<?xml version="1.0" encoding="us-ascii"?>
<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd"[]>
<?rfc toc="yes" ?>
<?rfc tocompact="yes"?>
<?rfc tocdepth="4"?>
<?rfc tocindent="yes"?>
<?rfc symrefs="yes" ?>
<?rfc sortrefs="no"?>
<?rfc rfcedstyle="yes"?>
<?rfc subcompact="no"?>
<?rfc compact="yes" ?>
<?rfc iprnotified="Yes" ?>
<?rfc strict="no" ?>
<rfc ipr="trust200902" category="info" docName="draft-ietf-pce-applicability-actn-04" obsoletes="" updates="" submissionType="IETF" xml:lang="en">
  <front>
    <title abbrev="PCE-ACTN">Applicability of Path Computation Element (PCE) for Abstraction and Control of TE Networks (ACTN)</title>
    <author initials="D" surname="Dhody" fullname="Dhruv Dhody">
      <organization>Huawei Technologies</organization>
      <address>
        <postal>
          <street>Divyashree Techno Park, Whitefield</street>
          <city>Bangalore</city>
          <region>Karnataka</region>
          <code>560066</code>
          <country>India</country>
        </postal>
        <email>dhruv.ietf@gmail.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    <author fullname="Young Lee" initials="Y" surname="Lee">
      <organization>Huawei Technologies</organization>
      <address>
        <postal>
          <street>5340 Legacy Drive, Building 3</street>
          <city>Plano</city>
          <region>TX</region>
          <code>75023</code>
          <country>USA</country>
        </postal>
        <email>leeyoung@huawei.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    <author initials="D" fullname="Daniele Ceccarelli" surname="Ceccarelli">
      <organization>Ericsson</organization>
      <address>
        <postal>
          <street>Torshamnsgatan,48</street>
          <city>Stockholm</city>
          <region></region>
          <code></code>
          <country>Sweden</country>
        </postal>
        <email>daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    <date year="2018" />
    <area>Routing</area>
    <workgroup>PCE Working Group</workgroup>
    <abstract>
   <t> 
      Abstraction and Control of TE Networks (ACTN) refers to the set of virtual network (VN) operations needed to
   orchestrate, control and manage large-scale multi-domain TE networks
   so as to facilitate network programmability, automation, efficient
   resource sharing, and end-to-end virtual service aware connectivity
   and network function virtualization services.</t> 
   <t>The Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) provides
   mechanisms for Path Computation Elements (PCEs) to perform path
   computations in response to Path Computation Clients (PCCs) requests.</t>
   <t>This document examines the applicability of PCE to the ACTN framework. </t>    
   </abstract>
  </front>
  <middle>
    <section title="Introduction" toc="default">
    <section title="Path Computation Element (PCE)" toc="default">
   <t>The Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) <xref target="RFC5440"/> provides
   mechanisms for Path Computation Elements (PCEs) <xref target="RFC4655"/> to perform path
   computations in response to Path Computation Clients (PCCs) requests.</t>
   
   <t>The ability to compute shortest constrained TE LSPs in Multiprotocol
   Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) networks across
   multiple domains has been identified as a key motivation for PCE
   development.</t>
   
   <t>A stateful PCE <xref target="RFC8231"/> is capable of considering, for the purposes of
   path computation, not only the network state in terms of links and
   nodes (referred to as the Traffic Engineering Database or TED) but
   also the status of active services (previously computed paths,
   and currently reserved resources, stored in the Label Switched
   Paths Database (LSP-DB).</t>


   <t><xref target="RFC8051"/> describes general considerations for
   a stateful PCE deployment and examines its applicability and
   benefits, as well as its challenges and limitations through a number
   of use cases.</t>

   <t><xref target="RFC8231"/> describes a set of extensions to PCEP to
   provide stateful control.  A stateful PCE has access to not only the
   information carried by the network's Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP),
   but also the set of active paths and their reserved resources for its
   computations.  The additional state allows the PCE to compute
   constrained paths while considering individual LSPs and their
   interactions.  <xref target="RFC8281"/> describes the setup,
   maintenance and teardown of PCE-initiated LSPs under the stateful PCE
   model.</t>

