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 February 14, 2018
Expires: August 13, 2018
PCEP Extension for Native IP Network
draft-wang-pce-pcep-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.
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 August 13, 2018.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 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.
Abstract
<A.Wang> Expires August 13, 2018 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft PCE Extension for Native IP Network February 14, 2018
This document defines the PCEP extension for CCDR application in
Native IP network. The scenario and architecture of CCDR in native
IP is described in [draft-ietf-teas-native-ip-scenarios] and [draft-
ietf-teas-pce-native-ip]. This draft describes the key information
that is transferred between PCE and PCC to accomplish the end2end
traffic assurance in Native IP network under central control mode.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ................................................ 2
2. Conventions used in this document............................ 2
3. New Objects Extension........................................ 3
4. Object Formats. ............................................. 3
4.1. Peer Address List object................................ 3
4.2. Peer Prefix Association................................. 4
4.3. EXPLICIT PEER ROUTE Object.............................. 6
5. Management Consideration..................................... 6
6. Security Considerations...................................... 7
7. IANA Considerations ......................................... 7
8. Conclusions ................................................. 7
9. References .................................................. 7
9.1. Normative References.................................... 7
9.2. Informative References.................................. 7
10. Acknowledgments ............................................ 8
1. Introduction
Traditionally, MPLS-TE traffic assurance requires the corresponding
network devices support MPLS or the complex RSVP/LDP/Segment Routing
etc. technologies to assure the end-to-end traffic performance. But
in native IP network, there will be no such signaling protocol to
synchronize the action among different network devices. It is
necessary to use the central control mode that described in [draft-
ietf-teas-pce-control-function] to correlate the forwarding behavior
among different network devices. Draft [draft-ietf-teas-pce-native-
ip] describes the architecture and solution philosophy for the
end2end traffic assurance in Native IP network via Dual/Multi BGP
solution. This draft describes the corresponding PCEP extension to
transfer the key information about peer address list, peer prefix
association and the explicit peer route on on-path router.
2. Conventions used in this document
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
<A.Wang> Expires August 13, 2018 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft PCE Extension for Native IP Network February 14, 2018
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) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
// (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
<A.Wang> Expires August 13, 2018 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft PCE Extension for Native IP Network February 14, 2018
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.
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.
<A.Wang> Expires August 13, 2018 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft PCE Extension for Native IP Network February 14, 2018
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
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.
<A.Wang> Expires August 13, 2018 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft PCE Extension for Native IP Network February 14, 2018
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) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
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.
<A.Wang> Expires August 13, 2018 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft PCE Extension for Native IP Network February 14, 2018
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,
<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-ietf-teas-native-ip-scenarios]
Wang, X.Huang et al. "CCDR Scenario, Simulation and Suggestion"
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-teas-native-ip-
scenarios/ (work in progress), February, 2018
[I-D. draft-ietf-teas-pce-native-ip]
Aijun Wang, Quintin Zhao, Boris Khasanov, Huaimo Chen,Raghavendra
Mallya, Shaofu Peng "PCE in Native IP Network",
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-teas-pce-native-ip/
(work in progress), February, 2018
<A.Wang> Expires August 13, 2018 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft PCE Extension for Native IP Network February 14, 2018
[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
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 August 13, 2018 [Page 8]