PCEP Extensions for Signaling Multipath Information
draft-ietf-pce-multipath-00
The information below is for an old version of the document.
Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft whose latest revision state is "Active".
|
|
---|---|---|---|
Authors | Mike Koldychev , Siva Sivabalan , Tarek Saad , Vishnu Pavan Beeram , Hooman Bidgoli , Bhupendra Yadav , Shuping Peng | ||
Last updated | 2021-05-03 | ||
RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
Formats | |||
Additional resources | Mailing list discussion | ||
Stream | WG state | WG Document | |
Associated WG milestone |
|
||
Document shepherd | (None) | ||
IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
Telechat date | (None) | ||
Responsible AD | (None) | ||
Send notices to | (None) |
draft-ietf-pce-multipath-00
PCE Working Group M. Koldychev Internet-Draft Cisco Systems, Inc. Intended status: Standards Track S. Sivabalan Expires: November 4, 2021 Ciena Corporation T. Saad V. Beeram Juniper Networks, Inc. H. Bidgoli Nokia B. Yadav Ciena S. Peng Huawei Technologies May 03, 2021 PCEP Extensions for Signaling Multipath Information draft-ietf-pce-multipath-00 Abstract Current PCEP standards allow only one intended and/or actual path to be present in a PCEP report or update. Applications that require multipath support such as SR Policy require an extension to allow signaling multiple intended and/or actual paths within a single PCEP message. This document introduces such an extension. Encoding of multiple intended and/or actual paths is done by encoding multiple Explicit Route Objects (EROs) and/or multiple Record Route Objects (RROs). A special separator object is defined in this document, to facilitate this. This mechanism is applicable to SR-TE and RSVP-TE and is dataplane agnostic. 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 November 4, 2021. Koldychev, et al. Expires November 4, 2021 [Page 1] Internet-Draft PCEP Extensions for Multipath May 2021 Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2021 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.1. Terms and Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.1. Signaling Multiple Segment-Lists of an SR Candidate-Path 4 3.2. Splitting of Requested Bandwidth . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.3. Providing Backup path for Protection . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. Protocol Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4.1. Multipath Capability TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4.2. Path Attributes Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.3. Multipath Weight TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.4. Multipath Backup TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.5. Composite Candidate Path . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5. Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5.1. Signaling Multiple Paths for Loadbalancing . . . . . . . 10 5.2. Signaling Multiple Paths for Protection . . . . . . . . . 10 6. PCEP Message Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 7. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 7.1. SR Policy Candidate-Path with Multiple Segment-Lists . . 11 7.2. Two Primary Paths Protected by One Backup Path . . . . . 13 7.3. Composite Candidate Path . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 8.1. PCEP Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 8.2. PCEP TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 8.3. PCEP-Error Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 8.4. Flags in the Multipath Capability TLV . . . . . . . . . . 15 8.5. Flags in the Path Attribute Object . . . . . . . . . . . 15 8.6. Flags in the Multipath Backup TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 10. Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 11. