Network Working Group Z. Li
Internet-Draft D. Dhody
Intended status: Standards Track Huawei Technologies
Expires: January 9, 2017 C. Margaria
C. Barth
Juniper
X. Chen
S. Zhuang
Huawei Technologies
July 8, 2016
PCEP Extension for Flow Specification
draft-li-pce-pcep-flowspec-01
Abstract
Dissemination of the traffic flow specifications was first introduced
in the BGP protocol via RFC 5575. In order to distribute the flow
specifications from PCE controller to network device without BGP
protocol it is desirable to extend PCEP with flow specification
information.
This document specifies a set of extensions to PCEP to support
dissemination of flow specifications. The extensions include the
instantiation, updation and deletion of flow specifications.
Requirements Language
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].
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 http://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."
Li, et al. Expires January 9, 2017 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft PCEP-FlowSpec July 2016
This Internet-Draft will expire on January 9, 2017.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Procedures for Dissemination of FlowSpec . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Overview of Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. Capability Advertisement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.3. Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.4. Flowspec Synronization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. PCEP Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. PCEP FlowSpec Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Objects and TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.1. OPEN Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.1.1. PCE FlowSpec Capability TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.2. FLOW Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.3. ACTION Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6.1. PCEP Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6.2. PCEP Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6.3. PCEP TLV Type Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Appendix A. Contributor Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Appendix B. Example Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Li, et al. Expires January 9, 2017 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft PCEP-FlowSpec July 2016
1. Introduction
Dissemination of the traffic flow specifications was first introduced
in the BGP protocol [RFC5575]. The traffic flow specification is
comprised of traffic filtering rules and actions. The routers which
received the flow specification can take advantage of the ACL (Access
Control List) or firewall capabilities in the router's forwarding
path. The routers can classify the packets according to the traffic
filtering rules and shape, rate limit, filter, or redirect packets
based on the actions. The flow specification carried by BGP can be
used to automate inter-domain coordination of traffic filtering to
mitigate (distributed) denial-of-service attacks and can also be used
to provide traffic filtering in the context of a BGP/MPLS VPN
service.
[RFC5575] also defines that a flow specification received from an
external autonomous system will need to be validated against unicast
routing before being accepted. [I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-flowspec-oid]
describes a modification to the validation procedure defined in
[I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-flowspec-oid] for the dissemination of BGP flow
specifications. The modification proposed enables flow
specifications to be originated from a centralized BGP route
controller.
[I-D.ietf-ospf-flowspec-extensions] defines the extensions to OSPF to
distribute flow specifications in the networks that only deploy an
IGP (Interior Gateway Protocol) (e.g., OSPF). It also defines the
validation procedures for imposing the filtering information on the
routers.
[RFC5440] describes the Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP).
PCEP defines the communication between a Path Computation Client
(PCC) and a Path Control Element (PCE), or between PCE and PCE,
enabling computation of Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) for
Traffic Engineering Label Switched Path (TE LSP) characteristics.
Stateful pce [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] specifies a set of
extensions to PCEP to enable stateful control of TE LSPs between and
across PCEP sessions in compliance with [RFC4657]. It includes
mechanisms to effect LSP state synchronization between PCCs and PCEs,
delegation of control of LSPs to PCEs, and PCE control of timing and
sequence of path computations within and across PCEP sessions and
focuses on a model where LSPs are configured on the PCC and control
over them is delegated to the PCE. [I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp]
describes the setup, maintenance and teardown of PCE- initiated LSPs
under the stateful PCE model, without the need for local
configuration on the PCC, thus allowing for a dynamic network that is
centrally controlled and deployed.
Li, et al. Expires January 9, 2017 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft PCEP-FlowSpec July 2016
In case PCE is used to initiate tunnels via PCEP, it is desirable to
use the same protocol to also distribute the flow specifications to
describe what data flows on those tunnels. Thus, in order to
distribute the flow specifications from PCE controller to network
device, PCEP is extended with flow specification information in this
document.
[I-D.zhao-teas-pce-control-function] introduces the architecture for
PCE as a central controller and describes how PCE can be viewed as a
component that perfor computation to place 'flows' within the network
and decide how these flows are routed.
