCE-Initiated Double-Sided Bidirectional LSP
Using partial topology from Figure 1, as shown in Figure 4, the
forward Tunnel 1 and forward LSP1 are initiated on the endpoint node
A, and the reverse Tunnel 2 and reverse LSP2 are initiated on the
endpoint node D by the PCE. The PLSP-IDs used are P4 on the endpoint
node A and P5 on the endpoint node D. The endpoint node A (PCC)
reports the forward LSP1, and endpoint node D reports the forward
LSP2 to the PCE.
3.2.2. PCC-Initiated Double-Sided Bidirectional LSP
+-----+
| PCE |
+-----+
Reports/Delegates: ^ ^ Reports/Delegates:
Tunnel 1 (F) | \ Tunnel 2 (F)
(LSP1 (F, P4)) | \ (LSP2 (F, P5))
Association #4 | \ Association #4
+-----+ +-----+
| A | | D |
+-----+ +-----+
Legend: F = Forward LSP, (P4,P5) = PLSP-IDs
Figure 5: Example of PCC-Initiated Double-Sided Bidirectional LSP
Using partial topology from Figure 1, as shown in Figure 5, the
forward Tunnel 1 and forward LSP1 are initiated on the endpoint node
A, and the reverse Tunnel 2 and reverse LSP2 are initiated on the
endpoint node D (the PCCs). The PLSP-IDs used are P4 on the endpoint
node A and P5 on the endpoint node D. Both endpoint (PCC) nodes may
delegate the forward LSP1 and LSP2 to the PCE. The endpoint node A
(PCC) reports the forward LSP1, and endpoint node D reports the
forward LSP2 to the PCE.
3.3. Co-routed Associated Bidirectional LSP
In both single-sided and double-sided initiation cases, forward and
reverse LSPs can be co-routed as shown in Figure 6, where both
forward and reverse LSPs of a bidirectional LSP follow the same
congruent path in the forward and reverse directions, respectively.
LSP3 --> LSP3 --> LSP3 -->
+-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+
| A +-----------+ B +-----------+ C +-----------+ D |
+-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+
<-- LSP4 <-- LSP4 <-- LSP4
Figure 6: Example of Co-routed Associated Bidirectional LSP
The procedure specified in [RFC8537] for fast reroute bypass tunnel
assignment is also applicable to the co-routed associated
bidirectional LSPs.
3.4. Summary of PCEP Extensions
The PCEP extensions defined in this document cover the following
modes of operation under the stateful PCE model:
* A PCC initiates the forward and reverse LSP of a single-sided
bidirectional LSP and retains control of the LSPs. Similarly,
both PCCs initiate the forward LSPs of a double-sided
bidirectional LSP and retain control of the LSPs. The PCC
computes the path itself or makes a request for path computation
to a PCE. After the path setup, it reports the information and
state of the path to the PCE. This includes the association group
identifying the bidirectional LSP. This is the passive stateful
mode defined in [RFC8051].
* A PCC initiates the forward and reverse LSP of a single-sided
bidirectional LSP and delegates control of the LSPs to a stateful
PCE. Similarly, both PCCs initiate the forward LSPs of a double-
sided bidirectional LSP and delegate control of the LSPs to a
stateful PCE. During delegation, the association group
identifying the bidirectional LSP is included. The PCE computes
the path of the LSP and updates the PCC with the information about
the path as long as it controls the LSP. This is the active
stateful mode defined in [RFC8051].
* A PCE initiates the forward and reverse LSP of a single-sided
bidirectional LSP on a PCC and retains control of the LSP.
Similarly, a PCE initiates the forward LSPs of a double-sided
bidirectional LSP on both PCCs and retains control of the LSPs.
The PCE is responsible for computing the path of the LSP and
updating the PCC with the information about the path as well as
the association group identifying the bidirectional LSP. This is
the PCE-initiated mode defined in [RFC8281].
* A PCC requests co-routed or non-co-routed paths for forward and
reverse LSPs of a bidirectional LSP, including when using a
stateless PCE [RFC5440].
3.5. Operational Considerations
The double-sided case has an advantage when compared to the single-
sided case, summarized as follows:
* In the double-sided case, two existing unidirectional LSPs in
reverse directions in the network can be associated to form a
bidirectional LSP without significantly increasing the operational
complexity.
The single-sided case has some advantages when compared to the
double-sided case, summarized as follows:
* Some Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) use cases
may require an endpoint node to know both forward and reverse
paths for monitoring the bidirectional LSP. For such use cases,
the single-sided case may be preferred.
