PCEP extension to support Segment Routing Policy Candidate Paths
draft-barth-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-00

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Last updated 2018-06-18
Stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text xml pdf html bibtex
Stream Stream state (No stream defined)
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
RFC Editor Note (None)
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
PCE Working Group                                               C. Barth
Internet-Draft                                    Juniper Networks, Inc.
Intended status: Standards Track                            M. Koldychev
Expires: December 20, 2018                           Cisco Systems, Inc.
                                                                D. Dhody
                                                       Huawei Technology
                                                            S. Sivabalan
                                                     Cisco Systems, Inc.
                                                           June 18, 2018

    PCEP extension to support Segment Routing Policy Candidate Paths
              draft-barth-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-00

Abstract

   This document introduces a mechanism to specify an SR policy, as a
   collection of SR candidate paths.  An SR policy is identified by
   <headend, color, destination end-point> tuple.  An SR policy can be
   associated with one or more candidate paths where each candidate path
   is represented in PCEP by an LSP.  This document proposes extension
   to PCEP to support association among candidate paths of a given SR
   policy.  The mechanism proposed in this document is applicable to
   both MPLS and IPv6 data plane.

Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].

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 https://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 December 20, 2018.

Barth, et al.           Expires December 20, 2018               [Page 1]
Internet-Draft                  SR Policy                      June 2018

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2018 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
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Motivation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.1.  Instantiation of SR policy candidate paths  . . . . . . .   4
     3.2.  Color based path computation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.3.  Avoid computing lower preference candidate paths  . . . .   5
     3.4.  Minimal signaling overhead  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   4.  Overview  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   5.  SR Candidate Path Association Group . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     5.1.  SR Candidate Path Association Group Information TLV . . .   7
   6.  Examples  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     6.1.  PCC Initiated SR Policy with single candidate-path  . . .   8
     6.2.  PCC Initiated SR Policy with multiple candidate-paths . .   8
     6.3.  PCE Initiated SR Policy with single candidate-path  . . .   9
     6.4.  PCE Initiated SR Policy with multiple candidate-paths . .   9
   7.  Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   8.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10

1.  Introduction

   Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)
   [RFC5440] describes the Path Computation Element communication
   Protocol (PCEP) which enables the communication between a Path
   Computation Client (PCC) and a Path Control Element (PCE), or between
   two PCEs based on the PCE architecture [RFC4655].

   PCEP Extensions for Stateful PCE Model [RFC8231] describes a set of
   extensions to PCEP to enable active control of Multiprotocol Label
   Switching Traffic Engineering (MPLS-TE) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS)
Show full document text