PCE Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for Using PCE as a Central Controller (PCECC) for Segment Routing (SR) MPLS Segment Identifier (SID) Allocation and Distribution.
draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-sr-07
| Document | Type | Active Internet-Draft (pce WG) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Zhenbin Li , Shuping Peng , Mahendra Singh Negi , Quintin Zhao , Chao Zhou | ||
| Last updated | 2023-07-09 | ||
| Replaces | draft-zhao-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-sr | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Additional resources | Mailing list discussion | ||
| 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-pce-controller-sr-07
PCE Working Group Z. Li
Internet-Draft S. Peng
Intended status: Standards Track Huawei Technologies
Expires: 9 January 2024 M. Negi
RtBrick Inc
Q. Zhao
Etheric Networks
C. Zhou
HPE
8 July 2023
PCE Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for Using PCE as a Central
Controller (PCECC) for Segment Routing (SR) MPLS Segment Identifier
(SID) Allocation and Distribution.
draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-sr-07
Abstract
The PCE is a core component of Software-Defined Networking (SDN)
systems.
A PCE-based Central Controller (PCECC) can simplify the processing of
a distributed control plane by blending it with elements of SDN and
without necessarily completely replacing it. Thus, the Label
Switched Path (LSP) can be calculated/set up/initiated and the label
forwarding entries can also be downloaded through a centralized PCE
server to each network device along the path while leveraging the
existing PCE technologies as much as possible.
This document specifies the procedures and PCE Communication Protocol
(PCEP) extensions when a PCE-based controller is also responsible for
configuring the forwarding actions on the routers, in addition to
computing the paths for packet flows in a segment routing (SR)
network and telling the edge routers what instructions to attach to
packets as they enter the network. PCECC as defined in RFC 9050 is
further enhanced for SR-MPLS SID (Segment Identifier) allocation and
distribution.
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/.
Li, et al. Expires 9 January 2024 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft PCECC-SR July 2023
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 9 January 2024.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2023 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. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. PCECC SR-MPLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. PCEP Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Procedures for Using the PCE as a Central Controller (PCECC) in
Segment Routing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.1. Stateful PCE Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.2. New LSP Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.3. PCECC Capability Advertisement . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.4. PCEP session IP address and TED Router ID . . . . . . . . 8
5.5. LSP Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.5.1. PCECC Segment Routing (SR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. PCEP Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6.1. Central Control Instructions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6.1.1. The PCInitiate Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6.1.2. The PCRpt message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
7. PCEP Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
7.1. OPEN Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
7.1.1. PCECC Capability sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
7.1.2. Router-ID TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
7.2. SR-TE Path Setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
7.3. CCI Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
7.4. FEC Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
8. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Li, et al. Expires 9 January 2024 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft PCECC-SR July 2023
8.1. Huawei's Proof of Concept based on ONOS . . . . . . . . . 22
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
10. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
10.1. Control of Function and Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
10.2. Information and Data Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
10.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . 23
10.4. Verify Correct Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
10.5. Requirements On Other Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
10.6. Impact On Network Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
11. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
11.1. PCECC-CAPABILITY sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
11.2. PCEP Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
11.3. PCEP-Error Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
11.4. CCI Object Flag Field for SR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
11.5. PCEP TLV Type Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
12. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
13. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
14. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Appendix A. Contributor Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
1. Introduction
The PCE [RFC4655] was developed to offload the path computation
function from routers in an MPLS traffic-engineered network. It can
compute optimal paths for traffic across a network and can also
update the paths to reflect changes in the network or traffic
demands. Since then, the role and function of the PCE has grown to
cover a number of other uses (such as GMPLS [RFC7025]) and to allow
delegated control [RFC8231] and PCE-initiated use of network
resources [RFC8281].
According to [RFC7399], Software-Defined Networking (SDN) refers to a
separation between the control elements and the forwarding components
so that software running in a centralized system, called a
controller, can act to program the devices in the network to behave
in specific ways. A required element in an SDN architecture is a
component that plans how the network resources will be used and how
the devices will be programmed. It is possible to view this
component as performing specific computations to place traffic flows
within the network given knowledge of the availability of network
resources, how other forwarding devices are programmed, and the way
that other flows are routed. This is the function and purpose of a
PCE, and the way that a PCE integrates into a wider network control
system (including an SDN system) is presented in [RFC7491].
Li, et al. Expires 9 January 2024 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft PCECC-SR July 2023
In early PCE implementations, where the PCE was used to derive paths
for MPLS Label Switched Paths (LSPs), paths were requested by network
elements (known as Path Computation Clients (PCCs)), and the results
of the path computations were supplied to network elements using the
PCE Communication Protocol (PCEP) [RFC5440]. This protocol was later
extended to allow a PCE to send unsolicited requests to the network
for LSP establishment [RFC8281].
PCE was developed to derive paths for MPLS Label Switched Paths
(LSPs), which are supplied to the head end of the LSP using PCEP.
But SDN has a broader applicability than signaled (G)MPLS traffic-
engineered (TE) networks, and the PCE may be used to determine paths
in a range of use cases. PCEP has been proposed as a control
protocol for use in these environments to allow the PCE to be fully
enabled as a central controller.
[RFC8283] introduces the architecture for PCE as a central controller
as an extension of the architecture described in [RFC4655] and
assumes the continued use of PCEP as the protocol used between PCE
and PCC. [RFC8283] further examines the motivations and
applicability for PCEP as a Southbound Interface (SBI), and
introduces the implications for the protocol.
[I-D.ietf-teas-pcecc-use-cases] describes the use cases for the PCE-
based Central Controller (PCECC) architecture. As described in
[RFC8283], PCECC simplifies the processing of a distributed IGP based
control plane by blending it with elements of SDN, without replacing
it.
[RFC9050] specify the procedures and PCEP extensions for using the
PCE as the central controller for static LSPs, where LSPs can be
provisioned as explicit label instructions at each hop on the end-to-
end path.
Segment Routing (SR) technology leverages the source routing and
tunneling paradigms. A source node can choose a path without relying
on hop-by-hop signaling protocols such as LDP or RSVP-TE. Each path
is specified as a set of "segments" advertised by link-state routing
protocols (IS-IS or OSPF). [RFC8402] provides an introduction to SR
architecture. The corresponding IS-IS and OSPF extensions are
specified in [RFC8667] and [RFC8665] , respectively. It relies on a
series of forwarding instructions being placed in the header of a
packet. The segment routing architecture supports operations that
can be used to steer packet flows in a network, thus providing a form
of traffic engineering. [RFC8664] specify the SR specific PCEP
extensions.
Li, et al. Expires 9 January 2024 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft PCECC-SR July 2023
Segment Routing Policy for Traffic Engineering [RFC9256] details the
concepts of SR Policy and approaches to steering traffic into an SR
Policy. An SR Policy contains one or more SR Policy Candidate Paths
where one or more such paths can be computed via PCE.
