PCE in Native IP Network
draft-ietf-teas-pce-native-ip-01
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft that was ultimately published as RFC 8821.
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Aijun Wang , Quintin Zhao , Boris Khasanov , Huaimo Chen , Penghui Mi , Raghavendra Mallya , Shaofu Peng | ||
| Last updated | 2018-06-27 (Latest revision 2018-02-12) | ||
| Replaces | draft-wang-teas-pce-native-ip | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Reviews | |||
| Additional resources | Mailing list discussion | ||
| Stream | WG state | WG Document | |
| Document shepherd | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Became RFC 8821 (Informational) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-ietf-teas-pce-native-ip-01
TEAS Working Group A. Wang
Internet-Draft China Telecom
Intended status: Experimental Q. Zhao
Expires: December 28, 2018 B. Khasanov
H. Chen
P. Mi
Huawei Technologies
R. Mallya
Juniper Networks
S. Peng
ZTE Corporation
June 26, 2018
PCE in Native IP Network
draft-ietf-teas-pce-native-ip-01
Abstract
This document defines the framework for CCDR traffic engineering
within Native IP network, using Dual/Multi-BGP session strategy and
PCE-based central control architecture. The proposed central mode
control framework conforms to the concept that defined in [RFC8283].
The scenario and simulation results of CCDR traffic engineering is
described in draft [I-D.ietf-teas-native-ip-scenarios].
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on December 28, 2018.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Wang, et al. Expires December 28, 2018 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft PCE in Native IP Network June 2018
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Dual-BGP framework for simple topology . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Dual-BGP in large Scale Topology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. Multi-BGP for Extended Traffic Differentiation . . . . . . . 5
6. CCDR based framework for Multi-BGP strategy deployment . . . 6
7. PCEP extension for key parameters delivery . . . . . . . . . 7
8. Deployment Consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8.1. Scalability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8.2. High Availability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8.3. Incremental deployment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
11. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1. Introduction
Draft [I-D.ietf-teas-native-ip-scenarios] describes the scenario and
simulation results for the CCDR traffic engineering. In summary, the
requirements for CCDR traffic engineering in Native IP network are
the following:
o No complex MPLS signaling procedure.
o End to End traffic assurance, determined QoS behavior.
o Identical deployment method for intra- and inter- domain.
o No influence to existing router forward behavior.
o Can utilize the power of centrally control(PCE) and flexibility/
robustness of distributed control protocol.
o Coping with the differentiation requirements for large amount
traffic and prefixes.
Wang, et al. Expires December 28, 2018 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft PCE in Native IP Network June 2018
o Flexible deployment and automation control.
This document defines the framework for CCDR traffic engineering
within Native IP network, using Dual/Multi-BGP session strategy and
CCDR architecture, to meet the above requirements in dynamical and
central control mode. Future PCEP protocol extensions to transfer
the key parameters between PCE and the underlying network
devices(PCC) are provided in draft
[I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip].
2. Conventions used in this document
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119] .
3. Dual-BGP framework for simple topology
Dual-BGP framework for simple topology is illustrated in Fig.1, which
is comprised by SW1, SW2, R1, R2. There are multiple physical links
between R1 and R2. Traffic between IP11 and IP21 is normal traffic,
traffic between IP12 and IP22 is priority traffic that should be
treated differently.
Only Native IGP/BGP protocol is deployed between R1 and R2. The
traffic between each address pair may change timely and the
corresponding source/destination addresses of the traffic may also
change dynamically.
The key idea of the Dual-BGP framework for this simple topology is
the following:
o Build two BGP sessions between R1 and R2, via the different
loopback address lo0, lo1 on these routers.
o Send different prefixes via the two BGP sessions. (For example,
IP11/IP21 via the BGP pair 1 and IP12/IP22 via the BGP pair 2).
o Set the explicit peer route on R1 and R2 respectively for BGP next
hop of lo0, lo1 to different physical link address between R1 and
R2.