This document specifies a set of extensions to PCEP to support
dissemination of flow specifications. The flow specifications can be
disseminated between PCEP peers such as from PCE to PCC or between
PCEs . The extensions include the creation, updation and withdrawal
of flow specifications via PCEP.
The values of flow filtering rules and actions mainly refer to the
BGP flow specification and IGP specification. This document extends
new actions which are redirecting to LSP (refered by Symbolic Path
Name, IPv4 LSP, or IPv6 LSP).
2. Terminology
This document uses the terms defined in [RFC5440] and [RFC5575].
This document uses the terms defined in [RFC5440]: PCC, PCE, PCEP
Peer.
The following term is from [RFC5575]. It is used frequently
throughout this document:
Flow Specification (FlowSpec): A flow specification is an n-tuple
consisting of several matching criteria that can be applied to IP
traffic, including filters and actions. Each FlowSpec consists of a
set of filters and a set of actions.
3. Procedures for Dissemination of FlowSpec
3.1. Overview of Procedures
A PCC or PCE indicates its ability to support PCE FlowSpec during the
PCEP Initialization Phase via "PCE FlowSpec Capability" TLV (see
details in Section 5.1.1).
This section introduces the procedure to support PCE FlowSpec as
follows:
Li, et al. Expires January 9, 2017 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft PCEP-FlowSpec July 2016
Firstly both the PCE and PCC advertise the PCE FlowSpec Capability
during the PCE session initiation phase.
On the PCEP session with PCE FlowSpec Capability PCE communicates
with PCC to create, update and withdraw PCE FlowSpec.
[Editor's Note - The procedure about PCE FlowSpec synchronization,
the session failure process, etc. will be specified in the future
version.]
3.2. Capability Advertisement
During PCEP session establishment, both the PCC and the PCE must
announce their support of PCEP extensions for FlowSpec defined in
this document.
A PCEP Speaker (PCE or PCC) includes the "PCE FlowSpec Capability"
TLV, described in Section 5.1.1, in the OPEN Object to advertise its
support for PCEP extensions for PCE FlowSpec Capability.
The presence of the PCE FlowSpec Capability TLV in PCE's OPEN message
indicates that the PCE can support distribute the FlowSpec to PCC.
The presence of such Capability TLV in PCC's OPEN Object indicates
that the PCC can be in support of Flowspec functionality to
instantiate the FlowSpec according to the PCE's indication and can
apply the FlowSpec to the incoming packets.
If PCE has such capability TLV and PCC has no such capability TLV PCE
MUST NOT send the PCE messages with FlowSpec information. And if PCC
receives such messages it should send PCErr message to PCE.
[Editor's Note - PCE discovery via IGP should also be extended for
this.]
3.3. Operations
To instantiate a FlowSpec which is comprised of a set of FlowSpec
filter rules and actions, the PCE sends a new PCEP message (called
FlowSpec message) to the PCC. The FlowSpec message MUST include the
SRP object[I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce], a new FLOW object (see details
in Section 5.2) and a new ACTION object (see details in Section 5.3).
FLOW object carries a set of FlowSpec filter rules. A list of ACTION
objects specify a set of FlowSpec actions.
To update the FlowSpec actions of a specified FlowSpec which has been
created, the same PCEP message "FlowSpec" is used. The PCE sends a
Li, et al. Expires January 9, 2017 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft PCEP-FlowSpec July 2016
FlowSpec message to the PCC. The FlowSpec message MUST include the
SRP object, FLOW object and ACTION object.
To delete the specified FlowSpec which has been created, the PCE
sends a FlowSpec message to the PCC with a flag indicating the
removal action. The FlowSpec message MUST include the SRP object
(with R flag set) and FLOW object.
3.4. Flowspec Synronization
[I-D.kuppani-pce-pcep-flowspec-sync] specify the flow specification
synchronization mechanism for managing of flow specification
(FLOWSPEC-DB) at node (PCC) aligning with FLOWSPEC-DB at PCE on
initial session UP or session flap and specifies the required Path
Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) extensions. This
includes full synchronization as well as optimizations such as
synchronization avoidance and incremental synchronization.
4. PCEP Messages
As defined in [RFC5440], a PCEP message consists of a common header
followed by a variable-length body made of a set of objects that can
be either mandatory or optional. An object is said to be mandatory
in a PCEP message when the object must be included for the message to
be considered valid. For each PCEP message type, a set of rules is
defined that specify the set of objects that the message can carry.