[I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp] specifies PCEP extensions to
signal additional information to map candidate paths to their SR
policies.
PCECC may further use PCEP for SR SID (Segment Identifier) allocation
and distribution to all the SR nodes with some benefits. The SR
nodes continue to rely on IGP for distributed computation (nexthop
selection, protection etc) where PCE (and PCEP) does only the
allocation and distribution of SIDs in the network. Note that the
topology at PCE is still learned via existing mechanisms.
This document specifies the procedures and PCEP extensions when a
PCE-based controller is also responsible for configuring the
forwarding actions on the routers (i.e. the SR SID allocation and
distribution in this case), in addition to computing the SR paths for
packet flows in a segment routing network and telling the edge
routers what instructions to attach to packets as they enter the
network as described in [RFC8283].
Only SR using MPLS dataplane (SR-MPLS) is in the scope of this
document. Refer [I-D.dhody-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-srv6]
for use of PCECC technique for SR in IPv6 (SRv6) dataplane.
2. Terminology
Terminologies used in this document is the same as described in the
[RFC8283].
2.1. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
3. PCECC SR-MPLS
[RFC8664] specifies extensions to PCEP that allow a stateful PCE to
compute, update, or initiate SR-TE paths. An ingress node of an SR-
TE path appends all outgoing packets with a list of MPLS labels
(SIDs). This is encoded in SR-ERO subobject, capable of carrying a
label (SID) as well as the identity of the node/adjacency.
Li, et al. Expires 9 January 2024 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft PCECC-SR July 2023
The notion of segment and SID is defined in [RFC8402], which fits the
MPLS architecture [RFC3031] as the label which is managed by a local
allocation process of LSR (similarly to other MPLS signaling
protocols) [RFC8660]. The SR information such as node/adjacency
label (SID) is flooded via IGP as specified in [RFC8667] and
[RFC8665].
[RFC8283] examines the motivations and applicability for PCECC and
use of PCEP as an SBI. Section 3.1.5. of [RFC8283] highlights the
use of PCECC for configuring the forwarding actions on the routers
and assume responsibility for managing the label space. It
simplifies the processing of a distributed control plane by blending
it with elements of SDN and without necessarily completely replacing
it. This allows the operator to introduce the advantages of SDN
(such as programmability) into the network. Further Section 3.2. of
[I-D.ietf-teas-pcecc-use-cases] describes some of the scenarios where
the PCECC technique could be useful. Section 4 of [RFC8283] also
describe the implications on the protocol when used as an SDN SBI.
The operator needs to evaluate the advantages offered by PCECC
against the operational and scalability needs of the PCECC.
Thus, PCE as a central controller can allocate and provision the
node/prefix/adjacency label (SID) via PCEP. The rest of the
processing is similar to existing stateful PCE with SR mechanism.
For the purpose of this document, it is assumed that the label/SID
range to be used by a PCE is set on both PCEP peers. The PCC MUST
NOT make allocations from the label space set aside for the PCE to
avoid overlap and collisions of label allocations. Further, a global
label/SID range is assumed to be set on all PCEP peers in the SR
domain. A future extension could add the capability to advertise
this range via a possible PCEP extension as well (see
[I-D.li-pce-controlled-id-space]). This document also allows a case
where the label/SID space is maintained by PCC and the labels/SID are
allocated by it. In this case, the PCE should request the allocation
from PCC as described in Section 5.5.1.6.
4. PCEP Requirements
Following key requirements for PCECC-SR should be considered when`
designing the PCECC-based solution:
* A PCEP speaker supporting this document needs to have the
capability to advertise its PCECC-SR capability to its peers.
* PCEP procedures need to allow for PCC-based label/SID allocations.
Li, et al. Expires 9 January 2024 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft PCECC-SR July 2023
* PCEP procedures need to provide a means to update (or clean up)
label-mapping entries downloaded to the PCC.
* PCEP procedures need to provide a means to synchronize the SR
label/SID allocations between the PCE to the PCC via PCEP
messages.
5. Procedures for Using the PCE as a Central Controller (PCECC) in
Segment Routing
5.1. Stateful PCE Model
Active stateful PCE is described in [RFC8231]. PCE as a Central
Controller (PCECC) reuses the existing active stateful PCE mechanism
as much as possible to control the LSPs.
5.2. New LSP Functions
Several new functions are required in PCEP to support PCECC as
described in [RFC9050]. This document reuses the existing messages
to support PCECC-SR.
The PCEP messages PCRpt, PCInitiate, PCUpd are used to send LSP
Reports, LSP setup, and LSP update respectively. The extended
PCInitiate message described in [RFC9050] is used to download or
clean up central controller's instructions (CCIs) (SR SID in the
scope of this document). The extended PCRpt message described in
[RFC9050] is also used to report the CCIs (SR SIDs) from PCC to PCE.
[RFC9050] specify an object called CCI for the encoding of the
central controller's instructions for Label. This document extends
the CCI by defining a new object-type for SR-MPLS. The PCEP messages
are extended in this document to handle the PCECC operations for SR.
5.3. PCECC Capability Advertisement
During PCEP Initialization Phase, PCEP Speakers (PCE or PCC)
advertise their support of PCECC extensions. A PCEP Speaker includes
the "PCECC Capability" sub-TLV, described in [RFC9050].
A new S-bit is added in the PCECC-CAPABILITY sub-TLV to indicate
support for PCECC-SR for SR-MPLS. A PCC MUST set the S-bit in the
PCECC-CAPABILITY sub-TLV and include the SR-PCE-CAPABILITY sub-TLV
([RFC8664]) in the OPEN Object (inside the PATH-SETUP-TYPE-CAPABILITY
TLV) to support the PCECC SR-MPLS extensions defined in this
document. If the S-bit is set in the PCECC-CAPABILITY sub-TLV and
the SR-PCE-CAPABILITY sub-TLV is not advertised in the OPEN Object,
Li, et al. Expires 9 January 2024 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft PCECC-SR July 2023
PCE SHOULD send a PCErr message with Error-Type=19 (Invalid
Operation) and Error-value=TBD4 (SR capability was not advertised)
and terminate the session.
The rest of the processing is as per [RFC9050].
5.4. PCEP session IP address and TED Router ID
A PCE may construct its Traffic Engineering Database (TED) by
participating in the IGP ([RFC3630] and [RFC5305] for MPLS-TE;
[RFC4203] and [RFC5307] for GMPLS). An alternative is offered by
BGP-LS [RFC7752] or [I-D.dhodylee-pce-pcep-ls].
