Carrying Binding Label/Segment-ID in PCE-based Networks.
draft-sivabalan-pce-binding-label-sid-03
|
| Document |
Type |
|
Active Internet-Draft (individual)
|
|
Last updated |
|
2017-07-03
|
|
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)
|
PCE Working Group S. Sivabalan
Internet-Draft C. Filsfils
Intended status: Standards Track S. Previdi
Expires: January 4, 2018 Cisco Systems, Inc.
J. Tantsura
Individual
J. Hardwick
Metaswitch Networks
D. Dhody
Huawei Technologies
July 3, 2017
Carrying Binding Label/Segment-ID in PCE-based Networks.
draft-sivabalan-pce-binding-label-sid-03.txt
Abstract
It is possible to associate a binding label to RSVP-TE signaled
Traffic Engineering Label Switching Path or binding Segment-ID (SID)
to Segment Routed Traffic Engineering path. Such a binding label/SID
can be used by an upstream node for steering traffic into the
appropriate TE path to enforce TE policies. This document proposes
an approach for reporting binding label/SID to Path Computation
Element (PCE) for supporting PCE-based Traffic Engineering policies.
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 January 4, 2018.
Sivabalan, et al. Expires January 4, 2018 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Binding Label/Segment-ID July 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Path Binding TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6.1. TE-PATH-BINDING TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6.2. PCEP Error Type and Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1. Introduction
A PCE can compute Traffic Engineering paths (TE paths) through a
network that are subject to various constraints. Currently, TE paths
are either set up using the RSVP-TE signaling protocol or Segment
Routed (SR). We refer to such paths as RSVP-TE paths and SR-TE paths
respectively in this document.
Similar to assigning label to a Forwarding Equivalence Class (FEC)
via Label Distribution Protocol (LDP), a binding label can be
assigned to a RSVP-TE LSP. If the topmost label of an incoming
packet is the binding label, the packet is steered onto the RSVP-TE
LSP. As such, any upstream node can use binding labels to steer the
Show full document text