TEAS Working Group                                        A. Farrel, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                          Juniper Networks
Intended status: Informational                              Q. Zhao, Ed.
Expires: June 8, November 15, 2017                                         R. Li
                                                     Huawei Technologies
                                                                 C. Zhou
                                                           Cisco Systems
                                                        December 5, 2016
                                                            May 14, 2017

   An Architecture for Use of PCE and PCEP in a Network with Central


   The Path Computation Element (PCE) has become established as a core
   component of Software Defined Networking (SDN) systems.  It can
   compute optimal paths for traffic across a network for any definition
   of "optimal" and can also monitor changes in resource availability
   and traffic demands to update the paths.

   Conventionally, the PCE has been used to derive paths for MPLS Label
   Switched Paths (LSPs).  These paths are supplied using the Path
   Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) to the head end of
   the LSP for signaling in the MPLS network.

   SDN has a far broader applicability than just signaled MPLS traffic
   engineered networks, and the PCE may be used to determine paths in a
   wide range of use cases including static LSPs, segment routing,
   service function chaining (SFC), and indeed any form of routed or
   switched network.  It is, therefore, reasonable to consider PCEP as a
   general southbound control protocol for use in these environments to
   allow the PCE to be fully enabled as a central controller.

   This document briefly introduces the architecture for PCE as a
   central controller, examines the motivations and applicability for
   PCEP as a southbound interface, and introduces the implications for
   the protocol.  This document does not describe the use cases in
   detail and does not define protocol extensions: that work is left for
   other documents.

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."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on June 8, November 15, 2017.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2016 2017 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
   2.  Architecture  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.1.  Resilience and Scaling  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
       2.1.1.  Partitioned Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
       2.1.2.  Multiple Parallel Controllers . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
       2.1.3.  Hierarchical Controllers  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   3.  Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     3.1.  Technology-Oriented Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
       3.1.1.  Applicability to Control Plane Operated Networks  . .  12
       3.1.2.  Static LSPs in MPLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
       3.1.3.  MPLS Multicast  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
       3.1.4.  Transport SDN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
       3.1.5.  Segment Routing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
       3.1.6.  Service Function Chaining . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     3.2.  High-Level Applicability  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
       3.2.1.  Traffic Engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
       3.2.2.  Traffic Classification  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
       3.2.3.  Service Delivery  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   4.  Protocol Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . / Guidance for Solution Developers  . .  16
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   6.  Manageability Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
   7.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
   8.  Contributors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
   9.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
   10. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
     10.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
     10.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18  19
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20  21

1.  Introduction

   The Path Computation Element (PCE) [RFC4655] was developed to offload
   path computation function from routers in an MPLS traffic engineered
   network.  Since then, the role and function of the PCE has grown to
   cover a number of other uses (such as GMPLS [RFC7025]) and to allow
   delegated control [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] and PCE-initiated use
   of network resources [I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp].

   According to [RFC7399], Software Defined Networking (SDN) refers to a
   separation between the control elements and the forwarding components
   so that software running in a centralized system, called a
   controller, can act to program the devices in the network to behave
   in specific ways.  A required element in an SDN architecture is a
   component that plans how the network resources will be used and how
   the devices will be programmed.  It is possible to view this
   component as performing specific computations to place traffic flows
   within the network given knowledge of the availability of network
   resources, how other forwarding devices are programmed, and the way
   that other flows are routed.  This is the function and purpose of a
   PCE, and the way that a PCE integrates into a wider network control
   system (including an SDN system) is presented in [RFC7491].