A PCEP [RFC5440] speaker could use any local IP address while
creating a TCP session. It is important to link the session IP
address with the Router ID in TED for successful PCECC operations.
During PCEP Initialization Phase, the PCC SHOULD advertise the TE
mapping information by including the "Router-ID TLVs" Section 7.1.2
with the IPv4/IPv6 Router-ID of Local Node, in the OPEN Object for
this purpose. [RFC7752] describes the usage as auxiliary Router-IDs
that the IGP might be using, e.g., for TE purposes. If there are
more than one auxiliary Router-ID of a given type, then multiple TLVs
can be used to encode them.
If Router-ID TLVs are not present, the TCP session IP address is
directly used for the mapping purpose.
5.5. LSP Operations
[RFC8664] specify the PCEP extension to allow a stateful PCE to
compute and initiate SR-TE paths, as well as a PCC to request a path
subject to certain constraint(s) and optimization criteria in SR
networks.
The Path Setup Type for segment routing (PST=1) is used on the PCEP
session with the Ingress as per [RFC8664].
5.5.1. PCECC Segment Routing (SR)
Segment Routing (SR) as described in [RFC8402] depends on "segments"
that are advertised by Interior Gateway Protocols (IGPs). The SR-
node allocates and advertises the SID (node, adj, etc) and flood them
via the IGP. This document proposes a new mechanism where PCE
allocates the SID (label/index/SID) centrally and uses PCEP to
distribute them to all nodes. In some deployments, PCE (and PCEP)
are better suited than IGP because of the centralized nature of PCE
and direct TCP based PCEP sessions to all the nodes. Note that only
Li, et al. Expires 9 January 2024 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft PCECC-SR July 2023
the SID allocation and distribution is done by the PCEP, all other SR
operations (nexthop selection, protection, etc) are still done by the
node (and the IGPs).
5.5.1.1. PCECC SR Node/Prefix SID Allocation
Each node (PCC) is allocated a node-SID by the PCECC. The PCECC
sends PCInitiate message to update the label mapping of each node to
all the nodes in the domain. The TE router ID is determined from the
TED or from the Router-ID TLVs Section 7.1.2, in the OPEN Object
Section 5.4. The LSP object is included in the central controller
instructions to continue using the flag field of the LSP object as
per [RFC8231] and [RFC8281]. The PLSP-ID is set to the reserved
value 0. As per [RFC8281], the LSP object also includes the SPEAKER-
ENTITY-ID TLV to identify the PCE that initiated these instructions.
It is RECOMMENDED that PCEP session with PCECC-SR capability to use a
different session IP address during TCP session establishment than
the node Router ID in TEDB, to make sure that the PCEP session does
not get impacted by the SR Node/Prefix Label mappings (Section 5.4).
Otherwise the PCEP session itself might get impacted when the label
mapping is downloaded for the node.
If a node (PCC) receives a PCInitiate message with a CCI object-
type=TBD6 encoding a SID, out of the range set aside for the SR
Global Block (SRGB), it MUST send a PCErr message with Error-type=31
(PCECC failure) and Error-value=1 (Label out of range) (defined in
[RFC9050]) and MUST include the SRP object to specify the error is
for the corresponding central control instruction via the PCInitiate
message.
On receiving the label mapping, each node (PCC) uses the local
routing information via IGP to determine the next-hop and download
the label forwarding instructions accordingly as shown in Figure 1.
The PCInitiate message in this case uses a new FEC object defined in
Section 7.4.
Li, et al. Expires 9 January 2024 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft PCECC-SR July 2023
+---------+ +-------+
|PCC | | PCE |
|192.0.2.3| +-------+
+------| | |
| PCC +---------+ |
| 192.0.2.2| | |
+------| | | |
|PCC +----------+ | |
|192.0.2.1| | | |
+---------+ | | |
| | | |
|<--------PCInitiate,FEC=192.0.2.1------------------| Label mapping
| | | CC-ID=X,SID | update
|--------PCRpt,CC-ID=X----------------------------->| CCI
|Find | | |
|Nexthop|<--------PCInitiate,FEC=192.0.2.1----------| Label mapping
|locally| | CC-ID=Y,SID | update
| |-------PCRpt,CC-ID=Y---------------------->| CCI
| | | |
| | |<----PCInitiate,FEC=192.0.2.1------| Label mapping
| | | CC-ID=Z,SID | update
| | |-----PCRpt,CC-ID=Z---------------->| CCI
| | | |
Figure 1: PCECC SR Node/Prefix SID allocation
The forwarding behavior and the end result is similar to IGP based
"Node-SID" in SR. Thus, from anywhere in the domain, it enforces the
ECMP-aware shortest-path forwarding of the packet towards the related
node as per [RFC8402].
PCE relies on the Node/Prefix Label clean up using the same
PCInitiate message as per [RFC8281].
The above example Figure 1 depicts the FEC and PCEP speakers that
uses IPv4 address. Similarly an IPv6 address (such as 2001:db8::1)
can be used during PCEP session establishment in the FEC object as
described in this specification.
In the case where the label/SID allocation is made by the PCC itself
(see Section 5.5.1.6), the PCE could request an allocation to be made
by the PCC, and where the PCC would send a PCRpt with the allocated
label/SID encoded in the CC-ID object as shown in Figure 2.
Li, et al. Expires 9 January 2024 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft PCECC-SR July 2023
+---------+ +-------+
|PCC | | PCE |
|192.0.2.3| +-------+
+------| | |
| PCC +---------+ |
| 192.0.2.2| | |
+------| | | |
|PCC +----------+ | |
|192.0.2.1| | | |
+---------+ | | |
| | | |
|<--------PCInitiate,FEC=192.0.2.1------------------| Label mapping
| | | CC-ID=X,C=1 | request
|--------PCRpt,CC-ID=X,SID------------------------->| CCI
|Find | | |
|Nexthop|<--------PCInitiate,FEC=192.0.2.1----------| Label mapping
|locally| | CC-ID=Y,C=0,SID | update
| |-------PCRpt,CC-ID=Y---------------------->| CCI
| | | |
| | |<----PCInitiate,FEC=192.0.2.1------| Label mapping
| | | CC-ID=Z,C=0,SID | update
| | |-----PCRpt,CC-ID=Z---------------->| CCI
| | | |
Figure 2: PCECC SR Node/Prefix SID (PCC allocation)
It should be noted that in this example (Figure 2), the request is
made to the node 192.0.2.1 with C bit set in the CCI object to
indicate that the allocation needs to be done by this PCC and it
responds with the allocated label/SID to the PCE. The PCE would
further inform the other nodes (PCCs) in the network about the label
mapping allocation without setting the C bit as before.
All other distributed operations such as nexthop change, protection,
etc is handled by the local node as before.
