Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for Native IP Networks
draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip-39
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 | Aijun Wang , Boris Khasanov , Sheng Fang , Ren Tan , Chun Zhu | ||
| Last updated | 2024-09-10 (Latest revision 2024-09-01) | ||
| Replaces | draft-wang-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Reviews |
GENART Last Call review
(of
-32)
by Mallory Knodel
Ready w/issues
RTGDIR Early review
(of
-23)
by Ines Robles
Has issues
|
||
| Additional resources | Mailing list discussion | ||
| Stream | WG state | Submitted to IESG for Publication | |
| Associated WG milestone |
|
||
| Document shepherd | Dhruv Dhody | ||
| Shepherd write-up | Show Last changed 2024-08-20 | ||
| IESG | IESG state | RFC Ed Queue | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Yes | ||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | John Scudder | ||
| Send notices to | dd@dhruvdhody.com | ||
| IANA | IANA review state | Version Changed - Review Needed | |
| IANA action state | Waiting on Authors | ||
| RFC Editor | RFC Editor state | MISSREF | |
| Details |
draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip-39
PCE Working Group A. Wang
Internet-Draft China Telecom
Intended status: Experimental B. Khasanov
Expires: 6 March 2025 MTS Web Services (MWS)
S. Fang
R. Tan
Huawei Technologies
C. Zhu
ZTE Corporation
2 September 2024
Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for
Native IP Networks
draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip-39
Abstract
This document introduces extensions to the PCE Communication Protocol
(PCEP) to support path computation in native IP networks through a
PCE-based central control mechanism known as Centralized Control
Dynamic Routing (CCDR). These extensions empower a PCE to calculate
and manage paths specifically for native IP networks, expand PCEP’s
capabilities beyond its traditional use in MPLS and GMPLS networks.
By implementing these extensions, IP network resources can be
utilized more efficiently, facilitating the deployment of traffic
engineering in native IP environments.
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 6 March 2025.
Wang, et al. Expires 6 March 2025 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft PCEP for Native IP September 2024
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2024 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 Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Use of RBNF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2. Experimental Status Consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Capability Advertisement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1. Open Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. PCEP Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.1. The PCInitiate Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.2. The PCRpt Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. PCECC Native IP TE Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.1. BGP Session Establishment Procedures . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.2. Explicit Route Establishment Procedures . . . . . . . . . 12
6.3. BGP Prefix Advertisement Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6.4. Selection of Raw Mode and Tunnel Mode Forwarding
Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
6.5. Clean Up . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
6.6. Other Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
7. New PCEP Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
7.1. CCI Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
7.2. BGP Peer Info Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
7.3. Explicit Peer Route Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
7.4. Peer Prefix Advertisement Object . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
8. New Error-Types and Error-Values Defined . . . . . . . . . . 26
9. BGP Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
10. Deployment Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
11. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
11.1. Control of Function and Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
11.2. Information and Data Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
11.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . 29
11.4. Verify Correct Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
11.5. Requirements on Other Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Wang, et al. Expires 6 March 2025 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft PCEP for Native IP September 2024
11.6. Impact on Network Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
12. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
13. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
13.1. Path Setup Type Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
13.2. PCECC-CAPABILITY sub-TLV's Flag field . . . . . . . . . 31
13.3. PCEP Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
13.4. PCEP-Error Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
13.5. CCI Object Flag Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
13.6. BPI Object Status Code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
13.7. BPI Object Error Code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
13.8. BPI Object Flag Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
14. Contributor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
15. Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
16. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
16.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
16.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
1. Introduction
Generally, Multiprotocol Label Switching Traffic Engineering (MPLS-
TE) requires the corresponding network devices to support Resource
ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP)[RFC3209]/Label Distribution Protocol
(LDP)[RFC5036] protocols to ensure the End-to-End (E2E) traffic
performance. But in native IP network scenarios described in
[RFC8735], there will be no such signaling protocol to synchronize
the actions among different network devices. It is feasible to use
the central control mode described in [RFC8283] to correlate the
forwarding behavior among different network devices. [RFC8821]
describes the architecture and solution philosophy for the E2E
traffic assurance in the Native IP network via multiple Border
Gateway Protocol (BGP) sessions-based solution. It requires only the
PCE to send the instructions to the PCCs, to build multiple BGP
sessions, distribute different prefixes on the established BGP
sessions and assign the different paths to the BGP next hops.
This document describes the corresponding Path Computation Element
Communication Protocol (PCEP) extensions to transfer the key
information about BGP peer, peer prefix advertisement, and the
explicit peer route on on-path routers.
2. Conventions used in this document
The keywords "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.
Wang, et al. Expires 6 March 2025 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft PCEP for Native IP September 2024
2.1. Use of RBNF
The message formats in this document are illustrated using Routing
Backus-Naur Form (RBNF) encoding, as specified in [RFC5511]. The use
of RBNF is illustrative only and may elide certain important details;
the normative specification of messages is found in the prose
description. If there is any divergence between the RBNF and the
prose, the prose is considered authoritative.
2.2. Experimental Status Consideration
The procedures outlined in this document are experimental. The
experiment aims to explore the use of PCE (and PCEP) for end-to-end
traffic assurance in Native IP networks through multiple BGP
sessions. Additional implementation is necessary to gain a deeper
understanding of the operational impact, scalability, and stability
of the mechanism described. Feedback from deployments will be
crucial in determining whether this specification should advance from
Experimental to the IETF Standards Track.
3. Terminology
This document uses the following terms defined in [RFC5440]: PCC,
PCE, PCEP.
The following terminology is used in this document:
* BPI: BGP Peer Info
* CCDR: Central Control Dynamic Routing
* CCI: Central Controller Instructions, defined in [RFC9050]
* E2E: End-to-End
* EPR: Explicit Peer Route
* Native IP network: Network that forwards traffic based solely on
the IP address, instead of other indicator, for example MPLS etc.
* PCECC: PCE as a Central Controller, defined in [RFC8283]
* PPA: Peer Prefix Advertisement
* PST: Path Setup Type, defined in [RFC8408]
* SRP: Stateful PCE Request Parameters, defined in [RFC8231]
Wang, et al. Expires 6 March 2025 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft PCEP for Native IP September 2024
* RR: Route Reflector
4. Capability Advertisement
4.1. Open Message
During the PCEP Initialization Phase, PCEP Speakers (PCE or PCC)
advertise their support of Native IP extensions.
This document defines a new Path Setup Type (PST) [RFC8408] for
Native-IP, as follows:
* PST = 4: Path is a Native IP TE path as per [RFC8821].
A PCEP speaker MUST indicate its support of the function described in
this document by sending a PATH-SETUP-TYPE-CAPABILITY TLV in the OPEN
object with this new PST included in the PST list.
[RFC9050] defined the PCECC-CAPABILITY sub-TLV to exchange
information about their PCECC capability. A new flag is defined in
PCECC-CAPABILITY sub-TLV for Native IP:
N (NATIVE-IP-TE-CAPABILITY - 1 bit - 30): When set to 1 by a PCEP
speaker, this flag indicates that the PCEP speaker is capable of TE
in a Native IP network, as specified in this document. Both the PCC
and PCE MUST set this flag to support this extension.