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Koldychev, et al. Expires November 4, 2021 [Page 2] Internet-Draft PCEP Extensions for Multipath May 2021 12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 1. Introduction Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP) [RFC5440] 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 the Stateful PCE Model [RFC8231] describes a set of extensions to PCEP that enable active control of Multiprotocol Label Switching Traffic Engineering (MPLS-TE) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) tunnels. [RFC8281] describes the setup and teardown of PCE- initiated LSPs under the active stateful PCE model, without the need for local configuration on the PCC, thus allowing for dynamic centralized control of a network. PCEP Extensions for Segment Routing [RFC8664] specifies extensions to the Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) that allow a stateful PCE to compute and initiate Traffic Engineering (TE) paths, as well as for a PCC to request a path subject to certain constraint(s) and optimization criteria in SR networks. Segment Routing Policy for Traffic Engineering [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy] details the concepts of SR Policy and approaches to steering traffic into an SR Policy. In particular, it describes the SR candidate-path as a collection of one or more Segment-Lists. The current PCEP standards only allow for signaling of one Segment-List per Candidate-Path. PCEP extension to support Segment Routing Policy Candidate Paths [I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp] specifically avoids defining how to signal multipath information, and states that this will be defined in another document. This document defines the required extensions that allow the signaling of multipath information via PCEP. 2. Terminology The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here. Koldychev, et al. Expires November 4, 2021 [Page 3] Internet-Draft PCEP Extensions for Multipath May 2021 2.1. Terms and Abbreviations The following terms are used in this document: PCEP Tunnel: The object identified by the PLSP-ID, see [I-D.koldychev-pce-operational] for more details. 3. Motivation This extension is motivated by the use-cases described below. 3.1. Signaling Multiple Segment-Lists of an SR Candidate-Path The Candidate-Path of an SR Policy is the unit of report/update in PCEP, see [I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp]. Each Candidate- Path can contain multiple Segment-Lists and each Segment-List is encoded by one ERO. However, each PCEP LSP can contain only a single ERO (containing multiple SR-ERO subobject), which prevents us from encoding multiple Segment- Lists within the same SR Candidate-Path. With the help of the protocol extensions defined in this document, this limitation is overcome. 3.2. Splitting of Requested Bandwidth A PCC may request a path with 80 Gbps of bandwidth, but all links in the network have only 50 Gbps capacity. The PCE can return two paths, that can together carry 80 Gbps. The PCC can then equally or unequally split the incoming 80 Gbps of traffic among the two paths. Section 4.3 introduces a new TLV that carries the path weight that allows for distribution of incoming traffic on to the multiple paths. 3.3. Providing Backup path for Protection It is desirable for the PCE to compute and signal to the PCC a backup path that is used to protect a primary path within the multipaths in a given LSP. Note that [RFC8745] specify the Path Protection association among LSPs. The use of [RFC8745] with multipath is out of scope of this document and is for future study. When multipath is used, a backup path may protect one or more primary paths. For this reason, primary and backup path identifiers are needed to indicate which backup path(s) protect which primary Koldychev, et al. Expires November 4, 2021 [Page 4] Internet-Draft PCEP Extensions for Multipath May 2021 path(s). Section 4.4 introduces a new TLV that carries the required information. 4. Protocol Extensions 4.1. Multipath Capability TLV We define the MULTIPATH-CAP TLV that MAY be present in the OPEN object and/or the LSP object. The purpose of this TLV is two-fold: 1. From PCC: it tells how many multipaths per PCEP Tunnel, the PCC can install in forwarding. 2. From PCE: it tells that the PCE supports this standard and how many multipaths per PCEP Tunnel, the PCE can compute. Only the first instance of this TLV can be processed, subsequent instances SHOULD be ignored. Section 5 specify the usage of this TLV with Open message (within the OPEN object) and other PCEP messages (within the LSP object). 