5.5.1.2. PCECC SR Adjacency Label/SID Allocation
For PCECC-SR, apart from node-SID, Adj-SID is used where each
adjacency is allocated an Adj-SID by the PCECC. The PCECC sends the
PCInitiate message to update the label mapping of each adjacency to
all the nodes in the domain as shown in Figure 3. Each node (PCC)
download the label forwarding instructions accordingly. Similar to
SR Node/Prefix Label allocation, the PCInitiate message in this case
does not use the LSP object but uses the new FEC object defined in
this document.
Li, et al. Expires 9 January 2024 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft PCECC-SR July 2023
+---------+ +-------+
|PCC | | PCE |
|192.0.2.3| +-------+
+------| | |
| PCC +---------+ |
| 192.0.2.2| | |
+------| | | |
|PCC +----------+ | |
|192.0.2.1| | | |
+---------+ | | |
| | | |
|<-------PCInitiate,FEC=198.51.100.1--------------| Label mapping
| | | 198.51.100.2 | update
| | | CC-ID=A,SID | CCI
|--------PCRpt,CC-ID=A--------------------------->|
| | | |
| |<------PCInitiate,FEC=198.51.100.1------| Label mapping
| | | 198.51.100.2 | update
| | | CC-ID=B,SID | CCI
| |-------PCRpt,CC-ID=B------------------->|
| | | |
| | | |
| | |<---PCInitiate,FEC=198.51.100.1--| Label mapping
| | | 198.51.100.2 | update
| | | CC-ID=C,SID | CCI
| | |-------PCRpt,CC-ID=C------------>|
Figure 3: PCECC SR Adjacency Label allocation
The forwarding behavior and the end result is similar to IGP based
"Adj-SID" in SR. The Adj-SID is distributed to all nodes to enable
SR-TE and TI-LFA.
PCE relies on the Adj SID/label clean up using the same PCInitiate
message as per [RFC8281].
The above example (Figure 3) depicts FEC object and PCEP speakers
that uses an IPv4 address. Similarly an IPv6 address (such as
2001:db8::1, 2001:db8::2) can be used during the PCEP session
establishment in the FEC object as described in this specification.
The handling of adjacencies on the LAN subnetworks is specified in
[RFC8402]. PCECC MUST assign Adj-SID for every pair of routers in
the LAN. The rest of the protocol mechanism remains the same.
Li, et al. Expires 9 January 2024 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft PCECC-SR July 2023
In the case where the label/SID mapping allocation is made by the PCC
itself (see Section 5.5.1.6), the PCE could request an allocation to
be made by the PCC, and where the PCC would send a PCRpt with the
allocated label/SID encoded in the CC-ID object as shown in Figure 4.
+---------+ +-------+
|PCC | | PCE |
|192.0.2.3| +-------+
+------| | |
| PCC +---------+ |
| 192.0.2.2| | |
+------| | | |
|PCC +----------+ | |
|192.0.2.1| | | |
+---------+ | | |
| | | |
|<-------PCInitiate,FEC=198.51.100.1--------------| Label mapping
| | | 198.51.100.2 | request
| | | CC-ID=A,C=1 | CCI
|--------PCRpt,CC-ID=A,SID----------------------->|
| | | |
| |<------PCInitiate,FEC=198.51.100.1------| Label mapping
| | | 198.51.100.2 | update
| | | CC-ID=B,SID,C=0 | CCI
| |-------PCRpt,CC-ID=B------------------->|
| | | |
| | |<---PCInitiate,FEC=198.51.100.1--| Label mapping
| | | 198.51.100.2 | update
| | | CC-ID=C,SID,C=0 | CCI
| | |-------PCRpt,CC-ID=C------------>|
Figure 4: PCECC SR Adjacency Label/SID (PCC allocation)
In this example (Figure 4), the request is made to the node 192.0.2.1
with the C bit set in the CCI object to indicate that the allocation
needs to be done by this PCC for the adjacency (198.51.100.1 -
198.51.100.2) and it responds with the allocated label/SID to the
PCE. The PCE further distribute this to other nodes without setting
the C bit as before.
Li, et al. Expires 9 January 2024 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft PCECC-SR July 2023
5.5.1.3. Redundant PCEs
[I-D.ietf-pce-state-sync] describes the synchronization mechanism
between the stateful PCEs. As per [RFC9050], the SR SIDs allocated
by a PCE must also be synchronized among PCEs for PCECC SR state
synchronization. Note that the SR SIDs are independent of the SR-TE
LSPs, and remains intact till any topology change. The redundant
PCEs need to maintain a common view of all SR SIDs allocated in
the |domain.
5.5.1.4. Re-Delegation and Clean up
As described in [RFC8281], a new PCE can gain control over an
orphaned LSP. In the case of a PCECC, the new PCE MUST also gain
control over the central controller instructions in the same way by
sending a PCInitiate message that includes the SRP, LSP, CCI, and FEC
objects and carries the CC-ID and SPEAKER-ENTITY-ID TLV (original
PCE) identifying the instruction that it wants to take control of.
Further, as described in [RFC8281], the State Timeout Interval timer
ensures that a PCE crash does not result in automatic and immediate
disruption for the services using PCE-initiated LSPs. Similarly, as
per [RFC9050], the central controller instructions are not removed
immediately upon PCE failure. Instead, they could be cleaned up on
the expiration of this timer. The allows for network clean up
without manual intervention. The PCC MUST support the removal of CCI
as one of the behaviors applied on expiration of the State Timeout
Interval timer. Note that the usual policy would be for the CCI
Object-Type=TBD6 remains intact until explicitly removed by a PCE or
via manual intervention.
5.5.1.5. Synchronization of Label Allocations
[RFC9050] describes the synchronization of Central Controller's
Instructions (CCI) via LSP state synchronization as described in
[RFC8231] and [RFC8232]. Same procedures are applied for the CCI for
SR SID as well.
5.5.1.6. PCC-Based Allocations
The PCE can request the PCC to allocate the label/SID using the
PCInitiate message. The C flag in the CCI object is set to 1 to
indicate that the allocation needs to be done by the PCC. The PCC
would allocate the SID/Label/Index and would report to the PCE using
the PCRpt message.
Li, et al. Expires 9 January 2024 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft PCECC-SR July 2023
If the value of the SID/Label/Index is 0 and the C flag is set to 1,
it indicates that the PCE is requesting the allocation to be done by
the PCC. If the SID/Label/Index is 'n' and the C flag is set to 1 in
the CCI object, it indicates that the PCE requests a specific value
'n' for the SID/Label/Index. If the allocation is successful, the
PCC should report via PCRpt message with the CCI object. Else, it
MUST send a PCErr message with Error-Type=31 ("PCECC failure") and
Error Value=3 ("Invalid CCI") (defined in [RFC9050]). If the value
of the SID/Label/Index in the CCI object is valid, but the PCC is
unable to allocate it, it MUST send a PCErr message with Error-
Type=31 ("PCECC failure") and Error Value=4 ("Unable to allocate the
specified CCI") (defined in [RFC9050]).