An implementation MUST form the PCEP messages using the object
ordering specified in this document.
To support the PCEP FlowSpec functionality one new PCEP messages is
introduced.
4.1. PCEP FlowSpec Message
A FlowSpec message which is also referred to as FlowSpec message is a
PCEP message sent by a PCE to a PCC to trigger creation, modification
or deletion of a FlowSpec.
The Message-Type field of the PCEP common header for the FlowSpec
message is TBD17 (to be assigned by IANA). The FlowSpec message MUST
include the SRP and the FLOW objects.
If FlowSpec message is used to create or update the FlowSpec, it MUST
include the ACTION objects too.
If FlowSpec message is used to delete the FlowSpec the ACTION objects
SHOULD NOT be carried and the SRP object is set with the R flag.
Li, et al. Expires January 9, 2017 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft PCEP-FlowSpec July 2016
A FlowSpec is identified by a PCEP specific identifier FS-ID.
The format of a FlowSpec message for creation or deletion of FlowSpec
is as follows:
<FlowSpec Message> ::= <Common Header>
<flowspec-list>
Where:
<flowspec-list> ::= <flowspec-request>[<flowspec-list>]
<flowspec-request>::= (<flowspec-create-or-update>|
<flowspec-delete>)
<flowspec-create-or-update> ::= <SRP>
<FLOW>
<action-list>
<flowspec-delete> ::= <SRP>
<FLOW>
Where:
<action-list>::=<ACTION>[<action-list>]
The SRP object defined in [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] can be used in
this document to correlate FlowSpec requests sent by the PCE with the
error reports sent by the PCC.
Every FlowSpec requests from the PCE sends a new SRP-ID-NUMBER as
described in [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce]. This number is unique per
PCEP session and is incremented each time an FlowSpec operation
(creation, update, deletion etc) is requested from the PCE. The
value of the SRP-ID-NUMBER MAY be echoed back by the PCC in PCErr
messages to allow for correlation between requests made by the PCE
and errors generated by the PCC. Procedure of dissemination of
FlowSpec from PCE share the same number space of the SRP-ID-NUMBER
with procedure of stateful PCE.
The FLOW and ACTION objects are new objects introduced in this
document.
5. Objects and TLVs
The PCEP objects defined in this document are compliant with the PCEP
object format defined in [RFC5440].
New TLVs about FlowSpec filtering rules are defined. The value
portion of the new TLVs can reuse the structure defined in [RFC5575]
and [I-D.ietf-idr-flow-spec-v6]. New TLVs about FlowSpec actions are
Li, et al. Expires January 9, 2017 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft PCEP-FlowSpec July 2016
also defined. The value portion of the new TLVs can reuse the
structure defined in [I-D.ietf-ospf-flowspec-extensions]. This
document also defines two new actions: Redirect to IPv4 LSP and
Redirect to IPv6 LSP.
5.1. OPEN Object
5.1.1. PCE FlowSpec Capability TLV
The PCE-FLOWSPEC-CAPABILITY TLV is an optional TLV associated with
the OPEN Object [RFC5440] to exchange PCE FlowSpec capability of PCEP
speakers.
Its format is shown in the following figure:
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=[TBD18] | Length=2 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Value=0 | padding |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
Figure 1: PCE-FLOWSPEC-CAPABILITY TLV format
The type of the TLV is TBD18 (to be assigned by IANA) and it has a
fixed length of 2 octets. The value field is set to default value 0.
The inclusion of this TLV in an OPEN object indicate that the sender
can perform FlowSpec handling in PCEP.
5.2. FLOW Object
The FLOW object MUST be present within FlowSpec messages. The FLOW
object carries a set of FlowSpec filter rules.
FLOW Object-Class is TBD19 (to be assigned by IANA).
FLOW Object-Type is 1.
The format of the FLOW object is as follows:
Li, et al. Expires January 9, 2017 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft PCEP-FlowSpec July 2016
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| FS-ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| Flow Filter TLVs(variable) |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: FLOW Object Body Format
FS-ID(32-bit): A PCEP-specific identifier for the FlowSpec
information. A PCE creates an unique FS-ID for each FlowSpec that is
constant for the lifetime of a PCEP session. All subsequent PCEP
messages then address the FlowSpec by the FS-ID. The values of 0 and
0xFFFFFFFF are reserved.
