| PCE | S. Sivabalan |
| Internet-Draft | C. Filsfils |
| Intended status: Standards Track | Cisco Systems, Inc. |
| Expires: April 16, 2019 | J. Tantsura |
| Apstra, Inc. | |
| W. Henderickx | |
| Nokia | |
| J. Hardwick | |
| Metaswitch Networks | |
| October 13, 2018 |
PCEP Extensions for Segment Routing
draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-14
Segment Routing (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 Interior Gateway Protocols (IGPs). A Segment Routed Path can be derived from a variety of mechanisms, including an IGP Shortest Path Tree (SPT), explicit configuration, or a Path Computation Element (PCE). This document specifies extensions to the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) that allow a stateful PCE to compute and initiate Traffic Engineering (TE) paths, as well as a PCC to request a path subject to certain constraints and optimization criteria in SR networks.
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.
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 April 16, 2019.
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.
Segment Routing (SR) leverages the source routing paradigm. Using SR, a source node steers a packet through a path without relying on hop-by-hop signaling protocols such as LDP or RSVP-TE. Each path is specified as an ordered list of instructions called "segments". Each segment is an instruction to route the packet to a specific place in the network, or to perform a specific service on the packet. A database of segments can be distributed through the network using a routing protocol (such as IS-IS or OSPF) or by any other means. Several types of segment are defined. A node segment represents an ECMP-aware shortest-path to a specific node, and is always identified uniquely within the SR/IGP domain. An adjacency segment represents a unidirectional adjacency. An adjacency segment is local to the node which advertises it. Both node segments and adjacency segments can be used for SR Traffic Engineering (SR-TE).
[RFC8402] describes the SR architecture. The corresponding IS-IS and OSPF extensions are specified in [I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions] and [I-D.ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions], respectively.
The SR architecture can be implemented using either an MPLS forwarding plane [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls] or an IPv6 forwarding plane [I-D.ietf-6man-segment-routing-header]. The MPLS forwarding plane can be applied to SR without any change, in which case an SR path corresponds to an MPLS Label Switching Path (LSP). This document is relevant to the MPLS forwarding plane only. In this document, "Node-SID" and "Adjacency-SID" denote Node Segment Identifier and Adjacency Segment Identifier respectively.
A Segment Routed path (SR path) can be derived from an IGP Shortest Path Tree (SPT). SR-TE paths may not follow an IGP SPT. Such paths may be chosen by a suitable network planning tool and provisioned on the ingress node of the SR-TE path.
[RFC5440] describes the 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 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]. This mechanism is useful in Software Defined Networking (SDN) applications, such as on-demand engineering, or bandwidth calendaring.
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 this document. Additionally, using procedures described in this document, a PCC can request an SR path from either a stateful or a stateless PCE.
This specification relies on the procedures specified in [RFC8408] to exchange the segment routing capability and to specify that the path setup type of an LSP is segment routing.
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 [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy].
The following terminologies are used in this document:
In an SR network, the ingress node of an SR path prepends an SR header to all outgoing packets. The SR header consists of a list of SIDs (or MPLS labels in the context of this document). The header has all necessary information so that, in combination with the information distributed by the IGP, the packets can be guided from the ingress node to the egress node of the path; hence, there is no need for any signaling protocol.
In PCEP messages, LSP route information is carried in the Explicit Route Object (ERO), which consists of a sequence of subobjects. In SR networks, an ingress node of an SR path prepends an SR header to all outgoing packets. The SR header consists of a list of SIDs (or MPLS labels in the context of this document). SR-TE paths computed by a PCE can be represented in an ERO in one of the following forms: Section 6.2.2.
The PCC converts these into an MPLS label stack and next hop, as described in
This document defines a new 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. SR-capable PCEP speakers should be able to generate and/or process such 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 [RFC8231].
When a PCEP session between a PCC and a PCE is established, both PCEP speakers exchange their capabilities to indicate their ability to support SR-specific functionality.