* For co-routed associated bidirectional LSPs in PCC-initiated mode,
the single-sided case allows the originating PCC to dynamically
compute co-routed forward and reverse paths. This may not be
possible with the double-sided case where the forward and reverse
paths are computed separately as triggered by two different PCCs.
* The associated bidirectional LSPs in the single-sided case can be
deployed in a network where PCEP is only enabled on the
originating endpoint nodes as remote endpoint nodes create the
reverse tunnels using RSVP-TE Path messages.
4. Protocol Extensions
4.1. ASSOCIATION Object
As per [RFC8697], LSPs are associated by adding them to a common
association group. This document defines two new Association Types,
called "Single-Sided Bidirectional LSP Association" (4) and "Double-
Sided Bidirectional LSP Association" (5), using the generic
ASSOCIATION object (Object-Class value 40). A member of the
Bidirectional LSP Association can take the role of a forward or
reverse LSP and follows the following rules:
* An LSP (forward or reverse) MUST NOT be part of more than one
Bidirectional LSP Association.
* The LSPs in a Bidirectional LSP Association MUST have matching
endpoint nodes in the reverse directions.
* The same tunnel (as defined in Section 2.1 of [RFC3209]) MUST
contain the forward and reverse LSPs of the Single-Sided
Bidirectional LSP Association on the originating node, albeit both
LSPs have reversed endpoint nodes.
The Bidirectional LSP Association Types are considered to be both
dynamic and operator configured in nature. As per [RFC8697], the
association group could be manually created by the operator on the
PCEP peers, and the LSPs belonging to this association are conveyed
via PCEP messages to the PCEP peer; alternately, the association
group could be created dynamically by the PCEP speaker, and both the
association group information and the LSPs belonging to the
association group are conveyed to the PCEP peer. The operator-
configured Association Range MUST be set for this Association Type to
mark a range of Association Identifiers that are used for operator-
configured associations to avoid any Association Identifier clash
within the scope of the Association Source (refer to [RFC8697]).
Specifically, for the PCE-initiated bidirectional LSPs, these
associations are dynamically created by the PCE on the PCE peers.
Similarly, for both the PCE-initiated and the PCC-initiated single-
sided cases, these associations are also dynamically created on the
remote endpoint node using the information received from the RSVP
message from the originating node.
The Association ID, Association Source, optional Global Association
Source TLV, and optional Extended Association ID TLV in the
Bidirectional LSP ASSOCIATION object are initialized using the
procedures defined in [RFC8697] and [RFC7551].
[RFC8697] specifies the mechanism for the capability advertisement of
the Association Types supported by a PCEP speaker by defining an
ASSOC-Type-List TLV to be carried within an OPEN object. This
capability exchange for the Bidirectional LSP Association Types MUST
be done before using the Bidirectional LSP Association. Thus, the
PCEP speaker MUST include the Bidirectional LSP Association Types in
the ASSOC-Type-List TLV and MUST receive the same from the PCEP peer
before using the Bidirectional LSP Association in PCEP messages.
4.2. Bidirectional LSP Association Group TLV
The Bidirectional LSP Association Group TLV is an OPTIONAL TLV for
use with Bidirectional LSP Associations (ASSOCIATION object with
Association Type 4 for Single-Sided Bidirectional LSP Association or
5 for Double-Sided Bidirectional LSP Association).
* The Bidirectional LSP Association Group TLV follows the PCEP TLV
format from [RFC5440].
* The Type (16 bits) of the TLV is 54.
* The Length is 4 bytes.
* The value comprises of a single field, the Flags field (32 bits),
where each bit represents a flag option.
* If the Bidirectional LSP Association Group TLV is missing, it
means the LSP is the forward LSP, and it is not a co-routed LSP.
* When the Bidirectional LSP Association Group TLV is present, the R
flag MUST be reset for the forward LSP for both co-routed and non-
co-routed LSPs.
* For co-routed LSPs, this TLV MUST be present and the C flag set.
* For reverse LSPs, this TLV MUST be present and the R flag set.
* The Bidirectional LSP Association Group TLV 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.
The format of the Bidirectional LSP Association Group TLV is shown in
Figure 7.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type = 54 | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Flags |C|R|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 7: Bidirectional LSP Association Group TLV Format
Flags for the Bidirectional LSP Association Group TLV are defined as
follows.
