|Li, et al.||Expires 26 April 2023||[Page]|
- PCE Working Group
- Intended Status:
- Standards Track
Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for Segment Routing leveraging the IPv6 dataplane
The Source Packet Routing in Networking (SPRING) architecture describes how Segment Routing (SR) can be used to steer packets through an IPv6 or MPLS network using the source routing paradigm. SR enables any head-end node to select any path without relying on a hop-by-hop signaling technique (e.g., LDP or RSVP-TE).¶
It depends only on "segments" that are advertised by Link-State IGPs. A Segment Routed Path can be derived from a variety of mechanisms, including an IGP Shortest Path Tree (SPT), explicit configuration, or a PCE.¶
Since SR can be applied to both MPLS and IPv6 forwarding plane, a PCE should be able to compute SR-Path for both MPLS and IPv6 forwarding plane. This document describes the extensions required for SR support for IPv6 data plane in Path Computation Element communication Protocol (PCEP). The PCEP extension and mechanism to support SR-MPLS is described in RFC 8664. This document extends it to support SRv6 (SR over IPv6).¶
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 26 April 2023.¶
Copyright (c) 2022 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 Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.¶
As per [RFC8402], with Segment Routing (SR), a node steers a packet through an ordered list of instructions, called segments. A segment can represent any instruction, topological or service-based. A segment can have a semantic local to an SR node or global within an SR domain. SR allows to enforce a flow through any path and service chain while maintaining per-flow state only at the ingress node of the SR domain. Segments can be derived from different components: IGP, BGP, Services, Contexts, Locater, etc. The list of segment forming the path is called the Segment List and is encoded in the packet header. Segment Routing can be applied to the IPv6 architecture with the Segment Routing Header (SRH) [RFC8754]. A segment is encoded as an IPv6 address. An ordered list of segments is encoded as an ordered list of IPv6 addresses in the routing header. The active segment is indicated by the Destination Address of the packet. Upon completion of a segment, a pointer in the new routing header is incremented and indicates the next segment.¶
As per [RFC8754], an SRv6 Segment identifier is an 128-bit value. "SRv6 SID" or simply "SID" are often used as a shorter reference for "SRv6 Segment". Further details are in an illustration provided in [RFC8986].¶
The SR architecture can be applied to the MPLS forwarding plane without any change, in which case an SR path corresponds to an MPLS Label Switching Path (LSP). The SR is applied to IPV6 forwarding plane using Source Routing Header (SRH) [RFC8754]. A SR path can be derived from an IGP Shortest Path Tree (SPT), but SR-TE paths may not follow IGP SPT. Such paths may be chosen by a suitable network planning tool, or a PCE and provisioned on the ingress node.¶
[RFC5440] describes Path Computation Element communication Protocol (PCEP) for communication between a Path Computation Client (PCC) and a Path Computation Element (PCE) or between a pair of PCEs. A PCE or a PCC operating as a PCE (in hierarchical PCE environment) computes paths for MPLS Traffic Engineering LSPs (MPLS-TE LSPs) based on various constraints and optimization criteria. [RFC8231] specifies extensions to PCEP that allow a stateful PCE to compute and recommend network paths in compliance with [RFC4657] and defines objects and TLVs for MPLS-TE LSPs. Stateful PCEP extensions provide synchronization of LSP state between a PCC and a PCE or between a pair of PCEs, delegation of LSP control, reporting of LSP state from a PCC to a PCE, controlling the setup and path routing of an LSP from a PCE to a PCC. Stateful PCEP extensions are intended for an operational model in which LSPs are configured on the PCC, and control over them is delegated to the PCE.¶
A mechanism to dynamically initiate LSPs on a PCC based on the requests from a stateful PCE or a controller using stateful PCE is specified in [RFC8281]. As per [RFC8664], it is possible to use a stateful PCE for computing one or more SR-TE paths taking into account various constraints and objective functions. Once a path is chosen, the stateful PCE can initiate an SR-TE path on a PCC using PCEP extensions specified in [RFC8281] using the SR specific PCEP extensions specified in [RFC8664]. [RFC8664] specifies PCEP extensions for supporting a SR-TE LSP for MPLS data plane. This document extends [RFC8664] to support SR for IPv6 data plane. Additionally, using procedures described in this document, a PCC can request an SRv6 path from either stateful or a stateless PCE. This specification relies on the PATH-SETUP-TYPE TLV and procedures specified in [RFC8408].¶