   In early PCE implementations, where the PCE was used to derive paths
   for MPLS Label Switched Paths (LSPs), paths were requested by network
   elements (known as Path Computation Clients - PCCs) and the results
   of the path computations were supplied to network elements using the
   Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) [RFC5440].
   This protocol was later extended to allow a PCE to send unsolicited
   requests to the network for LSP establishment

   SDN has a far broader applicability than just signaled MPLS or GMPLS
   traffic engineered networks.  The PCE component in an SDN system may
   be used to determine paths in a wide range of use cases including
   static LSPs, segment routing [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing],
   service function chaining (SFC) [RFC7665], and indeed any form of
   routed or switched network.  It is, therefore, reasonable to consider
   PCEP as a general southbound control protocol for use in these
   environments to allow the PCE to be fully enabled as a central

   This document introduces the architecture for PCE as a central
   controller, examines the motivations and applicability for PCEP as a
   southbound interface, and introduces the implications for the
   protocol.  This document does not describe the use cases in detail
   and does not define protocol extensions: that work is left for other

2.  Architecture

   The architecture for the use of PCE within centralized control of a
   network is based on the understanding that a PCE can determine how
   connections should be placed and how resources should be used within
   the network, and that the PCE can then cause those connections to be
   established.  Figure 1 shows how this control relationship works in a
   network with an active control plane.  This is a familiar view for
   those who have read and understood [RFC4655] and

   In this mode of operation, the central controller is asked to create
   connectivity by a network orchestrator, a service manager, an
   Operations Support System (OSS), a Network Management Station (NMS),
   or some other application.  The PCE-based controller computes paths
   with awareness of the network topology, the available resources, and
   the other services supported in the network.  This information is
   held in the Traffic Engineering Database (TED) and other databases
   available to the PCE.  Then the PCE sends a request using PCEP to one
   of the Network Elements (NEs), and that NE uses a control plane to
   establish the requested connections and reserve the network

                | Orchestrator / Service Manager / OSS / NMS |
                    |            |     -----
                    | PCE-based  |<---| TED |
                    | Controller |     -----
                    |            |
                      ----           ----       ----       ----
                     | NE |<------->| NE |<--->| NE |<--->| NE |
                      ----  Control  ----       ----       ----

     Figure 1: Architecture for Central Controller with Control Plane

   Although the architecture shown in Figure 1 represents a form of SDN,
   one objective of SDN in some environments is to remove the dependency
   on a control plane.  A transition architecture toward this goal is
   presented in [RFC7491] and is shown in Figure 2.  In this case,
   services are still requested in the same way, and the PCE-based
   controller still requests use of the network using PCEP.  The main
   difference is that the consumer of the PCEP messages is a Network
   Controller that provisions the resources and instructs the data plane
   using a Southbound Interface (SBI) that provides an interface to each

                     | Orchestrator / Service Manager / OSS / NMS |
                                   |            |     -----
                                   | PCE-based  |<---| TED |
                                   | Controller |     -----
                                   |            |
                                         | PCEP
                                   |  Network   |
                                   | Controller |
                              SBI /   ^       ^  \
                                 /    |       |   \
                                /     v       v    \
                           ----/    ----     ----   \----
                          | NE |   | NE |   | NE |  | NE |
                           ----     ----     ----    ----

           Figure 2: Architecture Including a Network Controller

   The approach in Figure 2 delivers the SDN functionality but is overly
   complicated and insufficiently flexible.

   o  The complication is created by the use of two controllers in a
      hierarchical organization, and the resultant use of two protocols
      in a southbound direction.

   o  The lack of flexibility arises from the assumed or required lack
      of a control plane.

   This document describes an architecture that reduces the number of
   components and is flexible to a number of deployment models and use
   cases.  In this hybrid approach (shown in Figure 3) the network
   controller is PCE-enabled and can also speak PCEP as the SBI (i.e.,
   it can communicate with each node along the path using PCEP).  That
   means that the controller can communicate with a conventional control
   plane-enabled NE using PCEP and can also use the same protocol to
   program individual NEs.  In this way the PCE-based controller can
   control a wider range of networks and deliver many different
   functions as described in Section 3.

   There will be a trade-off in different application scenarios.  In
   some cases the use of a control plane will simplify deployment (for
   example, by distributing recovery actions), and in other cases a
   control plane may add operational complexity.

