1 / 6

PCE Traffic Engineering Database Requirements

PCE Traffic Engineering Database Requirements. draft-dugeon-pce-ted-reqs-01.txt O. Dugeon, J. Meuric (France Telecom / Orange) R. Douville (Alcatel-Lucent) R. Casellas (CTTC) O.D de Dios (TiD). Motivations. PCE architecture and path computation need Network Information

liam
Download Presentation

PCE Traffic Engineering Database Requirements

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. PCE Traffic Engineering Database Requirements draft-dugeon-pce-ted-reqs-01.txt O. Dugeon, J. Meuric (France Telecom / Orange) R. Douville (Alcatel-Lucent) R. Casellas (CTTC) O.D de Dios (TiD)

  2. Motivations • PCE architecture and path computation need Network Information • The Traffic Engineering Database (TED) contains these pertinent and suitable information regarding the underlying networks • However: • No RFC specifies the detailed contents of the PCE TED • Only TED MIB specification are ongoing (CCAMP) • A PCE TED is not limited to the information disseminated by the IGP • The fulfillement method of PCE TED is not specified • Multi-Domain path computation suffer from a lack of information in the TED • Lead to a non optimal result or to some difficulties to deploy them • Collaborative PCEs would benefit from neighbouring context • Goal: Identify some TED requirements for the PCE: • identification of the specific information to be stored in the TED • and how it may be populated

  3. Inventory of TED elements • First inventory has been split between Intra (MPLS & GMPLS) and Inter domain • Intra-domain • Standard TE information exchange by the IGP-TE • Inter-domain • ASBR of the foreign domains • Inter-domain Links TE • Traffic Engineering performance between Border Nodes (n) • To give performance indication on foreign domain n • But only as an abstract view (to not divulgate details of the network) • PCE (i) peer address associated with the AS number of the domain (i)

  4. TED Population • Some mechanisms and protocols have been identified for Intra-domain population • Some efforts are necessary for the Inter-domain section • Intra-domain • IGP-TE (IS-IS-TE or OSPF-TE) are commonly used • RFC 5088 and RFC 5089 help to auto discover PCE • Inter-domain • RFC 5316 and RFC 5392 provide TE information on inter-domain links • BGP just provides reachability

  5. Inter-domain status for TED Population • But Inter-domain needs more effort to correctly populate the PCE TED • Ongoing identified solutions • Management plane • North bound distribution of Link-State and TE Information using BGP [I-D.gredler-idr-ls-distribution] • PCNtf message to convey, inside vendor attribute (but in a non standardized way), TE information of foreign domains • All are non standard • Candidate standardisation efforts • A hierarchical TE protocol to advertise abstract TE information at the AS level • A PCEP extension to convey such TE information (e.g. through standard PCNtf message)

  6. Next Steps • Get feedback from PCE WG • We are here for that • Release a 02 version that: • Take into account GMPLS stuff • Improve Inter-domain definition • Consider multi-area / multi-region / multi-layer as inter-domain and not only inter AS • Add analysis and best-current practice for Intra-domain solutions • Add analysis of Inter-domain solutions

More Related