This specification 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 [RFC9256] which is applicable to both SR-MPLS and SRv6.¶
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.¶
Further, following terms are used in the document:¶
- Maximum SID Depth.¶
- Path Setup Type.¶
- Segment Routing.¶
- Segment Identifier.¶
- Segment Routing for IPv6 forwarding plane.¶
- IPv6 Segment Routing Header.¶
- SR Path:
- IPv6 Segment List (List of IPv6 SIDs representing a path in IPv6 SR domain in the context of this document)¶
Further, note that the term LSP used in the PCEP specifications, would be equivalent to a SRv6 Path (represented as a list of SRv6 segments) in the context of supporting SRv6 in PCEP.¶
[RFC8664] defined a new Explicit Route Object (ERO) subobject denoted by "SR-ERO subobject" capable of carrying a SID as well as the identity of the node/adjacency represented by the SID for SR-MPLS. SR-capable PCEP speakers should be able to generate and/or process such an ERO subobject. An ERO containing SR-ERO subobjects can be included in the PCEP Path Computation Reply (PCRep) message defined in [RFC5440], the PCEP LSP Initiate Request message (PCInitiate) defined in [RFC8281], as well as in the PCEP LSP Update Request (PCUpd) and PCEP LSP State Report (PCRpt) messages defined in defined in [RFC8231].¶
This document define new subobjects "SRv6-ERO" and "SRv6-RRO" in the ERO and the RRO respectively to carry the SRv6 SID (IPv6 Address). SRv6-capable PCEP speakers MUST be able to generate and/or process these subobjects.¶
When a PCEP session between a PCC and a PCE is established, both PCEP speakers exchange their capabilities to indicate their ability to support SRv6 specific functionality as described in Section 4.1.1.¶
In summary, this document:¶
- Defines a new PCEP capability for SRv6.¶
- Defines a new subobject SRv6-ERO in ERO.¶
- Defines a new subobject SRv6-RRO in RRO.¶
- Defines a new path setup type (PST) [RFC8408] carried in the PATH-SETUP-TYPE TLV and the PATH-SETUP-TYPE-CAPABILITY TLV.¶
In SR networks, an ingress node of an SR path appends all outgoing packets with an SR header consisting of a list of SIDs (IPv6 Prefix in case of SRv6). The header has all necessary information to guide the packets from the ingress node to the egress node of the path, and hence there is no need for any signaling protocol.¶
As defined in [RFC5440], a PCEP message consists of a common header followed by a variable length body made up of mandatory and/or optional objects. This document does not require any changes in the format of PCReq and PCRep messages specified in [RFC5440], PCInitiate message specified in [RFC8281], and PCRpt and PCUpd messages specified in [RFC8231]. However, PCEP messages pertaining to SRv6 MUST include PATH-SETUP-TYPE TLV in the RP or SRP object to clearly identify that SRv6 is intended.¶
- PST = 3 (early allocated by IANA): Path is setup using SRv6.¶
A PCEP speaker MUST indicate its support of the function described in this document by sending a PATH-SETUP-TYPE-CAPABILITY TLV in the OPEN object with this new PST "3" included in the PST list.¶
This document also defines the SRv6-PCE-CAPABILITY sub-TLV. PCEP speakers use this sub-TLV to exchange information about their SRv6 capability. If a PCEP speaker includes PST=3 (early allocated by IANA) in the PST List of the PATH-SETUP-TYPE-CAPABILITY TLV then it MUST also include the SRv6-PCE-CAPABILITY sub-TLV inside the PATH-SETUP-TYPE-CAPABILITY TLV.¶
The format of the SRv6-PCE-CAPABILITY sub-TLV is shown in the following figure:¶
The code point for the TLV type is 27 (early allocated by IANA). The TLV length is variable.¶
The value comprises of -¶
- Reserved: 2 octet, this field MUST be set to 0 on transmission, and ignored on receipt.¶
Flags: 2 octet, two bits are currently assigned in this document.¶
- N bit: A PCC sets this flag bit to 1 to indicate that it is capable of resolving a Node or Adjacency Identifier (NAI) to a SRv6-SID.¶
- X bit: A PCC sets this bit to 1 to indicate that it does not impose any limit on MSD (irrespective of the MSD-Type).¶
- Unassigned bits MUST be set to 0 and ignored on receipt.¶
- A pair of (MSD-Type, MSD-Value): Where MSD-Type (1 octet) is as per the IGP MSD Type registry created by [RFC8491] and populated with SRv6 MSD types as per [I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions]; MSD-Value (1 octet) is as per [RFC8491].¶