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Number of Multipaths | Flags |B|W| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 1: MULTIPATH-CAP TLV format Type: TBD1 for "MULTIPATH-CAP" TLV. Length: 4. Number of Multipaths: the maximum number of multipaths per PCEP Tunnel. The value 0 indicates unlimited number. Flags: Following bits are defined: W-flag: whether MULTIPATH-WEIGHT-TLV is supported. B-flag: whether MULTIPATH-BACKUP-TLV is supported. Unassigned bits are for future use. They MUST be set to 0 on transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt. Koldychev, et al. Expires November 4, 2021 [Page 5] Internet-Draft PCEP Extensions for Multipath May 2021 4.2. Path Attributes Object We define the PATH-ATTRIB object that is used to carry per-path information and to act as a separator between several ERO/RRO objects in the <intended-path>/<actual-path> RBNF element. The PATH-ATTRIB object always precedes the ERO/RRO that it applies to. If multiple ERO/RRO objects are present, then each ERO/RRO object MUST be preceded by an PATH-ATTRIB object that describes it. The PATH-ATTRIB Object-Class value is TBD2. The PATH-ATTRIB Object-Type value is 1. 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Flags | O | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Path ID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ~ Optional TLVs ~ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 2: PATH-ATTRIB object format Flags (32-bits): Following bits are assigned - O (Operational - 3 bits): operational state of the path, same values as the identically named field in the LSP object {{RFC8231}}. Unassigned bits are for future use. They MUST be set to 0 on transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt. Path ID: 4-octet identifier that identifies a path in the set of multiple paths. It uniquely identifies a path (encoded in the ERO/ RRO) within the set of multiple paths under the PCEP LSP. Once a path changes, a new Path ID is assigned. TLVs that may be included in the PATH-ATTRIB object are described in the following sections. Other optional TLVs could be defined by future documents to be included within the PATH-ATTRIB object body. 4.3. Multipath Weight TLV We define the MULTIPATH-WEIGHT TLV that MAY be present in the PATH- ATTRIB object. Koldychev, et al. Expires November 4, 2021 [Page 6] Internet-Draft PCEP Extensions for Multipath May 2021 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Weight | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 3: MULTIPATH-WEIGHT TLV format Type: TBD3 for "MULTIPATH-WEIGHT" TLV. Length: 4. Weight: weight of this path within the multipath, if W-ECMP is desired. The fraction of flows a specific ERO/RRO carries is derived from the ratio of its weight to the sum of all other multipath ERO/ RRO weights. When the MULTIPATH-WEIGHT TLV is absent from the PATH-ATTRIB object, or the PATH-ATTRIB object is absent from the <intended-path>/<actual- path>, then the Weight of the corresponding path is taken to be "1". 4.4. Multipath Backup TLV This document introduces a new MULTIPATH-BACKUP TLV that is optional and can be present in the PATH-ATTRIB object. This TLV is used to indicate the presence of a backup path that is used for protection in case of failure of the primary path. The format of the MULTIPATH-BACKUP TLV is: Koldychev, et al. Expires November 4, 2021 [Page 7] Internet-Draft PCEP Extensions for Multipath May 2021 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Backup Path Count | Flags |B| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Backup Path ID 1 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Backup Path ID 2 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | ... | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Backup Path ID n | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 4: MULTIPATH-BACKUP TLV format Type: TBD4 for "MULTIPATH-BACKUP" TLV Length: 4 + (N * 4) (where N is the Backup Path Count) Backup Path Count: Number of backup path(s). Flags (16 bits): a flag field. Currently a single flag "B bit" is defined. Unused flags MUST be set to zero while sending and ignored on receipt. B: If set, indicates a pure backup path. This is a path that only carries rerouted traffic after the protected path fails. If this flag is not set, or if the MULTIPATH-BACKUP TLV is absent, then the path is assumed to be primary that carries normal traffic. Backup Path ID(s): a series of 4-octet identifier(s) that identify the backup path(s) in the set that protect this primary path. 4.5. Composite Candidate Path SR Policy Architecture [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy] defines the concept of a Composite Candidate Path. Unlike a Non- Composite Candidate Path, which contains Segment Lists, the Composite Candidate Path contains Colors of other policies. The traffic that is steered into a Composite Candidate Path is split among the policies that are identified by the Colors contained in the Composite Candidate Path. The split can be either ECMP or UCMP by adjusting Koldychev, et al. Expires November 4, 2021 [Page 8] Internet-Draft PCEP Extensions for Multipath May 2021 the weight of each color in the Composite Candidate Path, in the same manner as the weight of each Segment List in the Non-Composite Candidate Path is adjusted. To signal the Composite Candidate Path, we make use of the COLOR TLV, defined in [I-D.peng-pce-te-constraints]. For a Composite Candidate Path, the COLOR TLV is included in the PATH-ATTRIB Object, thus allowing each Composite Candidate Path to do ECMP/UCMP among SR Policies or Tunnels identified by its constituent Colors. Only one COLOR TLV SHOULD be included into the PATH-ATTRIB object. If multiple COLOR TLVs are contained in the PATH-ATTRIB object, only the first one MUST be processed and the others SHOULD be ignored. An empty SR-ERO/SR-RRO object MUST be included as per the existing RBNF, i.e., SR-ERO/SR-RRO MUST contain no sub-objects. If the head- end receives a non-empty SR-ERO/SR-RRO, then it MUST send PCError message with Error-Type 19 ("Invalid Operation") and Error-Value = TBD8 ("Non-empty path"). See Section 7.3 for an example of the encoding. 5. Operation When the PCC wants to indicate to the PCE that it wants to get multipaths for a PCEP Tunnel, instead of a single path, it can do (1) or both (1) and (2) of the following: (1) Send the MULTIPATH-CAP TLV in the OPEN object during session establishment. This applies to all PCEP Tunnels on the PCC, unless overridden by PCEP Tunnel specific information. (2) Additionally send the MULTIPATH-CAP TLV in the LSP object for a particular PCEP Tunnel in the PCRpt or PCReq message. This applies to the specified PCEP Tunnel and overrides the information from the OPEN object. When PCE computes the path for a PCEP Tunnel, it MUST NOT return more multipaths than the corresponding value of "Number of Multipaths" from the MULTIPATH-CAP TLV. If this TLV is absent (from both OPEN and LSP objects), then the "Number of Multipaths" is assumed to be 1. If the PCE supports this standard, then it MUST include the MULTIPATH-CAP TLV in the OPEN object. This tells the PCC that it can report multiple ERO/RRO objects per PCEP Tunnel to this PCE. If the PCE does not include the MULTIPATH-CAP TLV in the OPEN object, then the PCC MUST assume that the PCE does not support this standard and fall back to reporting only a single ERO/RRO. The PCE MUST NOT Koldychev, et al. Expires November 4, 2021 [Page 9] Internet-Draft PCEP Extensions for Multipath May 2021 include MULTIPATH-CAP TLV in the LSP object in any other PCEP message towards the PCC and the PCC MUST ignore it if received. The Path ID of each ERO/RRO MUST be unique within that LSP. If a PCEP speaker detects that there are two paths with the same Path ID, then the PCEP speaker SHOULD send PCError message with Error-Type = 1 ("Reception of an invalid object") and Error-Value = TBD5 ("Conflicting Path ID"). 5.1. Signaling Multiple Paths for Loadbalancing The PATH-ATTRIB object can be used to signal multiple path(s) and indicate (un)equal loadbalancing amongst the set of multipaths. In this case, the PATH-ATTRIB is populated for each ERO as follows: 1. The PCE assigns a unique Path ID to each ERO path and populates it inside the PATH-ATTRIB object. The Path ID is unique within the context of a PLSP or PCEP Tunnel. 2. The MULTIPATH-WEIGHT TLV MAY be carried inside the PATH-ATTRIB object. A weight is populated to reflect the relative loadshare that is to be carried by the path. If the MULTIPATH-WEIGHT is not carried inside a PATH-ATTRIB object, the default weight 1 MUST be assumed when computing the loadshare. 3. The fraction of flows carried by a specific primary path is derived from the ratio of its weight to the sum of all other multipath weights. 