Internet DRAFT - draft-chen-pce-bier-te-ingress-protect
draft-chen-pce-bier-te-ingress-protect
Network Working Group H. Chen
Internet-Draft M. McBride
Intended status: Standards Track Futurewei
Expires: 15 May 2024 G. Mishra
Verizon Inc.
Y. Liu
China Mobile
A. Wang
China Telecom
L. Liu
Fujitsu
X. Liu
Alef Edge
12 November 2023
PCE for BIER-TE Ingress Protection
draft-chen-pce-bier-te-ingress-protect-03
Abstract
This document describes extensions to Path Computation Element (PCE)
communication Protocol (PCEP) for protecting the ingress of a BIER-TE
path.
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 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 15 May 2024.
Chen, et al. Expires 15 May 2024 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft BIER-TE Ingress Protection November 2023
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2023 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 Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Terminologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. BIER-TE Path Ingress Protection Example . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Behavior around Ingress Failure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.1. Source Detect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2. Backup Ingress Detect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.3. Both Detect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Extensions to PCEP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.1. Capability for Ingress Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.1.1. Capability for Ingress Protection with Backup
Ingress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.1.2. Capability for Ingress Protection with Traffic
Source . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.2. BIER-TE Path Ingress Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.2.1. Extensions for Backup Ingress . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.2.2. Extensions for Traffic Source . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
1. Introduction
The fast protection of a transit node of a "Bit Index Explicit
Replication" (BIER) Traffic Engineering (BIER-TE) path or tunnel is
described in [I-D.chen-bier-te-frr]. [RFC8424] presents extensions
to RSVP-TE for the fast protection of the ingress node of a traffic
engineering (TE) Label Switching Path (LSP). However, these
documents do not discuss any protocol extensions for the fast
Chen, et al. Expires 15 May 2024 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft BIER-TE Ingress Protection November 2023
protection of the ingress node of a BIER-TE path or tunnel.
This document fills that gap and specifies protocol extensions to
Path Computation Element (PCE) communication Protocol (PCEP) for the
fast protection of the ingress node of a BIER-TE path or tunnel.
Ingress node and ingress, fast protection and protection as well as
BIER-TE path and BIER-TE tunnel will be used exchangeably in the
following sections.
2. Terminologies
The following terminologies are used in this document.
PCE: Path Computation Element
PCEP: PCE communication Protocol
PCC: Path Computation Client
BIER: Bit Index Explicit Replication
CE: Customer Edge
PE: Provider Edge
TE: Traffic Engineering
3. BIER-TE Path Ingress Protection Example
Figure 1 shows an example of protecting ingress PE1 of a BIER-TE
path, which is from ingress PE1 to egress nodes PE3 and PE4. This
primary BIER-TE path is represented by *** in the figure. The
ingress of the primary BIER-TE path is called primary ingress.
******* *******
[PE1]-----[P1]-----[PE3] PE1 Primary Ingress
/ | #|*\##### | PEx Provider Edge
/ | #| *\__ | CEx Customer Edge
[CE1] | #| ***\ | Px Non Provider Edge
\ | #| *\ | *** Primary BIER-TE Path
\ | #| *\ | ### Backup BIER-TE Path
[PE2]-----[P2]-----[PE4] PE2 Backup Ingress
##### #####
Figure 1: Protecting Ingress PE1 of BIER-TE Path
Chen, et al. Expires 15 May 2024 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft BIER-TE Ingress Protection November 2023
The backup BIER-TE path is from ingress PE2 to egress nodes PE3 and
PE4, which is represented by ### in the figure. The ingress of the
backup BIER-TE path is called backup ingress.
In normal operations, CE1 sends the packets with a multicast group
and source to ingress PE1, which imports/encapsulates the packets
into the BIER-TE path through adding a BIER-TE header. The header
contains the BIER-TE path from ingress PE1 to egress nodes PE3 and
PE4.
