PCE Working Group S. Sivabalan
Internet-Draft Ciena Corporation
Intended status: Standards Track C. Filsfils
Expires: May 4, 2021 Cisco Systems, Inc.
J. Tantsura
Apstra, Inc.
J. Hardwick
Metaswitch Networks
S. Previdi
C. Li
Huawei Technologies
October 31, 2020
Carrying Binding Label/Segment-ID in PCE-based Networks.
draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid-05
Abstract
In order to provide greater scalability, network opacity, and service
independence, Segment Routing (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 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/.
Sivabalan, et al. Expires May 4, 2021 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Binding Label/SID October 2020
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 May 4, 2021.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2020 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Path Binding TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1. SRv6 Endpoint Behavior and SID Structure . . . . . . . . 7
4. Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5. Binding SID in SR-ERO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6. Binding SID in SRv6-ERO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7.1. Huawei . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7.2. Cisco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9.1. Control of Function and Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9.2. Information and Data Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9.4. Verify Correct Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9.5. Requirements On Other Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9.6. Impact On Network Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
10.1. PCEP TLV Type Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
10.1.1. TE-PATH-BINDING TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
10.1.2. Binding SID Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
10.2. PCEP Error Type and Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
11. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Sivabalan, et al. Expires May 4, 2021 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Binding Label/SID October 2020
12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Appendix A. Contributor Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
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.
As per [RFC8402] SR allows a headend node to steer a packet flow
along any path. The headend node is said to steer a flow into an
Segment Routing Policy (SR Policy). Further, as per
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy], an SR Policy is a framework
that enables instantiation of an ordered list of segments on a node
for implementing a source routing policy with a specific intent for
traffic steering from that node.
As described in [RFC8402], Binding Segment Identifier (BSID) is bound
to an Segment Routed (SR) Policy, instantiation of which may involve
a list of SIDs. Any packets received with an active segment equal to
BSID are steered onto the bound SR Policy. A BSID may be either a
local (SR Local Block (SRLB)) or a global (SR Global Block (SRGB))
SID. As per Section 6.4 of [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy]
a BSID can also be associated with any type of interfaces or tunnel
to enable the use of a non-SR interface or tunnels as segments in a
SID-list.
[RFC5440] describes the Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) for
communication between a Path Computation Client (PCC) and a PCE or
between a pair of PCEs as per [RFC4655]. [RFC8231] specifies
extension to PCEP that allows a PCC to delegate its LSPs to a
stateful PCE. A stateful PCE can then update the state of LSPs
delegated to it. [RFC8281] specifies a mechanism allowing a PCE to
dynamically instantiate an LSP on a PCC by sending the path and
characteristics. The PCEP extension to setup and maintain SR-TE
paths is specified in [RFC8664].
[RFC8664] provides a mechanism for a network controller (acting as a
PCE) to instantiate candidate paths for an SR Policy onto a head-end
node (acting as a PCC) using PCEP. For more information on the SR
Policy Architecture, see [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy].
Sivabalan, et al. Expires May 4, 2021 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Binding Label/SID October 2020
Binding label/SID has local significance to the ingress node of the
corresponding TE path. When a stateful PCE is deployed for setting
up TE paths, it may be desirable to report the binding label or SID
to the stateful PCE for the purpose of enforcing end-to-end TE/SR
policy. A sample Data Center (DC) use-case is illustrated in the
following diagram. In the MPLS DC network, an SR LSP (without
traffic engineering) is established using a prefix SID advertised by
BGP (see [RFC8669]). In IP/MPLS WAN, an SR-TE LSP is setup using the
PCE. The list of SIDs of the SR-TE LSP is {A, B, C, D}. The gateway
node 1 (which is the PCC) allocates a binding SID X and reports it to
the PCE. In order for the access node to steer the traffic over the
SR-TE LSP, the PCE passes the SID stack {Y, X} where Y is the prefix
SID of the gateway node-1 to the access node. In the absence of the
binding SID X, the PCE should pass the SID stack {Y, A, B, C, D} to
the access node. This example also illustrates the additional
benefit of using the binding SID to reduce the number of SIDs imposed
on the access nodes with a limited forwarding capacity.
SID stack
{Y, X} +-----+
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _| PCE |
| +-----+
| ^
| | Binding
| .-----. | SID (X) .-----.
| ( ) | ( )
V .--( )--. | .--( )--.