If a PCEP speaker receives the PATH-SETUP-TYPE-CAPABILITY TLV with
the newly defined path setup type, but without the N bit set in
PCECC-CAPABILITY sub-TLV, it MUST:
* send a PCErr message with Error-Type=10 (Reception of an invalid
object) and Error-Value=39 (PCECC NATIVE-IP-TE-CAPABILITY bit is
not set).
* terminate the PCEP session
If a PCEP speaker receives the PATH-SETUP-TYPE-CAPABILITY TLV with
the newly defined path setup type, but without the PCECC-CAPABILITY
sub-TLV, it MUST:
* send a PCErr message with Error-Type=10(Reception of an invalid
object) and Error-Value=33 (Missing PCECC Capability sub-TLV).
* terminate the PCEP session
Wang, et al. Expires 6 March 2025 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft PCEP for Native IP September 2024
If one or both speakers (PCE and PCC) have not indicated the support
for Native-IP, the PCEP extensions for the Native-IP MUST NOT be
used. If a Native-IP operation is attempted when both speakers have
not agreed on the OPEN messages, the receiver of the message MUST:
* send a PCErr message with Error-Type=19 (Invalid Operation) and
Error-value=TBD1 (Attempted Native-IP operations when the
capability was not advertised) and
* terminate the PCEP session.
5. PCEP Messages
PCECC Native IP TE solution uses the existing PCE Label Switched Path
(LSP) Initiate Request message (PCInitiate) [RFC8281], and PCE Report
message (PCRpt) [RFC8231] to accomplish the multiple BGP sessions
establishment, E2E Native-IP TE path deployment, and route prefixes
advertisement among different BGP sessions. A new PST for Native-IP
is used to indicate the path setup based on TE in Native IP networks.
The extended PCInitiate message described in [RFC9050] is used to
download or remove the central controller's instructions (CCIs).
[RFC9050] specifies an object called CCI for the encoding of the
central controller's instructions. This document specifies a new CCI
Object-Type for Native IP. The PCEP messages are extended in this
document to handle the PCECC operations for Native IP. Three new
PCEP Objects (BGP Peer Info (BPI) Object, Explicit Peer Route (EPR)
Object, and Peer Prefix Advertisement (PPA) Object) are defined in
this document. Refer to Section 7 for detailed object definitions.
All PCEP procedures specified in [RFC9050] continue to apply unless
specified otherwise.
5.1. The PCInitiate Message
The PCInitiate Message defined in [RFC8281] and extended in [RFC9050]
is further extended to support Native-IP CCI.
The format of the extended PCInitiate message is as follows:
Wang, et al. Expires 6 March 2025 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft PCEP for Native IP September 2024
<PCInitiate Message> ::= <Common Header>
<PCE-initiated-lsp-list>
Where:
<Common Header> is defined in [RFC5440]
<PCE-initiated-lsp-list> ::= <PCE-initiated-lsp-request>
[<PCE-initiated-lsp-list>]
<PCE-initiated-lsp-request> ::=
(<PCE-initiated-lsp-instantiation>|
<PCE-initiated-lsp-deletion>|
<PCE-initiated-lsp-central-control>)
<PCE-initiated-lsp-central-control> ::= <SRP>
<LSP>
<cci-list>
<cci-list> ::= <CCI>
[<BPI>|<EPR>|<PPA>]
[<cci-list>]
Where:
<PCE-initiated-lsp-instantiation> and <PCE-initiated-lsp-deletion>
are as per [RFC8281].
The LSP and SRP objects are defined in [RFC8231].
When the PCInitiate message is used for Native IP instructions, i.e.
When the CCI Object-Type is 2, the SRP, LSP and CCI objects MUST be
present. Error handling for missing SRP, LSP or CCI objects MUST be
performed as specified in [RFC9050]. Additionally, exactly one
object among the BPI, EPR, or PPA objects MUST be present. The PLSP-
ID and Symbolic Path Name TLVs are set as per the existing rules in
[RFC8231], [RFC8281], and [RFC9050]. The Symbolic Path Name is used
by the PCE/PCC to uniquely identify the E2E native IP TE path. The
related Native-IP instructions with BPI, EPR or PPA objects are
identified by the same Symbolic Path Name.
If none of the BPI, EPR or PPA objects are present, the receiving PCC
MUST send a PCErr message with Error-type=6 (Mandatory Object
missing) and Error-value=19 (Native IP object missing). If there is
more than one instance of BPI, EPR or PPA object present, the
receiving PCC MUST send a PCErr message with Error-type=19 (Invalid
Operation) and Error-value=22 (Only one BPI, EPR or PPA object can be
included in this message).
Wang, et al. Expires 6 March 2025 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft PCEP for Native IP September 2024
When the PCInitiate message is not used for Native IP instructions,
i.e. When CCI Object-Type is not equal to 2, the BPI, EPR and PPA
objects SHOULD NOT be present. If present, they MUST be ignored by
the receiver.
To clean up the existing Native IP instructions, the SRP object MUST
set the R (remove) bit.
5.2. The PCRpt Message
The PCRpt message is used to acknowledge the Native-IP instructions
received from the central controller (PCE) as well as during the
State Synchronization phase.
The format of the PCRpt message is as follows:
<PCRpt Message> ::= <Common Header>
<state-report-list>
Where:
<state-report-list> ::= <state-report>[<state-report-list>]
<state-report> ::= (<lsp-state-report>|
<central-control-report>)
<lsp-state-report> ::= [<SRP>]
<LSP>
<path>
<central-control-report> ::= [<SRP>]
<LSP>
<cci-list>
<cci-list> ::= <CCI>
[<BPI>|<EPR>|<PPA>]
[<cci-list>]
Where: <path> is as per [RFC8231] and the LSP and SRP objects are
also defined in [RFC8231].
The error handling for missing CCI objects is as per [RFC9050].
Furthermore, one, and only one, object among BPI, EPR or PPA object
MUST be present.
If none of the BPI, EPR or PPA objects are present, the receiving PCE
MUST send a PCErr message with Error-type=6 (Mandatory Object
missing) and Error-value=19 (Native IP object missing). If there are
more than one instance of BPI, EPR or PPA objects present, the
Wang, et al. Expires 6 March 2025 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft PCEP for Native IP September 2024
receiving PCE MUST send a PCErr message with Error-type=19 (Invalid
Operation) and Error-value=22 (Only one BPI, EPR or PPA object can be
included in this message).
When the PCInitiate message is not used for Native IP instructions,
i.e. When CCI Object-Type is not equal to 2, the BPI, EPR and PPA
objects SHOULD NOT be present. If present, they MUST be ignored by
the receiver.
6. PCECC Native IP TE Procedures
The detailed procedures for the TE in the native IP environment are
described in the following sections.
6.1. BGP Session Establishment Procedures
The PCInitiate and PCRpt message pair is used to exchange the
configuration parameters for a BGP peer session. This pair of PCEP
messages are exchanged between a PCE and each BGP peer (acting as
PCC) which needs to establish a BGP session. After the BGP peer
session has been initiated via this pair of PCEP messages, the BGP
session establishes and operates in a normal fashion. The BGP peers
can be used for External BGP (EBGP) peers or Internal BGP (IBGP)
peers. For IBGP connection topologies, the Route Reflector (RR) is
required.