When CE1 detects the failure of ingress PE1 using a failure detection
mechanism such as BFD, it switches the traffic to backup ingress PE2,
which imports the traffic from CE1 into the backup BIER-TE path.
When the traffic is imported into the backup path, it is sent to the
egress nodes PE3 and PE4 along the path.
Given the traffic source (e.g., CE1), ingress (e.g., PE1) and
egresses (e.g., PE3 and PE4) of the primary BIER-TE path, the PCE
computes a backup ingress (e.g., PE2), a backup BIER-TE path from the
backup ingress to the egresses, and sends the backup BIER-TE path to
the PCC of the backup ingress. It also sends the backup ingress,
primary ingress and the traffic description to the PCC of the traffic
source (e.g., CE1).
When the PCC of the traffic source receives the backup ingress,
primary ingress and traffic description, it sets up the fast
detection of the primary ingress failure and the switch over target
backup ingress. This setup lets the traffic source node switch the
traffic (to be sent to the primary ingress) to the backup ingress
when it detects the failure of the primary ingress.
When the PCC of the backup ingress receives the backup BIER-TE path,
it adds a forwarding entry into its BIFT. This entry encapsulates
the packets from the traffic source in the backup BIER-TE path. This
makes the backup ingress send the traffic received from the traffic
source to the egress nodes via the backup BIER-TE path.
4. Behavior around Ingress Failure
This section describes the behavior of some nodes connected to the
ingress before and after the ingress fails. These nodes are the
traffic source (e.g., CE1) and the backup ingress (e.g., PE2). It
presents three ways in which these nodes work together to protect the
ingress. The first way is called source detect, where the traffic
source is responsible for fast detecting the failure of the ingress.
The second way is called backup ingress detect, in which the backup
ingress is responsible for fast detecting the failure of the ingress.
The third way is called both detect, where both the traffic source
Chen, et al. Expires 15 May 2024 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft BIER-TE Ingress Protection November 2023
and the backup ingress are responsible for fast detecting the failure
of the ingress.
4.1. Source Detect
In normal operations, i.e., before the failure of the ingress, the
traffic source sends the traffic to the ingress of the primary BIER-
TE path. The backup ingress (e.g., PE2) is ready to import the
traffic from the traffic source into the backup BIER-TE path
installed.
When the traffic source detects the failure of the ingress, it
switches the traffic to the backup ingress, which delivers the
traffic to the egress nodes of the BIER-TE path via the backup BIER-
TE path.
4.2. Backup Ingress Detect
The traffic source (e.g., CE1) always sends the traffic to both the
ingress (e.g., PE1) of the primary BIER-TE path and the backup
ingress (e.g., PE2).
The backup ingress does not import any traffic from the traffic
source into the backup BIER-TE path in normal operations. When it
detects the failure of the ingress of the primary BIER-TE path, it
imports the traffic from the source into the backup BIER-TE path.
For the backup ingress to fast detect the failure of the primary
ingress, it SHOULD directly connect to the primary ingress. When a
PCE computes a backup ingress and a backup BIER-TE path, it SHOULD
consider this.
4.3. Both Detect
In normal operations, i.e., before the failure of the ingress, the
traffic source sends the traffic to the ingress of the primary BIER-
TE path. When it detects the failure of the ingress, it switches the
traffic to the backup ingress.
The backup ingress does not import any traffic from the traffic
source into the backup BIER-TE path in normal operations. When it
detects the failure of the ingress of the primary BIER-TE path, it
imports the traffic from the source into the backup BIER-TE path.
Chen, et al. Expires 15 May 2024 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft BIER-TE Ingress Protection November 2023
5. Extensions to PCEP
A PCC runs on each of the edge nodes such as PEs and CEs of a network
normally. A PCE runs on a server as a controller to communicate with
PCCs. The PCE and the PCCs running on backup ingress PEs and traffic
source CEs work together to support protection for the ingress of a
BIER-TE path.
5.1. Capability for Ingress Protection
5.1.1. Capability for Ingress Protection with Backup Ingress
When a PCE and a PCC running on a backup ingress establish a PCEP
session between them, they exchange their capabilities of supporting
protection for the ingress node of a BIER-TE path/tunnel.