If the PCC wishes to withdraw or modify the previously assigned
label/SID, it MUST send a PCRpt message without any SID/Label/Index
or with the SID/Label/Index containing the new value respectively in
the CCI object. The PCE would further trigger the removal of the
central controller instruction as per this document.
5.5.1.7. Binding SID
A PCECC can allocate and provision the node/prefix/adjacency label
(SID) via PCEP. Another SID called binding SID is described in
[I-D.ietf-pce-binding-label-sid], the PCECC mechanism can also be
used to allocate the binding SID.
A procedure for binding label/SID allocation is described in
[RFC9050] and is applicable for all path setup types (including SR
paths).
5.5.1.8. Anycast SID
As per [RFC8402], an anycast segment or Anycast-SID enforces the
ECMP-aware shortest-path forwarding towards the closest node of the
anycast set. Note that the anycast prefix segments can also be
allocated and distributed in the same way as described in
Section 5.5.1.1.
6. PCEP Messages
As defined in [RFC5440], a PCEP message consists of a common header
followed by a variable-length body made of a set of objects that can
be either mandatory or optional. An object is said to be mandatory
in a PCEP message when the object must be included for the message to
be considered valid. For each PCEP message type, a set of rules is
defined that specify the set of objects that the message can carry.
An implementation MUST form the PCEP messages using the object
ordering specified in this document.
Li, et al. Expires 9 January 2024 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft PCECC-SR July 2023
Message formats in this section are presented using Routing Backus-
Naur Format (RBNF) as specified in [RFC5511].
6.1. Central Control Instructions
6.1.1. The PCInitiate Message
The PCInitiate message defined in [RFC8281] and extended in [RFC9050]
is further extended to support SR based central control instructions.
The format of the extended PCInitiate message is as follows:
<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>|
(<FEC>
<CCI>))
<cci-list> ::= <CCI>
[<cci-list>]
Where:
<PCE-initiated-lsp-instantiation> and
<PCE-initiated-lsp-deletion> are as per
[RFC8281].
The LSP and SRP object is defined in [RFC8231].
Figure 5
When the PCInitiate message is used to distribute SR SIDs, the SRP,
the LSP, the FEC and the CCI object of object-type=TBD6 MUST be
present. The error handling for missing SRP, LSP, or CCI object is
as per [RFC9050]. If the FEC object is missing, the receiving PCC
MUST send a PCErr message with Error-type=6 (Mandatory Object
Li, et al. Expires 9 January 2024 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft PCECC-SR July 2023
missing) and Error-value=TBD5 (FEC object missing). The LSP Object
is included with PLSP-ID set to the reserved value 0. The flags in
the LSP object are set as per [RFC8281].
To clean up, the R (remove) bit in the SRP object and the
corresponding FEC and the CCI object are included.
6.1.2. The PCRpt message
The PCRpt message can be used to report the SR central controller
instructions received from the PCECC during the state synchronization
phase or as an acknowledgment to the PCInitiate message.
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>|
(<FEC>
<CCI>))
<cci-list> ::= <CCI>
[<cci-list>]
Where:
<path> is as per [RFC8231] and the LSP and SRP object are
also defined in [RFC8231].
Figure 6
When PCRpt message is used to report the label mapping allocations,
the LSP, the FEC, and CCI object of object-type=TBD6 MUST be present.
The error handling for the missing LSP and CCI object is as per
[RFC9050]. If the FEC object is missing, the receiving PCE MUST send
Li, et al. Expires 9 January 2024 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft PCECC-SR July 2023
a PCErr message with Error-type=6 (Mandatory Object missing) and
Error-value=TBD5 (FEC object missing). The LSP Object is included
with PLSP-ID set to the reserved value 0. The flags in the LSP
object are set as per [RFC8231] and [RFC8281].
7. PCEP Objects
7.1. OPEN Object
7.1.1. PCECC Capability sub-TLV
[RFC9050] defined the PCECC-CAPABILITY sub-TLV.
A new S-bit is added in PCECC-CAPABILITY sub-TLV for PCECC-SR:
S (PCECC-SR-CAPABILITY - 1 bit - TBD1): If set to 1 by a PCEP
speaker, it indicates that the PCEP speaker is capable of PCECC-SR
for SR-MPLS and the PCE allocates the Node and Adj label/SID on this
session.
7.1.2. Router-ID TLVs
As described in Section 5.4, the PCC SHOULD advertise the TE mapping
information by including the Router-ID TLVs in the OPEN object. Two
new TLVs are defined:
Type: IPv4-ROUTER-ID (TBD7)
Length: 4
Value: IPv4 32-bit Router ID
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type=TBD7 | Length=4 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv4 Router ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 7
Type: IPv6-ROUTER-ID (TBD8)
Length: 16
Value: IPv6 128-bit Router ID
Li, et al. Expires 9 January 2024 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft PCECC-SR July 2023
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type=TBD8 | Length=4 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| IPv6 Router ID |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 8
7.2. SR-TE Path Setup
The PATH-SETUP-TYPE TLV is defined in [RFC8408]. A PST value of 1 is
used when Path is setup via SR mode as per [RFC8664]. The procedure
for SR-TE path setup as specified in [RFC8664] remains unchanged.
7.3. CCI Object
The Central Control Instructions (CCI) Object used by the PCE to
specify the controller instructions is defined in [RFC9050]. This
document defines another object-type for SR-MPLS purpose.
CCI Object-Type is TBD6 for SR-MPLS 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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MT-ID | Algorithm | Flags |B|P|G|C|N|E|V|L|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| SID/Label/Index |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| |
// Optional TLV //
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 9
The field CC-ID is as described in [RFC9050]. Following new fields
are defined for CCI Object-Type TBD6 -
Li, et al. Expires 9 January 2024 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft PCECC-SR July 2023
MT-ID:
Multi-Topology ID (as defined in [RFC4915]).
Algorithm:
Single octet identifying the algorithm the SID is associated with.
See [RFC8665].
Flags:
is used to carry any additional information pertaining to the CCI.
The following bits are defined -
* L-Bit (Local/Global): If set, then the value/index carried by the
CCI object has local significance. If not set, then the value/
index carried by this object has global significance.
* V-Bit (Value/Index): If set, then the CCI carries an absolute
value. If not set, then the CCI carries an 32-bit index.