   PCEP is essentially already capable of acting as an SBI and only
   small, use case- specific modifications to the protocol are needed to
   support this architecture.  The implications for the protocol are
   discussed further in Section 4.

                     | Orchestrator / Service Manager / OSS / NMS |
                                   |            |     -----
                                   | PCE-based  |<---| TED |
                                   | Controller |     -----
                                   |            |
                             PCEP /   ^       ^  \
                                 /    |       |   \
                                /     v       v    \
                               /    ----     ----   \
                              /    | NE |   | NE |   \
                         ----/      ----     ----     \----
                        | NE |                        | NE |
                         ----                          ----
                           ^        ----     ----      ^
                           :......>| NE |...| NE |<....:
                      Control Plane ----     ----

          Figure 3: Architecture for Node-by-Node Central Control

2.1.  Resilience and Scaling

   Systems with central controllers are vulnerable to two problems:
   failure or overload of the single controller.  These concerns are not
   unique to the use of a PCE-based controller, but need to be addressed
   in this document before the PCE-based controller architecture can be
   considered for use in all but the smallest networks.

   There are three architectural mechanisms that can be applied to
   address these issues.  The mechanisms are described separately for
   clarity, but a deployment use may any combination of the approaches.

   For simplicity of illustration, these three approaches are shown in
   the sections that follow without a control plane.  However, the
   general, hybrid approach of Figure 3 is applicable in each case.

2.1.1.  Partitioned Network

   The first and simplest approach to handling controller overload or
   scalability is to use multiple controllers, each responsible for a
   part of the network.  We can call the resultant areas of control

   This approach is shown in Figure 4.  It can clearly address some of
   the scaling and overload concerns since each controller now only has
   responsibility for a subset of the network elements.  But this comes
   at a cost because end-to-end connections require coordination between
   the controllers.  Furthermore, this technique does not remove the
   single-point-of-failure concern even if it does reduce the impact on
   the network of the failure of a single controller.

   Note that PCEP is designed to work as a PCE-to-PCE protocol as well
   as a PCE-to-PCC protocol, so it should be possible to use it to
   coordinate between PCE-based controllers in this model.

                   | Orchestrator / Service Manager / OSS / NMS |
                                ^                 ^
                                |                 |
                                v                 v
                        ------------  Coord-    ------------
             -----     |            |  ination |            |     -----
            | TED |--->| PCE-based  |<-------->| PCE-based  |<---| TED |
             -----     | Controller |          | Controller |     -----
                       |            |    ::    |            |
                       /------------     ::     ------------\
                      /    ^       ^     ::    ^        ^    \
                     /     |       |     ::    |        |     \
                    |      |       |     ::    |        |      |
                    v      v       v     ::    v        v      v
                  ----    ----    ----   ::   ----    ----    ----
                 | NE |  | NE |  | NE |  ::  | NE |  | NE |  | NE |
                  ----    ----    ----   ::   ----    ----    ----
                                Domain 1 :: Domain 2

          Figure 4: Multiple Controllers on a Partitioned Network

2.1.2.  Multiple Parallel Controllers

   Multiple parallel controllers may be deployed as shown in Figure 5.
   Each controller is capable of controlling all of the network elements
   thus the failure of any one controller will not leave the network
   unmanageable and, in normal circumstances, the load can be
   distributed across the controllers.

   To achieve full redundancy and to be able to continue to provide full
   function in the event of the failure a controller, the controllers
   must synchronize with each other.  This is nominally a simple task if
   there are just two controllers, but can actually be quite complex if
   state changes in the network are not to be lost.  Furthermore, if
   there are more than two controllers, the synchronization between
   controllers can become a hard problem.

   Synchronization issues are often off-loaded as "database
   synchronization" problems because distributed database packages have
   already had to address these challenges.  In networking the problem
   may also be addressed by collecting the state from the network
   (effectively using the network as a database) using normal routing
   protocols such as OSPF, IS-IS, and BGP.