Flow Filter TLVs(variable): The FLOW object body has a variable
length and may contain one or more additional TLVs.
The following flow filter types are supported:
Li, et al. Expires January 9, 2017 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft PCEP-FlowSpec July 2016
+------+------------------------+-------+--------------------------+
| Type | Description |Ref TLV|Value defined in |
+------+------------------------+-------+--------------------------+
| TBD1 | Destination IPv4 Prefix| 1 |RFC5575 |
+------+------------------------+-------+--------------------------+
| TBD2 | Source IPv4 Prefix | 2 |RFC5575 |
+------+------------------------+-------+--------------------------+
| TBD3 | IP Protocol | 3 |RFC5575 |
+------+------------------------+-------+--------------------------+
| TBD4 | Port | 4 |RFC5575 |
+------+------------------------+-------+--------------------------+
| TBD5 | Destination port | 5 |RFC5575 |
+------+------------------------+-------+--------------------------+
| TBD6 | Source port | 6 |RFC5575 |
+------+------------------------+-------+--------------------------+
| TBD7 | ICMP type | 7 |RFC5575 |
+------+------------------------+-------+--------------------------+
| TBD8 | ICMP code | 8 |RFC5575 |
+------+------------------------+-------+--------------------------+
| TBD9 | TCP flags | 9 |RFC5575 |
+------+------------------------+-------+--------------------------+
| TBD10| Packet length | 10 |RFC5575 |
+------+------------------------+-------+--------------------------+
| TBD11| DSCP | 11 |RFC5575 |
+------+------------------------+-------+--------------------------+
| TBD12| Fragment | 12 |RFC5575 |
+------+------------------------+-------+--------------------------+
| TBD13| Flow Label | 13 |I-D.ietf-idr-flow-spec-v6 |
+------+------------------------+-------+--------------------------+
| TBD14| Destination IPv6 Prefix| 1 |I-D.ietf-idr-flow-spec-v6 |
+------+------------------------+-------+--------------------------+
| TBD15| Source IPv6 Prefix | 2 |I-D.ietf-idr-flow-spec-v6 |
+------+------------------------+-------+--------------------------+
| TBD16| Next Header | 3 |I-D.ietf-idr-flow-spec-v6 |
+------+------------------------+-------+--------------------------+
| * | ROUTE-DISTINGUISHER | - |I-D.dhodylee-pce-pcep-ls |
+------+------------------------+-------+--------------------------+
(*) - TLV is defined in another PCEP document.
Figure 3: Table of Flow Filter Types
[RFC5575] and [I-D.ietf-idr-flow-spec-v6] specify the above types for
BGP. The encoding for "Destination Prefix" is described in [RFC5575]
as -
Encoding: <type (1 octet), prefix length (1 octet), prefix>
Li, et al. Expires January 9, 2017 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft PCEP-FlowSpec July 2016
In PCEP, the type of flow filter is identified by the type field in
the TLV header, TBD1 in case of Destination Prefix. The length field
in the TLV header (as per [RFC5440]) is the length of the value
portion in octets without padding. The value portion for
"Destination IPv4 Prefix" is made up of 1 octet of prefix length
followed by the prefix, padded to 4-byte alignment for the TLV.
Similarly for all encoding defined in [RFC5575] and
[I-D.ietf-idr-flow-spec-v6], the value portion of the PCEP TLV uses
the BGP encoding but without the type octet and pad it to 4-byte
alignment.
[I-D.dhodylee-pce-pcep-ls] allow identificatiion of a VPN information
in PCEP via a Route Distinguisher (RD) [RFC4364] and encoded in
ROUTE-DISTINGUISHER TLV. This TLV MAY be included in the FLOW object
to identify the flow filter infomration, say a IPv4 destination
prefix, is a VPNv4 destination prefix belonging to the VPN identified
by the RD.
5.3. ACTION Object
The ACTION object MUST be present within FlowSpec messages when
creating or updating the FlowSpec. The ACTION object carries a set
of FlowSpec actions.
ACTION Object-Class is TBD20 (to be assigned by IANA).