The PCInitiate message is sent to the BGP router and/or RR (which are
acting as PCC).
The RR topology for a single Autonomous System (AS) is shown in
Figure 1. The BGP routers R1, R3, and R7 are within a single AS. R1
and R7 are BGP RR clients, and R3 is a RR. The PCInitiate message is
sent to the BGP routers R1, R3 and R7 that need to establish a BGP
session.
PCInitiate message creates an auto-configuration function for these
BGP peers by providing the indicated Peer AS and the Local/Peer IP
Address.
When the PCC receives the BPI and CCI object (with the R bit set to 0
in the SRP object) in the PCInitiate message, the PCC SHOULD try to
establish the BGP session with the indicated Peer as per AS and
Local/Peer IP address.
During the establishment procedure, the PCC MUST report to the PCE
the status of the BGP session via the PCRpt message, with the status
field in the BPI object set to the appropriate value and the
corresponding SRP and CCI objects included.
Wang, et al. Expires 6 March 2025 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft PCEP for Native IP September 2024
When the PCC receives this message with the R bit set to 1 in the SRP
object in the PCInitiate message, the PCC MUST clear the BGP
configuration and tear down the BGP session that is indicated by the
BPI object.
When the PCC clears successfully the specified BGP session
configuration, it MUST report the result via the PCRpt message, with
the BPI object included, and the corresponding SRP and CCI objects.
+------------------+
+-----------> PCE <----------+
| +--------^---------+ |
| | |
| PCInitiate/PCRpt |
| | |
| +----v--+ |
+---------------+ R3(RR)+-----------------+
| +-------+ |
PCInitiate/PCRpt PCInitiate/PCRpt
| |
+v-+ +--+ +--+ +-v+
|R1+----------+R5+----------+R6+---------+R7|
++-+ +-++ +--+ +-++
| | |
| +--+ +--+ |
+------------+R2+----------+R4+-----------+
+--+ +--+
Figure 1: BGP Session Establishment Procedures(R3 act as RR)
The message peers, message type, message key parameters and
procedures in the above figures are shown below:
Wang, et al. Expires 6 March 2025 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft PCEP for Native IP September 2024
+-------+ +-------+
|PCC | | PCE |
|R1 | +-------+
+------| | |
| PCC +-------+ |
| R3 | | (For R1/R3 BGP Session on R1) |
+------| | |<-PCInitiate,CC-ID=X,Symbolic Path Name=Class A-|
| | | |BPI Object(Peer AS, Local_IP=R1_A, Peer_IP=R3_A)|
|PCC +--------+ | |
|R7 | | |----PCRpt,CC-ID=X(Symbolic Path Name=Class A)-->|
| | | |BPI Object(Peer AS, Local_IP=R1_A, Peer_IP=R3_A)|
+--------+ | |
| | (For R1/R3 BGP Session on R3) |
| |<--PCInitiate,CC-ID=Y1,Symbolic Path Name=Class A-----|
| | BPI Object(Peer AS, Local_IP=R3_A, Peer_IP=R1_A)|
| |---PCRpt,CC-ID=Y1,Symbolic Path Name=Class A--------->|
| | BPI Object(Peer AS, Local_IP=R3_A, Peer_IP=R1_A)|
| | |
| | (For R3/R7 BGP Session on R3) |
| |<--PCInitiate,CC-ID=Y2,Symbolic Path Name=Class A-----|
| | BPI Object(Peer AS, Local_IP=R3_A, Peer_IP=R7_A) |
| |----PCRpt,CC-ID=Y2,Symbolic Path Name=Class A-------->|
| | BPI Object(Peer AS, Local_IP=R3_A, Peer_IP=R7_A) |
| |
| (For R3/R7 BGP Session on R7) |
|<--PCInitiate,CC-ID=Z,Symbolic Path Name=Class A--------------|
| BPI Object(Peer AS, Local_IP=R7_A, Peer_IP=R3_A) |
|---PCRpt,CC-ID=Z,Symbolic Path Name=Class A------------------>|
| BPI Object(Peer AS, Local_IP=R7_A, Peer_IP=R3_A) |
Figure 2: Message Information and Procedures
The Local/Peer IP address MUST be dedicated to the usage of the
native IP TE solution, and MUST NOT be used by other BGP sessions
that are established manually or in other ways. If the Local IP
Address or Peer IP Address within the BPI object is used in other
existing BGP sessions, the PCC MUST report such an error situation
via a PCErr message with:
Error-type=33 (Native IP TE failure) and Error-value=1 (Local IP
is in use), or
Error-type=33 (Native IP TE failure )and Error-value=2 (Remote IP
is in use).
The detailed Error-Types and Error-Values are defined in Section 8
Wang, et al. Expires 6 March 2025 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft PCEP for Native IP September 2024
If the established BGP session is broken, the PCC MUST report such
information via PCRpt message with the status field set to "BGP
session down" in the associated BPI Object. The error code field
within the BPI object SHOULD indicate the reason that leads to the
BGP session being down. In the future, when the BGP session is up
again, the PCC MUST report that as well via the PCRpt message with
the status field set to "BGP Session Established".
6.2. Explicit Route Establishment Procedures
The explicit route establishment procedures can be used by PCE to
install a route on the PCC, using the PCInitiate and PCRpt message
pair. Such explicit routes operate the same as static routes
installed by network management protocols (Network Configuration
Protocol (NETCONF)/YANG). The procedures of such explicit route
addition and removal MUST be controlled by the PCE in a specific
order so that the pathways are established without loops.
For the purpose of explicit route addition, the PCInitiate message
ought to be sent to every router on the explicit path. In the
example, for the explicit route from R1 to R7, the PCInitiate message
is sent to R1, R2 and R4, as shown in Figure 3. For the explicit
route from R7 to R1, the PCInitiate message is sent to R7, R4 and R2,
as shown in Figure 5.
When the PCC receives the EPR and the CCI object (with the R bit set
to 0 in the SRP object) in the PCInitiate message, the PCC SHOULD
install the explicit route to the peer in the RIB/FIB.
When the PCC installs successfully the explicit route to the peer, it
MUST report the result via the PCRpt messages, with the EPR object
and the corresponding SRP and CCI objects included.
When the PCC receives the EPR and the CCI object with the R bit set
to 1 in the SRP object in the PCInitiate message, the PCC MUST remove
the explicit route to the peer that is indicated by the EPR object.
When the PCC has removed the explicit route that is indicated by this
object, it MUST report the result via the PCRpt message, with the EPR
object included, and the corresponding SRP and CCI object.
