TEAS Working Group                                             A.Wang
Internet Draft                                           China Telecom
                                                           Quintin Zhao
                                                         Boris Khasanov
                                                            HuaiMo Chen
                                                    Huawei Technologies
                                                             Penghui Mi
                                                        Tencent Company
                                                     Raghavendra Mallya
                                                       Juniper Networks
                                                            Shaofu Peng
                                                        ZTE Corporation

Intended status: Standard Track                        October 24, 2017
Expires: April 23, 2018


                         PCE in Native IP Network
                   draft-wang-teas-pce-native-ip-04.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   and derivative works of it may not be created, and it may not be
   published except as an Internet-Draft.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 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 April 23, 2018                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft        PCE in Native IP Network        October 24, 2017


   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html

   This Internet-Draft will expire on April 23, 2018.

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 solution for CCDR traffic engineering within
Native IP network, using Dual/Multi-BGP session strategy and PCE-based
central control architecture.

The proposed central mode control solution conforms to the concept that
defined in draft [I-D.draft-ietf-teas-pce-control-function].

The scenario and simulation results of CCDR traffic engineering is
described in draft [I-D.draft-wang-teas-ccdr]

Table of Contents

   1. Introduction ................................................ 3
   2. Conventions used in this document............................ 3
   3. Dual-BGP solution for simple topology........................ 3
   4. Dual-BGP in large Scale Topology............................. 5
   5. Multi-BGP for Extended Traffic Differentiation .............. 5
   6. CCDR based solution for Multi-BGP strategy deployment........ 6
   7. PCEP extension for key parameters delivery. ................. 7
   8. CCDR Deployment Consideration................................ 8
   9. Security Considerations...................................... 9
   10. IANA Considerations......................................... 9
   11. Conclusions ................................................ 9
   12. References ................................................. 9
      12.1. Normative References................................... 9
      12.2. Informative References................................. 9
   13. Acknowledgments ........................................... 10


<A.Wang et.>           Expires April 23, 2018                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft        PCE in Native IP Network        October 24, 2017

1. Introduction

   Draft  [I-D.draft-wang-teas-ccdr]  describes  the  scenario  and
   simulation results for the CCDR traffic engineering. In summary, the
   requirements for CCDR traffic engineering in Native IP network are
   the following:
   1) No complex MPLS signaling procedure.
   2) End to End traffic assurance, determined QoS behavior.
   3) Flexible deployment and automation control.

   This document defines the solution for CCDR traffic engineering
   within Native IP network, using Dual/Multi-BGP session strategy and
   CCDR architecture, to meet the above requirements in dynamical and
   central control mode. Future PCEP protocol extensions to transfer the
   key parameters between PCE and the underlying network devices(PCC)
   are provided in draft [draft-wang-pcep-extension-native-IP]


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. Dual-BGP solution for simple topology.

   Dual-BGP solution for simple topology is illustrated in Fig.1, which
   is comprised by SW1, SW2, R1, R2. There are multiple physical links
   between R1 and R2. Traffic between IP11 and IP21 is normal traffic,
   traffic between IP12 and IP22 is priority traffic that should be
   treated differently.

   Only Native IGP/BGP protocol is deployed between R1 and R2. The
   traffic  between  each  address  pair  may  change  timely  and  the
   corresponding source/destination addresses of the traffic may also
   change dynamically.

   The key idea of the Dual-BGP solution for this simple topology is the
   following:
    1) Build two BGP sessions between R1 and R2, via the different
      loopback address lo0, lo1 on these routers.
    2) Send different prefixes via the two BGP sessions. (For example,
      IP11/IP21 via the BGP pair 1 and IP12/IP22 via the BGP pair 2).



<A.Wang et.>           Expires April 23, 2018                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft        PCE in Native IP Network        October 24, 2017
    3) Set the explicit peer route on R1 and R2 respectively for BGP
       next hop of lo0, lo1 to different physical link address between
       R1 and R2.

   So, the traffic between the IP11 and IP21, and the traffic between
   IP12 and IP22 will go through different physical links between R1 and
   R2, each type of traffic occupy the different dedicated physical
   links.