So, the traffic between the IP11 and IP21, and the traffic between
IP12 and IP22 will go through different physical links between R1 and
R2, each type of traffic occupy the different dedicated physical
links.
Wang, et al. Expires December 28, 2018 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft PCE in Native IP Network June 2018
If there is more traffic between IP12 and IP22 that needs to be
assured , one can add more physical links on R1 and R2 to reach the
loopback address lo1(also the next hop for BGP Peer pair2). In this
cases the prefixes that advertised by two BGP peer need not be
changed.
If, for example, there is traffic from another address pair that
needs to be assured (for example IP13/IP23), but the total volume of
assured traffic does not exceed the capacity of the previous
appointed physical links, then one need only to advertise the newly
added source/destination prefixes via the BGP peer pair2, then the
traffic between IP13/IP23 will go through the assigned dedicated
physical links as the traffic between IP12/IP22.
Such decouple philosophy gives the network operator more flexible
control ability on the network traffic, get the determined QoS
assurance effect to meet the application's requirement. No complex
MPLS signal procedures is introduced, the router need only support
native IP protocol.
| BGP Peer Pair2 |
+------------------+
|lo1 lo1 |
| |
| BGP Peer Pair1 |
+------------------+
IP12 |lo0 lo0 | IP22
IP11 | | IP21
SW1-------R1-----------------R2-------SW2
Links Group
Fig.1 Design Philosophy for Dual-BGP Framework
4. Dual-BGP in large Scale Topology
When the assured traffic spans across one large scale network, as
that illustrated in Fig.2, the dual BGP sessions cannot be
established hop by hop especially for the iBGP within one AS.
For such scenario, we should consider to use the Route Reflector (RR)
to achieve the similar Dual-BGP effect, select one router which
performs the role of RR (for example R3 in Fig.2), every other edge
router will establish two BGP peer sessions with the RR, using their
different loopback addresses respectively. The other two steps for
traffic differentiation are same as one described in the Dual-BGP
simple topology usage case.
Wang, et al. Expires December 28, 2018 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft PCE in Native IP Network June 2018
For the example shown in Fig.2, if we select the R1-R2-R4-R7 as the
dedicated path, then we should set the explicit peer routes on these
routers respectively, pointing to the BGP next hop (loopback
addresses of R1 and R7, which are used to send the prefix of the
assured traffic) to the actual address of the physical link.
+------------R3--------------+
| |
SW1-------R1-------R5---------R6-------R7--------SW2
| | | |
+-------R2---------R4--------+
Fig.2 Dual-BGP Framework for large scale network
5. Multi-BGP for Extended Traffic Differentiation
In general situation, several additional traffic differentiation
criteria exist, including:
o Traffic that requires low latency links and is not sensitive to
packet loss.
o Traffic that requires low packet loss but can endure higher
latency.
o Traffic that requires lowest jitter path.
o Traffic that requires high bandwidth links
These different traffic requirements can be summarized in the
following table:
+----------+-------------+---------------+-----------------+
| Flow No. | Latency | Packet Loss | Jitter |
+----------+-------------+---------------+-----------------+
| 1 | Low | Normal | Don't care |
+----------+-------------+---------------+-----------------+
| 2 | Normal | Low | Dont't care |
+----------+-------------+---------------+-----------------+
| 3 | Normal | Normal | Low |
+----------+-------------+---------------+-----------------+
Table 1. Traffic Requirement Criteria
For Flow No.1, we can select the shortest distance path to carry the
traffic; for Flow No.2, we can select the idle links to form its end
to end path; for Flow No.3, we can let all the traffic pass one
single path, no ECMP distribution on the parallel links is required.
Wang, et al. Expires December 28, 2018 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft PCE in Native IP Network June 2018
It is difficult and almost impossible to provide an end-to-end (E2E)
path with latency, latency variation, packet loss, and bandwidth
utilization constraints to meet the above requirements in large scale
IP-based network via the traditional distributed routing protocol,
but these requirements can be solved using the CCDR architecture
since the PCE has the overall network view, can collect real network
topology and network performance information about the underlying
network, select the appropriate path to meet the various network
performance requirements of different traffic type.
