1 / 7

PCEP Contract ID Extension for Inter-Provider TE-LSP Service Negotiation

This draft proposes PCEP extensions for carrying a contract ID in inter-provider TE-LSP services to automate negotiation and activation. It introduces a CONTRACT.ID object for transparent transmission of negotiated service identifier. The object is communicated to a PDP for policy application at the service level. Error values are defined for policy violations.

okeefeb
Download Presentation

PCEP Contract ID Extension for Inter-Provider TE-LSP Service Negotiation

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. Carrying a Contract ID in PCEP draft-leroux-pce-contract-id-01.txtJ.L. Le Roux (France Telecom) R. Jacob (Brighthaul) R. Douville (Alcatel-Lucent)

  2. Background • Inter-Provider TE-LSP = TE-LSP that crosses at least one provider boundary • Inter-provider TE-LSP computation may rely on communication between PCEs in each provider (such as BRPC) • Preliminary service negotiation and activation is required at the service level, between the set of providers the LSP will traverse • SLA, SLS, TE parameters, $... • The IPSphere Forum is defining an architecture that allows automating the negotiation and activation of an inter-provider TE-LSP service • The instantiated service is identified by a contract ID in the form of a Universally Unique IDentifier UUID (RFC 4122) • The contract ID has to be carried in PCEP so that a path computation request can be policed based upon the beforehand agreed service

  3. The PCEP Contract ID object 1/2 • This draft defines PCEP extensions so as to transparently transport a service contract id • A new PCEP object is defined, the CONTRACT ID object, to be carried in PCReq messages • Carries the identifier of the TE-LSP service contract that has been negotiated and instantiated at the service level. • Encoded as a 128 bit UUID as defined in RFC 4122 • The content of the PCEP object is transparent and not processed at the PCEP level

  4. The PCEP Contract ID object 2/2 • The Contract ID object is communicated to a service Policy Decision Point (PDP) to apply policies at the service level, based upon the agreed service • Policies include: Request acceptance/rejection, TE parameter filtering/translation, next-AS determination, etc. • No assumption on the way the object is communicated to the PDP, as well as on the actual location of the PDP (co-located or not) • New error values defined for the PCEP error code "Policy Violation"

  5. SMS SMS SMS LSP Setup RequestContract IDLSP parametersAS-Path SP1-SP2-SP3 Set policy (Contract ID) Set policy (Contract ID) NMS NMS OK OK NMS Policy Request (Contract ID) Policy Request (Contract ID) PM PM PM LSP ConfigContract IDDest R3LSP parametersAS-Path SP1-SP2-SP3 PCRepERO R5-R6-R3 or CPS PCRepERO R6-R3 or CPS PCE PCE PCE PCReqContract IDDest R3IRO AS1-AS2-AS3 PCReqContract IDDest R3IRO AS3 PCReqContract IDDest R3IRO AS2-AS3 PCRepERO: R1-R5-R6-R3 or CPS IPSphere Service Execution Execute Start Contract ID Execute Start Contract ID R3 R1 SP3 SP1 SP2 R5 R6

  6. Next Steps • Straightforward PCEP extension allowing for communication in an inter-provider context • Comment from Dimitri: "The contract ID should be carried in a more generic PCEP Policy Data object" • This would be a TLV in the yet to be defined Policy Data object • Need for RSVP-TE extensions to carry the Contract ID • Within the RSVP-TE Policy Data object (need for a new P-Type) • Draft to be submitted for Chicago • WG feedback Required

  7. ThanksQuestions?

More Related