   <t><xref target="RFC8231"/> also describes the active stateful PCE.
   The active PCE functionality allows a PCE to reroute an existing
   LSP or make changes to the attributes of an existing LSP, or a PCC to delegate
   control of specific LSPs to a new PCE.</t>

   
   <section title="Role of PCE in SDN" toc="default">
   <t>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 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.  It is concluded in <xref target="RFC7399"/>, that this is the same function that a PCE
   might offer in a network operated using a dynamic control plane.
   This is the function and purpose of a PCE, and the way that
   a PCE integrates into a wider network control system including SDN is
   presented in Application-Based Network Operation (ABNO) <xref target="RFC7491"/>.
   </t>

   
   </section>
   <section title="PCE in multi-domain and multi-layer deployments" toc="default">
   <t>Computing paths across large multi-domain environments
   require special computational components and cooperation between
   entities in different domains capable of complex path computation.
   The PCE provides an architecture and a set of functional components 
   to address this problem space. A PCE may be used to compute 
   end-to-end paths across multi-domain
   environments using a per-domain path computation technique <xref target="RFC5152"/>.
   The Backward recursive PCE based path computation (BRPC) mechanism
   <xref target="RFC5441"/> defines a PCE-based path computation procedure to compute
   inter-domain constrained  MPLS and
   GMPLS TE networks. However,
   both per-domain and BRPC techniques assume that the sequence of
   domains to be crossed from source to destination is known, either
   fixed by the network operator or obtained by other means.</t>
   <t><xref target="RFC6805"/> describes a Hierarchical PCE (H-PCE)
   architecture which can be used for computing end-to-end paths for
   inter-domain MPLS Traffic Engineering (TE) and GMPLS Label Switched
   Paths (LSPs) when the domain sequence is not known.  
   Within the Hierarchical PCE (H-PCE) architecture, 
   the Parent PCE (P-PCE) is used to compute a multi-domain
   path based on the domain connectivity information.  A Child PCE
   (C-PCE) may be responsible for a single domain or multiple domains,
   it is used to compute the intra-domain path based on its domain
   topology information.</t>
   
   <t><xref target="I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-hpce"/> state the considerations for stateful PCE(s) in
   hierarchical PCE architecture.  In particular, the behavior changes
   and additions to the existing stateful PCE mechanisms (including PCE-
   initiated LSP setup and active PCE usage) in the context of networks
   using the H-PCE architecture.</t> 
   
   <t><xref target="RFC5623"/> describes a framework for applying the PCE-based
   architecture to inter-layer to (G)MPLS TE. It provides
   suggestions for the deployment of PCE in support of multi-layer
   networks.  It also describes the
   relationship between PCE and a functional component in charge of the
   control and management of the VNT, called the Virtual Network
   Topology Manager (VNTM).</t>
   
   </section>
   </section>
   <section title="Abstraction and Control of TE Networks (ACTN)" toc="default">
   <t><xref target="I-D.ietf-teas-actn-requirements"/> describes the high-level 
   ACTN requirements. <xref target="I-D.ietf-teas-actn-framework"/> 
   describes the architecture
   model for ACTN including the entities (Customer Network
   Controller(CNC), Multi-domain Service Coordinator(MDSC), and Provisioning Network Controller (PNC) and their interfaces.</t>
   <t>The ACTN reference architecture identified a three-tier control
   hierarchy as depicted in <xref target="fig_actn"/>:</t>
                <figure title="ACTN Hierarchy"
             suppress-title="false" align="center" alt="" width="" height="" anchor="fig_actn">
            <artwork><![CDATA[


           +---------+           +---------+           +---------+
           |   CNC   |           |   CNC   |           |   CNC   |
           +---------+           +---------+           +---------+
                     \                |                /
Business              \               |               /
Boundary  =============\==============|==============/============
Between                 \             |             /
Customer &               -------      | CMI  -------
Network Provider                \     |     /
                              +---------------+
                              |     MDSC      |
                              +---------------+
                                /     |     \
                    ------------      | MPI  -------------
                   /                  |                   \
              +-------+          +-------+             +-------+
              |  PNC  |          |  PNC  |             |  PNC  |
              +-------+          +-------+             +-------+
                  | SBI            /   |                /   \
                  |               /    | SBI           /     \
              ---------        -----   |              /       \
             (         )      (     )  |             /         \
             - Control -     ( Phys. ) |            /        -----
            (  Plane    )     ( Net )  |           /        (     )
           (  Physical   )     -----   |          /        ( Phys. )
            (  Network  )            -----      -----       ( Net )
             -         -            (     )    (     )       -----
             (         )           ( Phys. )  ( Phys. )
              ---------             ( Net )    ( Net )
                                     -----      -----