6. CCDR based framework for Multi-BGP strategy deployment
With the advent of SDN concepts towards pure IP networks, it is
possible now to accomplish the central and dynamic control of network
traffic according to the application's various requirements. The
procedure to implement the dynamic deployment of Multi-BGP strategy
is the following:
o PCE gets topology and link utilization information from the
underlying network, calculate the appropriate link path upon
application's requirements..
o PCE sends the key parameters to edge/RR routers(R1, R7 and R3 in
Fig.3) to build multi-BGP peer relations and advertise different
prefixes via them.
o PCE sends the route information to the routers (R1,R2,R4,R7 in
Fig.3) on forwarding path via PCEP, to build the path to the BGP
next-hop of the advertised prefixes.
o If the assured traffic prefixes were changed but the total volume
of assured traffic does not exceed the physical capacity of the
previous end-to-end path, then PCE needs only change the related
information on edge routers (R1,R7 in Fig.3).
o If volume of the assured traffic exceeds the capacity of previous
calculated path, PCE must recalculate the appropriate path to
accommodate the exceeding traffic via some new end-to-end physical
link. After that PCE needs to update on-path routers to build
such path hop by hop.
Wang, et al. Expires December 28, 2018 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft PCE in Native IP Network June 2018
+----+
***********+ PCE+*************
* +--*-+ *
* / * \ *
* * *
PCEP* BGP-LS/SNMP *PCEP
* * *
* * \ * /
\ * / * \ */
\*/-----------R3--------------*
| |
| |
SW1-------R1-------R5---------R6-------R7--------SW2
| | | |
| | | |
+-------R2---------R4--------+
Fig.3 PCE based framework for Multi-BGP deployment
7. PCEP extension for key parameters delivery
The PCEP protocol needs to be extended to transfer the following key
parameters:
o BGP peer address and advertised prefixes.
o Explicit route information to BGP next hop of advertised prefixes.
Once the router receives such information, it should establish the
BGP session with the peer appointed in the PCEP message, advertise
the prefixes that contained in the corresponding PCEP message, and
build the end to end dedicated path hop by hop. Details of
communications between PCEP and BGP subsystems in router's control
plane are out of scope of this draft and will be described in
separate draft [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip] .
The reason why we selected PCEP as the southbound protocol instead of
OpenFlow, is that PCEP is suitable for the changes in control plane
of the network devices, there OpenFlow dramatically changes the
forwarding plane. We also think that the level of centralization
that requires by OpenFlow is hardly achievable in many today's SP
networks so hybrid BGP+PCEP approach looks much more interesting.
8. Deployment Consideration
Wang, et al. Expires December 28, 2018 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft PCE in Native IP Network June 2018
8.1. Scalability
In CCDR framework, PCE needs only to influence the edge routers for
the prefixes differentiation via the multi-BGP deployment. The route
information for these prefixes within the on-path routers were
distributed via the traditional BGP protocol. Unlike the solution
from BGP Flowspec, the on-path router need only keep the specific
policy routes to the BGP next-hop of the differentiate prefixes, not
the specific routes to the prefixes themselves. This can lessen the
burden from the table size of policy based routes for the on-path
routers, and has more scalability when comparing with the solution
from BGP flowspec or Openflow.
8.2. High Availability
CCDR framework is based on the traditional distributed IP protocol.
If the PCE failed, the forwarding plane will not be impacted, as the
BGP session between all devices will not flap, and the forwarding
table will remain the same. If one node on the optimal path is
failed, the assurance traffic will fall over to the best-effort
forwarding path. One can even design several assurance paths to load
balance/hot standby the assurance traffic to meet the path failure
situation, as done in MPLS FRR.
From PCE/SDN-controller HA side we will rely on existing HA solutions
of SDN controllers such as clustering.
