PCEP Extension for Native IP Network
draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip-06
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type | Active Internet-Draft (pce WG) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Aijun Wang , Boris Khasanov , Sheng Fang , Chun Zhu | ||
| Last updated | 2020-08-18 (Latest revision 2020-02-17) | ||
| Replaces | draft-wang-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip | ||
| 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-06
PCE Working Group A. Wang
Internet-Draft China Telecom
Intended status: Standards Track B. Khasanov
Expires: February 19, 2021 S. Fang
Huawei
C. Zhu
ZTE Corporation
August 18, 2020
PCEP Extension for Native IP Network
draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip-06
Abstract
This document defines the Path Computation Element Communication
Protocol (PCEP) extension for Central Control Dynamic Routing (CCDR)
based application in Native IP network. The scenario and framework
of CCDR in native IP is described in [RFC8735] and
[I-D.ietf-teas-pce-native-ip]. This draft describes the key
information that is transferred between Path Computation Element
(PCE) and Path Computation Clients (PCC) to accomplish the End to End
(E2E) 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 February 19, 2021.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Wang, et al. Expires February 19, 2021 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extension for Native IP Network August 2020
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. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. New Objects Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
5. Objects Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
5.1. Peer Address List Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5.2. Peer Prefix Association Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.3. Explicit Peer Route Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. Management Consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8.1. PCEP Object Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9. Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
10. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1. Introduction
Traditionally, Multiprotocol Label Switching Traffic Engineering
(MPLS-TE) traffic assurance requires the corresponding network
devices support Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) or the complex
Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP)/Label Distribution Protocol
(LDP) /Segment Routing etc. technologies to assure the End-to-End
(E2E) 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 E2E
traffic assurance in Native IP network via Dual/Multi Border Gateway
Protocol (BGP) solution. This draft describes the corresponding Path
Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) extensions to
transfer the key information about peer address list, peer prefix
association and the explicit peer route on on-path router.
Wang, et al. Expires February 19, 2021 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extension for Native IP Network August 2020
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].
3. Terminology
.This document uses the following terms defined in [RFC5440]: PCE,
PCEP
The following terms are defined in this document:
o CCDR: Central Control Dynamic Routing
o E2E: End to End
o EPR: Explicit Peer Route
o PAL: Peer Address List
o PPA: Peer Prefix Association
o QoS: Quality of Service
4. 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 Object: Explicit Peer Route object, used to point out which
route should be taken into to arrive to the peer.
5. Objects 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:
Wang, et al. Expires February 19, 2021 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extension for Native IP Network August 2020
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) |
// //
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: PCEP Object Format
Different object-class, object type and the corresponding object body
is defined separately in the following section .
5.1. Peer Address List Object
The Peer Address List object is used in a PCE Initiate message
[RFC8281] defined to specify the IP address of peer that the received
network device should establish the BGP relationship with. This
Object should only be included and sent to the head and end router of
the E2E path in case there is no Route Reflection (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
respectively.
Peer Address List Object-Class is TBD
Peer Address List Object-Type is 1 for IPv4 and 2 for IPv6
The format of the Peer Address List object body for IPv4(Object-
Type=1) is as follows:
Wang, et al. Expires February 19, 2021 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extension for Native IP Network August 2020
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Local AS Number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Peer AS Number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ETTL | Peer Cookie |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Local IP Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Peer IP Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Additional Peer Info. |
// (From Peer ID to Peer IP Address) //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: Peer Address List Object Body Format for IPv4
The format of the Peer Address List object body for IPv6(Object-
Type=2) is as follows:
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Local AS Number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Peer AS Number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ETTL | Peer Cookie |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Local IP Address (16 bytes) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Peer IP Address (16 bytes) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Additional Peer Info. |
// (From Peer ID to Peer IP Address) //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3: Peer Address List Object Body Format for IPv6
Peer Num : 2 Bytes, Peer Address Number on the advertised router.
Peer-ID: 2 Bytes, 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.
Wang, et al. Expires February 19, 2021 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extension for Native IP Network August 2020
Local AS Number: 4 Bytes, to indicate the AS number of the Local
Peer.
Peer AS Number: 4 Bytes, to indicate the AS number of Remote Peer.
ETTL: 1 Bytes, to indicate the multi hop count for EBGP session. It
should be 0 and ignored when Local AS and Peer AS is same.
Peer Cookie: Used for establishing the secure BGP session between two
peers. The PCEP client should use the MD5 algorithm to generate the
encrypted message.
Local IP Address(4/16 Bytes): IP address of the local router, used to
peer with other end router. When Object-Type is 1, length is 4
bytes; when Object-Type is 2, length is 16 bytes.
Peer IP Address(4/16 Bytes): IP address of the peer router, used to
peer with the local router. When Object-Type is 1, length is 4
bytes; when Object-Type is 2, length is 16 bytes;
5.2. Peer Prefix Association Object
The Peer Prefix Association object is defined to specify the IP
prefixes that should be advertised by the corresponding Peer. This
object should only be included and sent to the head/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 respectively.