   If there is more traffic between IP12 and IP22 that needs to be
   assured , one can add more physical links on R1 and R2  to reach the
   loopback address lo1(also the next hop for BGP Peer pair2). In this
   cases the prefixes that advertised by two BGP peer need not be
   changed.

   If, for example, there is traffic from another address pair that
   needs to be assured (for example IP13/IP23), but the total volume of
   assured traffic does not exceed the capacity of the previous
   appointed physical links, then one need only to advertise the newly
   added source/destination prefixes via the BGP peer pair2, then the
   traffic between IP13/IP23 will go through the assigned dedicated
   physical links as the traffic between IP12/IP22.

   Such decouple philosophy gives the network operator more flexible
   control ability on the network traffic, get the determined QoS
   assurance effect to meet the application's requirement. No complex
   MPLS signal procedures is introduced, the router need only support
   native IP protocol.


                          |  BGP Peer Pair2  |
                          +------------------+
                          |lo1           lo1 |
                          |                  |
                          |  BGP Peer Pair1  |
                          +------------------+
               IP12       |lo0           lo0 |       IP22
               IP11       |                  |       IP21
               SW1-------R1-----------------R2-------SW2
                              Links Group

              Fig.1 Design Philosophy for Dual-BGP Solution



<A.Wang et.>           Expires April 23, 2018                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft        PCE in Native IP Network        October 24, 2017

4. Dual-BGP in large Scale Topology

   When the assured traffic spans across one large scale network, as
   that  illustrated  in  Fig.2,  the  dual  BGP  sessions  cannot  be
   established hop by hop especially for the iBGP within one AS. For
   such scenario, we should consider to use the Route Reflector (RR) to
   achieve the similar Dual-BGP effect, select one router which performs
   the role of RR (for example R3 in Fig.2), every other edge router
   will establish two BGP peer sessions with the RR, using their
   different loopback addresses respectively. The other two steps for
   traffic differentiation are same as one described in the Dual-BGP
   simple topology usage case.

   For the example shown in Fig.2, if we select the R1-R2-R4-R7 as the
   dedicated path, then we should set the explicit peer routes on these
   routers  respectively,  pointing  to  the  BGP  next  hop  (loopback
   addresses of R1 and R7, which are used to send the prefix of the
   assured traffic) to the actual address of the physical link

                     +------------R3--------------+
                     |                            |
          SW1-------R1-------R5---------R6-------R7--------SW2
                     |        |          |        |
                     +-------R2---------R4--------+

             Fig.2 Dual-BGP solution for large scale network


5. Multi-BGP for Extended Traffic Differentiation

   In general situation, several additional traffic differentiation
   criteria exist, including:
   1) Traffic that requires low latency links and is not sensitive to
   packet loss
   2) Traffic that requires low packet loss but can endure higher latency
   3) Traffic that requires lowest jitter path
   4) Traffic that requires high bandwidth links

   These different traffic requirements can be summarized in the
   following table:

      +----------+-------------+---------------+-----------------+



<A.Wang et.>           Expires April 23, 2018                 [Page 5]


Internet-Draft        PCE in Native IP Network        October 24, 2017
      | Flow No. |    Latency  |  Packet Loss  |   Jitter        |
      +----------+-------------+---------------+-----------------+
      |  1       |    Low      |   Normal      |   Don't care    |
      +----------+-------------+---------------+-----------------+
      |  2       |   Normal    |   Low         |   Dont't care   |
      +----------+-------------+---------------+-----------------+
      |  3       |   Normal    |   Normal      |   Low           |
      +----------+-------------+---------------+-----------------+
                 Table 1. Traffic Requirement Criteria

   For Flow No.1, we can select the shortest distance path to carry the
   traffic; for Flow No.2, we can select the idle links to form its end
   to end path; for Flow No.3, we can let all the traffic pass one
   single path, no ECMP distribution on the parallel links is required.