8.3. Incremental deployment
Not every router within the network support will support the PCEP
extension that defined in [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip]
simultaneously. For such situations, router on the edge of sub
domain can be upgraded first, and then the traffic can be assured
between different sub domains. Within each sub domain, the traffic
will be forwarded along the best-effort path. Service provider can
selectively upgrade the routers on each sub-domain in sequence.
9. Security Considerations
Solution described in this draft puts more requirements on the
function of PCE and its communication with the underlay devices. The
PCE should have the capability to calculate the loop-free e2e path
upon the status of network condition and the service requirements in
real time. The PCE need also to consider the router order during
deployment to eliminate the possible transient traffic loop.
Wang, et al. Expires December 28, 2018 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft PCE in Native IP Network June 2018
This solution does not require the change of forward behavior on the
underlay devices, then there will no additional security impact for
the devices.
When deploy the solution on network, service provider should also
consider more on the protection of SDN controller and their
communication with the underlay devices, which described in document
[RFC5440] and [RFC8253]
10. IANA Considerations
This document does not require any IANA actions.
11. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip]
Wang, A., Khasanov, B., Cheruathur, S., and C. Zhu, "PCEP
Extension for Native IP Network", draft-ietf-pce-pcep-
extension-native-ip-00 (work in progress), June 2018.
[I-D.ietf-teas-native-ip-scenarios]
Wang, A., Huang, X., Qou, C., Huang, L., and K. Mi, "CCDR
Scenario, Simulation and Suggestion", draft-ietf-teas-
native-ip-scenarios-00 (work in progress), February 2018.
[I-D.ietf-teas-pcecc-use-cases]
Zhao, Q., Li, Z., Khasanov, B., Ke, Z., Fang, L., Zhou,
C., Communications, T., and A. Rachitskiy, "The Use Cases
for Using PCE as the Central Controller(PCECC) of LSPs",
draft-ietf-teas-pcecc-use-cases-01 (work in progress), May
2017.
[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>.
[RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation
Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5440, March 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5440>.
[RFC8253] Lopez, D., Gonzalez de Dios, O., Wu, Q., and D. Dhody,
"PCEPS: Usage of TLS to Provide a Secure Transport for the
Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)",
RFC 8253, DOI 10.17487/RFC8253, October 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8253>.
Wang, et al. Expires December 28, 2018 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft PCE in Native IP Network June 2018
[RFC8283] Farrel, A., Ed., Zhao, Q., Ed., Li, Z., and C. Zhou, "An
Architecture for Use of PCE and the PCE Communication
Protocol (PCEP) in a Network with Central Control",
RFC 8283, DOI 10.17487/RFC8283, December 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8283>.
Authors' Addresses
Aijun Wang
China Telecom
Beiqijia Town, Changping District
Beijing, Beijing 102209
China
Email: wangaj.bri@chinatelecom.cn
Quintin Zhao
Huawei Technologies
125 Nagog Technology Park
Acton, MA 01719
USA
Email: quintin.zhao@huawei.com
Boris Khasanov
Huawei Technologies
Moskovskiy Prospekt 97A
St.Petersburg 196084
Russia
Email: khasanov.boris@huawei.com
Huaimo Chen
Huawei Technologies
Boston, MA
USA
Email: huaimo.chen@huawei.com
Wang, et al. Expires December 28, 2018 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft PCE in Native IP Network June 2018
Penghui Mi
Huawei Technologies
Tower C of Bldg.2, Cloud Park, No.2013 of Xuegang Road
Bantian,Longgang District, Shenzhen 518129
China
Email: mipenghui@huawei.com
Raghavendra Mallya
Juniper Networks
1133 Innovation Way
Sunnyvale, California 94089
USA
Email: rmallya@juniper.net
Shaofu Peng
ZTE Corporation
No.68 Zijinghua Road,Yuhuatai District
Nanjing 210012
China
Email: peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn
Wang, et al. Expires December 28, 2018 [Page 11]