R (Reverse LSP, 1 bit, bit number 31): Indicates whether the LSP
associated is the reverse LSP of the bidirectional LSP. If this
flag is set, the LSP is a reverse LSP. If this flag is not set,
the LSP is a forward LSP.
C (Co-routed Path, 1 bit, bit number 30): Indicates whether the
bidirectional LSP is co-routed. This flag MUST be set for both
the forward and reverse LSPs of a co-routed bidirectional LSP.
The C flag is used by the PCE (both stateful and stateless) to
compute bidirectional paths of the forward and reverse LSPs of a co-
routed bidirectional LSP.
The unassigned flags (bit numbers 0-29) MUST be set to 0 when sent
and MUST be ignored when received.
5. PCEP Procedure
The PCEP procedure defined in this document is applicable to the
following three scenarios:
* Neither unidirectional LSP exists, and both must be established.
* Both unidirectional LSPs exist, but the association must be
established.
* One LSP exists, but the reverse associated LSP must be
established.
5.1. PCE-Initiated LSPs
As specified in [RFC8697], Bidirectional LSP Associations can be
created and updated by a stateful PCE.
* For a Single-Sided Bidirectional LSP Association initiated by the
PCE, the PCE MUST send a PCInitiate message to the originating
endpoint node with both forward and reverse LSPs. For a Double-
Sided Bidirectional LSP Association initiated by the PCE, it MUST
send a PCInitiate message to both endpoint nodes with forward
LSPs.
* Both PCCs MUST report the forward and reverse LSPs in the
Bidirectional LSP Association to the PCE. A PCC reports via a
PCRpt message.
* Stateful PCEs MAY create and update the forward and reverse LSPs
independently for the Single-Sided Bidirectional LSP Association
on the originating endpoint node.
* Stateful PCEs MAY create and update the forward LSP independently
for the Double-Sided Bidirectional LSP Association on the endpoint
nodes.
* Stateful PCEs establish and remove the association relationship on
a per-LSP basis.
* Stateful PCEs create and update the LSP and the association on
PCCs via PCInitiate and PCUpd messages, respectively, using the
procedures described in [RFC8697].
5.2. PCC-Initiated LSPs
As specified in [RFC8697], Bidirectional LSP Associations can also be
created and updated by a PCC.
* For a Single-Sided Bidirectional LSP Association initiated at a
PCC, the PCC MUST send a PCRpt message to the PCE with both
forward and reverse LSPs. For a Double-Sided Bidirectional LSP
Association initiated at the PCCs, both PCCs MUST send a PCRpt
message to the PCE with forward LSPs.
* PCCs on the originating endpoint node MAY create and update the
forward and reverse LSPs independently for the Single-Sided
Bidirectional LSP Association.
* PCCs on the endpoint nodes MAY create and update the forward LSP
independently for the Double-Sided Bidirectional LSP Association.
* PCCs establish and remove the association group on a per-LSP
basis. PCCs MUST report the change in the association group of an
LSP to PCE(s) via a PCRpt message.
* PCCs report the forward and reverse LSPs in the Bidirectional LSP
Association independently to PCE(s) via a PCRpt message.
* PCCs for the single-sided case MAY delegate the forward and
reverse LSPs independently to a stateful PCE, where the PCE would
control the LSPs. In this case, the originating (PCC) endpoint
node SHOULD delegate both forward and reverse LSPs of a tunnel
together to a stateful PCE in order to avoid any race condition.
* PCCs for the double-sided case MAY delegate the forward LSPs to a
stateful PCE, where the PCE would control the LSPs.
* A stateful PCE updates the LSPs in the Bidirectional LSP
Association via a PCUpd message, using the procedures described in
[RFC8697].
5.3. Stateless PCE
For a stateless PCE, it might be useful to associate a path
computation request to an association group, thus enabling it to
associate a common set of configuration parameters or behaviors with
the request [RFC8697]. A PCC can request co-routed or non-co-routed
forward and reverse paths from a stateless PCE for a Bidirectional
LSP Association.
5.4. Bidirectional (B) Flag
As defined in [RFC5440], the Bidirectional (B) flag in the Request
Parameters (RP) object is set when the PCC specifies that the path
computation request is for a bidirectional TE LSP with the same TE
requirements in each direction. For an associated bidirectional LSP,
the B flag is also set when the PCC makes the path computation
request for the same TE requirements for the forward and reverse
LSPs.
