Carrying Binding Label/Segment-ID in PCE-based Networks.
draft-sivabalan-pce-binding-label-sid-05

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Last updated 2018-10-19
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)
PCE Working Group                                           S. Sivabalan
Internet-Draft                                               C. Filsfils
Intended status: Standards Track                     Cisco Systems, Inc.
Expires: April 22, 2019                                      J. Tantsura
                                                            Apstra, Inc.
                                                             J. Hardwick
                                                     Metaswitch Networks
                                                              S. Previdi
                                                                D. Dhody
                                                     Huawei Technologies
                                                        October 19, 2018

        Carrying Binding Label/Segment-ID in PCE-based Networks.
                draft-sivabalan-pce-binding-label-sid-05

Abstract

   In order to provide greater scalability, network opacity, and service
   independence, SR utilizes a Binding Segment Identifier (BSID).  It is
   possible to associate a BSID to RSVP-TE signaled Traffic Engineering
   Label Switching Path or binding Segment-ID (SID) to Segment Routed
   (SR) 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 SR 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", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
   14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

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

Sivabalan, et al.        Expires April 22, 2019                 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft          Binding Label/Segment-ID            October 2018

   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 22, 2019.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2018 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.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   3.  Path Binding TLV  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   4.  Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     6.1.  PCEP TLV Type Indicators  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
       6.1.1.  TE-PATH-BINDING TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     6.2.  PCEP Error Type and Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   7.  Manageability Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   8.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   9.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     9.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     9.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   Appendix A.  PCE based Central Controller . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12

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
   Routing (SR).  We refer to such paths as RSVP-TE paths and SR-TE
   paths respectively in this document.

Sivabalan, et al.        Expires April 22, 2019                 [Page 2]
Show full document text