                        | Orchestrator / Service Manager / OSS / NMS |
                                ^                            ^
                                |    ___________________     |
                                |   |  Synchronization  |    |
                                v   v                   v    v
                          ------------                 ------------
                         |            |     -----     |            |
                         | PCE-based  |<---| TED |--->| PCE-based  |
                         | Controller |     -----     | Controller |
                         |            |__  ...........|            |
                          ------------\  \_:__        :------------
                                ^  ^   \___:  \  .....:  ^   ^
                                |  |  .....:\  \_:___  ..:   :
                                |  |__:___   \___:_  \_:___  :
                                | ....:   | .....: | ..:   | :
                                | :       | :      | :     | :
                                v v       v v      v v     v v
                               ----      ----     ----     ----
                              | NE |    | NE |   | NE |   | NE |
                               ----      ----     ----     ----

                 Figure 5: Multiple Redundant Controllers

2.1.3.  Hierarchical Controllers

   Figure 6 shows an approach with hierarchical controllers.  This
   approach was developed for PCEs in [RFC6805] and appears in various
   SDN architectures where a "parent PCE", an "orchestrator", or "super
   controller" takes responsibility for a high-level view of the network
   before distributing tasks to lower level PCEs or controllers.

   On its own, this approach does little to protect against the failure
   of a controller, but it can make significant improvements in loading
   and scaling of the individual controllers.  It also offers a good way
   to support end-to-end connectivity across multiple administrative or
   technology-specific domains.

   Note that this model can be arbitrarily recursive with a PCE-based
   controller being the child of one parent PCE-based controller while
   acting as the parent of another set of PCE-based controllers.

                     | Orchestrator / Service Manager / OSS / NMS |
                                     |   Parent   |     -----
                                     | PCE-based  |<---| TED |
                                     | Controller |     -----
                                     |            |
                                       ^        ^
                                       |        |
                                       v   ::   v
                             ------------  ::  ------------
                  -----     |            | :: |            |     -----
                 | TED |--->| PCE-based  | :: | PCE-based  |<---| TED |
                  -----     | Controller | :: | Controller |     -----
                           /|            | :: |            |\
                          /  ------------  ::  ------------  \
                         /   ^       ^     ::    ^        ^   \
                        /    |       |     ::    |        |    \
                       /     |       |     ::    |        |     \
                      |      |       |     ::    |        |      |
                      v      v       v     ::    v        v      v
                    ----    ----    ----   ::   ----    ----    ----
                   | NE |  | NE |  | NE |  ::  | NE |  | NE |  | NE |
                    ----    ----    ----   ::   ----    ----    ----
                                  Domain 1 :: Domain 2

                    Figure 6: Hierarchical Controllers

3.  Applicability

   This section gives a very high-level introduction to the
   applicability of a PCE-based centralized controller.  There is no
   attempt to explain each use case in detail, and the inclusion of a
   use case is not intended to suggest that deploying a PCE-based
   controller is a mandatory or recommended approach.  The sections
   below are provided as a stimulus to discussion of the applicability
   of a PCE-based controller and it is expected that separate documents
   will be written to develop the use cases in which there is interest
   for implementation and deployment.  As described in Section 4
   specific enhancements to PCEP may be needed for some of these use
   cases and it is expected that the documents that develop each use
   case will also address any extensions to PCEP.

   The rest of this section is divided into two sub-sections.  The first
   approaches the question of applicability from a consideration of the
   network technology.  The second looks at the high-level functions
   that can be delivered by using a PCE-based controller.

   As previously mentioned, this section is intended to just make
   suggestions.  Thus the material supplied is very brief.  The omission
   of a use case is in no way meant to imply some limit on the
   applicability of PCE-based control.

3.1.  Technology-Oriented Applicability

   This section provides a list of use cases based on network

3.1.1.  Applicability to Control Plane Operated Networks

   This mode of operation is the common approach for an active, stateful
   PCE to control a traffic engineered MPLS or GMPLS network
   [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce].  Note that the PCE-based controller
   determines what LSPs are needed and where to place them.  PCEP is
   used to instruct the head end of each LSP, and the head end signals
   in the control plane to set up the LSP.

