PCEP Link-State extensions for Segment Routing
draft-li-pce-pcep-ls-sr-extension-01

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Last updated 2016-10-30
Replaces draft-wu-pce-pcep-ls-sr-extension
Stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text pdf html bibtex
Stream Stream state (No stream defined)
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
RFC Editor Note (None)
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
Network Working Group                                              Z. Li
Internet-Draft                                                   X. Chen
Intended status: Standards Track                                   N. Wu
Expires: May 3, 2017                                 Huawei Technologies
                                                        October 30, 2016

             PCEP Link-State extensions for Segment Routing
                  draft-li-pce-pcep-ls-sr-extension-01

Abstract

   Segment Routing leverages source routing.  A node steers a packet
   through a controlled set of instructions, called segments, by
   prepending the packet with an SR header.  A segment can represent any
   instruction, topological or service-based.  SR allows to enforce a
   flow through any topological path and service chain while maintaining
   per-flow state only at the ingress node of the SR domain.

   IGP protocols have been extended to advertise the segments.  Because
   of IGP's propagation scope limitation, it is not suited for IGP to
   signal paths that span across AS borders.  This document introduces
   extensions of PCEP-LS to solve the problem without the similar
   limitation.

Requirements Language

   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].

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 http://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 May 3, 2017.

Li, et al.                 Expires May 3, 2017                  [Page 1]
Internet-DrafPCEP Link-State extensions for Segment Routing October 2016

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2016 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
   (http://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.  PCEP extensions for Segment Routing . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.1.  Node Attribute TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.2.  Link Attribute TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.3.  Prefix Attribute TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  Operational Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.1.  Segment Routing report  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.2.  Tunnel Segment Identifier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   6.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   7.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     7.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     7.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5

1.  Introduction

   Segment Routing [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing] leverages source
   routing.  A node steers a packet through a controlled set of
   instructions, called segments, by prepending the packet with an SR
   header.  A segment can represent any instruction, topological or
   service-based.  SR allows to enforce a flow through any topological
   path and service chain while maintaining per-flow state only at the
   ingress node of the SR domain.

   IGP protocols have been extended to advertise the segments.  Because
   of IGP's propagation scope limitation, it is not suited for IGP to
Show full document text