+------+ ( ) +-------+ ( ) +-------+
|Access|_( MPLS DC Network )_|Gateway|_( IP/MPLS WAN )_|Gateway|
| Node | ( ==============> ) |Node-1 | ( ================> ) |Node-2 |
+------+ ( SR path ) +-------+ ( SR-TE path ) +-------+
'--( )--' Prefix '--( )--'
( ) SID of ( )
'-----' Node-1 '-----'
is Y SIDs for SR-TE LSP:
{A, B, C, D}
Figure 1: A sample Use-case of Binding SID
A PCC could report the binding label/SID allocated by it to the
stateful PCE via Path Computation State Report (PCRpt) message. It
is also possible for a stateful PCE to request a PCC to allocate a
specific binding label/SID by sending an Path Computation Update
Request (PCUpd) message. If the PCC can successfully allocate the
specified binding value, it reports the binding value to the PCE.
Sivabalan, et al. Expires May 4, 2021 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Binding Label/SID October 2020
Otherwise, the PCC sends an error message to the PCE indicating the
cause of the failure. A local policy or configuration at the PCC
SHOULD dictate if the binding label/SID needs to be assigned.
In this document, we introduce a new OPTIONAL TLV that a PCC can use
in order to report the binding label/SID associated with a TE LSP, or
a PCE to request a PCC to allocate a specific binding label/SID
value. This TLV is intended for TE LSPs established using RSVP-TE,
SR, or any other future method. Also, in the case of SR-TE LSPs, the
TLV can carry a binding MPLS label (for SR-TE path with MPLS data-
plane) or a binding IPv6 SID (e.g., IPv6 address for SR-TE paths with
IPv6 data-plane). Binding value means either MPLS label or SID
throughout this document.
Additionally, to support the PCE based central controller [RFC8283]
operation where the PCE would take responsibility for managing some
part of the MPLS label space for each of the routers that it
controls, the PCE could directly make the binding label/SID
allocation and inform the PCC. See
[I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller] for details.
2. Terminology
The following terminologies are used in this document:
BSID: Binding Segment Identifier.
LER: Label Edge Router.
LSP: Label Switched Path.
LSR: Label Switching Router.
PCC: Path Computation Client.
PCE: Path Computation Element
PCEP: Path Computation Element Protocol.
RSVP-TE: Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering.
SID: Segment Identifier.
SR: Segment Routing.
SRGB: Segment Routing Global Block.
SRLB: Segment Routing Local Block.
Sivabalan, et al. Expires May 4, 2021 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Binding Label/SID October 2020
TLV: Type, Length, and Value.
3. Path Binding TLV
The new optional TLV is called "TE-PATH-BINDING TLV" (whose format is
shown in the figure below) is defined to carry binding label or SID
for a TE path. This TLV is associated with the LSP object specified
in ([RFC8231]). The type of this TLV is to be allocated by IANA.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| BT | Flags | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ Binding Value (variable length) ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: TE-PATH-BINDING TLV
TE-PATH-BINDING TLV is a generic TLV such that it is able to carry
MPLS label binding as well as SRv6 Binding SID. It is formatted
according to the rules specified in [RFC5440].
Binding Type (BT): A one octet field identifies the type of binding
included in the TLV. This document specifies the following BT
values:
o BT = 0: The binding value is an MPLS label carried in the format
specified in [RFC5462] where only the label value is valid, and
other fields fields MUST be considered invalid. The Length MUST
be set to 7.
o BT = 1: Similar to the case where BT is 0 except that all the
fields on the MPLS label entry are set on transmission. However,
the receiver MAY choose to override TC, S, and TTL values
according its local policy. The Length MUST be set to 8.
o BT = 2: The binding value is an SRv6 SID with a format of a 16
octet IPv6 address, representing the binding SID for SRv6. The
Length MUST be set to 20.
o BT = 3: The binding value is a 24 octet field, defined in
Section 3.1, that contains the SRv6 SID as well as its Behavior
and Structure. The Length MUST be set to 28.
Sivabalan, et al. Expires May 4, 2021 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Binding Label/SID October 2020
Flags: 1 octet of flags. Following flags are defined in the new
registry "SR Policy Binding SID Flags" as described in
Section 10.1.2:
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |I|S|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
where:
o S-Flag: This flag encodes the "Specified-BSID-only" behavior. It
is used as described in Section 6.2.3 of
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy].
o I-Flag: This flag encodes the "Drop Upon Invalid" behavior. It is
used as described in Section 8.2 of
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy].