* E-Bit (Explicit-Null): If set, any upstream neighbor of the node
that advertised the SID MUST replace the SID with the Explicit-
NULL label (0 for IPv4) before forwarding the packet.
* N-Bit (No-PHP): If set, then the penultimate hop MUST NOT pop the
SID before delivering packets to the node that advertised the SID.
* C-Bit (PCC Allocation): If the bit is set to 1, it indicates that
the SR SID/label allocation needs to be done by the PCC for this
central controller instruction. A PCE set this bit to request the
PCC to make an allocation from its SR label/ID space. A PCC would
set this bit to indicate that it has allocated the SR SID/label
and report it to the PCE.
* Following bits are applicable when the SID represents an Adj-SID
only, it MUST be ignored for others -
* G-Bit (Group): When set, the G-Flag indicates that the Adj-SID
refers to a group of adjacencies (and therefore MAY be assigned to
other adjacencies as well).
* P-Bit (Persistent): When set, the P-Flag indicates that the Adj-SID
is persistently allocated, i.e., the Adj-SID value remains
consistent across router restart and/or interface flap.
* B-Bit (Backup): If set, the Adj-SID refers to an adjacency that is
eligible for protection (e.g., using IP Fast Reroute or MPLS-FRR
(MPLS-Fast Reroute) as described in Section 2.1 of [RFC8402].
Li, et al. Expires 9 January 2024 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft PCECC-SR July 2023
* All unassigned bits MUST be set to zero at transmission and ignored
at receipt.
SID/Label/Index:
A 32-bit field. According to the V flags, it contains either:
* 32-bit SID index defining the offset in the SID/Label space
advertised by this router.
* A 20-bit label where the 20 rightmost bits are used for encoding
the label value. Other bits are ignored.
7.4. FEC Object
The FEC Object is used to specify the FEC information and MAY be
carried within PCInitiate or PCRpt message.
FEC Object-Class is TBD3.
The FEC objects are as follows:
1 - IPv4 Node ID: where IPv4 Node ID is specified as an IPv4 address
of the Node. The FEC Object-type is 1, and the Object-Length is 4 in
this case. The object body is same as NAI field of IPv4 Node ID
[RFC8664].
2- IPv6 Node ID: where IPv6 Node ID is specified as an IPv6 address
of the Node. The FEC Object-type is 2, and the Object-Length is 16
in this case. The object body is same as NAI field of IPv6 Node ID
[RFC8664].
3 - IPv4 Adjacency: where Local and Remote IPv4 address is specified
as pair of IPv4 addresses of the adjacency. The FEC Object-type is
3, and the Object-Length is 8 in this case. The object body is same
as NAI field of IPv4 Adjacency [RFC8664].
4 - IPv6 Global Adjacency: where Local and Remote global IPv6 address
is specified as pair of IPv6 addresses of the adjacency. The FEC
Object-type is 4, and the Object-Length is 32 in this case. The
object body is same as NAI field of IPv6 Global Adjacency [RFC8664].
5 - Unnumbered Adjacency with IPv4 NodeID: where a pair of Node ID /
Interface ID tuple is used. The FEC Object-type is 5, and the
Object-Length is 16 in this case. The object body is same as NAI
field of Unnumbered Adjacency with IPv4 NodeIDs [RFC8664].
Li, et al. Expires 9 January 2024 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft PCECC-SR July 2023
6 - IPv6 Linklocal Adjacency: where a pair of (global IPv6 address,
interface ID) tuple is used. The FEC object-type is 6, and the
Object-Length is 40 in this case. The object body is same as NAI
field of IPv6 Link-Local Adjacency [RFC8664].
8. Implementation Status
[Note to the RFC Editor - remove this section before publication, as
well as remove the reference to RFC 7942.]
This section records the status of known implementations of the
protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of this
Internet-Draft, and is based on a proposal described in [RFC7942].
The description of implementations in this section is intended to
assist the IETF in its decision processes in progressing drafts to
RFCs. Please note that the listing of any individual implementation
here does not imply endorsement by the IETF. Furthermore, no effort
has been spent to verify the information presented here that was
supplied by IETF contributors. This is not intended as, and must not
be construed to be, a catalog of available implementations or their
features. Readers are advised to note that other implementations may
exist.
According to [RFC7942], "this will allow reviewers and working groups
to assign due consideration to documents that have the benefit of
running code, which may serve as evidence of valuable experimentation
and feedback that have made the implemented protocols more mature.
It is up to the individual working groups to use this information as
they see fit".
8.1. Huawei's Proof of Concept based on ONOS
The PCE function was developed in the ONOS open source platform.
This extension was implemented on a private version as a proof of
concept for PCECC.
* Organization: Huawei
* Implementation: Huawei's PoC based on ONOS
* Description: PCEP as a southbound plugin was added to ONOS. To
support PCECC-SR, an earlier version of this I-D was implemented.
Refer https://wiki.onosproject.org/display/ONOS/PCEP+Protocol
* Maturity Level: Prototype
* Coverage: Partial
* Contact: pengshuping@huawei.com
Li, et al. Expires 9 January 2024 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft PCECC-SR July 2023
9. Security Considerations
As per [RFC8283], the security considerations for a PCE-based
controller is a little different from those for any other PCE system.
That is, the operation relies heavily on the use and security of
PCEP, so consideration should be given to the security features
discussed in [RFC5440] and the additional mechanisms described in
[RFC8253]. It further lists the vulnerability of a central
controller architecture, such as a central point of failure, denial-
of-service, and a focus for interception and modification of messages
sent to individual NEs.
The PCECC extension builds on the existing PCEP messages and thus the
security considerations described in [RFC5440], [RFC8231], [RFC8281],
and [RFC9050] continue to apply.
As per [RFC8231], it is RECOMMENDED that these PCEP extensions only
be activated on mutually-authenticated and encrypted sessions across
PCEs and PCCs belonging to the same administrative authority, using
Transport Layer Security (TLS) [RFC8253][I-D.dhody-pce-pceps-tls13]
as per the recommendations and best current practices in [RFC9325]
(unless explicitly set aside in [RFC8253]).
10. Manageability Considerations
10.1. Control of Function and Policy
A PCE or PCC implementation SHOULD allow to configure to enable/
disable PCECC SR capability as a global configuration. The
implementation SHOULD also allow setting the local IP address used by
the PCEP session.
10.2. Information and Data Models
[RFC7420] describes the PCEP MIB, this MIB can be extended to get the
PCECC SR capability status.
The PCEP YANG module [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang] could be extended to
enable/disable PCECC SR capability.
10.3. 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].
Li, et al. Expires 9 January 2024 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft PCECC-SR July 2023
10.4. Verify Correct Operations
Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new operation
verification requirements in addition to those already listed in
[RFC5440], [RFC8231], and [RFC9050].