   It is difficult and almost impossible to provide an end-to-end (E2E)
   path with latency, latency variation, packet loss, and bandwidth
   utilization constraints to meet the above requirements in large scale
   IP-based network via the traditional distributed routing protocol,
   but these requirements can be solved using the CCDR architecture
   since the PCE has the overall network view, can collect real network
   topology and network performance information about the underlying
   network, select the appropriate path to meet the various network
   performance requirements of different traffic type.

6. CCDR based solution for Multi-BGP strategy deployment.

   With the advent of SDN concepts towards pure IP networks, it is
   possible now to accomplish the central and dynamic control of network
   traffic according to the application's various requirements.

   The procedure to implement the dynamic deployment of Multi-BGP
   strategy is the following:
    1) PCE gets topology and link utilization information from the
      underlying network, calculate the appropriate link path upon
      application's requirements.
    2) PCE sends the key parameters to edge/RR routers(R1, R7 and R3 in
      Fig.3) to build multi-BGP peer relations and advertise different
      prefixes via them.
    3) PCE sends the route information to the routers (R1,R2,R4,R7 in
      Fig.3) on forwarding path via PCEP, to build the path to the BGP
      next-hop of the advertised prefixes.
    4) If the assured traffic prefixes were changed but the total volume


<A.Wang et.>           Expires April 23, 2018                 [Page 6]


Internet-Draft        PCE in Native IP Network        October 24, 2017
      of assured traffic does not exceed the physical capacity of the
      previous end-to-end path, then PCE needs only change the related
      information on edge routers (R1,R7 in Fig.3).
    5) If volume of the assured traffic exceeds the capacity of previous
      calculated path, PCE must recalculate the appropriate path to
      accommodate the exceeding traffic via some new end-to-end physical
      link. After that PCE needs to update on-path routers to build such
      path hop by hop.

                               +----+
                     ***********+PCE +*************
                     *         +--*-+            *
                     *           / * \            *
                     *             *              *
                 PCEP*             *BGP-LS/SNMP   *PCEP
                     *             *              *
                     *             *           \  * /
                   \ * /           *            \ */
                    \*/-----------R3--------------*
                     |                            |
                     |                            |
          SW1-------R1-------R5---------R6-------R7--------SW2
                     |        |          |        |
                     |        |          |        |
                     +-------R2---------R4--------+

            Fig.3 PCE based solution for Multi-BGP deployment



7. PCEP extension for key parameters delivery.

   The PCEP protocol needs to be extended to transfer the following key
   parameters:
   1) BGP peer address and advertised prefixes.
   2) Explicit route information to BGP next hop of advertised prefixes.

   Once the router receives such information, it should establish the
   BGP session with the peer appointed in the PCEP message, advertise
   the prefixes that contained in the corresponding PCEP message, and
   build the end to end dedicated path hop by hop. Details of
   communications between PCEP and BGP subsystems in router's control
   plane are out of scope of this draft and will be described in



<A.Wang et.>           Expires April 23, 2018                 [Page 7]


Internet-Draft        PCE in Native IP Network        October 24, 2017
   separate draft.[draft-wang-pce-extension for native IP]

   The reason why we selected PCEP as the southbound protocol instead of
   OpenFlow, is that PCEP is suitable for the changes in control plane
   of the network devices, there OpenFlow dramatically changes the
   forwarding plane. We also think that the level of centralization that
   requires by OpenFlow is hardly achievable in many today's SP networks
   so hybrid BGP+PCEP approach looks much more interesting.

8. CCDR Deployment Consideration

   CCDR solution requires the parallel work of 2 subsystems in router's
   control plane: PCE (PCEP) and BGP as well as coordination between
   them, so it might require additional planning work before deployment.

8.1 Scalability

   In CCDR solution, PCE needs only to influence the edge routers for
   the prefixes differentiation via the multi-BGP deployment. The route
   information for these prefixes within the on-path routers were
   distributed via the traditional BGP protocol. Unlike the solution
   from BGP Flowspec, the on-path router need only keep the specific
   policy routes to the BGP next-hop of the differentiate prefixes, not
   the specific routes to the prefixes themselves. This can lessen the
   burden from the table size of policy based routes for the on-path
   routers, and has more scalability when comparing with the solution
   from BGP flowspec or Openflow.