5.2. Signaling Multiple Paths for Protection The PATH-ATTRIB object can be used to describe a set of backup path(s) protecting a primary path within a PCEP Tunnel. In this case, the PATH-ATTRIB is populated for each ERO as follows: 1. The PCE assigns a unique Path ID to each ERO path and populates it inside the PATH-ATTRIB object. The Path ID is unique within the context of a PLSP or PCEP Tunnel. 2. The MULTIPATH-BACKUP TLV MUST be added inside the PATH-ATTRIB object for each ERO that is protected. The backup path ID(s) are populated in the MULTIPATH-BACKUP TLV to reflect the set of backup path(s) protecting the primary path. The Length field and Backup Path Number in the MULTIPATH-BACKUP are updated according to the number of backup path ID(s) included. 3. The MULTIPATH-BACKUP TLV MAY be added inside the PATH-ATTRIB object for each ERO that is unprotected. In this case, Koldychev, et al. Expires November 4, 2021 [Page 10] Internet-Draft PCEP Extensions for Multipath May 2021 MULTIPATH-BACKUP does not carry any backup path IDs in the TLV. If the path acts as a pure backup - i.e. the path only carries rerouted traffic after the protected path(s) fail- then the B flag MUST be set. Note that if a given path has the B-flag set, then there MUST be some other path within the same LSP that uses the given path as a backup. If this condition is violated, then the PCEP speaker SHOULD send a PCError message with Error-Type = 10 ("Reception of an invalid object") and Error-Value = TBD6 ("No primary path for pure backup"). Note that a given PCC may not support certain backup combinations, such as a backup path that is itself protected by another backup path, etc. If a PCC is not able to implement a requested backup scenario, the PCC SHOULD send a PCError message with Error-Type = 19 ("Invalid Operation") and Error-Value = TBD7 ("Not supported path backup"). 6. PCEP Message Extensions The RBNF of PCReq, PCRep, PCRpt, PCUpd and PCInit messages currently use a combination of <intended-path> and/or <actual-path>. As specified in Section 6.1 of [RFC8231], <intended-path> is represented by the ERO object and <actual-path> is represented by the RRO object: <intended-path> ::= <ERO> <actual-path> ::= <RRO> In this standard, we extend these two elements to allow multiple ERO/ RRO objects to be present in the <intended-path>/<actual-path>: <intended-path> ::= (<ERO>| (<PATH-ATTRIB><ERO>) [<intended-path>]) <actual-path> ::= (<RRO>| (<PATH-ATTRIB><RRO>) [<actual-path>]) 7. Examples 7.1. SR Policy Candidate-Path with Multiple Segment-Lists Consider the following sample SR Policy, taken from [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy]. Koldychev, et al. Expires November 4, 2021 [Page 11] Internet-Draft PCEP Extensions for Multipath May 2021 SR policy POL1 <headend, color, endpoint> Candidate-path CP1 <protocol-origin = 20, originator = 100:1.1.1.1, discriminator = 1> Preference 200 Weight W1, SID-List1 <SID11...SID1i> Weight W2, SID-List2 <SID21...SID2j> Candidate-path CP2 <protocol-origin = 20, originator = 100:2.2.2.2, discriminator = 2> Preference 100 Weight W3, SID-List3 <SID31...SID3i> Weight W4, SID-List4 <SID41...SID4j> As specified in [I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp], CP1 and CP2 are signaled as separate state-report elements and each has a unique PLSP-ID, assigned by the PCC. Let us assign PLSP-ID 100 to CP1 and PLSP-ID 200 to CP2. The state-report for CP1 can be encoded as: <state-report> = <LSP PLSP_ID=100> <ASSOCIATION> <END-POINT> <PATH-ATTRIB Path_ID=1 <WEIGHT-TLV Weight=W1>> <ERO SID-List1> <PATH-ATTRIB Path_ID=2 <WEIGHT-TLV Weight=W2>> <ERO SID-List2> The state-report for CP2 can be encoded as: <state-report> = <LSP PLSP_ID=200> <ASSOCIATION> <END-POINT> <PATH-ATTRIB Path_ID=1 <WEIGHT-TLV Weight=W3>> <ERO SID-List3> <PATH-ATTRIB Path_ID=2 <WEIGHT-TLV Weight=W4>> <ERO SID-List4> The above sample state-report elements only specify the minimum mandatory objects, of course other objects like SRP, LSPA, METRIC, etc., are allowed to be inserted. Note that the syntax <PATH-ATTRIB Path_ID=1 <WEIGHT-TLV Weight=W1>> Koldychev, et al. Expires November 4, 2021 [Page 12] Internet-Draft PCEP Extensions for Multipath May 2021 , simply means that this is PATH-ATTRIB object with Path ID field set to "1" and with a MULTIPATH-WEIGHT TLV carrying weight of "W1". 