A PCE can update an LSP that is initially established via RSVP-TE signaling to use an SR-TE path, by sending a PCUpd to the PCC that delegated the LSP to it ([RFC8231]). A PCC can update an undelegated LSP that is initially established via RSVP-TE signaling to use an SR-TE path as follows. First, it requests an SR-TE Path from a PCE by sending a PCReq message. If it receives a suitable path, it establishes the path in the data plane, and then tears down the original RSVP-TE path. If the PCE is stateful, then the PCC sends PCRpt messages indicating that the new path is set up and the old path is torn down, per [RFC8231].
Similarly, a PCE or PCC can update an LSP initially created with an SR-TE path to use RSVP-TE signaling, if necessary. This capability is useful for rolling back a change when a network is migrated from RSVP-TE to SR-TE technology.
A PCC MAY include an RRO containing the recorded LSP in PCReq and PCRpt messages as specified in [RFC5440] and [RFC8231], respectively. This document defines a new RRO subobject for SR networks. The methods used by a PCC to record the SR-TE LSP are outside the scope of this document.
In summary, this document:
The extensions specified in this document complement the existing PCEP specifications to support SR-TE paths. As such, the PCEP messages (e.g., Path Computation Request, Path Computation Reply, Path Computation Report, Path Computation Update, Path Computation Initiate, etc.,) MUST be formatted according to [RFC5440], [RFC8231], [RFC8281], and any other applicable PCEP specifications.
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 the PCReq and PCRep messages specified in [RFC5440], PCInitiate message specified in [RFC8281], and PCRpt and PCUpd messages specified in [RFC8231].
This document defines a new Path Setup Type (PST) for SR, as follows:
A PCEP speaker SHOULD 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 included in the PST list.
This document also defines the SR-PCE-CAPABILITY sub-TLV. PCEP speakers use this sub-TLV to exchange information about their SR capability. If a PCEP speaker includes PST=1 in the PST List of the PATH-SETUP-TYPE-CAPABILITY TLV then it MUST also include the SR-PCE-CAPABILITY sub-TLV inside the PATH-SETUP-TYPE-CAPABILITY TLV.
The format of the SR-PCE-CAPABILITY sub-TLV 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=26 | Length=4 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved | Flags |N|L| MSD |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: SR-PCE-CAPABILITY sub-TLV format
The code point for the TLV type is 26. The TLV length is 4 octets.
The 32-bit value is formatted as follows.
To set up an SR-TE LSP using SR, the RP or SRP object MUST include the PATH-SETUP-TYPE TLV, specified in [RFC8408], with the PST set to 1 (path setup using SR-TE).
The LSP-IDENTIFIERS TLV MAY be present for the above PST type.
An SR-TE path consists of one or more SIDs where each SID MAY be associated with the identifier that represents the node or adjacency corresponding to the SID. This identifier is referred to as the 'Node or Adjacency Identifier' (NAI). As described later, a NAI can be represented in various formats (e.g., IPv4 address, IPv6 address, etc). Furthermore, a NAI is used for troubleshooting purposes and, if necessary, to derive SID value as described below.
The ERO specified in [RFC5440] is used to carry SR-TE path information. In order to carry SID and/or NAI, this document defines a new ERO subobject referred to as "SR-ERO subobject" whose format is specified in the following section. An ERO carrying an SR-TE path consists of one or more ERO subobjects, and MUST carry only SR-ERO subobjects. Note that an SR-ERO subobject does not need to have both SID and NAI. However, at least one of them MUST be present.
When building the MPLS label stack from ERO, a PCC MUST assume that SR-ERO subobjects are organized as a last-in-first-out stack. The first subobject relative to the beginning of ERO contains the information about the topmost label. The last subobject contains information about the bottommost label.