8.2 High Availability

   CCDR solution is based on the traditional distributed IP protocol. If
   the PCE failed, the forwarding plane will not be impacted, as the BGP
   session between all devices will not flap, and the forwarding table
   will remain the same. If one node on the optimal path is failed, the
   assurance traffic will fall over to the best-effort forwarding path.
   One can even design several assurance paths to load balance/hot
   standby the assurance traffic to meet the path failure situation, as
   done in MPLS FRR.
   From PCE/SDN-controller HA side we will rely on existing HA solutions
   of SDN controllers such as clustering.

8.3 Incremental deployment


<A.Wang et.>           Expires April 23, 2018                 [Page 8]


Internet-Draft        PCE in Native IP Network        October 24, 2017
   Not every router within the network support will support the PCEP
   extension that defined in [draft-wang-pce-extension-native-IP]
   simultaneously. For such situations, router on the edge of sub domain
   can be upgraded first, and then the traffic can be assured between
   different sub domains. Within each sub domain, the traffic will be
   forwarded along the best-effort path. Service provider can
   selectively upgrade the routers on each sub-domain in sequence.

9. Security Considerations

   TBD

10. IANA Considerations

   TBD

11. Conclusions

   TBD

12. References

12.1. 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>.

12.2. Informative References

   [I-D.draft-ietf-teas-pce-control-function]

   A.Farrel, Q.Zhao et al. "An Architecture for use of PCE and PCEP in
      a Network with Central Control"

   https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-teas-pce-central-
   control/  September, 2016



<A.Wang et.>           Expires April 23, 2018                 [Page 9]


Internet-Draft        PCE in Native IP Network        October 24, 2017


   [I-D.draft-wang-teas-ccdr]

   A.Wang, X.Huang et al. "CCDR Scenario, Simulation and Suggestion"

   https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wang-teas-ccdr/



   [I-D. draft-ietf-teas-pcecc-use-cases]

   Quintin Zhao, Robin Li, Boris Khasanov et al. "The Use Cases for
   Using PCE as the Central Controller(PCECC) of LSPs

   https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-teas-pcecc-use-cases-00

   March,2017



   [draft-wang-pcep-extension for native IP]

   Aijun Wang, Boris Khasanov et al. "PCEP Extension for Native IP
   Network" https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wang-pce-extension-
   native-ip/



13. Acknowledgments

   The authors would like to thank George Swallow, Xia Chen, Jeff
   Tantsura, Daniele Ceccarelli and Dhruv Dhody for their valuable
   comments and suggestions.

   The authors would also like to thank Lou Berger, Adrian Farrel, King
   Daniel for their suggestions to put forward this draft.



Authors' Addresses

   Aijun Wang
   China Telecom
   Beiqijia Town, Changping District
   Beijing,China

   Email: wangaj.bri@chinatelecom.cn



<A.Wang et.>           Expires April 23, 2018                [Page 10]


Internet-Draft        PCE in Native IP Network        October 24, 2017
   Quintin Zhao
   Huawei Technologies
   125 Nagog Technology Park
   Acton, MA  01719
   USA

   EMail: quintin.zhao@huawei.com

   Boris Khasanov
   Huawei Technologies
   Moskovskiy Prospekt 97A
   St.Petersburg 196084
   Russia

   EMail: khasanov.boris@huawei.com


   Huaimo Chen
   Huawei Technologies
   Boston, MA,
   USA

   EMail: Huaimo.chen@huawei.com


   Penghui Mi
   Tencent
   Tencent Building, Kejizhongyi Avenue,
   Hi-techPark, Nanshan District,Shenzhen 518057, P.R.China

   Email kevinmi@tencent.com


   Raghavendra Mallya
   Juniper Networks
   1133 Innovation Way
   Sunnyvale, California 94089 USA

   Email: rmallya@juniper.net

   Shaofu Peng
   ZTE Corporation
   No.68 Zijinghua Road,Yuhuatai District
   Nanjing  210012
   China

   Email: peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn




<A.Wang et.>           Expires April 23, 2018                [Page 11]