7.2. Two Primary Paths Protected by One Backup Path Suppose there are 3 paths: A, B, C. Where A,B are primary and C is to be used only when A or B fail. Suppose the Path IDs for A, B, C are respectively 1, 2, 3. This would be encoded in a state-report as: <state-report> = <LSP> <ASSOCIATION> <END-POINT> <PATH-ATTRIB Path_ID=1 <BACKUP-TLV B=0, Backup_Paths=[3]>> <ERO A> <PATH-ATTRIB Path_ID=2 <BACKUP-TLV B=0, Backup_Paths=[3]>> <ERO B> <PATH-ATTRIB Path_ID=3 <BACKUP-TLV B=1, Backup_Paths=[]>> <ERO C> Note that the syntax <PATH-ATTRIB Path_ID=1 <BACKUP-TLV B=0, Backup_Paths=[3]>> , simply means that this is PATH-ATTRIB object with Path ID field set to "1" and with a MULTIPATH-BACKUP TLV that has B-flag cleared and contains a single backup path with Backup Path ID of 3. 7.3. Composite Candidate Path Consider the following Composite Candidate Path, taken from [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy]. SR policy POL100 <headend = H1, color = 100, endpoint = E1> Candidate-path CP1 <protocol-origin = 20, originator = 100:1.1.1.1, discriminator = 1> Preference 200 Weight W1, SR policy <color = 1> Weight W2, SR policy <color = 2> This is signaled in PCEP as: Koldychev, et al. Expires November 4, 2021 [Page 13] Internet-Draft PCEP Extensions for Multipath May 2021 <LSP PLSP_ID=100> <ASSOCIATION> <END-POINT> <PATH-ATTRIB Path_ID=1 <WEIGHT-TLV Weight=W1> <COLOR-TLV Color=1>> <SR-ERO (empty)> <PATH-ATTRIB Path_ID=2 <WEIGHT-TLV Weight=W2> <COLOR-TLV Color=2>> <SR-ERO (empty)> 8. IANA Considerations 8.1. PCEP Object IANA is requested to make the assignment of a new value for the existing "PCEP Objects" registry as follows: +--------------+-------------+-------------------+-----------------+ | Object-Class | Name | Object-Type | Reference | | Value | | Value | | +--------------+-------------+-------------------+-----------------+ | TBD2 | PATH-ATTRIB | 1 | This document | +--------------+-------------+-------------------+-----------------+ 8.2. PCEP TLV IANA is requested to make the assignment of a new value for the existing "PCEP TLV Type Indicators" registry as follows: +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+ | TLV Type | TLV Name | Reference | | Value | | | +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+ | TBD1 | MULTIPATH-CAP | This document | +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+ | TBD3 | MULTIPATH-WEIGHT | This document | +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+ | TBD4 | MULTIPATH-BACKUP | This document | +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+ 8.3. PCEP-Error Object IANA is requested to make the assignment of a new value for the existing "PCEP-ERROR Object Error Types and Values" sub-registry of the PCEP Numbers registry for the following errors: Koldychev, et al. Expires November 4, 2021 [Page 14] Internet-Draft PCEP Extensions for Multipath May 2021 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+ | Error-Type | Error-Value | Reference | +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+ | 10 | TBD5 - Conflicting Path ID | This document | +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+ | 10 | TBD6 - No primary path for pure | This document | | | backup | | +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+ | 19 | TBD7 - Not supported path backup | This document | +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+ | 19 | TBD8 - Non-empty path | This document | +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+ 8.4. Flags in the Multipath Capability TLV IANA is requested to create a new sub-registry to manage the Flag field of the MULTIPATH-CAP TLV, called "Flags in MULTIPATH-CAP TLV". Following bits are defined: +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+ | Bit | Description | Reference | +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+ | 0-13 | Unassigned | This document | +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+ | 14 | B-flag: Backup support | This document | +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+ | 15 | W-flag: Weighted ECMP support | This document | +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+ 8.5. Flags in the Path Attribute Object IANA is requested to create a new sub-registry to manage the Flag field of the PATH-ATTRIBUTE object, called "Flags in PATH-ATTRIBUTE Object". Following bits are defined: +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+ | Bit | Description | Reference | +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+ | 0-12 | Unassigned | This document | +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+ | 13-15 | O-flag: Operational