Peer Prefix Association Object-Class is TBD
Peer Prefix Association Object-Type is 1 for IPv4 and 2 for IPv6
The format of the Peer Prefix Association object body is as follows:
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 | Prefixes Num |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Prefix Length | Prefix Value |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Prefix Value |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 4: Peer Prefix Association Object Body Format
Wang, et al. Expires February 19, 2021 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extension for Native IP Network August 2020
Peer-ID: 2 Bytes, 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.
Prefixes Num: 2 Bytes, number of prefixes that advertised by the
corresponding Peer. It should be equal to number of the following IP
prefix sub TLV.
Prefix Length: 2 Bytes, the prefix length. For example, for
10.0.0.0/8, this field will be equal to 8; for 2001:DB8::/32, this
field will be equal to 32.
Prefix Value: Variable length, the value of the prefix. For example,
for 10.0.0.0/8, this field will be 10.0.0.0; for 2001:DB8::/32, this
field will be equal to 2001:DB8::.
5.3. Explicit Peer Route Object
The Explicit Peer Route object is defined to specify the explicit
peer route to the corresponding peer address on each device that is
on the E2E assurance path. This Object should be sent to all the
devices that locates on the E2E assurance path that calculated by
PCE.
Explicit Peer Route Object-Class is TBD.
Explicit Peer Route Object-Type is 1 for IPv4 and 2 for IPv6
The format of Explicit Peer Route object body for IPv4(Object-Type=1)
is as follows:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Route Priority | Path Identifier |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Peer Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Next Hop Address to the Peer |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 6: Explicit Peer Route Object Body Format for IPv4
The format of Explicit Peer Route object body for IPv6(Object-Type=2)
is as follows:
Wang, et al. Expires February 19, 2021 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extension for Native IP Network August 2020
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Route Priority | Path Identifier |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Peer Address (16 bytes) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Next Hop Address to the Peer(16 bytes) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 6: Explicit Peer Route Object Body Format for IPv4
Route Priority: 2 Bytes, The priority of this explicit route. The
higher priority should be preferred by the device.
Path Identifier: To indicate the path to peer address, especially for
the same peer.
Peer Address: To indicate the peer address.
Next Hop Address to the Peer: To indicate the next hop address to the
corresponding peer.
6. Management Consideration
The information transferred in this draft is mainly used for the
light weight BGP session setup, the prefix distribution and the
explicit route deployment. The planning, allocation and distribution
of the peer addresses within IGP should be accomplished in advanced
and they are out of the scope of this draft.
7. Security Considerations
Service provider should consider the protection of PCE and their
communication with the underlay devices, which is described in
document [RFC5440] and [RFC8253]
8. IANA Considerations
8.1. PCEP Object Types
IANA is requested to allocate new registry for the PCEP Object Type:
Wang, et al. Expires February 19, 2021 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extension for Native IP Network August 2020
Object-Type Value Name Reference
TBD Peer Address List This document
Object-Type
1: IPv4 address
2: IPv6 address
TBD Peer Prefix Association This document
Object-Type
1: IPv4 address
2: IPv6 address
TBD Explicit Peer Route This document
Object-Type
1: IPv4 address
2: IPv6 address
9. Acknowledgement
Thanks Dhruv Dhody for his valuable suggestions and comments.
10. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-teas-pce-native-ip]
Wang, A., Khasanov, B., Zhao, Q., and H. Chen, "PCE in
Native IP Network", draft-ietf-teas-pce-native-ip-10 (work
in progress), August 2020.
[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>.
[RFC8253] Lopez, D., Gonzalez de Dios, O., Wu, Q., and D. Dhody,
"PCEPS: Usage of TLS to Provide a Secure Transport for the
Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)",
RFC 8253, DOI 10.17487/RFC8253, October 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8253>.
[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 February 19, 2021 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extension for Native IP Network August 2020
[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>.
[RFC8735] Wang, A., Huang, X., Kou, C., Li, Z., and P. Mi,
"Scenarios and Simulation Results of PCE in a Native IP
Network", RFC 8735, DOI 10.17487/RFC8735, February 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8735>.
Authors' Addresses
Aijun Wang
China Telecom
Beiqijia Town, Changping District
Beijing, Beijing 102209
China
Email: wangaj3@chinatelecom.cn
Boris Khasanov
Huawei Technologies,Co.,Ltd
Moskovskiy Prospekt 97A
St.Petersburg 196084
Russia
Email: khasanov.boris@huawei.com
Sheng Fang
Huawei Technologies, Co.,
Ltd
Huawei Bld., No.156 Beiqing Rd.
Beijing
China
Email: fsheng@huawei.com
Chun Zhu
ZTE Corporation
50 Software Avenue, Yuhua District
Nanjing, Jiangsu 210012
China
Email: zhu.chun1@zte.com.cn
Wang, et al. Expires February 19, 2021 [Page 10]