IP Traffic Engineering Architecture with Network Programming
draft-raszuk-teas-ip-te-np-00

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Last updated 2019-10-02
Stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text pdf htmlized 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)
TEAS Working Group                                        R. Raszuk, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                              Bloomberg LP
Intended status: Informational                           October 2, 2019
Expires: April 4, 2020

      IP Traffic Engineering Architecture with Network Programming
                     draft-raszuk-teas-ip-te-np-00

Abstract

   This document describes a control plane based IP Traffic Engineering
   Architecture where path information is kept in the control plane by
   selected nodes instead of being inserted into each packet on ingress
   of an administrative domain.  The described proposal is also fully
   compatible with the concept of network programming.

   It is positioned as a complimentary technique to native SRv6 and can
   be used when there are concerns with increased packet size due to
   depth of SID stack, possible concerns regarding exceeding MTU or more
   strict simplicity requirements typically seen in number of enterprise
   networks.  The proposed solution is applicable to both IPv4 or IPv6
   based networks.

   As an additional added value, detection of end to end path liveness
   as well as dynamic path selection based on real time path quality is
   integrated from day one in the design.

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 April 4, 2020.

Raszuk                    Expires April 4, 2020                 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft                  IP TE+NP                    October 2019

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2019 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.  Background  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  Functional Description  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   5.  Control plane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   6.  Data plane  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   7.  Network Programming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   8.  Active Path Probing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     8.1.  TI-LFA Local Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
   9.  Solution advantages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
   10. OAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
   11. Deployment considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
   12. Security considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
   13. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
   14. Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
   15. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
     15.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
     15.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22

1.  Background

   Ability to steer data over selected topological points often
   different from default IGP or BGP paths proves to provide substantial
   advantages to consumers of such data.  The construction of controlled
   transit paths usually is driven by requirements to: offload
   excessively used default routing paths, construct disjointed paths
   for live-live dual streaming or create intra or inter-domain data
   distribution overlays using dynamic real time SLAs criteria often
   used along with per specific application mapping schema.

Raszuk                    Expires April 4, 2020                 [Page 2]
Show full document text