Wang, et al. Expires 6 March 2025 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft PCEP for Native IP September 2024
+------------------+
+----------> PCE +
| +----^-----------^-+
| | |
| | |
| | +------+ |
+---------------|-+R3(RR)+--|-------------+
PCInitiate/PCRpt | +------+ | |
| | | |
+v-+ +--+ | | +--+ +--+
|R1+------+R5+---+-----------|---+R6+----+R7|
++-+ +--+ | | +--+ +-++
| PCInitiate/PCRpt PCInitiate/PCRpt |
| | | |
| +--v--+ +--v-+ |
+------------+- R2 +-----+ R4 +-----------+
+--+--+ +--+-+
Figure 3: Explicit Route Establish Procedures(From R1 to R7)
The message peers, message type, message key parameters and
procedures in the above figures are shown below:
+-------+ +-------+
|PCC | | PCE |
|R4 | +-------+
+------| | |
| PCC +-------+ |
| R2 | | (EPR route on R4) |
+------| | |<-PCInitiate,CC-ID=Z,Symbolic Path Name=Class A|
| | | | EPR Object(Peer Address=R7_A, Next Hop=R7_A)|
|PCC +--------+ | |
|R1 | | |----PCRpt,CC-ID=Z,Symbolic Path Name=Class A-->|
| | | | EPR Object(Peer Address=R7_A, Next Hop=R7_A)|
+--------+ | |
| | (EPR route on R2) |
| |<--PCInitiate,CC-ID=Y,Symbolic Path Name=Class A-----|
| | EPR Object(Peer Address=R7_A, Next Hop=R4_A) |
| |----PCRpt,CC-ID=Y,Symbolic Path Name=Class A-------->|
| | EPR Object(Peer Address=R7_A, Next Hop=R4_A) |
| | |
| |
| (EPR route on R1) |
|<--PCInitiate,CC-ID=X,Symbolic Path Name=Class A-------------|
| EPR Object(Peer Address=R7_A, Next Hop=R2_A) |
|---PCRpt,CC-ID=X1(Symbolic Path Name=Class A)--------------->|
| EPR Object(Peer Address=R7_A, Next Hop=R2_A) |
Figure 4: Message Information and Procedures
Wang, et al. Expires 6 March 2025 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft PCEP for Native IP September 2024
+------------------+
+ PCE <-----------+
+----^-----------^-+ |
| | |
| | |
| +------+ | |
+-----------------+R3(RR)+--|-------------+
| | +------+ | PCInitiate/PCRpt
| | | |
+--+ +--+ | | +--+ +-v+
|R1+------+R5+---+-----------|---+R6+----+R7|
++-+ +--+ | | +--+ +-++
| PCInitiate/PCRpt PCInitiate/PCRpt |
| | | |
| +--v--+ +--v-+ |
+------------+- R2 +-----+ R4 +-----------+
+--+--+ +--+-+
Figure 5: Explicit Route Establish Procedures(From R7 to R1)
The message peers, message type, message key parameters and
procedures in the above figures are shown below:
+-------+ +-------+
|PCC | | PCE |
|R2 | +-------+
+------| | |
| PCC +-------+ |
| R4 | | (EPR route on R2) |
+------| | |<-PCInitiate,CC-ID=X,Symbolic Path Name=Class A|
| | | | EPR Object(Peer Address=R1_A, Next Hop=R1_A) |
|PCC +--------+ | |
|R7 | | |----PCRpt,CC-ID=X,Symbolic Path Name=Class A-->|
| | | | EPR Object(Peer Address=R1_A, Next Hop=R1_A) |
+--------+ | |
| | (EPR route on R4) |
| |<--PCInitiate,CC-ID=Y,Symbolic Path Name=Class A-----|
| | EPR Object(Peer Address=R1_A, Next Hop=R2_A) |
| |----PCRpt,CC-ID=Y,Symbolic Path Name=Class A-------->|
| | EPR Object(Peer Address=R1_A, Next Hop=R2_A) |
| | |
| |
| (EPR route on R7) |
|<--PCInitiate,CC-ID=Z,Symbolic Path Name=Class A-------------|
| EPR Object(Peer Address=R1_A, Next Hop=R4_A) |
|---PCRpt,CC-ID=Z,Symbolic Path Name=Class A----------------->|
| EPR Object(Peer Address=R1_A, Next Hop=R4_A) |
Figure 6: Explicit Route Establish Procedures(From R7 to R1)
Wang, et al. Expires 6 March 2025 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft PCEP for Native IP September 2024
To avoid the transient loop while deploying the explicit peer route,
the EPR object MUST be sent to the PCCs in the reverse order of the
E2E path. To remove the explicit peer route, the EPR object MUST be
sent to the PCCs in the same order as the E2E path.
To accomplish ECMP effects, the PCE can send multiple EPR/CCI objects
to the same node, with the same route priority and peer address value
but a different next-hop address.
The PCC MUST verify that the next hop address is reachable. In case
of failure, the PCC MUST send the corresponding error via PCErr
message, with the error information: Error-type=33 (Native IP TE
failure), Error-value=3 (Explicit Peer Route Error).
When the peer info is not the same as the peer info that is indicated
in the BPI object in PCC for the same path that is identified by
Symbolic Path Name TLV, a PCErr message MUST be reported, with the
error information: Error-type=33 (Native IP TE failure), Error-
value=4, EPR/BPI Peer Info Mismatch. Note that the same error can be
used in case no BPI is received at the PCC.
If the PCE needs to update the path, it MUST first instruct the new
CCI with updated EPR corresponding to the new next hop to use and
then instruct the removal of the older CCI.
6.3. BGP Prefix Advertisement Procedures
The detailed procedures for BGP prefix advertisement are shown below,
using the PCInitiate and PCRpt message pair.
The PCInitiate message SHOULD be sent to PCC that acts as a BGP peer
edge router only. In the example, it is sent to R1 and R7
respectively.
When the PCC receives the PPA and the CCI object (with the R bit set
to 0 in the SRP object) in the PCInitiate message, the PCC SHOULD
send the prefixes indicated in this object to the identified BGP peer
via the corresponding BGP session [RFC4271].
When the PCC has successfully sent the prefixes to the appointed BGP
peer, it MUST report the result via the PCRpt messages, with the PPA
object and the corresponding SRP and CCI objects included.
When the PCC receives the PPA and the CCI object with the R bit set
to 1 in the SRP object in the PCInitiate message, the PCC MUST
withdraw the prefixes advertisement to the peer indicated by this
object.
Wang, et al. Expires 6 March 2025 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft PCEP for Native IP September 2024
When the PCC withdraws successfully the prefixes that are indicated
by this object, it MUST report the result via the PCRpt message, with
the PPA object included, and the corresponding SRP and CCI objects.
+------------------+
+----------> PCE <-----------+
| +------------------+ |
| +--+ |
+------------------+R3+-------------------+
PCInitiate/PCRpt +--+ PCInitiate/PCRpt
| |
+v-+ +--+ +--+ +-v+
|R1+----------+R5+----------+R6+---------+R7|
++-+ +--+ +--+ +-++
(BGP Router) (BGP Router)
| |
| |
| +--+ +--+ |
+------------+R2+----------+R4+-----------+
+--+ +--+
Figure 7: BGP Prefix Advertisement Procedures
The message peers, message type, message key parameters and
procedures in the above figures are shown below:
+-------+ +-------+
|PCC | | PCE |
|R1 | +-------+
+------| | |
| PCC +-------+ |
| R7 | | (Instruct R1 to advertise Prefix 1_A to R7) |
| | |<-PCInitiate,CC-ID=X,Symbolic Path Name=Class A|
| | | PPA Object(Peer IP=R7_A, Prefix=1_A) |
+--------+ | |
| |----PCRpt,CC-ID=X,Symbolic Path Name=Class A-->|
| | PPA Object(Peer IP=R7_A, Prefix=1_A) |
| |
| (Instruct R7 to advertise Prefix 7_A to R1 ) |
|<--PCInitiate,CC-ID=Z,Symbolic Path Name=Class A-----|
| PPA Object(Peer IP=R1_A, Prefix=7_A) |
|----PCRpt,CC-ID=Z,Symbolic Path Name=Class A-------->|
| PPA Object(Peer IP=R1_A, Prefix=7_A) |
| |
Figure 8: Message Information and Procedures
Wang, et al. Expires 6 March 2025 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft PCEP for Native IP September 2024
The AFI/SAFI for the corresponding BGP session SHOULD match the Peer
Prefix Advertisement Object-Type, AFI/SAFI SHOULD be 1/1 for the IPv4
prefix and 2/1 for the IPv6 prefix. In case of mismatch, an error:
Error-type=33 (Native IP TE failure), Error-value=5 (BPI/PPA address
family mismatch) MUST be reported via PCErr message.