CMI - (CNC-MDSC Interface)
MPI - (MDSC-PNC Interface)

]]></artwork>
          </figure>

   <t>The two interfaces with respect to the MDSC, one north of the MDSC
   (CMI CNC-MDSC Interface) and one south (MPI MDSC-PNC Interface). A hierarchy of MDSC is 
   possible with a recursive MPI interface.  </t>
   <t><xref target="I-D.ietf-teas-actn-info-model"/> provides an information model
   for ACTN interfaces.</t>
   </section>
   <section title="PCE and ACTN" toc="default">
   <t></t>
   <t>This document examines the PCE and ACTN architecture and describes how the PCE architecture
   is applicable to ACTN. It also lists the PCEP extensions that are needed to use PCEP as an ACTN interface. 
   This document also identifies any gaps in PCEP, that exist at the time of publication of this document.</t>
   
   </section>
   
          
    </section>
<section title="Architectural Considerations" toc="default">
    <t>ACTN <xref target="I-D.ietf-teas-actn-framework"/> architecture
    is based on hierarchy and recursiveness of controllers. It defines 
    three types of controllers (depending on the functionalities they implement).
    The main functionalities are - 
    <list style="symbols">
    <t>Multi domain coordination function</t>
    <t>Virtualization/Abstraction function</t>
    <t>Customer mapping/translation function</t>
    <t>Virtual service coordination function</t>
    </list>
    </t>
    <t>Section 3 of <xref target="I-D.ietf-teas-actn-framework"/> describes these functions.</t>
   
    <t>It should be noted that, this document lists all possible ways in which PCEP could be used
    for each of the above functions, but all functions are not required to be implemented via PCEP. Operator 
   may choose to use the PCEP for multi domain coordination via stateful H-PCE
   but use RESTCONF <xref target="RFC8040"/> or BGP-LS <xref target="RFC7752"/> to get the topology and support virtualization/abstraction function.</t>
   
    <section title="Multi domain coordination via Hierarchy" toc="default" anchor="sec_hpce">
    <t>
    With the definition of domain being "everything that is under the control of the single logical
        controller", as per <xref target="I-D.ietf-teas-actn-framework"/>, 
        it is needed to have a control entity that oversees
        the specific aspects of the different domains and to build a
        single abstracted end-to-end network topology in order to
        coordinate end-to-end path computation and path/service
        provisioning.
    
	</t>
	<t>The MDSC in ACTN framework realizes this function by coordinating 
	the per-domain PNCs in a hierarchy of controllers. It also needs to detach 
	from the underlying network technology and express customer concerns by
	business needs.</t>
	<t><xref target="RFC6805"/> and <xref target="I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-hpce"/> 
	describes a hierarchy of PCE with Parent PCE coordinating multi-domain path 
	computation function between Child PCE(s). It is easy to see how these 
	principles align, and thus how stateful H-PCE architecture can be used to realize ACTN.</t>
	<t>The Per domain stitched LSP in the Hierarchical stateful PCE architecture, 
	described in Section 3.3.1 of <xref target="I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-hpce"/> 
	is well suited for multi-domain coordination function. This includes domain sequence
	selection; E2E path computation; Controller (PCE) initiated path setup and reporting. 
	This is also applicable to multi-layer coordination in case of IP+optical networks.
	</t>
	<t><xref target="I-D.litkowski-pce-state-sync"/>" describes the procedures to allow a
   stateful communication between PCEs for various use-cases. The
   procedures and extensions are also applicable to Child and
   Parent PCE communication and thus useful for ACTN as well.</t>
    </section>
    <section title="Virtualization/Abstraction function" toc="default" anchor="sec_topo">
    <t>To realize ACTN, an
        abstracted view of the underlying network resources needs to be built. 
        This includes global network-wide abstracted topology based
        on the underlying network resources of each domain. This also 
        include abstract topology created as per the customer service
        connectivity requests and represented as a network slice allocated
        to each customer. </t>
    
