PCE in Native IP Network
draft-wang-teas-pce-native-ip-00

The information below is for an old version of the document
Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Author Aijun Wang 
Last updated 2016-06-30
Replaced by RFC 8821, RFC 8821
Stream (None)
Formats pdf htmlized (tools) 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                                             A.Wang
Internet Draft                                           China Telecom

Intended status: Standard Track                            June 30,2016
Expires: December 30, 2016

                         PCE in Native IP Network
                   draft-wang-teas-pce-native-ip-00.txt

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. This document may not be modified,
   and derivative works of it may not be created, and it may not be
   published except as an Internet-Draft.

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. This document may not be modified,
   and derivative works of it may not be created, except to publish it
   as an RFC and to translate it into languages other than English.

   it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
   than English.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
   Drafts.

   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."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html

   This Internet-Draft will expire on January 1, 2009.

<A.Wang>              Expires December 30,2016                [Page 1]
Internet-Draft        PCE in Native IP Network           June 30, 2016
Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2016 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.

Abstract

   This document defines the PCE use case and solution that can be
   deployed within the native IP network, using Multi-BGP session
   strategy and PCE-based central control to assure the end2end traffic
   performance, and proposes the corresponding extension to PCEP
   protocol to transfer the key parameters between PCE and the
   underlying network device (PCC).

Table of Contents

   1. Introduction ................................................ 2
   2. Conventions used in this document ........................... 3
   3. Dual-BGP solution for simple topology........................ 3
   4. Dual-BGP in large Scale Topology ............................ 5
   5. Multi-BGP for Extended Traffic Differentiation .............. 5
   6. PCE based solution for Multi-BGP strategy deployment..........6
   7. PCEP extension for key parameter transformation. ............ 8
   8. Security Considerations ..................................... 8
   9. IANA Considerations ......................................... 8
   10. Conclusions ................................................ 8
   11. References ................................................. 8
      11.1. Normative References .................................. 8
      11.2. Informative References................................. 9
   12. Acknowledgments ............................................ 9

1. Introduction

Currently, PCE based traffic assurance requires the underlying network
devices support MPLS and the network must deploy multiple LSPs to
assure the end-to-end traffic performance. LDP/RSVP-TE or Segment
Routing should be enabled within the network to establish various MPLS
paths. Such solution will certainly work but the main drawback of it is
that all the LSP paths are divided logically, that is to say, all the
LSP paths that go through one physical link will share and compete the

<A.Wang>              Expires December 30,2016                [Page 2]
Internet-Draft        PCE in Native IP Network           June 30, 2016
same resource and MPLS technology has no better solution to meet the
requirements for determined QoS effect.
On the other hand, there are some legacy networks that does not deploy
the MPLS control and forward plane technology, but also need to assure
the QoS of application traffic. Deploy some dedicated links statically
to meet such requirements is one option but it is not feasible in the
service provider network, because the volume and path of application
Show full document text