When the peer info is not the same as the peer info that is indicated
in the BPI object in PCC for the same path that is identified by
Symbolic Path Name TLV, an error: Error-type=33 (Native IP TE
failure), Error-value=6 (PPA/BPI peer info mismatch) MUST be reported
via the PCErr message. Note that the same error can be used in case
no BPI is received at the PCC.
6.4. Selection of Raw Mode and Tunnel Mode Forwarding Strategy
Normally, when the above procedures are finished, the user traffic
will be forwarded via the appointed path, but the forwarding will be
based solely on the destination of user traffic. If there is traffic
from different attached points to the same destination coming into
the network, they could share the priority path which may not be the
initial desire. For example, as illustrated in Figure 1, the initial
aim is to ensure traffic that enters the network via R1 and exits the
network at R7 via R5-R6-R7. If some traffic enters the network via
the R2 router, passes through R5 and exits at R7, they may share the
priority path among R5-R6-R7, which may not be the desired effect.
The above normal traffic forwarding behavior is clarified as a Raw
mode forwarding strategy. Such a mode can achieve only the moderate
traffic path control effect. To achieve the strict traffic path
control effect, the entry point MUST tunnel the user traffic from the
entry point of the network to the exit point of the network, which is
also between the BGP peer established via Section 6.1. Such
forwarding behavior is called the Tunnel mode forwarding strategy.
For simplicity, the IPinIP tunnel type [RFC2003] is used between the
BGP peers by default.
The selection of Raw mode and Tunnel mode forwarding strategies are
controlled via the "T" bit in BPI Object that is defined in
Section 7.2
6.5. Clean Up
To remove the Native-IP state from the PCC, the PCE MUST send
explicit CCI cleanup instructions for PPA, EPR and BPI objects
respectively with the R flag set in the SRP object. If the PCC
receives a PCInitiate message but does not recognize the Native-IP
information in the CCI, the PCC MUST generate a PCErr message with
Error-Type=19 (Invalid operation) and Error-value=TBD2 (Unknown
Wang, et al. Expires 6 March 2025 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft PCEP for Native IP September 2024
Native-IP Info) and MUST include the SRP object to specify the error
is for the corresponding cleanup (via a PCInitiate message).
6.6. Other Procedures
The handling of the state synchronization, redundant PCEs, re-
delegation and clean up is the same as other CCIs as specified in
[RFC9050].
7. New PCEP Objects
One new CCI Object type and three new PCEP objects are defined in
this document. All new PCEP objects are as per [RFC5440].
7.1. CCI Object
The Central Control Instructions (CCI) Object (defined in [RFC9050])
is used by the PCE to specify the forwarding instructions. This
document defines another object type for Native-IP procedures.
CCI Object-Type is 2 for Native-IP as below:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| CC-ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved | Flags |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| |
// Optional TLVs //
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 9: CCI Object for Native IP
The field CC-ID is as described in [RFC9050]. The following fields
are defined for CCI Object-Type 2
Reserved: 2 bytes, is set to zero while sending and ignored on
receipt.
Flags: 2 bytes, is used to carry any additional information about
the Native-IP CCI. Currently, no flag bits are defined.
Unassigned flags are set to zero while sending and ignored on
receipt.
Wang, et al. Expires 6 March 2025 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft PCEP for Native IP September 2024
Optional TLVs may be included within the CCI object body. The
Symbolic Path Name TLV [RFC8231] MUST be included in the CCI Object-
Type 2 to identify the E2E TE path in the Native IP environment.
7.2. BGP Peer Info Object
The BGP Peer Info object is used to specify the information about the
peer with which the PCC want to establish the BGP session. This
object is included and sent to the source and destination router of
the E2E path in case there is no Route Reflection (RR) involved. If
the RR is used between the source and destination routers, then such
information is sent to the source router, RR and destination router
respectively.
By default, the Local/Peer IP address MUST be a unicast address and
dedicated to the usage of the native IP TE solution, and MUST NOT be
used by other BGP sessions that are established by manual or other
configuration mechanisms.
BGP Peer Info Object-Class is 46
BGP Peer Info Object-Type is 1 for IPv4 and 2 for IPv6
The format of the BGP Peer Info 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Peer AS Number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ETTL | Status | Error Code | Flag |T|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Local IP Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Peer IP Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// Optional TLVs //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 10: BGP Peer Info Object Body Format for IPv4
The format of the BGP Peer Info object body for IPv6 (Object-Type=2)
is as follows:
Wang, et al. Expires 6 March 2025 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft PCEP for Native IP September 2024
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 AS Number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ETTL | Status | Error Code | Flag |T|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| Local IP Address (16 bytes) |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| Peer IP Address (16 bytes) |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// Optional TLVs //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 11: BGP Peer Info Object Body Format for IPv6
Peer AS Number: 4 bytes, to indicate the AS number of Remote Peer.
Note that if 2-byte AS numbers are in use, the low-order bits (16
through 31) is used, and the high-order bits (0 through 15) is set
to zero.
ETTL: 1 byte, EBGP Time To Live, to indicate the multi-hop count
for the EBGP session. It should be 0 and ignored when Local AS
and Peer AS are the same.
Status: 1 byte, Indicate BGP session status between the peers.
Its values are defined below:
- 0: Reserved
- 1: BGP Session Established
- 2: BGP Session Establishment In Progress
- 3: BGP Session Down
- 4-255: Reserved
Error Code: 1 byte, Indicate the reason that the BGP session can't
be established.
- 0: Unspecific
Wang, et al. Expires 6 March 2025 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft PCEP for Native IP September 2024
- 1: ASes do not match, BGP Session Failure
- 2: Peer IP can't be reached, BGP Session Failure
- 3-255: Reserved
Flag: 1 byte.
- Currently, only bit 7 (T bit) is defined. When the T bit is
set, the traffic SHOULD be sent in the IPinIP tunnel (Tunnel
source is Local IP Address, tunnel destination is Peer IP
Address). When the T bit is cleared, the traffic is sent via
its original source and destination address. The Tunnel mode(T
bit is set) is used when the operator wants to ensure only the
traffic from the specified (entry, exit) pair, and the Raw mode
(T bit is clear) is used when the operator wants to ensure
traffic from any entry to the specified destination.
Unassigned flags are set to zero while sending and ignored on
receipt.
Local IP Address(4/16 bytes): Unicast IP address of the local
router, used to peer with another end router. When Object-Type is
1, the length is 4 bytes; when Object-Type is 2, the length is 16
bytes.