    <t>In order to compute and provide optimal paths, PCEs 
    require an accurate and timely Traffic Engineering
   Database (TED).  Traditionally this TED has been obtained from a link
   state (LS) routing protocol supporting traffic engineering
   extensions. PCE may construct its TED by participating in the
   IGP (<xref target="RFC3630"/>  and <xref target="RFC5305"/>  for MPLS-TE; <xref target="RFC4203"/>  and <xref target="RFC5307"/>
   for GMPLS). An alternative is offered by BGP-LS <xref target="RFC7752"/>.</t>
   <t>In case of H-PCE <xref target="RFC6805"/>, the parent PCE needs to 
   build the domain topology map of the child domains and
   their interconnectivity. <xref target="RFC6805"/> and <xref target="I-D.ietf-pce-inter-area-as-applicability"/>
   suggest that BGP-LS could be used as a "northbound" TE advertisement from 
   the child PCE to the parent PCE.</t>
   <t><xref target="I-D.dhodylee-pce-pcep-ls"/> proposes another approaches for learning and maintaining
   the Link-State and TE information as an alternative to IGPs and BGP flooding, using PCEP itself. 
   The child PCE can use this mechanism to transport Link-State and
   TE information from child PCE to a Parent PCE using PCEP.

   </t>
   <t>In ACTN, there is a need to control the level of abstraction based on 
   the deployment scenario and business relationship between the controllers. 
   The mechanism used to disseminate information from PNC (child PCE) to 
   MDSC (parent PCE) should support abstraction. 
   <xref target="I-D.lee-teas-actn-abstraction"/> describes a few
   alternative approaches of abstraction. The resulting abstracted topology
   can be encoded using the PCEP-LS mechanisms <xref target="I-D.dhodylee-pce-pcep-ls"/>. 
   PCEP-LS is an attractive option when the operator 
   would wish to have a single control plane protocol (PCEP) to 
   achieve ACTN functions. </t>
    </section>
	<section title="Customer mapping function" toc="default">
    <t>In ACTN, there is a need to map customer virtual network (VN) requirements into 
    network provisioning request to the PNC. That is, the
        customer requests/commands are mapped into network provisioning requests
        that can be sent to the PNC. Specifically, it provides mapping and
        translation of a customer's service request into a set of
        parameters that are specific to a network type and technology
        such that network configuration process is made possible.</t>

    <t><xref target="RFC8281"/> describes the setup, maintenance and
   teardown of PCE-initiated LSPs under the stateful PCE model, without
   the need for local configuration on the PCC, thus allowing for a
   dynamic network that is centrally controlled and deployed.  To
   instantiate or delete an LSP, the PCE sends the Path Computation LSP
   Initiate Request (PCInitiate) message to the PCC.  As described in 
   <xref target="I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-hpce"/>, for inter-domain LSP in 
   Hierarchical PCE architecture, the initiation
   operations can be carried out at the parent PCE. In which case after
   parent PCE finishes the E2E path computation, it can send the
   PCInitiate message to the child PCE, the child PCE
   further propagates the initiate request to the LSR. The customer request
   is received by the MDSC (parent PCE) and based on the business logic, 
   global abstracted topology, network conditions and local policy, the 
   MDSC (parent PCE) translates this into per domain LSP initiation request that a 
   PNC (child PCE) can understand and act on. This can be done via the PCInitiate message.</t>
   <t>PCEP extensions for associating opaque policy between PCEP peer <xref target="I-D.ietf-pce-association-policy"/>
   can be used.</t> 
   
  
    </section>
	<section title="Virtual Network Operations" toc="default" anchor="sec_vno">
    <t>Virtual service coordination
        function in ACTN incorporates customer service-related
        information into the virtual network service operations in order to
        seamlessly operate virtual networks while meeting customer's
        service requirements. </t>

	<t><xref target="I-D.leedhody-pce-vn-association"/> describes the 
	need for associating a set of LSPs with a VN "construct" to
   facilitate VN operations in PCE architecture. This association
   allows the PCEs to identify which LSPs belong to a certain VN. </t>