ACTION Object-Type is 1.
The format of the ACTION object body is:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| ACTION TLVs(variable) |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 4: ACTION Object Body Format
The ACTION object body has a variable length and may contain one or
more additional TLVs.
The following FlowSpec action types are supported:
Li, et al. Expires January 9, 2017 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft PCEP-FlowSpec July 2016
+------+---------------------+-------------------------+
| Type | Description |Defined in |
+------+---------------------+-------------------------+
| 18(*)| IPV4-LSP-IDENTIFIERS|I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce|
+------+---------------------+-------------------------+
| 19(*)| IPV6-LSP-IDENTIFIERS|I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce|
+------+---------------------+-------------------------+
| 17(*)| Symbolic-Path-Name |I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce|
+------+---------------------+-------------------------+
(*) The type is defined in [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce]
Figure 5: Flow Action Types
6. IANA Considerations
IANA maintains the "Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers"
registry at <http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep>. This document
requests IANA actions to allocate code points for the protocol
elements defined in this document.
6.1. PCEP Messages
IANA maintains a subregistry for PCEP messages called "PCEP
Messages". Each PCEP message has a message type value. This
document defines a new PCEP message type value.
Value Meaning Reference
TBD17 FlowSpec [This I-D]
6.2. PCEP Objects
Each PCEP object has an Object-Class and an Object-Type. IANA
maintains a subregistry called "PCEP Objects". This document defines
the following new PCEP Object-classes and Object-values:
Object-Class Value Name Object-Type Reference
TBD19 FLOW 1 [This I-D]
TBD20 ACTION 1 [This I-D]
6.3. PCEP TLV Type Indicators
IANA maintains a subregistry called "PCEP TLV Type Indicators". This
document defines the following new PCEP TLVs.
Li, et al. Expires January 9, 2017 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft PCEP-FlowSpec July 2016
Value Meaning Reference
TBD18 PCE-FLOWSPEC-CAPABILITY TLV [This I-D]
TBD1 Destination IPv4 Prefix [This I-D]
TBD2 Source IPv4 Prefix [This I-D]
TBD3 IP Protocol [This I-D]
TBD4 Port [This I-D]
TBD5 Destination port [This I-D]
TBD6 Source port [This I-D]
TBD7 ICMP type [This I-D]
TBD8 ICMP code [This I-D]
TBD9 TCP flags [This I-D]
TBD10 Packet length [This I-D]
TBD11 DSCP [This I-D]
TBD12 Fragment [This I-D]
TBD13 Flow Label [This I-D]
TBD14 Destination IPv6 Prefix [This I-D]
TBD15 Source IPv6 Prefix [This I-D]
TBD16 Next Header [This I-D]
7. Security Considerations
TBD.
8. Acknowledgements
TBD.
9. References
9.1. 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,
<http://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,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5440>.
[RFC5575] Marques, P., Sheth, N., Raszuk, R., Greene, B., Mauch, J.,
and D. McPherson, "Dissemination of Flow Specification
Rules", RFC 5575, DOI 10.17487/RFC5575, August 2009,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5575>.
Li, et al. Expires January 9, 2017 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft PCEP-FlowSpec July 2016
[I-D.ietf-idr-flow-spec-v6]
McPherson, D., Raszuk, R., Pithawala, B.,
akarch@cisco.com, a., and S. Hares, "Dissemination of Flow
Specification Rules for IPv6", draft-ietf-idr-flow-spec-
v6-07 (work in progress), March 2016.
[I-D.dhodylee-pce-pcep-ls]
Dhody, D., Lee, Y., and D. Ceccarelli, "PCEP Extension for
Distribution of Link-State and TE Information.", draft-
dhodylee-pce-pcep-ls-04 (work in progress), July 2016.
9.2. Informative References
[RFC4364] Rosen, E. and Y. Rekhter, "BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private
Networks (VPNs)", RFC 4364, DOI 10.17487/RFC4364, February
2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4364>.
[RFC4657] Ash, J., Ed. and J. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation
Element (PCE) Communication Protocol Generic
Requirements", RFC 4657, DOI 10.17487/RFC4657, September
2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4657>.
