PCEP extension to support Segment Routing Policy Candidate Paths
draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-00

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (pce WG)
Last updated 2020-06-24
Replaces draft-barth-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp
Stream IETF
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text xml pdf htmlized (tools) htmlized bibtex
Stream WG state WG Document
Document shepherd No shepherd assigned
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
PCE Working Group                                           M. Koldychev
Internet-Draft                                       Cisco Systems, Inc.
Intended status: Standards Track                            S. Sivabalan
Expires: December 26, 2020                             Ciena Corporation
                                                                C. Barth
                                                  Juniper Networks, Inc.
                                                                 S. Peng
                                                     Huawei Technologies
                                                              H. Bidgoli
                                                                   Nokia
                                                           June 24, 2020

    PCEP extension to support Segment Routing Policy Candidate Paths
              draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-00

Abstract

   This document introduces a mechanism to specify a Segment Routing
   (SR) policy, as a collection of SR candidate paths.  An SR policy is
   identified by <headend, color, end-point> tuple.  An SR policy can
   contain one or more candidate paths where each candidate path is
   identified in PCEP via an PLSP-ID.  This document proposes extension
   to PCEP to support association among candidate paths of a given SR
   policy.  The mechanism proposed in this document is applicable to
   both MPLS and IPv6 data planes of SR.

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.

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

Koldychev, et al.       Expires December 26, 2020               [Page 1]
Internet-Draft                  SR Policy                      June 2020

   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on December 26, 2020.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  Motivation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.1.  Group Candidate Paths belonging to the same SR policy . .   5
     3.2.  Instantiation of SR policy candidate paths  . . . . . . .   5
     3.3.  Avoid computing lower preference candidate paths  . . . .   5
     3.4.  Minimal signaling overhead  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   4.  Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     4.1.  Overview  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     4.2.  Choice of Association Parameters  . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     4.3.  Multiple Optimization Objectives and Constraints  . . . .   8
   5.  SR Policy Association Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     5.1.  SR Policy Identifiers TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     5.2.  SR Policy Name TLV  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     5.3.  SR Policy Candidate Path Identifiers TLV  . . . . . . . .  11
     5.4.  SR Policy Candidate Path Name TLV . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     5.5.  SR Policy Candidate Path Preference TLV . . . . . . . . .  13
   6.  Examples  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     6.1.  PCC Initiated SR Policy with single candidate-path  . . .  13
     6.2.  PCC Initiated SR Policy with multiple candidate-paths . .  14
     6.3.  PCE Initiated SR Policy with single candidate-path  . . .  14
     6.4.  PCE Initiated SR Policy with multiple candidate-paths . .  15
Show full document text