   <t>This association based on VN is useful for various optimizations
   at the VN level which can be applied to all the LSPs that
   are part of the VN slice. During path computation, the impact of a path for an LSP
   is compared against the paths of other LSPs in the VN. This is to make sure 
   that the overall optimization and SLA of the VN rather than of a single LSP. 
   Similarly, during re-optimization, advanced path computation algorithm 
   and optimization
      technique can be considered for all the LSPs belonging to a VN/customer
      and optimize them all together. 
</t>
    </section>
</section>
<section title="Interface Considerations" toc="default">
<t>As per <xref target="I-D.ietf-teas-actn-framework"/>, 
to allow virtualization and multi domain coordination, the network
   has to provide open, programmable interfaces, in which customer
   applications can create, replace and modify virtual network
   resources and services in an interactive, flexible and dynamic
   fashion while having no impact on other customers. The 3 ACTN 
   interfaces are - 
   <list style="symbols">
   <t>The CNC-MDSC Interface (CMI) is an interface
        between a Customer Network Controller and a Multi Domain
        Service Coordinator. It requests the creation of the network
        resources, topology or services for the applications. The
        MDSC may also report potential network
        topology availability if queried for current capability from
        the Customer Network Controller.</t>
   <t>The MDSC-PNC Interface (MPI) is an interface
        between a Multi Domain Service Coordinator and a Provisioning
        Network Controller. It communicates the creation request, if
        required, of new connectivity of bandwidth changes in the
        physical network, via the PNC. In multi-domain environments,
        the MDSC needs to establish multiple MPIs, one for each PNC, as
        there are multiple PNCs responsible for its domain control.</t>    
    <t>In case of hierarchy of MDSC, the MPI is applied recursively. 
   From an abstraction point of view, the top level MDSC which
   interfaces the CNC operates on a higher level of abstraction (i.e.,
   less granular level) than the lower level MSDCs.</t>     
   </list></t>
   <t>PCEP is especially suitable on the MPI as it meets the requirement
   and the functions as set out in the ACTN framework 
   <xref target="I-D.ietf-teas-actn-framework"/>. Its recursive nature is well suited 
   via the multi-level hierarchy of PCE. 
   The <xref target="sec_real"/> describe how PCE and PCEP could help 
   realize ACTN.</t>
</section>
<section title="Realizining ACTN with PCE (and PCEP)" toc="default" anchor="sec_real">
<t>As per the example in the <xref target="F1"/>, there are 4 domains, 
each with its own PNC and a MDSC at top. The PNC and MDSC need PCE as 
a important function. The PNC (or child PCE) already uses PCEP to communicate to
the network device. It can utilize the PCEP as the MPI to communicate
between controllers too.</t>
             <figure title="ACTN with PCE"
             suppress-title="false" align="center" alt="" width="" height="" anchor="F1">
            <artwork><![CDATA[
                          ******  
                ..........*MDSC*.............................. 
             .            ****** ..                   MPI    .
          .                .        .                        .
       .                   .          .                      .
     .                    .             .                    .
    .                    .                .                  .
   .                    .                  .                 .
  .                    .                    .                .
  v                    v                    v                .
******               ******               ******             .    
*PNC1*               *PNC2*               *PNC4*             .
******               ******               ******             .
+---------------+    +---------------+    +---------------+  .
|A              |----|               |----|              C|  .
|               |    |               |    |               |  .
|DOMAIN 1       |----|DOMAIN 2       |----|DOMAIN 4       |  .
+------------B13+    +---------------+    +B43------------+  .
                \                         /                  .
                 \   ******              /                   .
                  \  *PNC3*<............/.....................
                   \ ******            /
                    \+---------------+/
                     B31           B34
                     |               |
                     |DOMAIN 3      B|
                     +---------------+


