PCEP Extension for Native IP Network
draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip-01
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type | Active Internet-Draft (pce WG) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Aijun Wang , Boris Khasanov , Sudhir Cheruathur , Chun Zhu | ||
| Last updated | 2018-06-27 (Latest revision 2018-06-26) | ||
| Stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | plain text xml htmlized pdfized bibtex | ||
| Stream | WG state | WG Document | |
| 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-pcep-extension-native-ip-01
PCE Working Group A. Wang
Internet-Draft China Telecom
Intended status: Standards Track B. Khasanov
Expires: December 28, 2018 Huawei
S. Cheruathur
Juniper Networks
C. Zhu
ZTE Corporation
June 26, 2018
PCEP Extension for Native IP Network
draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip-01
Abstract
This document defines the PCEP extension for CCDR application in
Native IP network. The scenario and architecture of CCDR in native
IP is described in [I-D.ietf-teas-native-ip-scenarios] and
[I-D.ietf-teas-pce-native-ip]. This draft describes the key
information that is transferred between PCE and PCC to accomplish the
end2end traffic assurance in Native IP network under central control
mode.
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 28, 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
Wang, et al. Expires December 28, 2018 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extension for Native IP Network June 2018
(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. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. New Objects Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Object Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4.1. Peer Address List object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4.2. Peer Prefix Association . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.3. 4.3. Explicit Peer Route Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Management Consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1. Introduction
Traditionally, MPLS-TE traffic assurance requires the corresponding
network devices support MPLS or the complex RSVP/LDP/Segment Routing
etc. technologies to assure the end-to-end traffic performance. But
in native IP network, there will be no such signaling protocol to
synchronize the action among different network devices. It is
necessary to use the central control mode that described in [RFC8283]
to correlate the forwarding behavior among different network devices.
Draft [I-D.ietf-teas-pce-native-ip] describes the architecture and
solution philosophy for the end2end traffic assurance in Native IP
network via Dual/Multi BGP solution. This draft describes the
corresponding PCEP extension to transfer the key information about
peer address list, peer prefix association and the explicit peer
route on on-path router.
2. Conventions used in this document
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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
Wang, et al. Expires December 28, 2018 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extension for Native IP Network June 2018
3. New Objects Extension
Three new objects are defined in this draft:
o PAL Object: Peer Address List Object, used to tell the network
device which peer it should be peered with dynamically
o PPA Object: Peer Prefix Association Object,used to tell which
prefixes should be advertised via the corresponding peer
o EPR Objec: Explicit Peer Route object,used to point out which
route should be taken to arrive to the peer.
4. Object Formats
Each extension object takes the similar format, that is to say, it
began with the common object header defined in [RFC5440] as the
following:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Object-Class | OT |Res|P|I| Object Length(bytes) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| (Object body) |
// //
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Different object-class, object type and the corresponding object body
is defined separated in the following section.
4.1. Peer Address List object
The Peer Address List object is used in a PCE Initiate
message[RFC8281] [draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp] to specify the ip
address of peer that the received network device should establish the
BGP relationship with. This Object should only be sent to the head
and end router of the end2end path in case there is no RR involved.
If the RR is used between the head and end routers, then such
information should be sent to head router/RR and end router/RR
respectively.
Peer Address List object Object-Class is **
Peer Address List object Object-Type is **
Wang, et al. Expires December 28, 2018 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extension for Native IP Network June 2018
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Peer Num | Peer-Id | AT | Resv. |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Local IP Address(4/16 Bytes) |
// Peer IP Address(4/16 Bytes) //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Peer Num (8 bits): Peer Address Number on the advertised router.
Peer-Id(8 bits): To distinguish the different peer pair, will be
referenced in Peer Prefix Association, if the PCE use multi-BGP
solution for different QoS assurance requirement.
AT(8 bits): Address Type. To indicate the address type of Peer.
Equal to 4, if the following IP address of peer is belong to IPv4;
Equal to 6 if the following IP address of peer is belong to IPv6.
Resv(8 bits): Reserved for future use.
Local IP Address(4/16 Bytes): IPv4 address of the local router, used
to peer with other end router. When AT equal to 4, length is 32bit;
when AT equal to 16, length is 128bit.
