PCE Working Group A. Wang
Internet-Draft China Telecom
Intended status: Standards Track B. Khasanov
Expires: May 20, 2019 Huawei
S. Cheruathur
Juniper Networks
C. Zhu
ZTE Corporation
S. Fang
Huawei
November 16, 2018
PCEP Extension for Native IP Network
draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip-02
Abstract
This document defines the PCEP extension for CCDR application in
Native IP network. The scenario and architecture of CCDR in native
IP is described in [I-D.ietf-teas-native-ip-scenarios] and
[I-D.ietf-teas-pce-native-ip]. This draft describes the key
information that is transferred between PCE and PCC to accomplish the
end2end traffic assurance in Native IP network under central control
mode.
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
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 20, 2019.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Wang, et al. Expires May 20, 2019 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extension for Native IP Network November 2018
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. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. CCI Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. CCI Object associated TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4.1. Peer Address List TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.2. Peer Prefix Association TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2.1. Prefix sub TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.3. Explicit Peer Route TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Management Consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1. Introduction
Traditionally, MPLS-TE traffic assurance requires the corresponding
network devices support MPLS or the complex RSVP/LDP/Segment Routing
etc. technologies to assure the end-to-end traffic performance. But
in native IP network, there will be no such signaling protocol to
synchronize the action among different network devices. It is
necessary to use the central control mode that described in [RFC8283]
to correlate the forwarding behavior among different network devices.
Draft [I-D.ietf-teas-pce-native-ip] describes the architecture and
solution philosophy for the end2end traffic assurance in Native IP
network via Dual/Multi BGP solution. This draft describes the
corresponding PCEP extension to transfer the key information about
peer address list, peer prefix association and the explicit peer
route on on-path router.
2. Conventions used in this document
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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
Wang, et al. Expires May 20, 2019 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extension for Native IP Network November 2018
3. CCI Objects
Draft [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller] introduces the
CCI object which is included in the PCInitiate and PCRpt message to
transfer the centrally control instruction and status between PCE and
PCC. This object is extended to include the construction for native
IP solution. Additionally TLVs are defined and included in this
extend CCI object.
CCI Object-Class is TBD, should be same as that defined in draft
[I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller]
CCI Object-Type is TBD for Native IP network
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| CC-ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved | Flags |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
// Optional TLV //
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The fields in the CCI object are as follows:
CC-ID: A PCEP-specific identifier for the CCI information. A PCE
creates an CC-ID for each instruction, the value is unique within the
scope of the PCE and is constant for the lifetime of a PCEP session.
The values 0 and 0xFFFFFFFF are reserved and MUST NOT be used.
Flags: Is used to carry any additional information pertaining to the
CCI.
Optional TLV: Additional TLVs that are associated with the Native IP
construction.
4. CCI Object associated TLV
Three new TLVs are defined in this draft:
o PAL TLV: Peer Address List TLV, used to tell the network device
which peer it should be peered with dynamically
o PPA TLV: Peer Prefix Association TLV,used to tell which prefixes
should be advertised via the corresponding peer
Wang, et al. Expires May 20, 2019 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extension for Native IP Network November 2018
o EPR TLV: Explicit Peer Route TLV,used to point out which route
should be taken to arrive to the peer.
4.1. Peer Address List TLV
The Peer Address List TLV is defined to specify the IP address of
peer that the received network device should establish the BGP
relationship with. This TLV should only be included and sent to the
head and end router of the end2end path in case there is no RR
involved. If the RR is used between the head and end routers, then
such information should be sent to head router, RR and end router
respectively.
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=TBD | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Peer Num | Resv. |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Peer ID | AT | Resv. |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Local AS Number |
| Peer AS Number |
| Local IP Address(4/16 Bytes) |
| Peer IP Address(4/16 Bytes) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Peer ID | AT | Resv. |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Local AS Number |
| Peer AS Number |
| Local IP Address(4/16 Bytes) |
// Peer IP Address(4/16 Bytes) //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type: TBD
Length: The length of the following fields.
Peer Num : Peer Address Number on the advertised router.
Peer-ID: To distinguish the different peer pair, will be referenced
in Peer Prefix Association, if the PCE use multi-BGP solution for
different QoS assurance requirement.
AT: Address Type. To indicate the address type of Peer. Equal to 4,
if the following IP address of peer is belong to IPv4; Equal to 6 if
the following IP address of peer is belong to IPv6.
Wang, et al. Expires May 20, 2019 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extension for Native IP Network November 2018
Resv: Reserved for future use.
Local AS Number: To indicate the AS number of the Local Peer.
Peer AS Number: To indicate the AS number of Remote Peer.
Local IP Address(4/16 Bytes): IPv4 address of the local router, used
to peer with other end router. When AT equal to 4, length is 32bit;
when AT equal to 16, length is 128bit.