state | This document | +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+ Koldychev, et al. Expires November 4, 2021 [Page 15] Internet-Draft PCEP Extensions for Multipath May 2021 8.6. Flags in the Multipath Backup TLV IANA is requested to create a new sub-registry to manage the Flag field of the MULTIPATH-BACKUP TLV, called "Flags in MULTIPATH-BACKUP TLV". Following bits are defined: +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+ | Bit | Description | Reference | +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+ | 0-14 | Unassigned | This document | +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+ | 15 | B-flag: Pure backup | This document | +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+ 9. Security Considerations None at this time. 10. Acknowledgement Thanks to Dhruv Dhody for ideas and discussion. 11. Contributors Andrew Stone Nokia Email: andrew.stone@nokia.com 12. References 12.1. Normative References [I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp] Koldychev, M., Sivabalan, S., Barth, C., Peng, S., and H. Bidgoli, "PCEP extension to support Segment Routing Policy Candidate Paths", draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy- cp-04 (work in progress), March 2021. [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy] Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Voyer, D., Bogdanov, A., and P. Mattes, "Segment Routing Policy Architecture", draft- ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy-11 (work in progress), April 2021. Koldychev, et al. Expires November 4, 2021 [Page 16] Internet-Draft PCEP Extensions for Multipath May 2021 [I-D.koldychev-pce-operational] Koldychev, M., Sivabalan, S., Peng, S., Achaval, D., and H. Kotni, "PCEP Operational Clarification", draft- koldychev-pce-operational-03 (work in progress), February 2021. [I-D.peng-pce-te-constraints] Peng, S., Xiong, Q., and F. Qin, "PCE TE Constraints for Network Slicing", draft-peng-pce-te-constraints-05 (work in progress), April 2021. [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. [RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440, DOI 10.17487/RFC5440, March 2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5440>. [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>. [RFC8231] Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Medved, J., and R. Varga, "Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for Stateful PCE", RFC 8231, DOI 10.17487/RFC8231, September 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8231>. [RFC8281] Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Sivabalan, S., and R. Varga, "Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for PCE-Initiated LSP Setup in a Stateful PCE Model", RFC 8281, DOI 10.17487/RFC8281, December 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8281>. [RFC8664] Sivabalan, S., Filsfils, C., Tantsura, J., Henderickx, W., and J. Hardwick, "Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for Segment Routing", RFC 8664, DOI 10.17487/RFC8664, December 2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8664>. 12.2. Informative References Koldychev, et al. Expires November 4, 2021 [Page 17] Internet-Draft PCEP Extensions for Multipath May 2021 [RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J., and J. Ash, "A Path Computation Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655, DOI 10.17487/RFC4655, August 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4655>. [RFC8745] Ananthakrishnan, H., Sivabalan, S., Barth, C., Minei, I., and M. Negi, "Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for Associating Working and Protection Label Switched Paths (LSPs) with Stateful PCE", RFC 8745, DOI 10.17487/RFC8745, March 2020, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8745>. Authors' Addresses Mike Koldychev Cisco Systems, Inc. Email: mkoldych@cisco.com Siva Sivabalan Ciena Corporation Email: ssivabal@ciena.com Tarek Saad Juniper Networks, Inc. Email: tsaad@juniper.net Vishnu Pavan Beeram Juniper Networks, Inc. Email: vbeeram@juniper.net Hooman Bidgoli Nokia Email: hooman.bidgoli@nokia.com Bhupendra Yadav Ciena Email: byadav@ciena.com Koldychev, et al. Expires November 4, 2021 [Page 18] Internet-Draft PCEP Extensions for Multipath May 2021 Shuping Peng Huawei Technologies Email: pengshuping@huawei.com Koldychev, et al. Expires November 4, 2021 [Page 19]