This sub-TLV format is compliant with the PCEP TLV format defined in [RFC5440]. That is, the sub-TLV is composed of 2 octets for the type, 2 octets specifying the length, and a Value field. The Type field when set to 27 (early allocated by IANA) identifies the SRv6-PCE-CAPABILITY sub-TLV and the presence of the sub-TLV indicates the support for the SRv6 paths in PCEP. The Length field defines the length of the value portion in octets. The TLV is padded to 4-octet alignment, and padding is not included in the Length field. The number of (MSD-Type,MSD-Value) pairs can be determined from the Length field of the TLV.¶
In order to indicate the SRv6 path, RP or SRP object MUST include the PATH-SETUP-TYPE TLV specified in [RFC8408]. This document defines a new Path Setup Type (PST=3 (early allocated by IANA)) for SRv6.¶
The LSP-IDENTIFIERS TLV MAY be present for the above PST type.¶
In order to support SRv6, new subobject "SRv6-ERO" is defined in ERO.¶
An SRv6-ERO subobject is formatted as shown in the following figure.¶
The fields in the SRv6-ERO subobject are as follows:¶
The 'L' Flag: Indicates whether the subobject represents a loose-hop (see [RFC3209]). If this flag is set to zero, a PCC MUST NOT overwrite the SID value present in the SRv6-ERO subobject. Otherwise, a PCC MAY expand or replace one or more SID values in the received SRv6-ERO based on its local policy.¶
Type: indicates the content of the subobject, i.e. when the field is set to 40 (early allocated by IANA), the suboject is a SRv6-ERO subobject representing a SRv6 SID.¶
Length: Contains the total length of the subobject in octets. The Length MUST be at least 24, and MUST be a multiple of 4. An SRv6-ERO subobject MUST contain at least one of a SRv6-SID or an NAI. The S and F bit in the Flags field indicates whether the SRv6-SID or NAI fields are absent.¶
NAI Type (NT): Indicates the type and format of the NAI contained in the object body, if any is present. If the F bit is set to one (see below) then the NT field has no meaning and MUST be ignored by the receiver. This document reuses NT types defined in [RFC8664]:¶
- If NT value is 0, the NAI MUST NOT be included.¶
- When NT value is 2, the NAI is as per the 'IPv6 Node ID' format defined in [RFC8664], which specifies an IPv6 address. This is used to identify the owner of the SRv6 Identifier. This is optional, as the LOC (the locater portion) of the SRv6 SID serves a similar purpose (when present).¶
- When NT value is 4, the NAI is as per the 'IPv6 Adjacency' format defined in [RFC8664], which specify a pair of IPv6 addresses. This is used to identify the IPv6 Adjacency and used with the SRv6 Adj-SID.¶
- When NT value is 6, the NAI is as per the 'link-local IPv6 addresses' format defined in [RFC8664], which specify a pair of (global IPv6 address, interface ID) tuples. It is used to identify the IPv6 Adjacency and used with the SRv6 Adj-SID.¶
- SR-MPLS specific NT types are not valid in SRv6-ERO.¶
Flags: Used to carry additional information pertaining to the SRv6-SID. This document defines the following flag bits. The other bits MUST be set to zero by the sender and MUST be ignored by the receiver.¶
- S: When this bit is set to 1, the SRv6-SID value in the subobject body is absent. In this case, the PCC is responsible for choosing the SRv6-SID value, e.g., by looking up in the SR-DB using the NAI which, in this case, MUST be present in the subobject. If the S bit is set to 1 then F bit MUST be set to zero.¶
- F: When this bit is set to 1, the NAI value in the subobject body is absent. The F bit MUST be set to 1 if NT=0, and otherwise MUST be set to zero. The S and F bits MUST NOT both be set to 1.¶
- T: When this bit is set to 1, the SID Structure value in the subobject body is present. The T bit MUST be set to 0 when S bit is set to 1. If the T bit is set when the S bit is set, the T bit MUST be ignored. Thus, the T bit indicates the presence of an optional 8-byte SID Structure when SRv6 SID is included. The SID Structure is defined in Section 22.214.171.124.¶
- V: The "SID verification" bit usage is as per Section 5.1 of [RFC9256].¶
Reserved: MUST be set to zero while sending and ignored on receipt.¶
Endpoint Behavior: A 16-bit field representing the behavior associated with the SRv6 SIDs. This information is optional and plays no role in the fields in SRH imposed on the packet. It could be used for maintainability and diagnostic purpose. If behavior is not known, the value '0' is used. The list of Endpoint behaviors are defined in [RFC8986].¶