Peer IP Address(4/16 Bytes): IPv4 address of the peer router, used to
peer with the local router. When AT equal to 4, length is 32bit;
IPv6 address of the peer when AT equal to 16, length is 128bit;
4.2. Peer Prefix Association TLV
The Peer Prefix Association TLV is defined to specify the IP prefixes
that should be advertised by the corresponding Peer. This TLV should
only be included and sent to the head/end router of the end2end path
in case there is no RR involved. If the RR is used between the head
and end routers, then such information should be sent to head
router,RR and end router respectively.
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=TBD | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Peer ID | AT | Prefixes Num |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Peer Associated IP Prefix sub TLV |
// Peer Associated IP Prefix sub TLV //
| Peer Associated IP Prefix sub TLV |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type: TBD
Length: The length of the following fields.
Peer-ID: To indicate which peer should be used to advertise the
following IP Prefix TLV. This value is assigned in the Peer Address
List object and is referred in this object.
AT: Address Type. To indicate the address type of Peer. Equal to 4,
if the following IP address of peer is belong to IPv4; Equal to 6 if
the following IP address of peer is belong to IPv6.
Wang, et al. Expires May 20, 2019 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extension for Native IP Network November 2018
Prefixes Num: Number of prefixes that advertised by the corresponding
Peer. It should be equal to number of the following IP prefix sub
TLV.
Peer Associated IP Prefix sub TLV: Variable Length, indicate the
advertised IP Prefix.
4.2.1. Prefix sub TLV
Prefix sub TLV is used to carry the prefix information, which has the
following format:
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=TBD | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| AT | Prefix Length | Resv. |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Prefix Value |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type: TBD
Length: The length of the following fields.
AT: Address Type. To indicate the address type of Peer. Equal to 4,
if the following IP address of peer is belong to IPv4; Equal to 6 if
the following IP address of peer is belong to IPv6.
Prefix Length: The length of the following prefix. For example, for
10.0.0.0/8, this field will be equal to 8.
Prefix Value: The value of the prefix. For example, for 10.0.0./8,
this field will be 10.0.0.0
4.3. Explicit Peer Route TLV
The Explicit Peer Route TLV is defined to specify the explicit peer
route to the corresponding peer address on each device that is on the
end2end assurance path. This TLV should be sent to all the devices
that locates on the end2end assurance path that calculated by PCE.
Wang, et al. Expires May 20, 2019 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extension for Native IP Network November 2018
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=TBD | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Peer ID | AT | Resv. |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Next Hop Address to the Peer(IPv4/IPv6) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type: TBD
Length: The length of following fields.
Peer-ID: To indicate the peer that the following next hop address
point to. This value is assigned in the Peer Address List object and
is referred in this object.
AT: Address Type. To indicate the address type of explicit peer
route. Equal to 4, if the following next hop address to the peer is
belong to IPv4; Equal to 6 if the following next hop address to the
peer is belong to IPv6. Resv(16 bits): Reserved for future use.
Next Hop Address to the Peer: Variable Length, to indicate the next
hop address to the corresponding peer that indicated by the Peer-ID.
If AT=4, the length will be 4 bytes, if AT=6, the length will be 16
bytes.
5. Management Consideration
TBD
6. Security Considerations
TBD
7. IANA Considerations
TBD
8. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller]
Zhao, Q., Li, Z., Dhody, D., Karunanithi, S., Farrel, A.,
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-00 (work in
progress), November 2018.
Wang, et al. Expires May 20, 2019 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extension for Native IP Network November 2018
[I-D.ietf-teas-native-ip-scenarios]
Wang, A., Huang, X., Qou, C., Li, Z., and P. Mi,
"Scenario, Simulation and Suggestion of PCE in Native IP
Network", draft-ietf-teas-native-ip-scenarios-02 (work in
progress), October 2018.
[I-D.ietf-teas-pce-native-ip]
Wang, A., Zhao, Q., Khasanov, B., Chen, H., and R. Mallya,
"PCE in Native IP Network", draft-ietf-teas-pce-native-
ip-02 (work in progress), October 2018.
[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>.
[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>.
Authors' Addresses
Aijun Wang
China Telecom
Beiqijia Town, Changping District
Beijing, Beijing 102209
China
Email: wangaj.bri@chinatelecom.cn
Boris Khasanov
Huawei Technologies,Co.,Ltd
Moskovskiy Prospekt 97A
St.Petersburg 196084
Russia
Email: khasanov.boris@huawei.com
Wang, et al. Expires May 20, 2019 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extension for Native IP Network November 2018
Sudhir Cheruathur
Juniper Networks
1133 Innovation Way
Sunnyvale, California 94089
USA
Email: scheruathur@juniper.net
Chun Zhu
ZTE Corporation
50 Software Avenue, Yuhua District
Nanjing, Jiangsu 210012
China
Email: zhu.chun1@zte.com.cn
Sheng Fang
Huawei Technologies, Co., Ltd
Huawei Bld., No.156 Beiqing Rd.
Beijing
China
Email: fsheng@huawei.com
Wang, et al. Expires May 20, 2019 [Page 9]