Reserved: MUST be set to 0 while sending and ignored on receipt.
Binding Value: A variable length field, padded with trailing zeros to
a 4-octet boundary. For the BT as 0, the 20 bits represent the MPLS
label. For the BT as 1, the 32-bits represent the label stack entry
as per [RFC5462]. For the BT as 2, the 128-bits represent the SRv6
SID. For the BT as 3, the Binding Value contains SRv6 Endpoint
Behavior and SID Structure, defined in Section 3.1.
3.1. SRv6 Endpoint Behavior and SID Structure
Carried as the Binding Value in the TE-PATH-BINDING TLV when the BT
is set to 3. Applicable for SRv6 Binding SIDs
[I-D.ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming].
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| SRv6 Binding SID (16 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved | Endpoint Behavior |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LB Length | LN Length | Fun. Length | Arg. Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 4: SRv6 Endpoint Behavior and SID Structure
Sivabalan, et al. Expires May 4, 2021 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Binding Label/SID October 2020
Reserved: 2 octets. MUST be set to 0 on transmit and ignored on
receipt.
Endpoint Behavior: 2 octets. The Endpoint Behavior code point for
this SRv6 SID as defined in section 9.2 of
[I-D.ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming]. When set with the value
0, the choice of behavior is considered unset.
LB Length: 1 octet. SRv6 SID Locator Block length in bits.
LN Length: 1 octet. SRv6 SID Locator Node length in bits.
Function Length: 1 octet. SRv6 SID Function length in bits.
Argument Length: 1 octet. SRv6 SID Arguments length in bits.
4. Operation
The binding value is allocated by the PCC and reported to a PCE via
PCRpt message. If a PCE does not recognize the TE-PATH-BINDING TLV,
it would ignore the TLV in accordance with ([RFC5440]). If a PCE
recognizes the TLV but does not support the TLV, it MUST send PCErr
with Error-Type = 2 (Capability not supported).
If a TE-PATH-BINDING TLV is absent in PCRpt message, PCE MUST assume
that the corresponding LSP does not have any binding. If a PCE
recognizes an invalid binding value (e.g., label value from the
reserved label space when MPLS label binding is used), it MUST send
the PCErr message with Error-Type = 10 ("Reception of an invalid
object") and Error Value = 2 ("Bad label value") as specified in
[RFC8664].
Multiple TE-PATH-BINDING TLVs are allowed to be present in the same
LSP object. This signifies the presence of multiple binding SIDs for
the given LSP.
For SRv6 BSIDs, it is RECOMMENDED to always explicitly specify the
SRv6 Endpoint Behavior and SID Structure in the TE-PATH-BINDING TLV
by setting the BT (Binding Type) to 3, instead of 2. The choice of
interpreting SRv6 Endpoint Behavior and SID Structure when none is
explicitly specified is left up to the implementation.
If a PCE requires a PCC to allocate a specific binding value, it may
do so by sending a PCUpd or PCInitiate message containing a TE-PATH-
BINDING TLV. If the value can be successfully allocated, the PCC
reports the binding value to the PCE. If the PCC considers the
binding value specified by the PCE invalid, it MUST send a PCErr
message with Error-Type = TBD2 ("Binding label/SID failure") and
Sivabalan, et al. Expires May 4, 2021 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Binding Label/SID October 2020
Error Value = TBD3 ("Invalid SID"). If the binding value is valid,
but the PCC is unable to allocate the binding value, it MUST send a
PCErr message with Error-Type = TBD2 ("Binding label/SID failure")
and Error Value = TBD4 ("Unable to allocate the specified label/
SID").
If a PCC receives TE-PATH-BINDING TLV in any message other than PCUpd
or PCInitiate, it MUST close the corresponding PCEP session with the
reason "Reception of a malformed PCEP message" (according to
[RFC5440]). Similarly, if a PCE receives a TE-PATH-BINDING TLV in
any message other than a PCRpt or if the TE-PATH-BINDING TLV is
associated with any object other than LSP object, the PCE MUST close
the corresponding PCEP session with the reason "Reception of a
malformed PCEP message" (according to [RFC5440]).
If a PCC wishes to withdraw or modify a previously reported binding
value, it MUST send a PCRpt message without any TE-PATH-BINDING TLV
or with the TE-PATH-BINDING TLV containing the new binding value
respectively.