An SR-ERO subobject is formatted as shown in the following diagram.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|L| Type=36 | Length | NT | Flags |F|S|C|M|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| SID (optional) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// NAI (variable, optional) //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: SR-ERO subobject format
The fields in the SR-ERO Subobject are as follows:
At least one of the SID and the NAI MUST be included in the SR-ERO subobject, and both MAY be included.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Local IPv4 address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Remote IPv4 address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3: NAI for IPv4 adjacency
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// Local IPv6 address (16 octets) //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// Remote IPv6 address (16 octets) //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 4: NAI for IPv6 adjacency
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Local Node-ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Local Interface ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Remote Node-ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Remote Interface ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 5: NAI for Unnumbered adjacency with IPv4 Node IDs
This document defines the following NAIs:
A PCC reports an SR-TE LSP 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 by the LSP. The procedures of [RFC8231] with respect to the RRO apply equally to this specification without change.
An RRO contains one or more subobjects called "SR-RRO subobjects" whose format is shown below:
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=36 | Length | NT | Flags |F|S|C|M|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| SID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// NAI (variable) //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 6: SR-RRO Subobject format
The format of the SR-RRO subobject is the same as that of the SR-ERO subobject, but without the L flag.
A PCC MUST order the SR-RRO subobjects such that the first subobject relative to the beginning of the RRO identifies the first segment visited by the SR-TE LSP, and the last subobject identifies the final segment of the SR-TE LSP, that is, its endpoint.
A PCC MAY request that PCE optimizes an individual path computation request to minimize the SID depth of the computed path by using the METRIC object defined in [RFC5440]. This document defines a new type for the METRIC object to be used for this purpose, as follows:
If the PCC includes a METRIC object of this type on a path computation request, then the PCE MUST minimize the SID depth of the computed path. If the B (bound) bit is set to to 1 in the METRIC object, then the PCE MUST NOT return a path whose SID depth exceeds the given metric-value. If the PCC did not set the L bit in its SR-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV, then it MUST set the B bit to 1. If the PCC set the L bit in its SR-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV, then it MAY set the B bit to 1 or zero.
If a PCEP session is established with a non-zero default MSD value, then the PCC MUST NOT send an MSD METRIC object with an MSD greater than the session's default MSD. If the PCE receives a path computation request with an MSD METRIC object on such a session that is greater than the session's default MSD, then it MUST consider the request invalid and send a PCErr with Error-Type = 10 ("Reception of an invalid object") and Error-Value 9 ("MSD exceeds the default for the PCEP session").
A PCC indicates that it is capable of supporting the head-end functions for SR-TE LSP by including the SR-PCE-CAPABILITY sub-TLV in the Open message that it sends to a PCE. A PCE indicates that it is capable of computing SR-TE paths by including the SR-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=1, and supports that path setup type, then it checks for the presence of the SR-PCE-CAPABILITY sub-TLV. If that 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 TBD1 (to be assigned by IANA) (Missing PCE-SR-CAPABILITY sub-TLV) and MUST then close the PCEP session. If a PCEP speaker receives a PATH-SETUP-TYPE-CAPABILITY TLV with a SR-PCE-CAPABILITY sub-TLV, but the PST list does not contain PST=1, then the PCEP speaker MUST ignore the SR-PCE-CAPABILITY sub-TLV.
If a PCC sets the N flag to 1, then the PCE MAY send an SR-ERO subobject containing NAI and no SID (see Section 6.2). Otherwise, the PCE MUST NOT send an SR-ERO subobject containing NAI and no SID.
The number of SIDs that can be imposed on a packet depends on the PCC's data plane's capability. If a PCC sets the L flag to 1 then the MSD is not used and MUST be set to zero. If a PCE receives an SR-PCE-CAPABILITY sub-TLV with the L flag set to 1 then it MUST ignore the MSD field and MUST assume that the sender can impose a SID stack of any depth. If a PCC sets the L flag to zero, then it sets the MSD field to the maximum number of SIDs that it can impose on a packet. If a PCE receives an SR-PCE-CAPABILITY sub-TLV with the L flag and MSD both set to zero then it MUST assume that the PCC is not capable of imposing a SID stack of any depth and hence is not SR-TE capable, unless it learns a non-zero MSD for the PCC through some other means.