10.5. Requirements On Other Protocols
PCEP extensions defined in this document do not put new requirements
on other protocols.
10.6. Impact On Network Operations
PCEP extensions defined in this document allow SR SID Label
allocation to be done from a central controller and thus simplifying
the initial network operations.
11. IANA Considerations
11.1. PCECC-CAPABILITY sub-TLV
[RFC9050] defines the PCECC-CAPABILITY sub-TLV and requests that IANA
to create a new sub-registry to manage the value of the PCECC-
CAPABILITY sub-TLV's Flag field.
IANA is requested to allocate a new bit in the PCECC-CAPABILITY sub-
TLV Flag Field sub-registry, as follows:
+======+=============+===============+
| Bit | Description | Reference |
+======+=============+===============+
| TBD1 | SR-MPLS | This document |
+------+-------------+---------------+
Table 1: The PCECC-CAPABILITY sub-TLV
11.2. PCEP Object
IANA is requested to allocate new code-points for the new FEC object
and a new Object-Type for CCI object in "PCEP Objects" sub-registry
as follows:
Li, et al. Expires 9 January 2024 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft PCECC-SR July 2023
+====================+======+=========================+===========+
| Object-Class Value | Name | Object-Type | Reference |
+====================+======+=========================+===========+
| TBD3 | FEC | 1: IPv4 Node ID | This |
| | | | document |
+--------------------+------+-------------------------+-----------+
| | | 2: IPv6 Node ID | This |
| | | | document |
+--------------------+------+-------------------------+-----------+
| | | 3: IPv4 Adjacency | This |
| | | | document |
+--------------------+------+-------------------------+-----------+
| | | 4: IPv6 Global | This |
| | | Adjacency | document |
+--------------------+------+-------------------------+-----------+
| | | 5: Unnumbered Adjacency | This |
| | | with IPv4 NodeID | document |
+--------------------+------+-------------------------+-----------+
| | | 6: IPv6 Linklocal | This |
| | | Adjacency | document |
+--------------------+------+-------------------------+-----------+
| 44 | CCI | | [RFC9050] |
+--------------------+------+-------------------------+-----------+
| | | TBD6: SR-MPLS | This |
| | | | document |
+--------------------+------+-------------------------+-----------+
Table 2: The PCEP Objects
11.3. PCEP-Error Object
IANA is requested to allocate a new error-value 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 | Reference |
+============+================+=====================+===========+
| 6 | Mandatory | TBD5: FEC object | This |
| | Object missing | missing | document |
+------------+----------------+---------------------+-----------+
| 19 | Invalid | TBD4: SR capability | This |
| | Operation | was not advertised | document |
+------------+----------------+---------------------+-----------+
Table 3: The PCEP-Error
Li, et al. Expires 9 January 2024 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft PCECC-SR July 2023
11.4. CCI Object Flag Field for SR
IANA is requested to create a new sub-registry to manage the Flag
field of the CCI Object-Type=TBD6 for SR called "CCI Object Flag
Field for SR". New values are to be assigned by Standards Action
[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
Following bits are defined for the CCI Object flag field for SR in
this document as follows:
+=====+========================+===============+
| Bit | Description | Reference |
+=====+========================+===============+
| 0-7 | Unassigned | This document |
+-----+------------------------+---------------+
| 8 | B-Bit - Backup | This document |
+-----+------------------------+---------------+
| 9 | P-Bit - Persistent | This document |
+-----+------------------------+---------------+
| 10 | G-Bit - Group | This document |
+-----+------------------------+---------------+
| 11 | C-Bit - PCC Allocation | This document |
+-----+------------------------+---------------+
| 12 | N-Bit - No-PHP | This document |
+-----+------------------------+---------------+
| 13 | E-Bit - Explicit-Null | This document |
+-----+------------------------+---------------+
| 14 | V-Bit - Value/Index | This document |
+-----+------------------------+---------------+
| 15 | L-Bit - Local/Global | This document |
+-----+------------------------+---------------+
Table 4: The CCI Object Flag Field for SR
11.5. PCEP TLV Type Indicators
IANA maintains a subregistry called "PCEP TLV Type Indicators". IANA
is requested to make an assignment from this subregistry as follows:
Li, et al. Expires 9 January 2024 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft PCECC-SR July 2023
+=======================+================+===============+
| Value | Meaning | Reference |
+=======================+================+===============+
| TBD7 (IPv4-ROUTER-ID) | IPv4 Router ID | This document |
+-----------------------+----------------+---------------+
| TBD8 (IPv6-ROUTER-ID) | IPv6 Router ID | This document |
+-----------------------+----------------+---------------+
Table 5: The PCEP TLV
12. Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Robert Tao, Changjing Yan, Tieying Huang,
Avantika, and Aijun Wang for their useful comments and suggestions.
Further thanks to Stephane Litkowski, Robert Sawaya, Zafar Ali, and
Mike Koldychev for useful discussion and ideas to improve the
document.
13. Normative References
[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>.
[RFC3630] Katz, D., Kompella, K., and D. Yeung, "Traffic Engineering
(TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC 3630,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3630, September 2003,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3630>.
[RFC4203] Kompella, K., Ed. and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "OSPF Extensions in
Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS)", RFC 4203, DOI 10.17487/RFC4203, October 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4203>.
[RFC4915] Psenak, P., Mirtorabi, S., Roy, A., Nguyen, L., and P.
Pillay-Esnault, "Multi-Topology (MT) Routing in OSPF",
RFC 4915, DOI 10.17487/RFC4915, June 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4915>.
[RFC5305] Li, T. and H. Smit, "IS-IS Extensions for Traffic
Engineering", RFC 5305, DOI 10.17487/RFC5305, October
2008, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5305>.
Li, et al. Expires 9 January 2024 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft PCECC-SR July 2023
[RFC5307] Kompella, K., Ed. and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "IS-IS Extensions
in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS)", RFC 5307, DOI 10.17487/RFC5307, October 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5307>.
[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>.
[RFC7752] Gredler, H., Ed., Medved, J., Previdi, S., Farrel, A., and
S. Ray, "North-Bound Distribution of Link-State and
Traffic Engineering (TE) Information Using BGP", RFC 7752,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7752, March 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7752>.
[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>.
[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>.
[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>.
Li, et al. Expires 9 January 2024 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft PCECC-SR July 2023
[RFC8664] Sivabalan, S., Filsfils, C., Tantsura, J., Henderickx, W.,
and J. Hardwick, "Path Computation Element Communication
Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for Segment Routing", RFC 8664,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8664, December 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8664>.
[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>.