SRv6 SID: SRv6 Identifier is an 128-bit IPv6 addresses representing the SRv6 segment.¶
At least one of the SRv6-SID or the NAI MUST be included in the SRv6-ERO subobject, and both MAY be included.¶
[RFC8986] defines an SRv6 SID as consisting of LOC:FUNCT:ARG, where a locator (LOC) is encoded in the L most significant bits of the SID, followed by F bits of function (FUNCT) and A bits of arguments (ARG). A locator may be represented as B:N where B is the SRv6 SID locator block (IPv6 prefix allocated for SRv6 SIDs by the operator) and N is the identifier of the parent node instantiating the SID called locator node.¶
It is formatted as shown in the following figure.¶
LB Length: 1 octet. SRv6 SID Locator Block length in bits.¶
LN Length: 1 octet. SRv6 SID Locator Node length in bits.¶
Fun. Length: 1 octet. SRv6 SID Function length in bits.¶
Arg. Length: 1 octet. SRv6 SID Arguments length in bits.¶
The sum of all four sizes in the SID Structure must be lower or equal to 128 bits. If the sum of all four sizes advertised in the SID Structure is larger than 128 bits, the corresponding SRv6 SID MUST be considered invalid and a PCErr message with Error-Type = 10 ("Reception of an invalid object") and Error-Value = 37 (early allocated by IANA) ("Invalid SRv6 SID Structure") is returned.¶
Reserved: MUST be set to zero while sending and ignored on receipt.¶
Flags: Currently no flags are defined. Unassigned bits must be set to zero while sending and ignored on receipt.¶
The SRv6 SID Structure provides the detailed encoding information of an SRv6 SID, which is useful in the use cases that require to know the SRv6 SID structure. When a PCEP speaker receives the SRv6 SID and its structure information, the SRv6 SID can be parsed based on the SRv6 SID Structure and/or possible local policies. The SRv6 SID Structure could be used by the PCE for ease of operations and monitoring. For example, this information could be used for validation of SRv6 SIDs being instantiated in the network and checked for conformance to the SRv6 SID allocation scheme chosen by the operator as described in Section 3.2 of [RFC8986]. In the future, PCE could also be used for verification and the automation for securing the SRv6 domain by provisioning filtering rules at SR domain boundaries as described in Section 5 of [RFC8754]. The details of these potential applications are outside the scope of this document.¶
The optional elements in the SRv6-ERO subobject i.e. SRv6 SID, NAI and the SID Structure MUST be encoded in the order as depicted in Figure 2. The presence of each of them is indicated by the respective flags i.e. S flag, F flag and T flag.¶
To allow for future compatibility, any optional element added to the SRv6-ERO subobject in future MUST specify the order of the optional element and request IANA to allocate a flag to indicate its presence from the subregistry created in Section 9.2.¶
In order to support SRv6, new subobject "SRv6-RRO" is defined in RRO.¶
A PCC reports an SRv6 path to a PCE by sending a PCRpt message, per [RFC8231]. The RRO on this message represents the SID list that was applied by the PCC, that is, the actual path taken. The procedures of [RFC8664] with respect to the RRO apply equally to this specification without change.¶
An RRO contains one or more subobjects called "SRv6-RRO subobjects" whose format is shown below:¶
The format of the SRv6-RRO subobject is the same as that of the SRv6-ERO subobject, but without the L flag.¶
The V flag has no meaning in the SRv6-RRO and is ignored on receipt at the PCE.¶
A PCC indicates that it is capable of supporting the head-end functions for SRv6 by including the SRv6-PCE-CAPABILITY sub-TLV in the Open message that it sends to a PCE. A PCE indicates that it is capable of computing SRv6 paths by including the SRv6-PCE-CAPABILITY sub-TLV in the Open message that it sends to a PCC.¶
If a PCEP speaker receives a PATH-SETUP-TYPE-CAPABILITY TLV with a PST list containing PST=3 (early allocated by IANA), but the SRv6-PCE-CAPABILITY sub-TLV is absent, then the PCEP speaker MUST send a PCErr message with Error- Type = 10 (Reception of an invalid object) and Error-Value = 34 (early allocated by IANA) (Missing PCE-SRv6-CAPABILITY sub-TLV) and MUST then close the PCEP session. If a PCEP speaker receives a PATH-SETUP- TYPE-CAPABILITY TLV with a SRv6-PCE-CAPABILITY sub-TLV, but the PST list does not contain PST=3 (early allocated by IANA), then the PCEP speaker MUST ignore the SRv6-PCE-CAPABILITY sub-TLV.¶