Note that the MSD value exchanged via the SR-PCE-CAPABILITY sub-TLV indicates the SID/label imposition limit for the PCC node. However, if a PCE learns the MSD value of a PCC node via different means, e.g routing protocols, as specified in: [I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd]; [I-D.ietf-ospf-segment-routing-msd]; [I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd], then it ignores the MSD value in the SR-PCE-CAPABILITY sub-TLV. Furthermore, whenever a PCE learns the MSD for a link via different means, it MUST use that value for that link regardless of the MSD value exchanged in the SR-PCE-CAPABILITY sub-TLV.
Once an SR-capable PCEP session is established with a non-zero MSD value, the corresponding PCE MUST NOT send SR-TE paths with a number of SIDs exceeding that MSD value. If a PCC needs to modify the MSD value, it MUST close the PCEP session and re-establish it with the new MSD value. If a PCEP session is established with a non-zero MSD value, and the PCC receives an SR-TE path containing more SIDs than specified in the MSD value, the PCC MUST send a PCErr message with Error-Type 10 (Reception of an invalid object) and Error-Value 3 (Unsupported number of Segment ERO subobjects). If a PCEP session is established with an MSD value of zero, then the PCC MAY specify an MSD for each path computation request that it sends to the PCE, by including a "maximum SID depth" metric object on the request, as defined in Section 5.5.
The N flag, L flag and MSD value inside the SR-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 N flag to zero, the L flag to 1 and MSD value to zero in an outbound message to a PCC. Similarly, a PCC MUST ignore any MSD value received from a PCE. If a PCE receives multiple SR-PCE-CAPABILITY sub-TLVs in an Open message, it processes only the first sub-TLV received.
If a PCC does not support the SR PCE Capability and thus cannot recognize the SR-ERO or SR-RRO subobjects, it will respond according to the rules for a malformed object per [RFC5440].
On receiving an SR-ERO, a PCC MUST validate that the Length field, the S bit, the F bit and the NT field are consistent, as follows.
If a PCC finds that the NT field, Length field, S bit and F 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 recognise 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 Segment ERO subobject").
If a PCC receives an SR-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 = 6 ("Both SID and NAI are absent in SR-ERO subobject").
If a PCC receives an SR-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 receives an SR-ERO subobject in which the S bit is set to 1 and either or both of the M or C bits is set to 1, it MUST consider the entire ERO invalid and send a PCErr message with Error-Type = 10 ("Reception of an invalid object") and Error-Value = 11 ("Malformed object").
If a PCC receives an SR-ERO subobject in which the S bit is set to zero and the M bit is set to 1, then the subobject contains an MPLS label. The PCC MAY choose not to accept a label provided by the PCE, based on it local policy. The PCC MUST NOT accept MPLS label value 3 (Implicit NULL), but it MAY accept other special purpose MPLS label values. If the PCC decides not to accept an MPLS label value, it MUST send a PCErr message with Error-Type = 10 ("Reception of an invalid object") and Error Value = 2 ("Bad label value").
If both M and C bits of an SR-ERO subobject are set to 1, and if a PCC finds erroneous setting in one or more of TC, S, and TTL fields, it MAY overwrite those fields with values chosen according to its own policy. If the PCC does not overwrite them, it MUST send a PCErr message with Error-Type = 10 ("Reception of an invalid object") and Error-Value = 4 ("Bad label format").
If the M bit of an SR-ERO subobject is set to zero but the C bit is set to 1, then the PCC 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 receives an SR-ERO subobject in which the S bit is set to zero and the M bit is set to zero, then the subobject contains a SID index value. If the SID is an Adjacency-SID then the L flag MUST NOT be set. If the L flag is set for an Adjacency-SID then the PCC MUST send a PCErr message with Error-Type = 10 ("Reception of an invalid object") and Error-Value = 11 ("Malformed object").