Peer IP Address(4/16 Bytes): IPv4 address of the peer router, used to
peer with the local router. When AT equal to 4, length is 32bit;
IPv6 address of the peer when AT equal to 16, length is 128bit;
4.2. Peer Prefix Association
The Peer Prefix Association object is carried within in a PCE
Initiate message [RFC8281] to specify the IP prefixes that should be
advertised by the corresponding Peer. This Object should only be
sent to the head and end router of the end2end path in case there is
no RR involved. If the RR is used between the head and end routers,
then such information should be sent to head router/RR and end
router/RR respectively.
Peer Prefix Association object Object-Class is **
Peer Prefix Association object Object-Type is **
Wang, et al. Expires December 28, 2018 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extension for Native IP Network June 2018
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Peer Id | AT | Resv. | Prefixes Num. |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Peer Associated IP Prefix TLV |
// Peer Associated IP Prefix TLV //
| Peer Associated IP Prefix TLV |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Peer-Id(8 bits): To indicate which peer should be used to advertise
the following IP Prefix TLV. This value is assigned in the Peer
Address List object and is referred in this object.
AT(8 bits): Address Type. To indicate the address type of Peer.
Equal to 4, if the following IP address of peer is belong to IPv4;
Equal to 6 if the following IP address of peer is belong to IPv6.
Resv(8 bits): Reserved for future use.
Prefixes Num(8 bits): Number of prefixes that advertised by the
corresponding Peer. It should be equal to number of the following IP
prefix TLV.
Peer Associated IP Prefix TLV: Variable Length, use the TLV format to
indicate the advertised IP Prefix.
4.3. 4.3. Explicit Peer Route Object
The Explicit Peer Route Object is carried in a PCE Initiate message
[RFC8281] to specify the explicit peer route to the corresponding
peer address on each device that is on the end2end assurance path.
This Object should be sent to all the devices that locates on the
end2end assurance path that calculated by PCE.
Explict Peer Route Object Object-Class is **
Explict Peer Route Object Object-Type is **
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Peer Id | AT | Resv. |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Next Hop Address to the Peer(IPv4/IPv6) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Wang, et al. Expires December 28, 2018 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extension for Native IP Network June 2018
Peer-Id(8 bits): To indicate the peer that the following next hop
address point to. This value is assigned in the Peer Address List
object and is referred in this object.
AT(8 bits): Address Type. To indicate the address type of explicit
peer route. Equal to 4, if the following next hop address to the
peer is belong to IPv4; Equal to 6 if the following next hop address
to the peer is belong to IPv6. Resv(16 bits): Reserved for future
use.
Next Hop Address to the Peer TLV: Variable Length, use the TLV format
to indicate the next hop address to the corresponding peer that
indicated by the Peer-Id.
5. Management Consideration
TBD
6. Security Considerations
TBD
7. IANA Considerations
TBD
8. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-teas-native-ip-scenarios]
Wang, A., Huang, X., Qou, C., Huang, L., and K. Mi, "CCDR
Scenario, Simulation and Suggestion", draft-ietf-teas-
native-ip-scenarios-00 (work in progress), February 2018.
[I-D.ietf-teas-pce-native-ip]
Wang, A., Zhao, Q., Khasanov, B., and K. Mi, "PCE in
Native IP Network", draft-ietf-teas-pce-native-ip-00 (work
in progress), February 2018.
[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>.
Wang, et al. Expires December 28, 2018 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extension for Native IP Network June 2018
[RFC8283] Farrel, A., Ed., Zhao, Q., Ed., Li, Z., and C. Zhou, "An
Architecture for Use of PCE and the PCE Communication
Protocol (PCEP) in a Network with Central Control",
RFC 8283, DOI 10.17487/RFC8283, December 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8283>.
Authors' Addresses
Aijun Wang
China Telecom
Beiqijia Town, Changping District
Beijing, Beijing 102209
China
Email: wangaj.bri@chinatelecom.cn
Boris Khasanov
Huawei Technologies,Co.,Ltd
Moskovskiy Prospekt 97A
St.Petersburg 196084
Russia
Email: khasanov.boris@huawei.com
Sudhir Cheruathur
Juniper Networks
1133 Innovation Way
Sunnyvale, California 94089
USA
Email: scheruathur@juniper.net
Chun Zhu
ZTE Corporation
50 Software Avenue, Yuhua District
Nanjing, Jiangsu 210012
China
Email: zhu.chun1@zte.com.cn
Wang, et al. Expires December 28, 2018 [Page 7]