PCEP Extensions for Tunnel Segment
draft-li-pce-tunnel-segment-02

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Last updated 2017-03-12
Stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text xml 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                     Huawei Technologies
Expires: September 13, 2017                               March 12, 2017

                   PCEP Extensions for Tunnel Segment
                     draft-li-pce-tunnel-segment-02

Abstract

   [I-D.li-spring-tunnel-segment] introduces a new type of segment,
   Tunnel Segment, for the segment routing.  Tunnel segment can be used
   to reduce SID stack depth of SR path, span the non-SR domain or
   provide differentiated services.  A binding label can be assigned to
   tunnel segment.  An upstream node can use such a binding label for
   steering traffic into the appropriate tunnel.  This document
   specifies a set of extensions to PCEP to support that PCC reports
   binding label of tunnel to PCE and that PCE allocates label for
   tunnel and updates label binding of tunnel to PCC.

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 [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 September 13, 2017.

Li & Chen              Expires September 13, 2017               [Page 1]
Internet-Draft     PCEP Extensions for Tunnel Segment         March 2017

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2017 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.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Procedures  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     3.1.  Procedure for PCC Reporting Label Binding . . . . . . . .   3
     3.2.  Procedure for PCE Downloading Label Binding . . . . . . .   5
   4.  Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     4.1.  LS object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   5.  TLVs  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     5.1.  Tunnel Label Binding TLV  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     5.2.  PATH-SETUP-TYPE TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     5.3.  Tunnel Related TLV  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   7.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   8.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     8.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     8.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9

1.  Introduction

   [I-D.li-spring-tunnel-segment] introduces a new type of segment,
   Tunnel Segment, for the segment routing.  Tunnel segment can be used
   to reduce SID stack depth of SR path, span the non-SR domain or
   provide differentiated services.  A binding label can be assigned to
   tunnel segment.  An upstream node can use such a binding label for
   steering traffic into the appropriate tunnel.  The tunnel segment can
   be allocated for RSVP-TE tunnel, SR-TE tunnel or IP tunnel.

   [I-D.li-spring-tunnel-segment] defines the requirement of control
   plane to support use cases of tunnel segment.  The PCE related
Show full document text