If a PCC detects that the subobjects of an ERO are a mixture of SR-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 = 5 ("ERO mixes SR-ERO subobjects with other subobject types").
The SR-ERO subobjects can be classified according to whether they contain a SID representing an MPLS label value, a SID representing an index value, or no SID. If a PCC detects that the SR-ERO subobjects are a mixture of more than one of these types, then it MUST send a PCErr message with Error-Type = 10 ("Reception of an invalid object") and Error-Value = TBD9 ("Inconsistent SIDs in SR-ERO / SR-RRO subobjects").
If an ERO specifies a new SR-TE path for an existing LSP and the PCC determines that the ERO contains SR-ERO subobjects that are not valid, then the PCC MUST NOT update the LSP.
The SR-ERO contains a sequence of subobjects. According to [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy], each SR-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 SR-ERO subobject represents the second segment, and so on.
The PCC interprets the SR-ERO by converting it to an MPLS label stack plus a next hop. The PCC sends packets along the segment routed path by prepending the MPLS label stack onto the packets and sending the resulting, modified packet to the next hop.
The PCC uses a different procedure to do this conversion, depending on the information that the PCE has provided in the subobjects.
There are several errors that can occur during the process of converting an SR-ERO sequence to an MPLS label stack and a next hop. The PCC deals with them as follows.
If an ERO specifies a new SR-TE path for an existing LSP and the PCC encounters an error while processing the ERO, then the PCC MUST NOT update the LSP.
The syntax checking rules that apply to the SR-RRO subobject are identical to those of the SR-ERO subobject, except as noted below.
If a PCEP speaker receives an SR-RRO subobject in which both 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 = 7 ("Both SID and NAI are absent in SR-RRO subobject").
If a PCE detects that the subobjects of an RRO are a mixture of SR-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 = 10 ("RRO mixes SR-RRO subobjects with other subobject types").
The SR-RRO subobjects can be classified according to whether they contain a SID representing an MPLS label value or a SID representing an index value, or no SID. If a PCE detects that the SR-RRO subobjects are a mixture of more than one of these types, then it MUST send a PCErr message with Error-Type = 10 ("Reception of an invalid object") and Error-Value = TBD9 ("Inconsistent SIDs in SR-ERO / SR-RRO subobjects").
A PCEP speaker that does not support the SR PCEP capability cannot recognize the SR-ERO or SR-RRO subobjects. As such, it responds according to the rules for a malformed object, per [RFC5440].
Some implementations, which are compliant with an earlier version of this specification, do not send the PATH-SETUP-TYPE-CAPABILITY TLV in their OPEN objects. Instead, to indicate that they support SR, these implementations include the SR-CAPABILITY-TLV as a top-level TLV in the OPEN object. Unfortunately, some of these implementations made it into the field before this document was published in its final form. Therefore, if a PCEP speaker receives an OPEN object in which the SR-CAPABILITY-TLV appears as a top-level TLV, then it MUST interpret this as though the sender had sent a PATH-SETUP-TYPE-CAPABILITY TLV with a PST list of (0, 1) (that is, both RSVP-TE and SR-TE PSTs are supported) and with the SR-CAPABILITY-TLV as a sub-TLV. If a PCEP speaker receives an OPEN object in which both the SR-CAPABILITY-TLV and PATH-SETUP-TYPE-CAPABILITY TLV appear as top-level TLVs, then it MUST ignore the top-level SR-CAPABILITY-TLV and process only the PATH-SETUP-TYPE-CAPABILITY TLV.
This document adds a new path setup type to PCEP to allow LSPs to be set up using segment routing techniques. This path setup type may be used with PCEP alongside other path setup types, such as RSVP-TE, or it may be used exclusively.
The following factors control which path setup type is used for a given LSP.
The operator can influence the path setup type as follows.
This section discusses the steps that the operator takes when migrating a network to enable PCEP to set up paths using segment routing as the path setup type.