3.1.2.  Static LSPs in MPLS

   Static LSPs are provisioned without the use of a control plane.  This
   means that they are established using management plane or "manual"

   Static LSPs can be provisioned as 1-hop, micro-LSPs at each node
   along the path of an end-to-end path LSP.  Each router along the path
   must be told what label forwarding instructions to program and what
   resources to reserve.  The PCE-based controller keeps a view of the
   network and determines the paths of the end-to-end LSPs just as it
   does for the use case described in Section 3.1.1, but the controller
   uses PCEP to communicate with each router along the path of the end-
   to-end LSP.  In this case the PCE-based controller will take
   responsibility for managing some part of the MPLS label space for
   each of the routers that it controls, and may taker wider
   responsibility for partitioning the label space for each router and
   allocating different parts for different uses communicating the
   ranges to the router using PCEP.

3.1.3.  MPLS Multicast

   Multicast LSPs may be provisioned with a control plane or as static
   LSPs.  No extra considerations apply above those in Section 3.1.1 and
   Section 3.1.2 except, of course, to note that the PCE must also
   include the instructions about where the LSP branches, i.e., where
   packets must be copied.

3.1.4.  Transport SDN

   Transport SDN (T-SDN) is the application of SDN techniques to
   transport networks.  In this respect a transport network is a network
   built from any technology below the IP layer and designed to carry
   traffic transparently in a connection-oriented way.  Thus, an MPLS
   traffic engineering network is a transport network although it is
   more common to consider technologies such as Time Division
   Multiplexing (TDM) and Optical Transport Networks (OTN).

   Transport networks may be operated with or without a control plane
   and may have point-to-point or point-to-multipoint connections.
   Thus, all of the considerations in Section 3.1.1, Section 3.1.2, and
   Section 3.1.3 apply. apply so that the normal PCEP message allow a PCE-based
   central controller to provision a transport network.  It may be is usually
   the case that additional technology-
   specific technology-specific parameters are needed to
   configure the NEs and these or LSPs in transport networks: parameters such as
   optical characteristic.  Such parameters will need to be carried in
   the PCEP messages. messages: new protocol extensions may be needed, and some
   are already being worked on in [I-D.ietf-pce-wson-rwa-ext].

3.1.5.  Segment Routing

   Segment routing is described in [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing].
   It relies on a series of forwarding instructions being placed in the
   header or a packet.  At each hop in the network a router looks at the
   first instruction and may: continue to forward the packet unchanged;
   strip the top instruction and forward the packet; or strip the top
   instruction, insert some additional instructions, and forward the

   The segment routing architecture supports operations that can be used
   to steer packet flows in a network thus providing a form of traffic
   engineering.  A PCE-based controller can be responsible for computing
   the paths for packet flows in a segment routing network, for
   configuring the forwarding actions on the routers, and for telling
   the edge routers what instructions to attach to packets as they enter
   the network.  These last two operations can be achieved using PCEP
   and the PCE-based controller will assume responsibility for managing
   the space of labels or path identifiers used to determine how packets
   are forwarded.

3.1.6.  Service Function Chaining

   Service Function Chaining (SFC) is described in [RFC7665].  It is the
   process of directing traffic in a network such that it passes through
   specific hardware devices or virtual machines (known as service
   function nodes) that can perform particular desired functions on the
   traffic.  The set of functions to be performed and the order in which
   they are to be performed is known as a Service Function Chain.  The
   chain is enhanced with the locations at which the service functions
   are to be performed to derive a Service Function Path (SFP).  Each
   packet is marked as belonging to a specific SFP and that marking lets
   each successive service function node know which functions to perform
   and to which service function node to send the packet next.

   To operate an SFC network the service function nodes must be
   configured to understand the packet markings and the edge nodes must
   be told how to mark packets entering the network.  Additionally it
   may be necessary to establish tunnels between service function nodes
   to carry the traffic.

   Planning an SFC network requires load balancing between service
   function nodes and traffic engineering across the network that
   connects them.  These are operations that can be performed by a PCE-
   based controller, and that controller can use PCEP to program the
   network and install the service function chains and any required

3.2.  High-Level Applicability

   This section provides a list of the high-level functions that can be
   delivered by using a PCE-based controller.