Peer IP Address(4/16 bytes): Unicast IP address of the peer
router, used to peer with the local router. When Object-Type is
1, the length is 4 bytes; when Object-Type is 2, the length is 16
bytes;
Optional TLVs: TLVs that are associated with this object, can be
used to convey other necessary information for dynamic BGP session
establishment. No TLVs are currently defined.
When the PCC receives a BPI object, with Object-Type=1, it SHOULD try
to establish a BGP session with the peer in AFI/SAFI=1/1.
When the PCC receives a BPI object with Object-Type=2, it SHOULD try
to establish a BGP session with the peer in AFI/SAFI=2/1.
7.3. 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 Native-IP TE path. This Object ought to be sent to all
the devices on the path that is calculated by the PCE. Although the
object is named as “Explicit Peer Route”, it can be seen that the
routes it installs are simply host routes. The use of this object to
Wang, et al. Expires 6 March 2025 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft PCEP for Native IP September 2024
install host routes for any purpose other than reaching the
corresponding peer address on each device that is on the E2E Native-
IP TE path is outside the scope of this specification.
By default, the path established by this object MUST have higher
priority than the other paths calculated by dynamic IGP protocol, and
MUST have lower priority than the static route configured by manual
or NETCONF or any other static means.
Explicit Peer Route Object-Class is 47.
Explicit Peer Route Object-Type is 1 for IPv4 and 2 for IPv6
The format of the 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 | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Peer IPv4 Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Next Hop IPv4 Address to the Peer |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// Optional TLVs //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 12: Explicit Peer Route Object Body Format for IPv4
The format of the Explicit Peer Route object body for IPv6 (Object-
Type=2) is as follows:
Wang, et al. Expires 6 March 2025 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft PCEP for Native IP September 2024
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 | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| Peer IPv6 Address |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| Next Hop IPv6 Address to the Peer |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// Optional TLVs //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 13: Explicit Peer Route Object Body Format for IPv6
Route Priority: 2 bytes; the priority of this explicit route. The
higher priority SHOULD be preferred by the device. This field is
used to indicate the preferred path at each hop.
Reserved: is set to zero while sending, ignored on receipt.
Peer (IPv4/IPv6) Address: Peer Address for the BGP session (4/16
bytes).
Next Hop (IPv4/IPv6) Address to the Peer: To indicate the next hop
address (4/16 bytes) to the corresponding peer address.
Optional TLVs: TLVs that are associated with this object, can be
used to convey other necessary information for explicit peer path
establishment. No TLVs are currently defined.
7.4. Peer Prefix Advertisement Object
The Peer Prefix Advertisement object is defined to specify the IP
prefixes that are advertised to the corresponding peer. This object
needs only be included and sent to the source/destination router of
the E2E path.
The prefix information included in this object MUST only be
advertised to the indicated peer, and SHOULD NOT be advertised to
other BGP peers.
Peer Prefix Advertisement Object-Class is 48
Wang, et al. Expires 6 March 2025 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft PCEP for Native IP September 2024
Peer Prefix Advertisement Object-Type is 1 for IPv4 and 2 for IPv6
The format of the Peer Prefix Advertisement 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 IPv4 Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| No. of Prefix | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv4 Prefix #1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Prefix #1 Len | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| : |
| : |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv4 Prefix #n |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Prefix #n Len | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// Optional TLVs //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 14: Peer Prefix Advertisement Object Body Format for IPv4
Wang, et al. Expires 6 March 2025 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft PCEP for Native IP September 2024
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 IPv6 Address |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| No. of Prefix | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv6 Prefix #1 |
| |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Prefix #1 Len | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| : |
| : |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv6 Prefix #n |
| |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Prefix #n Len | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// Optional TLVs //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 15: Peer Prefix Advertisement Object Body Format for IPv6
Common Fields:
No. of Prefix: 1 byte. Identifies the number of prefixes that
are advertised to the peer in the PPA object.
Reserved: 3 bytes. Ought to be set to zero while sending and
be ignored on receipt.
Prefix Len: 1 byte. Identifies the length of the prefix.
Optional TLVs: TLVs that are associated with this object, can
be used to convey other necessary information for prefix
advertisement. No TLVs are currently defined.
For IPv4:
Wang, et al. Expires 6 March 2025 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft PCEP for Native IP September 2024
Peer IPv4 Address: 4 bytes. Identifies the peer IPv4 address
that the associated prefixes will be sent to.
IPv4 Prefix: 4 bytes. Identifies the prefix that will be sent
to the peer identified by Peer IPv4 Address.
For IPv6:
Peer IPv6 Address: 16 bytes. Identifies the peer IPv6 address
that the associated prefixes will be sent to.
IPv6 Prefix: Identifies the prefix that will be sent to the
peer identified by Peer IPv6 Address.
If in the future, a requirement is identified to advertise IPv4
prefixes toward an IPv6 peering address, or IPv6 prefixes towards
an IPv4 peering address, then a new Peer Prefix Advertisement
Object-Types can be defined for these purposes.
8. New Error-Types and Error-Values Defined
A PCEP-ERROR object is used to report a PCEP error and is
characterized by an Error-Type that specifies that type of error and
an Error-value that provides additional information about the error.
An additional Error-Type and several Error-values are defined to
represent the errors related to the newly defined objects that are
related to Native IP TE procedures.
Wang, et al. Expires 6 March 2025 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft PCEP for Native IP September 2024
+============+==========+=====================================+
| Error-Type | Meaning | Error-value |
+=======+===============+=====================================+
| 33 | Native IP TE failure |
| | |
+-------+---------------+-------------------------------------+
| | |0:Unassigned |
+-------+---------------+-------------------------------------+
| | |1:Local IP is in use |
+-------+---------------+-------------------------------------+
| | |2:Remote IP is in use |
+-------+---------------+-------------------------------------+
| | |3:Explicit Peer Route Error |
+-------+---------------+-------------------------------------+
| | |4:EPR/BPI Peer Info mismatch |
+-------+---------------+-------------------------------------+
| | |5:BPI/PPA Address Family mismatch |
+-------+---------------+-------------------------------------+
| | |6:PPA/BPI Peer Info mismatch |
+-------+---------------+-------------------------------------+
| 6 | Mandatory Object missing |
| | |
+-------+---------------+-------------------------------------+
| | |19:Native IP object missing |
+-------+---------------+-------------------------------------+
| 10 | Reception of an invalid object |
| | |
+-------+---------------+-------------------------------------+
| | |39:PCECC NATIVE-IP-TE-CAPABILITY bit |
| | |is not set |
+-------+---------------+-------------------------------------+
| 19 | Invalid Operation |
| | |
+-------+---------------+-------------------------------------+
| | |22:Only one BPI, EPR or PPA object |
| | |can be included in this message |
+-------+---------------+-------------------------------------+
| | |TBD1:Attempted Native-IP operations |
| | |when the capability was not |
| | | advertised |
+-------+---------------+-------------------------------------+
| | |TBD2:Unknown Native-IP Info |
+-------+---------------+-------------------------------------+
Figure 16: Newly defined Error-Type and Error-Value
Wang, et al. Expires 6 March 2025 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft PCEP for Native IP September 2024
9. BGP Considerations
This document defines the procedures and objects to create the BGP
sessions and advertise the associated prefixes dynamically. Only the
key information, for example, peer IP addresses, and peer AS numbers
are exchanged via the PCEP protocol. Other parameters that are
needed for the BGP session setup SHOULD be derived from their default
values.