The number of SRv6 SIDs that can be imposed on a packet depends on the PCC's IPv6 data plane's capability. If a PCC sets the X flag to 1 then the MSD is not used and MUST NOT be included. If a PCE receives an SRv6-PCE-CAPABILITY sub-TLV with the X flag set to 1 then it MUST ignore any MSD-Type, MSD-Value fields and MUST assume that the sender can impose any length of SRH. If a PCC sets the X flag to zero, then it sets the SRv6 MSD-Type, MSD-Value fields that it can impose on a packet. If a PCE receives an SRv6-PCE-CAPABILITY sub-TLV with the X flag as set, and SRv6 MSD-Type or MSD-Value fields are set to zero then it is considered as an error and the PCE MUST respond with a PCErr message (Error-Type = 1 "PCEP session establishment failure" and Error-Value = 1 "reception of an invalid Open message or a non Open message."). In case the MSD-Type in SRv6-PCE-CAPABILITY sub-TLV received by the PCE does not correspond to one of the SRv6 MSD types, the PCE MUST respond with a PCErr message (Error-Type = 1 "PCEP session establishment failure" and Error-Value = 1 "reception of an invalid Open message or a non Open message.").¶
Note that the MSD-Type, MSD-Value exchanged via the SRv6-PCE-CAPABILITY sub-TLV indicates the SRv6 SID imposition limit for the PCC node. However, if a PCE learns these via different means, e.g routing protocols, as specified in: [I-D.ietf-lsr-ospfv3-srv6-extensions]; [I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions]; [I-D.ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext], then it ignores the values in the SRv6-PCE-CAPABILITY sub-TLV. Furthermore, whenever a PCE learns the other advanced SRv6 MSD via different means, it MUST use that value regardless of the values exchanged in the SRv6-PCE-CAPABILITY sub-TLV.¶
Once an SRv6-capable PCEP session is established with a non-zero SRv6 MSD value, the corresponding PCE MUST NOT send SRv6 paths with a number of SIDs exceeding that SRv6 MSD value (based on the SRv6 MSD Type). If a PCC needs to modify the SRv6 MSD value, it MUST close the PCEP session and re-establish it with the new value. If a PCEP session is established with a non-zero SRv6 MSD value, and the PCC receives an SRv6 path containing more SIDs than specified in the SRv6 MSD value (based on the SRv6 MSD type), the PCC MUST send a PCErr message with Error-Type = 10 (Reception of an invalid object) and Error-Value = TBD1 (Unsupported number of SRv6-ERO subobjects). If a PCEP session is established with an SRv6 MSD value of zero, then the PCC MAY specify an SRv6 MSD for each path computation request that it sends to the PCE, by including a "maximum SID depth" metric object on the request similar to [RFC8664].¶
The N flag, X flag and (MSD-Type,MSD-Value) pair inside the SRv6-PCE-CAPABILITY sub-TLV are meaningful only in the Open message sent from a PCC to a PCE. As such, a PCE MUST set the flags to zero and not include any (MSD-Type,MSD-Value) pair in the SRv6-PCE-CAPABILITY sub-TLV in an outbound message to a PCC. Similarly, a PCC MUST ignore N,X flag and any (MSD-Type,MSD-Value) pair received from a PCE. If a PCE receives multiple SRv6-PCE-CAPABILITY sub-TLVs in an Open message, it processes only the first sub-TLV received.¶
On receiving an SRv6-ERO, a PCC MUST validate that the Length field, the S bit, the F bit, the T bit, and the NT field are consistent, as follows.¶
- If NT=0, the F bit MUST be 1, the S bit MUST be zero and the Length MUST be 24.¶
- If NT=2, the F bit MUST be zero. If the S bit is 1, the Length MUST be 24, otherwise the Length MUST be 40.¶
- If NT=4, the F bit MUST be zero. If the S bit is 1, the Length MUST be 40, otherwise the Length MUST be 56.¶
- If NT=6, the F bit MUST be zero. If the S bit is 1, the Length MUST be 48, otherwise the Length MUST be 64.¶
- NT types (1,3, and 5) are not valid for SRv6.¶
- If T bit is 1, then S bit MUST be zero.¶
If a PCC finds that the NT field, Length field, S bit, F bit, and T bit are not consistent, it MUST consider the entire ERO invalid and MUST send a PCErr message with Error-Type = 10 ("Reception of an invalid object") and Error-Value = 11 ("Malformed object").¶
If a PCC does not recognize or support the value in the NT field, it MUST consider the entire ERO invalid and MUST send a PCErr message with Error-Type = 10 ("Reception of an invalid object") and Error- value = TBD2 ("Unsupported NAI Type in the SRv6-ERO/SRv6-RRO subobject").¶
If a PCC receives an SRv6-ERO subobject in which the S and F bits are both set to 1 (that is, both the SID and NAI are absent), it MUST consider the entire ERO invalid and send a PCErr message with Error- Type = 10 ("Reception of an invalid object") and Error-value = TBD3 ("Both SID and NAI are absent in the SRv6-ERO subobject").¶