Note that the data plane is unaffected if a PCEP session is reset. Any LSPs that were set up before the session reset will remain in place and will still be present after the session comes back up.
An implementation SHOULD allow the operator to manually trigger a PCEP session to be reset.
An implementation MAY automatically reset a PCEP session when an operator reconfigures the PCEP speaker's capabilities. However, note that if the capabilities at both ends of the PCEP session are not reconfigured simultaneously, then the session could be reset twice, which could lead to unnecessary network traffic. Therefore, such implementations SHOULD allow the operator to override this behaviour and wait instead for a manual reset.
Once segment routing is enabled on a PCEP session, it can be used as the path setup type for future LSPs.
User traffic is not automatically migrated from existing LSPs onto segment routed LSPs just by enabling the segment routing PST in PCEP. The migration of user traffic from existing LSPs onto segment routing LSPs is beyond the scope of this document.
The operator needs the following information to verify that PCEP is operating correctly with respect to the segment routing path setup type.
The PCEP YANG module [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang] should include:
The PCEP MIB [RFC7420] could also be updated to include this information.
The security considerations described in [RFC5440], [RFC8281] and [RFC8408] are applicable to this specification. No additional security measure is required.
Note that this specification enables a network controller to instantiate a path in the network without the use of a hop-by-hop signaling protocol (such as RSVP-TE). This creates an additional vulnerability if the security mechanisms of [RFC5440] and [RFC8281] are not used, because an attacker could create a path which is not subjected to the further verification checks that would be performed by the signaling protocol.
Note that this specification adds the MSD field to the OPEN message (see Section 5.1.1) which discloses how many MPLS labels the sender can push onto packets that it forwards into the network. If the security mechanisms of [RFC5440] and [RFC8281] are not used then an attacker could use this new field to gain intelligence about the capabilities of the edge devices in the network.
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 early allocation of the following code points in the RSVP Parameters registry for each of the new subobject types defined in this document.
| Object | Subobject | Subobject Type |
|---|---|---|
| --------------------- | -------------------------- | ------------------ |
| EXPLICIT_ROUTE | SR-ERO (PCEP-specific) | 36 |
| ROUTE_RECORD | SR-RRO (PCEP-specific) | 36 |
IANA is requested to create a new sub-registry within the "Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry called "PCEP SR-ERO NAI Types". The allocation policy for this new registry should be by IETF Review. The new registry should contain the following values:
| Value | Description | Reference |
|---|---|---|
| 0 | NAI is absent. | This document |
| 1 | NAI is an IPv4 node ID. | This document |
| 2 | NAI is an IPv6 node ID. | This document |
| 3 | NAI is an IPv4 adjacency. | This document |
| 4 | NAI is an IPv6 adjacency. | This document |
| 5 | NAI is an unnumbered adjacency with IPv4 node IDs. | This document |
IANA is requested to create a new sub-registry, named "SR-ERO Flag Field", within the "Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry to manage the Flag field of the SR-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 | NAI is absent (F) | This document |
| 9 | SID is absent (S) | This document |
| 10 | SID specifies TC, S and TTL in addition to an MPLS label (C) | This document |
| 11 | SID specifies an MPLS label (M) | This document |
IANA is requested to confirm the early allocation of the code-points in the PCEP-ERROR Object Error Types and Values registry for the following new error-values:
Note to IANA: this draft originally had an early allocation for Error-value=11 (Malformed object) in the above list. However, we have since moved the definition of that code point to RFC8408.
Note to IANA: some Error-values in the above list were defined after the early allocation took place, and so do not currently have a code point assigned. Please assign code points from the indicated registry and replace each instance of "TBD1", "TBD2" etc. in this document with the respective code points.
Note to IANA: some of the Error-value descriptive strings above have changed since the early allocation. Please refresh the registry.