If a PCE wishes to modify a previously requested binding value, it
MUST send a PCUpd message with TE-PATH-BINDING TLV containing the new
binding value. Absence of TE-PATH-BINDING TLV in PCUpd message means
that the PCE does not specify a binding value in which case the
binding value allocation is governed by the PCC's local policy.
If a PCC receives a valid binding value from a PCE which is different
than the current binding value, it MUST try to allocate the new
value. If the new binding value is successfully allocated, the PCC
MUST report the new value to the PCE. Otherwise, it MUST send a
PCErr message with Error-Type = TBD2 ("Binding label/SID failure")
and Error Value = TBD4 ("Unable to allocate the specified label/
SID").
In some cases, a stateful PCE can request the PCC to allocate a
binding value. It may do so by sending a PCUpd message containing an
empty TE-PATH-BINDING TLV, i.e., no binding value is specified
(making the length field of the TLV as 4). A PCE can also request
PCC to allocate a binding value at the time of initiation by sending
a PCInitiate message with an empty TE-PATH-BINDING TLV. If the PCC
is unable to allocate a binding value, it MUST send a PCErr message
with Error-Type = TBD2 ("Binding label/SID failure") and Error-Value
= TBD5 ("Unable to allocate label/SID").
Sivabalan, et al. Expires May 4, 2021 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Binding Label/SID October 2020
5. Binding SID in SR-ERO
In PCEP messages, LSP route information is carried in the Explicit
Route Object (ERO), which consists of a sequence of subobjects.
[RFC8664] defines a new ERO subobject "SR-ERO subobject" capable of
carrying a SID as well as the identity of the node/adjacency (NAI)
represented by the SID. The NAI Type (NT) field indicates the type
and format of the NAI contained in the SR-ERO. In case of binding
SID, the NAI MUST NOT be included and NT MUST be set to zero. So as
per Section 5.2.1 of [RFC8664], for NT=0, the F bit is set to 1, the
S bit needs to be zero and the Length is 8. Further the M bit is
set. If these conditions are not met, the entire ERO MUST be
considered invalid and a PCErr message is sent with Error-Type = 10
("Reception of an invalid object") and Error-Value = 11 ("Malformed
object").
6. Binding SID in SRv6-ERO
[RFC8664] defines a new ERO subobject "SRv6-ERO subobject" for SRv6
SID. The NAI MUST NOT be included and NT MUST be set to zero. So as
per Section 5.2.1 of [RFC8664], for NT=0, the F bit is set to 1, the
S bit needs to be zero and the Length is 24. If these conditions are
not met, the entire ERO is considered invalid and a PCErr message is
sent with Error-Type = 10 ("Reception of an invalid object") and
Error-Value = 11 ("Malformed object") (as per [RFC8664]).
7. Implementation Status
[Note to the RFC Editor - remove this section before publication, as
well as remove the reference to RFC 7942.]
This section records the status of known implementations of the
protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of this
Internet-Draft, and is based on a proposal described in [RFC7942].
The description of implementations in this section is intended to
assist the IETF in its decision processes in progressing drafts to
RFCs. Please note that the listing of any individual implementation
here does not imply endorsement by the IETF. Furthermore, no effort
has been spent to verify the information presented here that was
supplied by IETF contributors. This is not intended as, and must not
be construed to be, a catalog of available implementations or their
features. Readers are advised to note that other implementations may
exist.
According to [RFC7942], "this will allow reviewers and working groups
to assign due consideration to documents that have the benefit of
running code, which may serve as evidence of valuable experimentation
and feedback that have made the implemented protocols more mature.
Sivabalan, et al. Expires May 4, 2021 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Binding Label/SID October 2020
It is up to the individual working groups to use this information as
they see fit".
7.1. Huawei
o Organization: Huawei
o Implementation: Huawei's Router and Controller
o Description: An experimental code-point is used and plan to
request early code-point allocation from IANA after WG adoption.
o Maturity Level: Production
o Coverage: Full
o Contact: chengli13@huawei.com
7.2. Cisco
o Organization: Cisco Systems
o Implementation: Head-end and controller.
o Description: An experimental code-point is currently used.
o Maturity Level: Production
o Coverage: Full
o Contact: mkoldych@cisco.com
8. Security Considerations
The security considerations described in [RFC5440], [RFC8231],
[RFC8281] and [RFC8664] are applicable to this specification. No
additional security measure is required.
As described [RFC8664], SR allows a network controller to instantiate
and control paths in the network. A rouge PCE can manipulate binding
SID allocations to move traffic around for some other LSPs that uses
BSID in its SR-ERO.