When the PCE sends out the PCInitiate message with the BPI object
embedded to establish the BGP session between the PCC peers, the PCC
SHOULD report the BGP session status. For instance, the PCC could
respond with "BGP Session Establishment In Progress" initially and on
session establishment send another PCRpt message with the state
updated to "BGP Session Established". If there is any error during
the BGP session establishment, the PCC SHOULD indicate the reason
with the appropriate status value set in the BPI object.
Upon receiving such key information, the BGP module on the PCC SHOULD
try to accomplish the task appointed by the PCEP protocol and report
the successful status to the PCEP modules after the session is set
up.
There is no influence on the current implementation of BGP Finite
State Machine (FSM). The PCEP focuses only on the success and
failure status of the BGP session and acts upon such information
accordingly.
The error-handling procedures related to incorrect BGP parameters are
specified in Section 6.1, Section 6.2, and Section 6.3.
10. Deployment Considerations
The information transferred in this document is mainly used for the
BGP session setup, explicit route deployment and the prefix
distribution. The planning, allocation and distribution of the peer
addresses within IGP needs to be accomplished in advance and they are
out of the scope of this document.
The communication of PCE and PCC described in this document MUST
follow the state synchronization procedures described in [RFC8232],
treat the three newly defined objects (BPI, EPR and PPA) associated
with the same symbolic path name as the attribute of the same path in
the LSP-DB (LSP State Database).
Wang, et al. Expires 6 March 2025 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft PCEP for Native IP September 2024
When PCE detects one or some of the PCCs are out of its control, it
MUST recompute and redeploy the traffic engineering path for native
IP on the currently active PCCs. The PCE MUST ensure the avoidance
of the possible transient loop in such node failure when it deploys
the explicit peer route on the PCCs.
In case of a PCE failure, a new PCE can gain control over the central
controller instructions as described in [RFC9050].
As per the PCEP procedures in [RFC8281], the State Timeout Interval
timer is used to ensure that a PCE failure does not result in
automatic and immediate disruption for the services. Similarly, as
per [RFC9050], the central controller instructions are not removed
immediately upon PCE failure. Instead, they could be re-delegated to
the new PCE before the expiration of this timer, or be cleaned up on
the expiration of this timer. This allows for network clean up
without manual intervention. The PCC supports the removal of CCI as
one of the behaviors applied on the expiration of the State Timeout
Interval timer.
11. Manageability Considerations
11.1. Control of Function and Policy
A PCE or PCC implementation SHOULD allow the PCECC Native-IP
capability to be enabled/disabled as part of the global
configuration.
11.2. Information and Data Models
[RFC7420] describes the PCEP MIB; this MIB could be extended to get
the PCECC Native-IP capability status. The PCEP YANG
[I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang] module could be extended to enable/disable
the PCECC Native-IP capability.
11.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring
Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new liveness
detection and monitoring requirements in addition to those already
listed in [RFC5440]. The operator relies on existing IP liveness
detection and monitoring.
11.4. Verify Correct Operations
Verification of the mechanisms defined in this document can be built
on those already listed in [RFC5440], [RFC8231] and [RFC9050].
Further, the operator needs to be able to verify the status of BGP
sessions and prefix advertisements.
Wang, et al. Expires 6 March 2025 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft PCEP for Native IP September 2024
11.5. Requirements on Other Protocols
Mechanisms defined in this document require the interaction with BGP.
Section 9 describes in detail the considerations regarding the BGP.
During the BGP session establishment, the Local/Peer IP address MUST
be dedicated to the usage of the native IP TE solution, and MUST NOT
be used by other BGP sessions that are established manually or in
other ways.
11.6. Impact on Network Operations
[RFC8821] describes the various deployment considerations in CCDR
architecture and their impact on network operations.
12. Security Considerations
In this setup, the BGP sessions, prefix advertisement, and explicit
peer route establishment are all controlled by the PCE. See
[RFC4271] for security consideration of classical BGP implementation,
and [RFC4272] for classical BGP vulnerabilities analysis. Security
considerations in [RFC5440]for basic PCEP protocol, [RFC8231] for
PCEP extension for stateful PCE and [RFC8281] for PCE-Initiated LSP
setup SHOULD be considered. To prevent a bogus PCE from sending
harmful messages to the network nodes, the network devices SHOULD
authenticate the PCE and ensure a secure communication channel
between them. Thus, the mechanisms described in [RFC8253] for the
usage of TLS for PCEP and [RFC9050] for protection against malicious
PCEs SHOULD be used.
If suitable default values as discussed in Section 9 aren't enough
and securing the BGP transport is required(for example, the TCP-AO
[RFC5925], it can be provided through the addition of optional TLVs
to the BGP Peer Info object that conveys the necessary additional
information (for example, a key chain [RFC8177]name).
13. IANA Considerations
13.1. Path Setup Type Registry
[RFC8408] created a sub-registry within the "Path Computation Element
Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry called "PCEP Path Setup Types".
IANA is requested to allocate a new code point within this sub-
registry, as follows:
Value Description Reference
4 Native IP TE Path This document
Wang, et al. Expires 6 March 2025 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft PCEP for Native IP September 2024
13.2. PCECC-CAPABILITY sub-TLV's Flag field
Editorial Note (To be removed by RFC Editor): This experimental track
document is allocating a code point in the registry under the
standards action registry which is not allowed.
[I-D.ietf-pce-iana-update] updates the registration policy to IETF
review allowing for this allocation. Note that an early allocation
was made when the document was being progressed in the standards
track. At the time of publication, please remove this note and the
reference to [I-D.ietf-pce-iana-update].
[RFC9050] created a sub-registry within the "Path Computation Element
Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry to manage the value of the PCECC-
CAPABILITY sub-TLV's 32-bit Flag field. IANA is requested to
allocate a new bit position within this registry, as follows:
Bit Name Reference
30 NATIVE IP This document
13.3. PCEP Object
IANA is requested to allocate new codepoints in the "PCEP Objects"
sub-registry as follows:
Object-Class Value Name Reference
44 CCI Object This document
Object-Type
2: Native IP
46 BGP Peer Info This document
Object-Type
1: IPv4 address
2: IPv6 address
47 Explicit Peer Route This document
Object-Type
1: IPv4 address
2: IPv6 address
48 Peer Prefix Advertisement This document
Object-Type
1: IPv4 address
2: IPv6 address
Wang, et al. Expires 6 March 2025 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft PCEP for Native IP September 2024
13.4. PCEP-Error Object
IANA is requested to allocate new error types and error values within
the "PCEP-ERROR Object Error Types and Values" sub-registry of the
PCEP Numbers registry for the following errors:
Error-Type Meaning Error-value
6 Mandatory Object missing
19:Native IP object missing
10 Reception of an invalid object
39:PCECC NATIVE-IP-TE-CAPABILITY bit
is not set
19 Invalid Operation
22:Only one BPI, EPR or PPA object can
be included in this message
TBD1:Attempted Native-IP operations
when the capability was not advertised
TBD2:Unknown Native-IP Info
33 Native IP TE failure
1:Local IP is in use
2:Remote IP is in use
3:Explicit Peer Route Error
4:EPR/BPI Peer Info mismatch
5:BPI/PPA Address Family mismatch
6:PPA/BPI Peer Info mismatch
The reference for the new Error-type/value should be set to this
document.