Note that the B flag defined in a Stateful PCE Request Parameter
(SRP) object [STATEFUL-PCE-GMPLS] to indicate "bidirectional co-
routed LSP" is used for GMPLS-signaled bidirectional LSPs and is not
applicable to the associated bidirectional LSPs.
5.5. PLSP-ID Usage
As defined in [RFC8231], a PCEP-specific LSP Identifier (PLSP-ID) is
created by a PCC to uniquely identify an LSP, and it remains the same
for the lifetime of a PCEP session.
In the case of a Single-Sided Bidirectional LSP Association, the
reverse LSP of a bidirectional LSP created on the originating
endpoint node is identified by the PCE using two different PLSP-IDs,
based on the PCEP session on the ingress or egress node PCCs for the
LSP. In other words, the LSP will have a PLSP-ID P2 allocated at the
ingress node PCC, while it will have a PLSP-ID P3 allocated at the
egress node PCC (as shown in Figures 2 and 3). There is no change in
the PLSP-ID allocation procedure for the forward LSP of a single-
sided bidirectional LSP created on the originating endpoint node.
In the case of a Double-Sided Bidirectional LSP Association, there is
no change in the PLSP-ID allocation procedure for the forward LSPs on
either PCC.
For an associated bidirectional LSP, the LSP-IDENTIFIERS TLV
[RFC8231] MUST be included in all forward and reverse LSPs.
5.6. State Synchronization
During state synchronization, a PCC MUST report all the existing
Bidirectional LSP Associations to the stateful PCE, as per [RFC8697].
After the state synchronization, the PCE MUST remove all previous
Bidirectional LSP Associations absent in the report.
5.7. Error Handling
If a PCE speaker receives an LSP with a Bidirectional LSP Association
Type that it does not support, the PCE speaker MUST send PCErr with
Error-Type = 26 (Association Error) and Error-value = 1 (Association
Type is not supported).
An LSP (forward or reverse) cannot be part of more than one
Bidirectional LSP Association. If a PCE speaker receives an LSP not
complying to this rule, the PCE speaker MUST send PCErr with Error-
Type = 26 (Association Error) and Error-value = 14 (Association group
mismatch).
The LSPs (forward or reverse) in a Single-Sided Bidirectional
Association MUST belong to the same TE tunnel (as defined in
[RFC3209]). If a PCE speaker attempts to add an LSP in a Single-
Sided Bidirectional LSP Association for a different tunnel, the PCE
speaker MUST send PCErr with Error-Type = 26 (Association Error) and
Error-value = 15 (Tunnel mismatch in the association group).
The PCEP Path Setup Type (PST) for RSVP-TE is set to "Path is set up
using the RSVP-TE signaling protocol" (Value 0) [RFC8408]. If a PCEP
speaker receives a different PST value for the Bidirectional LSP
Associations defined in this document, the PCE speaker MUST return a
PCErr message with Error-Type = 26 (Association Error) and Error-
value = 16 (Path Setup Type not supported).
A Bidirectional LSP Association cannot have both unidirectional LSPs
identified as reverse LSPs or both LSPs identified as forward LSPs.
If a PCE speaker receives an LSP not complying to this rule, the PCE
speaker MUST send PCErr with Error-Type = 26 (Association Error) and
Error-value = 17 (Bidirectional LSP direction mismatch).
A Bidirectional LSP Association cannot have one unidirectional LSP
identified as co-routed and the other identified as non-co-routed.
If a PCE speaker receives an LSP not complying to this rule, the PCE
speaker MUST send PCErr with Error-Type = 26 (Association Error) and
Error-value = 18 (Bidirectional LSP co-routed mismatch).
The unidirectional LSPs forming the Bidirectional LSP Association
MUST have matching endpoint nodes in the reverse directions. If a
PCE speaker receives an LSP not complying to this rule, the PCE
speaker MUST send PCErr with Error-Type = 26 (Association Error) and
Error-value = 19 (Endpoint mismatch in the association group).
The processing rules as specified in Section 6.4 of [RFC8697]
continue to apply to the Association Types defined in this document.
6. Security Considerations
The security considerations described in [RFC5440], [RFC8231], and
[RFC8281] apply to the extensions defined in this document as well.
Two new Association Types for the ASSOCIATION object, Single-Sided
Bidirectional LSP Association and Double-Sided Bidirectional LSP
Association, are introduced in this document. Additional security
considerations related to LSP associations due to a malicious PCEP
speaker are described in [RFC8697] and apply to these Association
Types. Hence, securing the PCEP session using Transport Layer
Security (TLS) [RFC8253] is RECOMMENDED.