14. Informative References
[I-D.dhody-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-srv6]
Li, Z., Peng, S., Geng, X., and M. S. Negi, "PCE
Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for Using the PCE
as a Central Controller (PCECC) for Segment Routing over
IPv6 (SRv6) Segment Identifier (SID) Allocation and
Distribution.", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
dhody-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-srv6-10, 15
January 2023, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/
draft-dhody-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-srv6-10>.
[I-D.dhody-pce-pceps-tls13]
Dhody, D., Turner, S., and R. Housley, "Updates for
PCEPS", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-dhody-pce-
pceps-tls13-02, 13 March 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-dhody-pce-
pceps-tls13-02>.
[I-D.dhodylee-pce-pcep-ls]
Dhody, D., Peng, S., Lee, Y., Ceccarelli, D., Wang, A.,
Mishra, G. S., and S. Sivabalan, "PCEP extensions for
Distribution of Link-State and TE Information", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-dhodylee-pce-pcep-ls-25, 5
March 2023, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-
dhodylee-pce-pcep-ls-25>.
[I-D.ietf-pce-binding-label-sid]
Sivabalan, S., Filsfils, C., Tantsura, J., Previdi, S.,
and C. Li, "Carrying Binding Label/Segment Identifier
(SID) in PCE-based Networks.", Work in Progress, Internet-
Draft, draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid-16, 27 March 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-pce-
binding-label-sid-16>.
Li, et al. Expires 9 January 2024 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft PCECC-SR July 2023
[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-21, 6 March 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-pce-
pcep-yang-21>.
[I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp]
Koldychev, M., Sivabalan, S., Barth, C., Peng, S., and H.
Bidgoli, "PCEP extension to support Segment Routing Policy
Candidate Paths", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-11, 20 June 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-pce-
segment-routing-policy-cp-11>.
[I-D.ietf-pce-state-sync]
Litkowski, S., Sivabalan, S., Li, C., and H. Zheng, "Inter
Stateful Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication
Procedures.", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
ietf-pce-state-sync-04, 11 January 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-pce-
state-sync-04>.
[I-D.ietf-teas-pcecc-use-cases]
Li, Z., Dhody, D., Zhao, Q., Ke, Z., and B. Khasanov, "The
Use Cases for Path Computation Element (PCE) as a Central
Controller (PCECC).", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
draft-ietf-teas-pcecc-use-cases-13, 8 January 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-teas-
pcecc-use-cases-13>.
[I-D.li-pce-controlled-id-space]
Li, C., Shi, H., Wang, A., Cheng, W., and C. Zhou, "Path
Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)
extension to advertise the PCE Controlled Identifier
Space", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-li-pce-
controlled-id-space-15, 11 May 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-li-pce-
controlled-id-space-15>.
[RFC3031] Rosen, E., Viswanathan, A., and R. Callon, "Multiprotocol
Label Switching Architecture", RFC 3031,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3031, January 2001,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3031>.
Li, et al. Expires 9 January 2024 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft PCECC-SR July 2023
[RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J.-P., and J. Ash, "A Path
Computation Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4655, August 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4655>.
[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>.
[RFC7025] Otani, T., Ogaki, K., Caviglia, D., Zhang, F., and C.
Margaria, "Requirements for GMPLS Applications of PCE",
RFC 7025, DOI 10.17487/RFC7025, September 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7025>.
[RFC7399] Farrel, A. and D. King, "Unanswered Questions in the Path
Computation Element Architecture", RFC 7399,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7399, October 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7399>.
[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>.
[RFC7491] King, D. and A. Farrel, "A PCE-Based Architecture for
Application-Based Network Operations", RFC 7491,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7491, March 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7491>.
[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>.
[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>.
[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>.
Li, et al. Expires 9 January 2024 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft PCECC-SR July 2023
[RFC8402] Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Ginsberg, L.,
Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment
Routing Architecture", RFC 8402, DOI 10.17487/RFC8402,
July 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8402>.
[RFC8660] Bashandy, A., Ed., Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S.,
Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment
Routing with the MPLS Data Plane", RFC 8660,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8660, December 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8660>.
[RFC8665] Psenak, P., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Filsfils, C., Gredler,
H., Shakir, R., Henderickx, W., and J. Tantsura, "OSPF
Extensions for Segment Routing", RFC 8665,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8665, December 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8665>.
[RFC8667] Previdi, S., Ed., Ginsberg, L., Ed., Filsfils, C.,
Bashandy, A., Gredler, H., and B. Decraene, "IS-IS
Extensions for Segment Routing", RFC 8667,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8667, December 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8667>.
[RFC9256] Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Ed., Voyer, D., Bogdanov,
A., and P. Mattes, "Segment Routing Policy Architecture",
RFC 9256, DOI 10.17487/RFC9256, July 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9256>.
[RFC9325] Sheffer, Y., Saint-Andre, P., and T. Fossati,
"Recommendations for Secure Use of Transport Layer
Security (TLS) and Datagram Transport Layer Security
(DTLS)", BCP 195, RFC 9325, DOI 10.17487/RFC9325, November
2022, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9325>.
Appendix A. Contributor Addresses
Li, et al. Expires 9 January 2024 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft PCECC-SR July 2023
Dhruv Dhody
Huawei
India
EMail: dhruv.ietf@gmail.com
Satish Karunanithi
India
EMail: satish.karunanithi@gmail.com
Adrian Farrel
Old Dog Consulting
UK
EMail: adrian@olddog.co.uk
Xuesong Geng
Huawei Technologies
China
Email: gengxuesong@huawei.com
Udayasree Palle
EMail: udayasreereddy@gmail.com
Katherine Zhao
Huawei Technologies
2330 Central Expressway
Santa Clara, CA 95050
USA
EMail: katherine.zhao@huawei.com
Boris Zhang
Amazon
EMail: zhangyud@amazon.com
Alex Tokar
Cisco Systems
Slovak Republic
EMail: atokar@cisco.com
Li, et al. Expires 9 January 2024 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft PCECC-SR July 2023
Figure 10
Authors' Addresses
Zhenbin Li
Huawei Technologies
Huawei Bld., No.156 Beiqing Rd.
Beijing
100095
China
Email: lizhenbin@huawei.com
Shuping Peng
Huawei Technologies
Huawei Bld., No.156 Beiqing Rd.
Beijing
100095
China
Email: pengshuping@huawei.com
Mahendra Singh Negi
RtBrick Inc
N-17L, 18th Cross Rd, HSR Layout
Bangalore 560102
Karnataka
India
Email: mahend.ietf@gmail.com
Quintin Zhao
Etheric Networks
1009 S CLAREMONT ST
SAN MATEO, CA 94402
United States of America
Email: qzhao@ethericnetworks.com
Chao Zhou
HPE
Email: chaozhou_us@yahoo.com
Li, et al. Expires 9 January 2024 [Page 34]