If a PCC receives an SRv6-ERO subobject in which the S bit is set to 1 and the F bit is set to zero (that is, the SID is absent and the NAI is present), but the PCC does not support NAI resolution, it MUST consider the entire ERO invalid and send a PCErr message with Error- Type = 4 ("Not supported object") and Error-value = 4 ("Unsupported parameter").¶
If a PCC detects that the subobjects of an ERO are a mixture of SRv6- ERO subobjects and subobjects of other types, then it MUST send a PCErr message with Error-Type = 10 ("Reception of an invalid object") and Error-value = TBD4 ("ERO mixes SRv6-ERO subobjects with other subobject types").¶
In case a PCEP speaker receives the SRv6-ERO subobject, when the PST is not set to 3 (early allocated by IANA) or SRv6-PCE-CAPABILITY sub-TLV was not exchanged, it MUST send a PCErr message with Error-Type = 19 ("Invalid Operation") and Error-Value = 19 (early allocated by IANA) ("Attempted SRv6 when the capability was not advertised").¶
If a PCC receives a list of SRv6 segments, and the number of SRv6 segments exceeds the SRv6 MSD that the PCC can impose on the packet (SRH), it MUST send a PCErr message with Error-Type = 10 ("Reception of an invalid object") and Error-Value = TBD5 ("Unsupported number of SRv6-ERO subobjects") as per [RFC8664].¶
The SRv6-ERO contains a sequence of subobjects. According to [RFC9256], each SRv6-ERO subobject in the sequence identifies a segment that the traffic will be directed to, in the order given. That is, the first subobject identifies the first segment the traffic will be directed to, the second SRv6-ERO subobject represents the second segment, and so on.¶
The PCC interprets the SRv6-ERO by converting it to an SRv6 SRH plus a next hop. The PCC sends packets along the segment routed path by prepending the SRH onto the packets and sending the resulting, modified packet to the next hop.¶
The syntax checking rules that apply to the SRv6-RRO subobject are identical to those of the SRv6-ERO subobject, except as noted below.¶
If a PCEP speaker receives an SRv6-RRO subobject in which both SRv6 SID and NAI are absent, it MUST consider the entire RRO invalid and send a PCErr message with Error-Type = 10 ("Reception of an invalid object") and Error-Value = 35 (early allocated by IANA) ("Both SID and NAI are absent in SRv6-RRO subobject").¶
If a PCE detects that the subobjects of an RRO are a mixture of SRv6-RRO subobjects and subobjects of other types, then it MUST send a PCErr message with Error-Type = 10 ("Reception of an invalid object") and Error-Value = 36 (early allocated by IANA) ("RRO mixes SRv6-RRO subobjects with other subobject types").¶
Note that this specification enables a network controller to instantiate an SRv6 path in the network. This creates an additional vulnerability if the security mechanisms of [RFC5440], [RFC8231], and [RFC8281] are not used. If there is no integrity protection on the session, then an attacker could create an SRv6 path that may not subjected to the further verification checks. Further, the MSD field in the Open message could disclose node forwarding capabilities if suitable security mechanisms are not in place.¶
All manageability requirements and considerations listed in [RFC5440], [RFC8231], [RFC8281], and [RFC8664] apply to PCEP protocol extensions defined in this document. In addition, requirements and considerations listed in this section apply.¶
A PCEP implementation SHOULD allow the operator to configure the SRv6 capability. Further a policy to accept NAI only for the SRv6 SHOULD be allowed to set.¶
The PCEP YANG module is defined in [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang]. An augmented YANG module for SRv6 is specified in [I-D.li-pce-pcep-srv6-yang] that allows for SRv6 capability and MSD configurations as well as to monitor the SRv6 paths set in the network.¶
Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new requirements on other protocols.¶
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. It is up to the individual working groups to use this information as they see fit".¶
This document defines a new subobject type for the PCEP explicit route object (ERO), and a new subobject type for the PCEP record route object (RRO). The code points for subobject types of these objects is maintained in the RSVP parameters registry, under the EXPLICIT_ROUTE and ROUTE_RECORD objects. IANA is requested to confirm the following early allocations in the RSVP Parameters registry for each of the new subobject types defined in this document.¶