IANA is requested to confirm the early allocation of the following code point in the PCEP TLV Type Indicators registry.
| Value | Meaning | Reference |
|---|---|---|
| ------------------------- | ---------------------------- | -------------- |
| 26 | SR-PCE-CAPABILITY | This document |
[RFC8408] requests that IANA creates a sub-registry within the "Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry called "PCEP Path Setup Types". IANA is requested to allocate a new code point within this registry, as follows:
| Value | Description | Reference |
|---|---|---|
| ------------------------- | ---------------------------- | -------------- |
| 1 | Traffic engineering path is setup using Segment Routing. | This document |
IANA is requested to confirm the early allocation of the following code point in the PCEP METRIC object T field registry:
| Value | Description | Reference |
|---|---|---|
| ------------------------- | ---------------------------- | -------------- |
| 11 | Segment-ID (SID) Depth. | This document |
IANA is requested to create a new sub-registry, named "SR Capability Flag Field", within the "Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry to manage the Flag field of the SR-PCE-CAPABILITY 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 |
|---|---|---|
| 0-5 | Unassigned | |
| 6 | Node or Adjacency Identifier (NAI) is supported (N) | This document |
| 7 | Unlimited Maximum SID Depth (L) | This document |
The following people contributed to this document:
We thank Ina Minei, George Swallow, Marek Zavodsky, Dhruv Dhody, Ing-Wher Chen and Tomas Janciga for the valuable comments.
| [I-D.ietf-6man-segment-routing-header] | Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Leddy, J., Matsushima, S. and d. daniel.voyer@bell.ca, "IPv6 Segment Routing Header (SRH)", Internet-Draft draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header-14, June 2018. |
| [I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd] | Tantsura, J., Chunduri, U., Mirsky, G. and S. Sivabalan, "Signaling MSD (Maximum SID Depth) using Border Gateway Protocol Link-State", Internet-Draft draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd-02, August 2018. |
| [I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions] | Previdi, S., Ginsberg, L., Filsfils, C., Bashandy, A., Gredler, H., Litkowski, S., Decraene, B. and J. Tantsura, "IS-IS Extensions for Segment Routing", Internet-Draft draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-19, July 2018. |
| [I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd] | Tantsura, J., Chunduri, U., Aldrin, S. and L. Ginsberg, "Signaling MSD (Maximum SID Depth) using IS-IS", Internet-Draft draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd-19, October 2018. |
| [I-D.ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions] | Psenak, P., Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Gredler, H., Shakir, R., Henderickx, W. and J. Tantsura, "OSPF Extensions for Segment Routing", Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions-25, April 2018. |
| [I-D.ietf-ospf-segment-routing-msd] | Tantsura, J., Chunduri, U., Aldrin, S. and P. Psenak, "Signaling MSD (Maximum SID Depth) using OSPF", Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-msd-23, October 2018. |
| [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang] | Dhody, D., Hardwick, J., Beeram, V. and J. Tantsura, "A YANG Data Model for Path Computation Element Communications Protocol (PCEP)", Internet-Draft draft-ietf-pce-pcep-yang-08, June 2018. |
| [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls] | Bashandy, A., Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Decraene, B., Litkowski, S. and R. Shakir, "Segment Routing with MPLS data plane", Internet-Draft draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls-14, June 2018. |
| [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy] | Filsfils, C., Sivabalan, S., daniel.voyer@bell.ca, d., bogdanov@google.com, b. and P. Mattes, "Segment Routing Policy Architecture", Internet-Draft draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy-01, June 2018. |
| [RFC3209] | 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, December 2001. |
| [RFC4657] | Ash, J. and J. Le Roux, "Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol Generic Requirements", RFC 4657, DOI 10.17487/RFC4657, September 2006. |
| [RFC7420] | Koushik, A., Stephan, E., Zhao, Q., King, D. and J. Hardwick, "Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Management Information Base (MIB) Module", RFC 7420, DOI 10.17487/RFC7420, December 2014. |
| [RFC8126] | Cotton, M., Leiba, B. and T. Narten, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017. |