Carrying Binding Label/Segment-ID in PCE-based Networks.
draft-sivabalan-pce-binding-label-sid-06
|
| Document |
Type |
|
Active Internet-Draft (individual)
|
|
Last updated |
|
2019-02-05
|
|
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: August 9, 2019 J. Tantsura
Apstra, Inc.
J. Hardwick
Metaswitch Networks
S. Previdi
C. Li
Huawei Technologies
February 5, 2019
Carrying Binding Label/Segment-ID in PCE-based Networks.
draft-sivabalan-pce-binding-label-sid-06
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 August 9, 2019 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Binding Label/SID February 2019
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 August 9, 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. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Path Binding TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Appendix A. Contributor Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
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 August 9, 2019 [Page 2]
Show full document text