3.2.1.  Traffic Engineering

   According to [RFC2702], Traffic Engineering (TE) is concerned with
   performance optimization of operational networks.  In general, it
   encompasses the application of technology and scientific principles
   to the measurement, modeling, characterization, control of Internet
   traffic, and the application of such knowledge and techniques to
   achieve specific performance objectives.

   From a practical point of view this involves having an understanding
   of the topology of the network, the characteristics of the nodes and
   links in the network, and the traffic demands and flows across the
   network.  It also requires that actions can be taken to ensure that
   traffic follows specific paths through the network.

   PCE was specifically developed to address TE in an MPLS network, and
   so a PCE-based controller is well suited to analyze TE problems and
   supply answers that can be installed in the network using PCEP.  PCEP
   can be responsible for initiating paths across the network through a
   control plane, or for installing state in the network node by node
   such as in a Segment Routed network (see Section 3.1.5) or by
   configuring IGP metrics.

3.2.2.  Traffic Classification

   Traffic classification is an important part of traffic engineering.
   It is the process of looking at a packet to determine how it should
   be treated as it is forwarded through the network.  It applies in
   many scenarios including MPLS traffic engineering (where it
   determines what traffic is forwarded onto which LSPs), segment
   routing (where it is used to select which set of forwarding
   instructions to add to a packet), and service function chaining
   (where it indicates along which service function path a packet should
   be forwarded).  In conjunction with traffic engineering, traffic
   classification is an important enabler for load balancing.

   Traffic classification is closely linked to the computational
   elements of planning for the network functions just listed because it
   determines how traffic load is balanced and distributed through the
   network.  Therefore, selecting what traffic classification should be
   performed by a router is an important part of the work done by a PCE-
   based controller.

   Instructions can be passed from the controller to the routers using
   PCEP.  These instructions tell the routers how to map traffic to
   paths or connections.  The instructions may use the concept of a
   Forwarding Equivalence Class (FEC).

3.2.3.  Service Delivery

   Various network services may be offered over a network.  These
   include protection services (including end-to-end protection
   [RFC4427], restoration after failure, and fast reroute [RFC4090]),
   Virtual Private Network (VPN) service (such as Layer 3 VPNs [RFC4364]
   or Ethernet VPNs [RFC7432]), or Pseudowires [RFC3985].

   Delivering services over a network in an optimal way requires
   coordination in the way that network resources are allocated to
   support the services.  A PCE-based central controller can consider
   the whole network and all components of a service at once when
   planning how to deliver the service.  It can then use PCEP to manage
   the network resources and to install the necessary associations
   between those resources.

4.  Protocol Implications / Guidance for Solution Developers

   PCEP is a push-pull protocol that is designed to move requests and
   responses between a server (the PCE) and clients (the PCCs, i.e., the
   network elements).  In particular, it has a message (PCInitiate
   [I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp]) that can be sent by the PCE to
   install state or cause actions at the PCC, and a response message
   (PCRpt) that is used to confirm the request.

   As such, there is an expectation that only relatively minor changes
   to PCEP are required to support the concept of a PCE-based
   controller.  The only work expected to be needed is small extensions to
   existing PCEP messages to carry additional or specific information
   elements for the individual use cases. cases, which maintain backward
   compatibility and do not impact existing PCEP deployments.  Where
   possible, consistent with the general principles of how protocols are
   extended, any additions to the protocol should be made in a generic
   way such that they are open to use in a range of applications.

   It is anticipated that new documents will be produced for each use
   case dependent on support and demand.  Such documents will explain
   the use case and define the necessary protocol extensions.

   Protocol extensions could have impact on existing PCEP deployments
   and the interoperability between different implementations.  It is
   anticipated that changes of the PCEP protocol or addition of
   information elements could require additional testing to ensure
   interoperability between different PCEP implementations.