[I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce]
Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Medved, J., and R. Varga, "PCEP
Extensions for Stateful PCE", draft-ietf-pce-stateful-
pce-14 (work in progress), March 2016.
[I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp]
Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Sivabalan, S., and R. Varga, "PCEP
Extensions for PCE-initiated LSP Setup in a Stateful PCE
Model", draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp-06 (work in
progress), July 2016.
[I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-flowspec-oid]
Uttaro, J., Filsfils, C., Smith, D., Alcaide, J., and P.
Mohapatra, "Revised Validation Procedure for BGP Flow
Specifications", draft-ietf-idr-bgp-flowspec-oid-03 (work
in progress), March 2016.
[I-D.ietf-ospf-flowspec-extensions]
liangqiandeng, l., You, J., Wu, N., Fan, P., Patel, K.,
and A. Lindem, "OSPF Extensions for Flow Specification",
draft-ietf-ospf-flowspec-extensions-01 (work in progress),
April 2016.
Li, et al. Expires January 9, 2017 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft PCEP-FlowSpec July 2016
[I-D.kuppani-pce-pcep-flowspec-sync]
Kuppani, S. and A. Sinha, "PCEP Flowspec Synchronization
Procedures.", draft-kuppani-pce-pcep-flowspec-sync-00
(work in progress), May 2016.
[I-D.zhao-teas-pce-control-function]
Farrel, A., Zhao, Q., Li, Z., and C. Zhou, "An
Architecture for Use of PCE and PCEP in a Network with
Central Control", draft-zhao-teas-pce-control-function-01
(work in progress), May 2016.
Appendix A. Contributor Addresses
Shankara
Huawei Technologies
Divyashree Techno Park, Whitefield
Bangalore, Karnataka 560066
India
Email: shankara@huawei.com
Qiandeng Liang
Huawei Technologies
101 Software Avenue, Yuhuatai District
Nanjing 210012
China
Email: liangqiandeng@huawei.com
Appendix B. Example Usage
Once PCE initiate tunnels, it needs to further decide what data needs
to flow on the newly created tunnel, a flow specification can be
created at the ingress to redirect the flow to the LSP as shown
below.
Li, et al. Expires January 9, 2017 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft PCEP-FlowSpec July 2016
*****
*PCE*
/*****
/
/
/
/
/
/ 1. PCInitiate
/ Message to
/ initiate LSP
/ (RTA-RTD)
/
/
/
V
+----+ +----+ +----+ +----+
|RTA |----------|RTB |----------|RTC |----------|RTD |
| | | | | | | |
+----+ +----+ +----+ +----+
PCC
Ingress
*****
*PCE*
/*****
/
/
/
/
/
/ 2. FlowSpec
/ Message to add flow
/ (source - x.x.x.x, port - y)
/ to redirect to LSP
/ (RTA-RTD)
/
/
V
+----+ +----+ +----+ +----+
|RTA |----------|RTB |----------|RTC |----------|RTD |
| | | | | | | |
+----+ +----+ +----+ +----+
PCC
Ingress
Li, et al. Expires January 9, 2017 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft PCEP-FlowSpec July 2016
Authors' Addresses
Zhenbin Li
Huawei Technologies
Huawei Bld., No.156 Beiqing Rd.
Beijing 100095
China
Email: lizhenbin@huawei.com
Dhruv Dhody
Huawei Technologies
Divyashree Techno Park, Whitefield
Bangalore, Karnataka 560066
India
Email: dhruv.ietf@gmail.com
Cyril Margaria
Juniper
200 Somerset Corporate Boulevard, , Suite 4001
Bridgewater, NJ 08807
USA
Email: cmargaria@juniper.net
Colby Barth
Juniper
200 Somerset Corporate Boulevard, , Suite 4001
Bridgewater, NJ 08807
USA
Email: cbarth@juniper.net
Xia Chen
Huawei Technologies
Huawei Bld., No.156 Beiqing Rd.
Beijing 100095
China
Email: jescia.chenxia@huawei.com
Li, et al. Expires January 9, 2017 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft PCEP-FlowSpec July 2016
Shunwan Zhuang
Huawei Technologies
Huawei Bld., No.156 Beiqing Rd.
Beijing 100095
China
Email: zhuangshunwan@huawei.com
Li, et al. Expires January 9, 2017 [Page 18]