PCE Working Group A. Wang
Internet-Draft China Telecom
Intended status: Standards Track B. Khasanov
Expires: February 27, 2020 Huawei
S. Cheruathur
Juniper Networks
C. Zhu
ZTE Corporation
S. Fang
Huawei
August 26, 2019
PCEP Extension for Native IP Network
draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip-04
Abstract
This document defines the Path Computation Element Communication
Protocol (PCEP) extension for Central Control Dynamic Routing (CCDR)
based application in Native IP network. The scenario and framework
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 Path Computation Element
(PCE) and Path Computation Clients (PCC) to accomplish the End to End
(E2E) 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 February 27, 2020.
Wang, et al. Expires February 27, 2020 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extension for Native IP Network August 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. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. CCI Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
5. CCI Object associated TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5.1. Peer Address List TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5.2. Peer Prefix Association TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.2.1. Prefix sub TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.3. Explicit Peer Route TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. Management Consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8.1. CCI Object Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8.2. CCI Object Associated TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9. Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1. Introduction
Traditionally, Multiprotocol Label Switching Traffic Engineering
(MPLS-TE) traffic assurance requires the corresponding network
devices support Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) or the complex
Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP)/Label Distribution Protocol
(LDP) /Segment Routing etc. technologies to assure the End-to-End
(E2E) 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
Wang, et al. Expires February 27, 2020 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extension for Native IP Network August 2019
among different network devices. Draft [I-D.ietf-teas-pce-native-ip]
describes the architecture and solution philosophy for the E2E
traffic assurance in Native IP network via Dual/Multi Border Gateway
Protocol (BGP) solution. This draft describes the corresponding Path
Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) extensions 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].
3. Terminology
.This document uses the following terms defined in [RFC5440]: PCE,
PCEP
The following terms are defined in this document:
o CCDR: Central Control Dynamic Routing
o CCI: Central Controller's Instructions
o E2E: End to End
o EPR: Explicit Peer Route
o PAL: Peer Address List
o PPA: Peer Prefix Association
o QoS: Quality of Service
4. CCI Objects
Draft [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller] introduces the
Central Controller's Instructions (CCI) object which is included in
the PCInitiate and PCRpt message to transfer the centrally control
instruction and status between Path Computation Element (PCE) and
Path Computation Clients (PCC). This object is extended to include
the construction for native IP solution. Additional Type-Length-
Values (TLVs) are defined and included in this extended CCI object.
CCI Object-Class is TBD, should be same as that defined in draft
[I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller]
Wang, et al. Expires February 27, 2020 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extension for Native IP Network August 2019
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 //
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: CCI Object Format
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.
5. 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
o EPR TLV: Explicit Peer Route TLV,used to point out which route
should be taken to arrive to the peer.
5.1. 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 E2E path in case there is no Route
Reflection (RR) involved. If the RR is used between the head and end
Wang, et al. Expires February 27, 2020 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extension for Native IP Network August 2019
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) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Additional Peer Info. |
// (From Peer ID to Peer IP Address) //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: Peer Address List TLV Format
Type: 2 Bytes, value is TBD.
Length: 2 Bytes, the length of the following fields.
Peer Num : 2 Bytes, Peer Address Number on the advertised router.
Peer-ID: 2 Bytes, 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: 1 Bytes, 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.
Resv: 1 Bytes, Reserved for future use.
Local AS Number: 4 Bytes, to indicate the AS number of the Local
Peer.
Peer AS Number: 4 Bytes, to indicate the AS number of Remote Peer.
Wang, et al. Expires February 27, 2020 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extension for Native IP Network August 2019
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;
5.2. 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(Variable) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3: Peer Prefix Association TLV Format
Type: 2 Bytes, value is TBD
Length: 2 Bytes, the length of the following fields.
Peer-ID: 2 Bytes, 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: 2 Bytes, 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.
Prefixes Num: 2 Bytes, 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.
Wang, et al. Expires February 27, 2020 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extension for Native IP Network August 2019
5.2.1. 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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 4: Prefix sub TLV Format
Type: 2 Bytes, value is TBD
Length: 2 Bytes, the length of the following fields.
AT: 1 Byte, Address Type. To indicate the address type of Peer.
Equal to 4, if the following "Prefix address" belong to IPv4; Equal
to 6 if the following "Prefix address" belong to IPv6.
Prefix Length: 1 Byte, the length of the following prefix. For
example, for 10.0.0.0/8, this field will be equal to 8.
Prefix Value: Variable length, the value of the prefix. For example,
for 10.0.0./8, this field will be 10.0.0.0
5.3. 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
E2E assurance path. This TLV should be sent to all the devices that
locates on the E2E assurance path that calculated by PCE.
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 | Route Priority|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Next Hop Address to the Peer(IPv4/IPv6) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 5: Explicit Peer Route TLV
Wang, et al. Expires February 27, 2020 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extension for Native IP Network August 2019
Type: 2 Bytes, value is TBD
Length: 2 Bytes, the length of following fields.
Peer-ID: 2 Bytes, 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: 1 Byte, Address Type. To indicate the address type of explicit
peer route. Equal to 4, if the following next hop address to the
peer belongs to IPv4; Equal to 6 if the following next hop address to
the peer belongs to IPv6.
Route Priority: 1 Byte, The priority of this explicit route. The
higher priority should be preferred by the device.
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.
6. Management Consideration
TBD
7. Security Considerations
TBD
8. IANA Considerations
8.1. CCI Object Type
IANA is requested to allocate new registry for the CCI Object Type:
Object-Type Value CCI Object Name Reference
3 Native IP This document
8.2. CCI Object Associated TLV
IANA is requested to confirm the early allocation of the following
TLV Type Indicator values within the "PCEP TLV Type Indicator" sub-
registry of the PCEP Numbers registry, and to update the reference in
the registry to point to this document, when it is an RFC:
Wang, et al. Expires February 27, 2020 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extension for Native IP Network August 2019
Value Meaning Reference
---------------------------------------------------------
TBD Peer Address List TLV This document
TBD Peer Prefix Association TLV This document
TBD Explicit Peer Route TLV This document
TBD Prefix sub TLV This document
9. Acknowledgement
Thanks Dhruv Dhody for his valuable suggestions and comments.
10. References
10.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller]
Zhao, Q., Li, Z., Negi, M., 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-02 (work in progress), July
2019.
[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-03 (work in progress), April 2019.
[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>.
[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>.
10.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-teas-native-ip-scenarios]
Wang, A., Huang, X., Qou, C., Li, Z., and P. Mi,
"Scenarios and Simulation Results of PCE in Native IP
Network", draft-ietf-teas-native-ip-scenarios-06 (work in
progress), June 2019.
Wang, et al. Expires February 27, 2020 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extension for Native IP Network August 2019
Authors' Addresses
Aijun Wang
China Telecom
Beiqijia Town, Changping District
Beijing, Beijing 102209
China
Email: wangaj3@chinatelecom.cn
Boris Khasanov
Huawei Technologies,Co.,Ltd
Moskovskiy Prospekt 97A
St.Petersburg 196084
Russia
Email: khasanov.boris@huawei.com
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 February 27, 2020 [Page 10]