   It is reasonable to expect that implementations are able to select a
   subset or profile of the protocol extensions and PCEP features that
   are relevant for the application scenario in which they will be
   deployed.  Identification of these profiles should form part of the
   protocol itself so that interoperability can be easily determined and
   so that testing can be limited to the specific profiles.

5.  Security Considerations

   Security considerations for a PCE-based controller are little
   different from those for any other PCE system.  That is, the
   operation relies heavily on the use and security of PCEP and so
   consideration should be given to the security features discussed in
   [RFC5440] and the additional mechanisms described in

   It should be observed that the trust model of a network that operates
   without a control plane is different from one with a control plane.
   The conventional "chain of trust" used with a control plane is
   replaced by individual trust relationships between the controller and
   each individual NE.  This model may be considerably easier to manage
   and so is more likely to be operated with a high level of security.
   However, debate will rage over overall system security and the
   opportunity for attacks in an architecture with a central controller
   since the network can be vulnerable to denial of service attacks on
   the controller, and the forwarding system may be harmed by attacks on
   the messages sent to individual NEs.  In short, while the
   interactions with a PCE-based controller are not substantially
   different from those in any other SDN architecture, the security
   implications of SDN are still open for discussion.  The IRTF's SDN
   Research Group (SDNRG) continues to discuss discussed this topic.

   It is expected that each new document that is produced for a specific
   use case will also include considerations of the security impacts of
   the use of a PCE-based central controller on the network type and
   services being managed.

6.  Manageability Considerations

   The architecture described in this document is a management
   architecture: the PCE-based controller is a management component that
   controls the network through a southbound management protocol (PCEP).

   The use of different PCEP options and protocol extensions may have an
   impact on interoperability, which is a management issue.  As noted in
   Section 4, protocol extensions should be done in a way that makes it
   possible to identify profiles of PCEP to aid interoperability and
   this will aid deployment and manageability.

   RFC 5440 [RFC5440] contains a substantive manageability
   considerations section that examines how a PCE-based system and a
   PCE-enabled system may be managed.  A MIB module for PCEP was
   published as RFC 7420 [RFC7420] and a YANG module for PCEP has also
   been proposed [I-D.pkd-pce-pcep-yang].

7.  IANA Considerations

   This document makes no requests for IANA action.

8.  Contributors

   The following people contributed to discussions that led to the
   development of this document:

              Cyril Margaria
              Email: cmargaria@juniper.net

              Sudhir Cheruathur
              Email: scheruathur@juniper.net

              Dhruv Dhody
              Email: dhruv.dhody@huawei.com

              Daniel King
              Email: daniel@olddog.co.uk

              Iftekhar Hussain
              Email: IHussain@infinera.com

              Anurag Sharma
              Email: AnSharma@infinera.com

              Eric Wu
              Email: eric.wu@huawei.com

9.  Acknowledgements

   The ideas in this document owe a lot to the work started by the
   authors of [I-D.zhao-teas-pcecc-use-cases] and
   [I-D.zhao-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller].  The authors of
   this document fully acknowledge the prior work and thank those
   involved for opening the discussion.  The individuals concerned are:
   King Ke, Luyuan Fang, Chao Zhou, Boris Zhang, Zhenbin Li.

   This document has benefited from the discussions within a small ad
   hoc design team the members of which are listed as document

   Thanks to Michael Scharf and Andy Malis for a lively discussion of
   this document.

10.  References

10.1.  Normative References

   [RFC4655]  Farrel, A., Vasseur, J., and J. Ash, "A Path Computation
              Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4655, August 2006,

10.2.  Informative References

              Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Sivabalan, S., and R. Varga, "PCEP
              Extensions for PCE-initiated LSP Setup in a Stateful PCE
              Model", draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp-07 draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp-09 (work in
              progress), July 2016. March 2017.

              Lopez, D., Dios, O., Wu, W., Q., and D. Dhody, "Secure
              Transport for PCEP", draft-ietf-pce-pceps-10 draft-ietf-pce-pceps-12 (work in
              progress), July 2016. April 2017.

              Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Medved, J., and R. Varga, "PCEP
              Extensions for Stateful PCE", draft-ietf-pce-stateful-
              pce-18 (work in progress), December 2016.

              Lee, Y. and R. Casellas, "PCEP Extension for WSON Routing
              and Wavelength Assignment", draft-ietf-pce-wson-rwa-ext-06
              (work in progress), December 2016.

              Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Decraene, B., Litkowski, S.,
              and R. Shakir, "Segment Routing Architecture", draft-ietf-
              spring-segment-routing-11 (work in progress), November
              2016. February

              Dhody, D., Hardwick, J., Beeram, V., and j.
              jefftant@gmail.com, "A YANG Data Model for Path
              Computation Element Communications Protocol (PCEP)",
              draft-pkd-pce-pcep-yang-06 (work in progress), July 2016.

              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-04 (work in progress), March
              January 2017.

              Zhao, Q., Li, Z., Khasanov, B., Ke, Z., Fang, L., Zhou,
              C., Communications, T., Rachitskiy, A., and A. Gulida,
              "The Use Cases for Using PCE as the Central
              Controller(PCECC) of LSPs", draft-zhao-teas-pcecc-use-
              cases-02 (work in progress), October 2016.

   [RFC2702]  Awduche, D., Malcolm, J., Agogbua, J., O'Dell, M., and J.
              McManus, "Requirements for Traffic Engineering Over MPLS",
              RFC 2702, DOI 10.17487/RFC2702, September 1999,

   [RFC3985]  Bryant, S., Ed. and P. Pate, Ed., "Pseudo Wire Emulation
              Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) Architecture", RFC 3985,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3985, March 2005,

   [RFC4090]  Pan, P., Ed., Swallow, G., Ed., and A. Atlas, Ed., "Fast
              Reroute Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP Tunnels", RFC 4090,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4090, May 2005,

   [RFC4364]  Rosen, E. and Y. Rekhter, "BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private
              Networks (VPNs)", RFC 4364, DOI 10.17487/RFC4364, February
              2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4364>.

   [RFC4427]  Mannie, E., Ed. and D. Papadimitriou, Ed., "Recovery
              (Protection and Restoration) Terminology for Generalized
              Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)", RFC 4427,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4427, March 2006,

   [RFC5440]  Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation
              Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5440, March 2009,

   [RFC6805]  King, D., Ed. and A. Farrel, Ed., "The Application of the
              Path Computation Element Architecture to the Determination
              of a Sequence of Domains in MPLS and GMPLS", RFC 6805,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6805, November 2012,

   [RFC7025]  Otani, T., Ogaki, K., Caviglia, D., Zhang, F., and C.
              Margaria, "Requirements for GMPLS Applications of PCE",
              RFC 7025, DOI 10.17487/RFC7025, September 2013,

   [RFC7399]  Farrel, A. and D. King, "Unanswered Questions in the Path
              Computation Element Architecture", RFC 7399,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7399, October 2014,

   [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,

   [RFC7432]  Sajassi, A., Ed., Aggarwal, R., Bitar, N., Isaac, A.,
              Uttaro, J., Drake, J., and W. Henderickx, "BGP MPLS-Based
              Ethernet VPN", RFC 7432, DOI 10.17487/RFC7432, February
              2015, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7432>.

   [RFC7491]  King, D. and A. Farrel, "A PCE-Based Architecture for
              Application-Based Network Operations", RFC 7491,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7491, March 2015,

   [RFC7665]  Halpern, J., Ed. and C. Pignataro, Ed., "Service Function
              Chaining (SFC) Architecture", RFC 7665,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7665, October 2015,

Authors' Addresses

   Adrian Farrel (editor)
   Juniper Networks

   Email: afarrel@juniper.net

   Quintin Zhao (editor)
   Huawei Technologies
   125 Nagog Technology Park
   Acton, MA  01719

   Email: quintin.zhao@huawei.com

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

   Email: lizhenbin@huawei.com
   Chao Zhou
   Cisco Systems

   Email: chao.zhou@cisco.com