Thus, as per [RFC8231], it is RECOMMENDED that these PCEP extensions
only be activated on authenticated and encrypted sessions across PCEs
and PCCs belonging to the same administrative authority, using
Transport Layer Security (TLS) [RFC8253], as per the recommendations
Sivabalan, et al. Expires May 4, 2021 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Binding Label/SID October 2020
and best current practices in BCP195 [RFC7525] (unless explicitly set
aside in [RFC8253]).
9. Manageability Considerations
All manageability requirements and considerations listed in
[RFC5440], [RFC8231], and [RFC8664] apply to PCEP protocol extensions
defined in this document. In addition, requirements and
considerations listed in this section apply.
9.1. Control of Function and Policy
A PCC implementation SHOULD allow the operator to configure the
policy based on which PCC needs to allocates the binding label/SID.
9.2. Information and Data Models
The PCEP YANG module [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang] could be extended to
include policy configuration for binding label/SID allocation.
9.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring
Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new liveness
detection and monitoring requirements in addition to those already
listed in [RFC5440].
9.4. Verify Correct Operations
Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new operation
verification requirements in addition to those already listed in
[RFC5440], [RFC8231], and [RFC8664].
9.5. Requirements On Other Protocols
Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new requirements
on other protocols.
9.6. Impact On Network Operations
Mechanisms defined in [RFC5440], [RFC8231], and [RFC8664] also apply
to PCEP extensions defined in this document. Further, the mechanism
described in this document can help the operator to request control
of the LSPs at a particular PCE.
Sivabalan, et al. Expires May 4, 2021 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Binding Label/SID October 2020
10. IANA Considerations
10.1. PCEP TLV Type Indicators
This document defines a new PCEP TLV; IANA is requested to make the
following allocations from the "PCEP TLV Type Indicators" sub-
registry of the PCEP Numbers registry, as follows:
Value Name Reference
TBD1 TE-PATH-BINDING This document
10.1.1. TE-PATH-BINDING TLV
IANA is requested to create a sub-registry to manage the value of the
Binding Type field in the TE-PATH-BINDING TLV.
Value Description Reference
0 MPLS Label This document
1 MPLS Label Stack This document
Entry
2 SRv6 SID This document
3 SRv6 SID with This document
Behavior and
Structure
10.1.2. Binding SID Flags
IANA is requested to create a sub-registry to manage the value of the
Binding SID Flags field in the TE-PATH-BINDING-TLV. New values are
to be assigned by Standards Action [RFC8126]. Each bit should be
tracked with the following qualities:
o Bit number (count from 0 as the most significant bit)
o Flag Name
o Reference
Bit Description Reference
7 Specified-BSID-Only This document
Flag (S-Flag)
6 Drop Upon Invalid This document
Flag (I-Flag)
Sivabalan, et al. Expires May 4, 2021 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Binding Label/SID October 2020
10.2. PCEP Error Type and Value
This document defines a new Error-type and Error-Values for the PCErr
message. IANA is requested to allocate new error-type and error-
values within the "PCEP-ERROR Object Error Types and Values"
subregistry of the PCEP Numbers registry, as follows:
Error-Type Meaning
---------- -------
TBD2 Binding label/SID failure:
Error-value = TBD3: Invalid SID
Error-value = TBD4: Unable to allocate
the specified
label/SID
Error-value = TBD5: Unable to allocate
label/SID
11. Acknowledgements
We like to thank Milos Fabian and Mrinmoy Das for thier valuable
comments.
12. References
12.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation
Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5440, March 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5440>.
[RFC5462] Andersson, L. and R. Asati, "Multiprotocol Label Switching
(MPLS) Label Stack Entry: "EXP" Field Renamed to "Traffic
Class" Field", RFC 5462, DOI 10.17487/RFC5462, February
2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5462>.
[RFC7525] Sheffer, Y., Holz, R., and P. Saint-Andre,
"Recommendations for Secure Use of Transport Layer
Security (TLS) and Datagram Transport Layer Security
(DTLS)", BCP 195, RFC 7525, DOI 10.17487/RFC7525, May
2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7525>.
Sivabalan, et al. Expires May 4, 2021 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Binding Label/SID October 2020
[RFC7942] Sheffer, Y. and A. Farrel, "Improving Awareness of Running
Code: The Implementation Status Section", BCP 205,
RFC 7942, DOI 10.17487/RFC7942, July 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7942>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC8231] Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Medved, J., and R. Varga, "Path
Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)
Extensions for Stateful PCE", RFC 8231,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8231, September 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8231>.