MDSC -> Parent PCE
PNC  -> Child  PCE
MPI  -> PCEP            
            ]]></artwork>
          </figure>
    <t><list style="symbols">      
    <t>Building Domain Topology at MDSC: PNC (or child PCE) needs to have the TED to compute path in its domain. 
    As described in <xref target="sec_topo"/>, it can learn the topology 
    via IGP or BGP-LS. PCEP-LS is also a proposed mechanism to carry link state and 
    traffic engineering information within PCEP. A mechanism to carry abstracted
    topology while hiding technology specific information between PNC and MDSC is
    described in <xref target="I-D.dhodylee-pce-pcep-ls"/>. At the end of this 
    step the MDSC (or parent PCE) has the abstracted topology from each of its PNC 
    (or child PCE). This could be as simple as a domain topology map as described 
    in <xref target="RFC6805"/> or it can have full topology information of all
    domains. The latter is not scalable and thus an abstracted topology of each domain
    interconnected by inter-domain links is the most common case.
    <list style="symbols">      
        <t>Topology Change: When the PNC learns of any topology change, the PNC needs 
        to decide if the change needs to be notified to the MDSC. This is dependent on 
        the level of abstraction between the MDSC and the PNC.</t>
        </list>
    </t>
    <t>VN Instantiate: MDSC is requested to instantiate a VN, the minimal information 
    that is required would be a VN identifier and a set of end points. Various path 
    computation, setup constraints and objective functions may also be provided.
    In PCE terms, a VN Instantiate can be considered as a set of paths belonging to the same VN. 
    As described in <xref target="sec_vno"/> and <xref target="I-D.leedhody-pce-vn-association"/>
    the VN association can help in identifying the set of paths that belong to a VN. 
    The rest of the information like the endpoints, constraints and objective function is 
    already defined in PCEP in terms of a single path.
        <list style="symbols">      
        <t>Path Computation: As per the example in the <xref target="F1"/>, 
        the VN instantiate requires two end to end paths between (A in Domain 1 to B in Domain 3) 
        and (A in Domain 1 to C in Domain 4). The MDSC (or parent PCE) triggers the 
        end to end path computation for these two paths. MDSC can do path computation based on the abstracted domain topology that 
        it already has or it may use the H-PCE procedures (<xref target="sec_hpce"/>) using the PCReq and PCRep messages to get the 
        end to end path with the help of the child PCEs (PNC).   
        Either way, the resulted E2E paths may be broken into per-domain paths.</t>
        <t>A-B: (A-B13,B13-B31,B31-B) </t>
        <t>A-C: (A-B13,B13-B31,B34-B43,B43-C)</t>
        <t>Per Domain Path Instantiation: Based on the above path computation, MDSC
        can issue the path instantiation request to each PNC via PCInitiate message (see <xref target="I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-hpce"/>
        and <xref target="I-D.leedhody-pce-vn-association"/>). 
        A suitable
        stitching mechanism would be used to stitch these per domain LSPs. 
        One such mechanism is described in <xref target="I-D.lee-pce-lsp-stitching-hpce"/>, where 
        PCEP is extended to support stitching in stateful H-PCE context.
        </t>
        <t>Per Domain Path Report: Each PNC should report the status of 
        the per-domain LSP to the MDSC via PCRpt message, as per the Hierarchy of stateful 
        PCE (<xref target="I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-hpce"/>). The status
        of the end to end LSP (A-B and A-C) is made up when all the per domain 
        LSP are reported up by the PNCs.</t>
        <t>Delegation: It is suggested that the per domain LSPs are delegated to
        respective PNC, so that they can control the path and attributes based
        on each domain network conditions.</t>
        <t>State Synchronization: The state needs to be synchronized between the parent PCE
        	and child PCE. The mechanism described in <xref target="I-D.litkowski-pce-state-sync"/> 
        	can be used.</t>
        </list></t>
   <t>VN Modify: MDSC is requested to modify a VN, for example the bandwidth for
   VN is increased. This may trigger path computation at MDSC as described in the 
   previous step and can trigger an update to existing per-intra-domain path (via PCUpd message)
   or creation (or deletion) of a per-domain path (via PCInitiate message). As described in <xref target="I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-hpce"/>, this should be done
   in make-before-break fashion.</t>   
   <t>VN Delete: MDSC is requested to delete a VN, in this case, based on the E2E paths and 
   the resulting per-domain paths need to be removed (via PCInitiate message).</t>
   <t>VN Update (based on network changes): Any change in the per-domain LSP
   are reported to the MDSC (via PCRpt message) as per <xref target="I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-hpce"/>. 
   This may result in changes in the E2E path or VN status. This may also trigger a re-optimization
   leading to a new per-domain path, update to existing path, or deletion of the path.</t>
   <t>VN Protection: The VN protection/restoration requirements, need to applied to each E2E path
   as well as each per domain path. The MDSC needs to play a crucial role in coordinating the 
   right protection/restoration policy across each PNC. The existing protection/restoration mechanism
   of PCEP can be applied on each path.   </t>
   <t>In case PNC generates an abstract topology to the MDSC, the PCInitiate/PCUpd messages from the 
   MDSC to a PNC will contain a path with abstract nodes and links. PNC would need to take that as an 
   input for path computation to get a path with physical nodes and links. Similarly PNC would convert 
   the path received from the device (with physical nodes and links) into abstract path (based on the
   abstract topology generated before with abstract nodes and links) and reported to the MDSC.</t>
   </list></t>
</section>