7. Manageability Considerations
7.1. Control of Function and Policy
The mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any control or
policy requirements in addition to those already listed in [RFC5440],
[RFC8231], and [RFC8281].
7.2. Information and Data Models
[RFC7420] describes the PCEP MIB; there are no new MIB objects
defined for LSP associations.
The PCEP YANG module [PCE-PCEP-YANG] defines a data model for LSP
associations.
7.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring
The mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new liveness
detection and monitoring requirements in addition to those already
listed in [RFC5440], [RFC8231], and [RFC8281].
7.4. Verify Correct Operations
The mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new
operation verification requirements in addition to those already
listed in [RFC5440], [RFC8231], and [RFC8281].
7.5. Requirements on Other Protocols
The mechanisms defined in this document do not add any new
requirements on other protocols.
7.6. Impact on Network Operations
The mechanisms defined in this document do not have any impact on
network operations in addition to those already listed in [RFC5440],
[RFC8231], and [RFC8281].
8. IANA Considerations
8.1. Association Types
This document defines two new Association Types [RFC8697]. IANA has
assigned the following new values in the "ASSOCIATION Type Field"
subregistry [RFC8697] within the "Path Computation Element Protocol
(PCEP) Numbers" registry:
+======+============================================+===========+
| Type | Name | Reference |
+======+============================================+===========+
| 4 | Single-Sided Bidirectional LSP Association | RFC 9059 |
+------+--------------------------------------------+-----------+
| 5 | Double-Sided Bidirectional LSP Association | RFC 9059 |
+------+--------------------------------------------+-----------+
Table 1: Additions to ASSOCIATION Type Field Subregistry
8.2. Bidirectional LSP Association Group TLV
This document defines a new TLV for carrying additional information
about LSPs within a Bidirectional LSP Association. IANA has assigned
the following value in the "PCEP TLV Type Indicators" subregistry
within the "Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers"
registry:
+=======+=========================================+===========+
| Value | Meaning | Reference |
+=======+=========================================+===========+
| 54 | Bidirectional LSP Association Group TLV | RFC 9059 |
+-------+-----------------------------------------+-----------+
Table 2: Addition to PCEP TLV Type Indicators Subregistry
8.2.1. Flag Field in Bidirectional LSP Association Group TLV
IANA has created a new subregistry, named "Bidirectional LSP
Association Group TLV Flag Field", within the "Path Computation
Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry to manage the Flag field in
the Bidirectional LSP Association Group TLV. New values are assigned
by Standards Action [RFC8126]. Each bit should be tracked with the
following qualities:
* Bit number (count from 0 as the most significant bit)
* Description
* Reference
The initial contents of this registry are as follows:
+======+====================+===========+
| Bit | Description | Reference |
+======+====================+===========+
| 0-29 | Unassigned | |
+------+--------------------+-----------+
| 30 | C - Co-routed Path | RFC 9059 |
+------+--------------------+-----------+
| 31 | R - Reverse LSP | RFC 9059 |
+------+--------------------+-----------+
Table 3: New Bidirectional LSP
Association Group TLV Flag Field
Subregistry
8.3. PCEP Errors
This document defines new Error-values for Error-Type 26 (Association
Error). IANA has allocated the following new Error-values within the
"PCEP-ERROR Object Error Types and Values" subregistry of the "Path
Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry:
+============+=============+==========================+===========+
| Error-Type | Meaning | Error-value | Reference |
+============+=============+==========================+===========+
| 26 | Association | 14: Association group | RFC 9059 |
| | Error | mismatch | |
| | +--------------------------+-----------+
| | | 15: Tunnel mismatch in | RFC 9059 |
| | | the association group | |
| | +--------------------------+-----------+
| | | 16: Path Setup Type not | RFC 9059 |
| | | supported | |
| | +--------------------------+-----------+
| | | 17: Bidirectional LSP | RFC 9059 |
| | | direction mismatch | |
| | +--------------------------+-----------+
| | | 18: Bidirectional LSP | RFC 9059 |
| | | co-routed mismatch | |
| | +--------------------------+-----------+
| | | 19: Endpoint mismatch in | RFC 9059 |
| | | the association group | |
+------------+-------------+--------------------------+-----------+
Table 4: Additions to PCEP-ERROR Object Error Types and Values
Subregistry
9. References
9.1. 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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.,
and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
Tunnels", RFC 3209, DOI 10.17487/RFC3209, December 2001,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3209>.
[RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation
Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5440, March 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5440>.
[RFC7551] Zhang, F., Ed., Jing, R., and R. Gandhi, Ed., "RSVP-TE
Extensions for Associated Bidirectional Label Switched
Paths (LSPs)", RFC 7551, DOI 10.17487/RFC7551, May 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7551>.
[RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC8231] Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Medved, J., and R. Varga, "Path
Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)
Extensions for Stateful PCE", RFC 8231,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8231, September 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8231>.
[RFC8253] Lopez, D., Gonzalez de Dios, O., Wu, Q., and D. Dhody,
"PCEPS: Usage of TLS to Provide a Secure Transport for the
Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)",
RFC 8253, DOI 10.17487/RFC8253, October 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8253>.
[RFC8281] Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Sivabalan, S., and R. Varga, "Path
Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)
Extensions for PCE-Initiated LSP Setup in a Stateful PCE
Model", RFC 8281, DOI 10.17487/RFC8281, December 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8281>.
[RFC8537] Gandhi, R., Ed., Shah, H., and J. Whittaker, "Updates to
the Fast Reroute Procedures for Co-routed Associated
Bidirectional Label Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 8537,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8537, February 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8537>.
[RFC8697] Minei, I., Crabbe, E., Sivabalan, S., Ananthakrishnan, H.,
Dhody, D., and Y. Tanaka, "Path Computation Element
Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for Establishing
Relationships between Sets of Label Switched Paths
(LSPs)", RFC 8697, DOI 10.17487/RFC8697, January 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8697>.
9.2. Informative References
[BIDIR-PATH]
Li, C., Chen, M., Cheng, W., Gandhi, R., and Q. Xiong,
"Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)
Extensions for Associated Bidirectional Segment Routing
(SR) Paths", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-
pce-sr-bidir-path-05, 26 January 2021,
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-sr-bidir-path-
05>.
[PCE-PCEP-YANG]
Dhody, D., Ed., Hardwick, J., Beeram, V., and J. Tantsura,
"A YANG Data Model for Path Computation Element
Communications Protocol (PCEP)", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-pce-pcep-yang-16, 22 February
2021,
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-yang-16>.
[RFC5654] Niven-Jenkins, B., Ed., Brungard, D., Ed., Betts, M., Ed.,
Sprecher, N., and S. Ueno, "Requirements of an MPLS
Transport Profile", RFC 5654, DOI 10.17487/RFC5654,
September 2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5654>.
[RFC7420] Koushik, A., Stephan, E., Zhao, Q., King, D., and J.
Hardwick, "Path Computation Element Communication Protocol
(PCEP) Management Information Base (MIB) Module",
RFC 7420, DOI 10.17487/RFC7420, December 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7420>.
[RFC8051] Zhang, X., Ed. and I. Minei, Ed., "Applicability of a
Stateful Path Computation Element (PCE)", RFC 8051,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8051, January 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8051>.
[RFC8408] Sivabalan, S., Tantsura, J., Minei, I., Varga, R., and J.
Hardwick, "Conveying Path Setup Type in PCE Communication
Protocol (PCEP) Messages", RFC 8408, DOI 10.17487/RFC8408,
July 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8408>.
[STATEFUL-PCE-GMPLS]
Lee, Y., Ed., Zheng, H., Ed., de Dios, O., Lopez, V., and
Z. Ali, "Path Computation Element (PCE) Protocol
Extensions for Stateful PCE Usage in GMPLS-controlled
Networks", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-
pce-pcep-stateful-pce-gmpls-14, 28 December 2020,
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-stateful-
pce-gmpls-14>.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Dhruv Dhody for various discussions
on association groups and inputs to this document. The authors would
also like to thank Mike Taillon, Harish Sitaraman, Al Morton, and
Marina Fizgeer for reviewing this document and providing valuable
comments. The authors would like to thank the following IESG members
for their review comments and suggestions: Barry Leiba, Éric Vyncke,
Benjamin Kaduk, Murray Kucherawy, Martin Duke, and Alvaro Retana.
Authors' Addresses
Rakesh Gandhi (editor)
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Canada
Email: rgandhi@cisco.com
Colby Barth
Juniper Networks
Email: cbarth@juniper.net
Bin Wen
Comcast
Email: Bin_Wen@cable.comcast.com