Object Subobject Subobject Type --------------------- -------------------------- ------------------ EXPLICIT_ROUTE SRv6-ERO (PCEP-specific) 40 ROUTE_RECORD SRv6-RRO (PCEP-specific) 40¶
IANA is requested to create a new sub-registry, named "SRv6-ERO Flag Field", within the "Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry to manage the Flag field of the SRv6-ERO subobject. New values are to be assigned by Standards Action [RFC8126]. Each bit should be tracked with the following qualities:¶
The following values are defined in this document:¶
Bit Description Reference ----- ------------------ -------------- 0-7 Unassigned 8 SID Verification (V) This document 9 SID Structure is This document present (T) 10 NAI is absent (F) This document 11 SID is absent (S) This document¶
IANA maintains a sub-registry, named "PATH-SETUP-TYPE-CAPABILITY Sub-TLV Type Indicators", within the "Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry to manage the type indicator space for sub-TLVs of the PATH-SETUP-TYPE-CAPABILITY TLV. IANA is requested to confirm the following early allocations in the sub-registry:¶
Value Meaning Reference ----- ------- --------- 27 SRv6-PCE-CAPABILITY This Document¶
IANA is requested to create a new sub-registry, named "SRv6 Capability Flag Field", within the "Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry to manage the Flag field of the SRv6-PCE-CAPABILITY sub-TLV. New values are to be assigned by Standards Action [RFC8126]. Each bit should be tracked with the following qualities:¶
The following values are defined in this document:¶
Bit Description Reference 0-13 Unassigned 14 Node or Adjacency This document Identifier (NAI) is supported (N) 15 Unlimited Maximum SID This document Depth (X)¶
[RFC8408] created a sub-registry within the "Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry called "PCEP Path Setup Types". IANA is requested to confirm the following early allocations in the sub-registry:¶
Value Description Reference ----- ----------- --------- 3 Traffic engineering path is This Document setup using SRv6.¶
IANA is requested to confirm the following early allocations in the PCEP-ERROR Object Error Types and Values registry for the following new error-values:¶
Error-Type Meaning ---------- ------- 10 Reception of an invalid object Error-value = 34 (Missing PCE-SRv6-CAPABILITY sub-TLV) Error-value = 35 (Both SID and NAI are absent in SRv6-RRO subobject) Error-value = 36 (RRO mixes SRv6-RRO subobjects with other subobject types) Error-value = 37 (Invalid SRv6 SID Structure) 19 Invalid Operation Error-value = 19 (Attempted SRv6 when the capability was not advertised)¶
IANA is requested to make a new allocations in the PCEP-ERROR Object Error Types and Values registry for the following new error-values:¶
Error-Type Meaning ---------- ------- 10 Reception of an invalid object Error-value = TBD1 (Unsupported number of SRv6-ERO subobjects) Error-value = TBD2 (Unsupported NAI Type in the SRv6-ERO/SRv6-RRO subobject) Error-value = TBD3 (Both SID and NAI are absent in the SRv6-ERO subobject) Error-value = TBD4 (ERO mixes SRv6-ERO subobjects with other subobject types) Error-value = TBD5 (Unsupported number of SRv6-ERO subobjects)¶
The authors would like to thank Jeff Tantsura, Adrian Farrel, Aijun Wang, Khasanov Boris, and Robert Varga for valuable suggestions.¶
- Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
- Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V., and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels", RFC 3209, DOI 10.17487/RFC3209, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3209>.
- Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440, DOI 10.17487/RFC5440, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5440>.
- Farrel, A., "Routing Backus-Naur Form (RBNF): A Syntax Used to Form Encoding Rules in Various Routing Protocol Specifications", RFC 5511, DOI 10.17487/RFC5511, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5511>.
- Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
- Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
- 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, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8231>.
- 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, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8281>.
- Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Ginsberg, L., Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment Routing Architecture", RFC 8402, DOI 10.17487/RFC8402, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8402>.