    <section title="Relationship to PCE based central control" toc="default">
       <t><xref target="RFC8283"/> introduces the architecture for PCE as a central
   controller (PCECC), it further examines the motivations and applicability for PCEP as a
   southbound interface, and introduces the implications for the
   protocol. The section 2.1.3 of <xref target="RFC8283"/>
   describe an hierarchy of PCE-based controller as per the Hierarchy of PCE
   framework defined in <xref target="RFC6805"/>. Both ACTN and PCECC is
   based on the same basic framework and thus compatible with each other.</t>
    </section>
    <section title="IANA Considerations" toc="default" anchor="sec_iana">
    <t>This is an informational document and thus does not have any 
    IANA allocations to be made.</t>    
    </section>  
    
    
    
    
    <section title="Security Considerations" toc="default">
    <t> The ACTN framework described in <xref target="I-D.ietf-teas-actn-framework"/> defines key components
   and interfaces for managed traffic engineered networks. It also list various security considerations 
   such as 
   request and control of resources, confidentially of the information,
   and availability of function which should be taken into consideration. </t>
   <t>When PCEP is used on the MPI, this interface needs to be secured, use of <xref target="RFC8253"/> is 
   RECOMENDED. Each PCEP extension listed in this document, presents its individual security considerations, which continue to apply.</t>
    </section>
      
    
    
    <section title="Acknowledgments" toc="default">
      <t>The authors would like to thank Jonathan Hardwick for the inspiration behind this document. 
      Further thanks to Avantika for her comments with suggested text. </t>
    </section>
        
  </middle>
  <back>
    <references title="Normative References">
    <?rfc include="reference.RFC.5440.xml" ?>
    </references>
    <references title="Informative References">
    <?rfc include="reference.RFC.3630.xml" ?>
    <?rfc include="reference.RFC.4203.xml" ?>
	<?rfc include="reference.RFC.4655.xml" ?>
	<?rfc include="reference.RFC.5152.xml" ?>
	<?rfc include="reference.RFC.5305.xml" ?>
	<?rfc include="reference.RFC.5307.xml" ?>
	<?rfc include="reference.RFC.5441.xml" ?>
	<?rfc include="reference.RFC.5623.xml" ?>
	<?rfc include="reference.RFC.6805.xml" ?>
	<?rfc include="reference.RFC.7399.xml" ?>
	<?rfc include="reference.RFC.7491.xml" ?>
	<?rfc include="reference.RFC.7752.xml" ?>
  <?rfc include="reference.RFC.8040.xml"?>
	<?rfc include="reference.RFC.8051.xml"?>
	<?rfc include="reference.RFC.8231.xml"?>
  <?rfc include="reference.RFC.8253.xml"?>
	<?rfc include="reference.RFC.8281.xml"?>
  <?rfc include="reference.RFC.8283.xml"?>
	<?rfc include="reference.I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-hpce"?>
	
     <?rfc include="reference.I-D.ietf-teas-actn-requirements"?>
	 <?rfc include="reference.I-D.ietf-teas-actn-framework"?>
     <?rfc include="reference.I-D.ietf-teas-actn-info-model"?>
     <?rfc include="reference.I-D.ietf-pce-inter-area-as-applicability"?>
     <?rfc include="reference.I-D.dhodylee-pce-pcep-ls"?>
     <?rfc include="reference.I-D.leedhody-pce-vn-association"?>
     <?rfc include="reference.I-D.litkowski-pce-state-sync"?>
     <?rfc include="reference.I-D.ietf-pce-association-policy"?>
     
     <?rfc include="reference.I-D.lee-teas-actn-abstraction"?>
     <?rfc include="reference.I-D.lee-pce-lsp-stitching-hpce"?>
     

    </references>
    
  </back>
</rfc>