13.5. CCI Object Flag Field
IANA is requested to create a new sub-registry to manage the 16-bits
Flag field of the new CCI Object called "CCI Object Flag Field for
Native-IP". New values are to be assigned by IETF review [RFC8126].
Each bit should be tracked with the following qualities:
bit number (counting from bit 0 as the most significant bit, and
bit 15 as the lest significant bit)
capability description
defining RFC
Currently, no flags are assigned.
Wang, et al. Expires 6 March 2025 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft PCEP for Native IP September 2024
13.6. BPI Object Status Code
IANA is requested to create a new sub-registry "BPI Object Status
Code Field" within the "Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP)
Numbers". New values are assigned by IETF review [RFC8126]. Each
value should be tracked with the following qualities: value, meaning,
and defining RFC. The following values are defined in this document:
Value Meaning Reference
0 Reserved This document
1 BGP Session Established This document
2 BGP Session Establishment In Progress This document
3 BGP Session Down This document
4-255 Unassigned This document
13.7. BPI Object Error Code
IANA is requested to create a new sub-registry "BPI Object Error Code
Field" within the "Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers".
New values are assigned by IETF review [RFC8126]. Each value should
be tracked with the following qualities: value, meaning, and defining
RFC. The following values are defined in this document:
Value Meaning Reference
0 Reserved This document
1 ASes does not match, BGP Session Failure This document
2 Peer IP can't be reached, BGP Session Failure This document
3-255 Unassigned This document
13.8. BPI Object Flag Field
IANA is requested to create a new sub-registry "BPI Object Flag
Field" within the "Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers".
New values are to be assigned by IETF review [RFC8126]. Each bit
should be tracked with the following qualities:
bit number (counting from bit 0 as the most significant bit)
capability description
defining RFC
The following values are defined in this document:
Bit Meaning Reference
0-6 Unassigned
7 T (IPnIP) bit This document
Wang, et al. Expires 6 March 2025 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft PCEP for Native IP September 2024
14. Contributor
Dhruv Dhody has contributed to this document.
15. Acknowledgement
Thanks Mike Koldychev, Susan Hares, Siva Sivabalan and Adam Simpson
for their valuable suggestions and comments.
16. References
16.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-pce-iana-update]
Dhody, D. and A. Farrel, "Update to the IANA PCEP
Registration Procedures and Allowing Experimental Error
Codes", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-pce-
iana-update-01, 27 August 2024,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-pce-
iana-update-01>.
[RFC2003] Perkins, C., "IP Encapsulation within IP", RFC 2003,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2003, October 1996,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2003>.
[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>.
[RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A
Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4271>.
[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>.
[RFC5511] Farrel, A., "Routing Backus-Naur Form (RBNF): A Syntax
Used to Form Encoding Rules in Various Routing Protocol
Specifications", RFC 5511, DOI 10.17487/RFC5511, April
2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5511>.
[RFC5925] Touch, J., Mankin, A., and R. Bonica, "The TCP
Authentication Option", RFC 5925, DOI 10.17487/RFC5925,
June 2010, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5925>.
Wang, et al. Expires 6 March 2025 [Page 34]
Internet-Draft PCEP for Native IP September 2024
[RFC7420] Koushik, A., Stephan, E., Zhao, Q., King, D., and J.
Hardwick, "Path Computation Element Communication Protocol
(PCEP) Management Information Base (MIB) Module",
RFC 7420, DOI 10.17487/RFC7420, December 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7420>.
[RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
[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>.
[RFC8232] Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Medved, J., Varga, R., Zhang, X.,
and D. Dhody, "Optimizations of Label Switched Path State
Synchronization Procedures for a Stateful PCE", RFC 8232,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8232, September 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8232>.
[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>.
[RFC8408] Sivabalan, S., Tantsura, J., Minei, I., Varga, R., and J.
Hardwick, "Conveying Path Setup Type in PCE Communication
Protocol (PCEP) Messages", RFC 8408, DOI 10.17487/RFC8408,
July 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8408>.
Wang, et al. Expires 6 March 2025 [Page 35]
Internet-Draft PCEP for Native IP September 2024
[RFC9050] Li, Z., Peng, S., Negi, M., Zhao, Q., and C. Zhou, "Path
Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)
Procedures and Extensions for Using the PCE as a Central
Controller (PCECC) of LSPs", RFC 9050,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9050, July 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9050>.
16.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang]
Dhody, D., Beeram, V. P., Hardwick, J., and J. Tantsura,
"A YANG Data Model for Path Computation Element
Communications Protocol (PCEP)", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-pce-pcep-yang-25, 21 May 2024,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-pce-
pcep-yang-25>.
[RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.,
and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
Tunnels", RFC 3209, DOI 10.17487/RFC3209, December 2001,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3209>.
[RFC4272] Murphy, S., "BGP Security Vulnerabilities Analysis",
RFC 4272, DOI 10.17487/RFC4272, January 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4272>.
[RFC5036] Andersson, L., Ed., Minei, I., Ed., and B. Thomas, Ed.,
"LDP Specification", RFC 5036, DOI 10.17487/RFC5036,
October 2007, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5036>.
[RFC7942] Sheffer, Y. and A. Farrel, "Improving Awareness of Running
Code: The Implementation Status Section", BCP 205,
RFC 7942, DOI 10.17487/RFC7942, July 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7942>.
[RFC8177] Lindem, A., Ed., Qu, Y., Yeung, D., Chen, I., and J.
Zhang, "YANG Data Model for Key Chains", RFC 8177,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8177, June 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8177>.
[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>.
Wang, et al. Expires 6 March 2025 [Page 36]
Internet-Draft PCEP for Native IP September 2024
[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>.
[RFC8821] Wang, A., Khasanov, B., Zhao, Q., and H. Chen, "PCE-Based
Traffic Engineering (TE) in Native IP Networks", RFC 8821,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8821, April 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8821>.
Authors' Addresses
Aijun Wang
China Telecom
Beiqijia Town, Changping District
Beijing
Beijing, 102209
China
Email: wangaijun@tsinghua.org.cn
Boris Khasanov
MTS Web Services (MWS)
Andropova av.,18/9 115432
Moscow
Email: bhassanov@yahoo.com
Sheng Fang
Huawei Technologies
Huawei Bld., No.156 Beiqing Rd.
Beijing
China
Email: fsheng@huawei.com
Ren Tan
Huawei Technologies
Huawei Bld., No.156 Beiqing Rd.
Beijing
China
Email: tanren@huawei.com
Wang, et al. Expires 6 March 2025 [Page 37]
Internet-Draft PCEP for Native IP September 2024
Chun Zhu
ZTE Corporation
50 Software Avenue, Yuhua District
Nanjing
Jiangsu, 210012
China
Email: zhu.chun1@zte.com.cn
Wang, et al. Expires 6 March 2025 [Page 38]