- Sivabalan, S., Tantsura, J., Minei, I., Varga, R., and J. Hardwick, "Conveying Path Setup Type in PCE Communication Protocol (PCEP) Messages", RFC 8408, DOI 10.17487/RFC8408, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8408>.
- Tantsura, J., Chunduri, U., Aldrin, S., and L. Ginsberg, "Signaling Maximum SID Depth (MSD) Using IS-IS", RFC 8491, DOI 10.17487/RFC8491, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8491>.
- 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, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8664>.
- Filsfils, C., Ed., Camarillo, P., Ed., Leddy, J., Voyer, D., Matsushima, S., and Z. Li, "Segment Routing over IPv6 (SRv6) Network Programming", RFC 8986, DOI 10.17487/RFC8986, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8986>.
- Psenak, P., Filsfils, C., Bashandy, A., Decraene, B., and Z. Hu, "IS-IS Extensions to Support Segment Routing over IPv6 Dataplane", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions-18, , <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions-18.txt>.
- Ash, J., Ed. and J.L. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol Generic Requirements", RFC 4657, DOI 10.17487/RFC4657, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4657>.
- Sheffer, Y. and A. Farrel, "Improving Awareness of Running Code: The Implementation Status Section", BCP 205, RFC 7942, DOI 10.17487/RFC7942, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7942>.
- Previdi, S., Ed., Filsfils, C., Ed., Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., Horneffer, M., and R. Shakir, "Source Packet Routing in Networking (SPRING) Problem Statement and Requirements", RFC 7855, DOI 10.17487/RFC7855, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7855>.
- Zhang, X., Ed. and I. Minei, Ed., "Applicability of a Stateful Path Computation Element (PCE)", RFC 8051, DOI 10.17487/RFC8051, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8051>.
- Brzozowski, J., Leddy, J., Filsfils, C., Maglione, R., Ed., and M. Townsley, "Use Cases for IPv6 Source Packet Routing in Networking (SPRING)", RFC 8354, DOI 10.17487/RFC8354, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8354>.
- Psenak, P., Ed. and S. Previdi, Ed., "OSPFv3 Extensions for Segment Routing", RFC 8666, DOI 10.17487/RFC8666, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8666>.
- Previdi, S., Ed., Ginsberg, L., Ed., Filsfils, C., Bashandy, A., Gredler, H., and B. Decraene, "IS-IS Extensions for Segment Routing", RFC 8667, DOI 10.17487/RFC8667, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8667>.
- Filsfils, C., Ed., Dukes, D., Ed., Previdi, S., Leddy, J., Matsushima, S., and D. Voyer, "IPv6 Segment Routing Header (SRH)", RFC 8754, DOI 10.17487/RFC8754, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8754>.
- Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Ed., Voyer, D., Bogdanov, A., and P. Mattes, "Segment Routing Policy Architecture", RFC 9256, DOI 10.17487/RFC9256, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9256>.
- Li, Z., Hu, Z., Talaulikar, K., and P. Psenak, "OSPFv3 Extensions for SRv6", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-srv6-extensions-08, , <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-srv6-extensions-08.txt>.
- Dawra, G., Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Chen, M., Bernier, D., and B. Decraene, "BGP Link State Extensions for SRv6", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext-11, , <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext-11.txt>.
- Dhody, D., Beeram, V. P., Hardwick, J., and J. Tantsura, "A YANG Data Model for Path Computation Element Communications Protocol (PCEP)", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-pce-pcep-yang-20, , <https://datatracker.ietf.org/api/v1/doc/document/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-yang/>.
- Li, C., Sivabalan, S., Peng, S., Koldychev, M., and L. Ndifor, "A YANG Data Model for Segment Routing (SR) Policy and SR in IPv6 (SRv6) support in Path Computation Element Communications Protocol (PCEP)", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-li-pce-pcep-srv6-yang-07, , <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-li-pce-pcep-srv6-yang-07.txt>.
The following persons contributed to this document:¶
Dhruv Dhody Huawei Technologies Divyashree Techno Park, Whitefield Bangalore, Karnataka 560066 India EMail: firstname.lastname@example.org Huang Wumin Huawei Technologies Huawei Building, No. 156 Beiqing Rd. Beijing 100095 China Email: email@example.com Shuping Peng Huawei Technologies Huawei Building, No. 156 Beiqing Rd. Beijing 100095 China Email: firstname.lastname@example.org¶