TEAS Working Group A.Wang
Internet Draft China Telecom
Boris Khasanov
Huawei Technologies
Sudhir Cheruathur
Juniper Networks
Chun Zhu
ZTE Company
Intended status: Standard Track March 9,2017
Expires: September 8, 2017
PCEP Extension for Native IP Network
draft-wang-pce-extension-native-ip-01.txt
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. This document may not be modified,
and derivative works of it may not be created, and it may not be
published except as an Internet-Draft.
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. This document may not be modified,
and derivative works of it may not be created, except to publish it
as an RFC and to translate it into languages other than English.
It is for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages
other than English.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
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."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
<A.Wang> Expires December 30,2016 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft PCE Extension for Native IP Network March 8, 2017
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
This Internet-Draft will expire on September8, 201717.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2017 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.
Abstract
This document defines the PCEP extension for PCE application in
Native IP network. The scenario and architecture of PCE in native IP
is described in [I-D.draft-wang-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.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ................................................ 2
2. Conventions used in this document ............................ 3
3. New Objects Extension......................................... 3
4. Object Formats. ............................................. 3
4.1. Peer Address List object................................ 4
4.2. Peer Prefix Association................................. 5
4.3. EXPLICIT PEER ROUTE Object.............................. 6
5. Management Consideration..................................... 7
6. Security Considerations...................................... 7
7. IANA Considerations ......................................... 7
8. Conclusions ................................................. 7
9. References .................................................. 7
9.1. Normative References .................................... 7
9.2. Informative References.................................. 8
10. Acknowledgments ............................................ 8
1. Introduction
Traditionally, MPLS-TE traffic assurance requires the corresponding
network devices support MPLS or the complex RSVP/LDP/Segment Routing
<A.Wang> Expires September 7, 2017 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft PCE Extension for Native IP Network March 8, 2017
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 [I-
D.draft-ietf-teas-pce-control-function] to correlate the forwarding
behavior among different network devices. Draft [I-D.draft-wang-
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].
3. New Objects Extension
Three new objects are defined in this draft; they are Peer Address
List Object (PAL Object), Peer Prefix Association Object (PPA Object)
and Explicit Peer Route object (EPR Object).
Peer Address List object is used to tell the network device which
peer it should be peered with dynamically, Peer Prefix Association
is used to tell which prefixes should be advertised via the
corresponding peer and Explicit Peer Route object is used to point
out which route should be to taken to arrive to the peer.
4. Object Formats.
Each extension object takes the similar format, that is to say, it
began with the common object header defined in [RFC5440] as the
following:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Object-Class | OT |Res|P|I| Object Length (bytes) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
<A.Wang> Expires September 7, 2017 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft PCE Extension for Native IP Network March 8, 2017
// (Object body) //
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Different object-class, object type and the corresponding object
body is defined separated in the following section.
4.1. Peer Address List object.
The Peer Address List object is used in a PCE Initiate message
[draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp] to specify the ip address of peer
that the received network device should establish the BGP
relationship with.
This Object should only be 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 end routers, then such information should be sent
to head router/RR and end router/RR respectively.
Peer Address List object Object-Class is **
Peer Address List object Object-Type 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Peer Num | Peer-Id | AT | Resv.
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Local IP Address(4/16 Bytes) |
// Peer IP Address(4/16 Bytes) //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Peer Num (8 bits): Peer Address Number on the advertised router.
Peer-Id(8 bits): 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.
<A.Wang> Expires September 7, 2017 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft PCE Extension for Native IP Network March 8, 2017
AT(8 bits): 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(8 bits): Reserved for future use.
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
THE Peer Prefix Association object is carried within in a PCE
Initiate message [draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp] to specify the
IP prefixes that should be advertised by the corresponding Peer.
This Object should only be 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 end routers, then such information should be sent
to head router/RR and end router/RR respectively.
Peer Prefix Association object Object-Class is **
Peer Prefix Association object Object-Type 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Peer-Id | AT | Resv. | Prefixes Num.
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Peer Associated IP Prefix TLV |
// Peer Associated IP Prefix TLV //
| Peer Associated IP Prefix TLV |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
<A.Wang> Expires September 7, 2017 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft PCE Extension for Native IP Network March 8, 2017
Peer-Id(8 bits): 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(8 bits): 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(8 bits): Reserved for future use.
Prefixes Num(8 bits): Number of prefixes that advertised by the
corresponding Peer. It should be equal to num of the following IP
prefix TLV.
Peer Associated IP Prefix TLV: Variable Length, use the TLV format
to indicate the advertised IP Prefix.
4.3. EXPLICIT PEER ROUTE Object
THE EXPLICIT PEER ROUTE Object is carried in a PCE Initiate message
[draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp] to specify the explicit peer
route to the corresponding peer address on each device that is on
the end2end assurance path.
This Object should be sent to all the devices that locates on the
end2end assurance path that calculated by PCE.
EXPLICIT PEER ROUTE Object Object-Class is **
EXPLICIT PEER ROUTE Object Object-Type 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Peer-Id | AT | Resv. |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Next Hop Address to the Peer (IPv4/IPv6) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
<A.Wang> Expires September 7, 2017 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft PCE Extension for Native IP Network March 8, 2017
Peer-Id(8 bits): 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(8 bits): 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 TLV: Variable Length, use the TLV
format to indicate the next hop address to the corresponding peer
that indicated by the Peer-Id.
5. Management Consideration.
6. Security Considerations
TBD
7. IANA Considerations
TBD
8. Conclusions
TBD
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J.-P., and J. Ash, "A Path
Computation Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC
4655, August 2006,<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4655>.
[RFC5440]Vasseur, JP., Ed., and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path
Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol
(PCEP)", RFC 5440, March 2009,
<A.Wang> Expires September 7, 2017 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft PCE Extension for Native IP Network March 8, 2017
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5440>.
9.2. Informative References
[I-D.draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp-07]
E.Crabbe, I.Minei, S.Sivabalan, R.Varga, "PCEP Extensions for PCE-
initiated LSP Setup in a Stateful PCE Model",
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp-07
(work in progress), July, 2016
[I-D.draft-wang-teas-pce-native-ip]
Aijun Wang, Quintin Zhao, Boris Khasanov, Raghavendra Mallya, Shaofu
Peng "PCE in Native IP Network", https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-
wang-teas-pce-native-ip-02(work in progress), March, 2017
[I-D.draft-ietf-teas-pce-control-function]
Farrel, Q.Zhao "An Architecture for use of PCE and PCEP in a Network
with Central Control"
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-teas-pce-central-control-01
(work in progress),December, 2016
10. Acknowledgments
TBD
Authors' Addresses
Aijun Wang
China Telecom
Beiqijia Town, Changping District
Beijing,China
Email: wangaj.bri@chinatelecom.cn
Boris Khasanov
Huawei Technologies
Moskovskiy Prospekt 97A
St.Petersburg 196084
Russia
EMail: khasanov.boris@huawei.com
<A.Wang> Expires September 7, 2017 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft PCE Extension for Native IP Network March 8, 2017
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
<A.Wang> Expires September 7, 2017 [Page 9]