[RFC8253] Lopez, D., Gonzalez de Dios, O., Wu, Q., and D. Dhody,
"PCEPS: Usage of TLS to Provide a Secure Transport for the
Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)",
RFC 8253, DOI 10.17487/RFC8253, October 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8253>.
[RFC8281] Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Sivabalan, S., and R. Varga, "Path
Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)
Extensions for PCE-Initiated LSP Setup in a Stateful PCE
Model", RFC 8281, DOI 10.17487/RFC8281, December 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8281>.
[RFC8402] Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Ginsberg, L.,
Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment
Routing Architecture", RFC 8402, DOI 10.17487/RFC8402,
July 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8402>.
[RFC8664] Sivabalan, S., Filsfils, C., Tantsura, J., Henderickx, W.,
and J. Hardwick, "Path Computation Element Communication
Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for Segment Routing", RFC 8664,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8664, December 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8664>.
[RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
[I-D.ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming]
Filsfils, C., Camarillo, P., Leddy, J., Voyer, D.,
Matsushima, S., and Z. Li, "SRv6 Network Programming",
draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-24 (work in
progress), October 2020.
Sivabalan, et al. Expires May 4, 2021 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Binding Label/SID October 2020
12.2. Informative References
[RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J., and J. Ash, "A Path Computation
Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4655, August 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4655>.
[RFC8283] Farrel, A., Ed., Zhao, Q., Ed., Li, Z., and C. Zhou, "An
Architecture for Use of PCE and the PCE Communication
Protocol (PCEP) in a Network with Central Control",
RFC 8283, DOI 10.17487/RFC8283, December 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8283>.
[RFC8669] Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Lindem, A., Ed., Sreekantiah,
A., and H. Gredler, "Segment Routing Prefix Segment
Identifier Extensions for BGP", RFC 8669,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8669, December 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8669>.
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy]
Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Voyer, D., Bogdanov, A., and
P. Mattes, "Segment Routing Policy Architecture", draft-
ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy-08 (work in progress),
July 2020.
[I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller]
Li, Z., Peng, S., Negi, M., Zhao, Q., and C. Zhou, "PCEP
Procedures and Protocol Extensions for Using PCE as a
Central Controller (PCECC) of LSPs", draft-ietf-pce-pcep-
extension-for-pce-controller-07 (work in progress),
September 2020.
[I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang]
Dhody, D., Hardwick, J., Beeram, V., and J. Tantsura, "A
YANG Data Model for Path Computation Element
Communications Protocol (PCEP)", draft-ietf-pce-pcep-
yang-14 (work in progress), July 2020.
Sivabalan, et al. Expires May 4, 2021 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Binding Label/SID October 2020
Appendix A. Contributor Addresses
Dhruv Dhody
Huawei Technologies
Divyashree Techno Park, Whitefield
Bangalore, Karnataka 560066
India
EMail: dhruv.ietf@gmail.com
Mahendra Singh Negi
RtBrick India
N-17L, Floor-1, 18th Cross Rd, HSR Layout Sector-3
Bangalore, Karnataka 560102
India
EMail: mahend.ietf@gmail.com
Mike Koldychev
Cisco Systems, Inc.
2000 Innovation Drive
Kanata, Ontario K2K 3E8
Canada
Email: mkoldych@cisco.com
Zafar Ali
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Email: zali@cisco.com
Authors' Addresses
Siva Sivabalan
Ciena Corporation
EMail: msiva282@gmail.com
Clarence Filsfils
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Pegasus Parc
De kleetlaan 6a, DIEGEM BRABANT 1831
BELGIUM
EMail: cfilsfil@cisco.com
Sivabalan, et al. Expires May 4, 2021 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Binding Label/SID October 2020
Jeff Tantsura
Apstra, Inc.
EMail: jefftant.ietf@gmail.com
Jonathan Hardwick
Metaswitch Networks
100 Church Street
Enfield, Middlesex
UK
EMail: Jonathan.Hardwick@metaswitch.com
Stefano Previdi
Huawei Technologies
EMail: stefano@previdi.net
Cheng Li
Huawei Technologies
Huawei Campus, No. 156 Beiqing Rd.
Beijing 100095
China
EMail: chengli13@huawei.com
Sivabalan, et al. Expires May 4, 2021 [Page 18]