A new sub-TLV called BIER-TE_INGRESS_PROTECTION_CAPABILITY is
defined. It is included in the PATH_SETUP_TYPE_CAPABILITY TLV with
PST = TBD1 (suggested value 2 for protecting the ingress of a BIER-TE
path/tunnel) in the OPEN object, which is exchanged in Open messages
when a PCC and a PCE establish a PCEP session between them. Its
format is illustrated 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 = TBD2 | Length=4 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved | Flags |D|A|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: BIER-TE_INGRESS_PROTECTION_CAPABILITY sub-TLV
Type: TBD2 is to be assigned by IANA.
Length: 4.
Reserved: 2 octets. Must be set to zero in transmission and ignored
on reception.
Flags: 2 octets. Two flag bits are defined.
o D flag bit: A PCC sets this flag to 1 to indicate that it is
able to detect its adjacent node's failure quickly.
o A flag bit: A PCE sets this flag to 1 to request a PCC to let
Chen, et al. Expires 15 May 2024 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft BIER-TE Ingress Protection November 2023
the forwarding entry for the backup BIER-TE path/tunnel be
Active.
A PCC, which supports ingress protection for a BIER-TE tunnel/path,
sends a PCE an Open message containing BIER-
TE_INGRESS_PROTECTION_CAPABILITY sub-TLV. This sub-TLV indicates
that the PCC is capable of supporting the ingress protection for a
BIER-TE tunnel/path.
A PCE, which supports ingress protection for a BIER-TE tunnel/path,
sends a PCC an Open message containing BIER-
TE_INGRESS_PROTECTION_CAPABILITY sub-TLV. This sub-TLV indicates
that the PCE is capable of supporting the ingress protection for a
BIER-TE tunnel/path.
If both a PCC and a PCE support BIER-
TE_INGRESS_PROTECTION_CAPABILITY, each of the Open messages sent by
the PCC and PCE contains PATH-SETUP-TYPE-CAPABILITY TLV with a PST
list containing PST=TBD1 and a BIER-TE-INGRESS_PROTECTION_CAPABILITY
sub-TLV.
If a PCE receives an Open message without a BIER-
TE_INGRESS_PROTECTION_CAPABILITY sub-TLV from a PCC, then the PCE
MUST not send the PCC any request for ingress protection of a BIER-TE
path/tunnel.
If a PCC receives an Open message without a BIER-
TE_INGRESS_PROTECTION_CAPABILITY sub-TLV from a PCE, then the PCC
MUST ignore any request for ingress protection of a BIER-TE path/
tunnel from the PCE.
If a PCC sets D flag to zero, then the PCE SHOULD send the PCC an
Open message with A flag set to one and the fast detection of the
failure of the primary ingress MUST be done by the traffic source.
When the PCE sends the PCC a message for initiating a backup BIER-TE
path, the PCC MUST let the forwarding entry for the backup BIER-TE
path be Active.
5.1.2. Capability for Ingress Protection with Traffic Source
When a PCE and a PCC running on a traffic source node establish a
PCEP session between them, they exchange their capabilities of
supporting protection for the ingress node of a BIER-TE path/tunnel.
Chen, et al. Expires 15 May 2024 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft BIER-TE Ingress Protection November 2023
The PCECC-CAPABILITY sub-TLV defined in
[I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller] is included in the
OPEN object in the PATH-SETUP-TYPE-CAPABILITY TLV, which is exchanged
in Open messages when a PCC and a PCE establish a PCEP session
between them.
A new flag bit P is defined in the Flags field of the PCECC-
CAPABILITY sub-TLV:
* P flag (for Ingress Protection): if set to 1 by a PCEP speaker,
the P flag indicates that the PCEP speaker supports and is willing
to handle the PCECC based central controller instructions for
ingress protection. The bit MUST be set to 1 by both a PCC and a
PCE for the PCECC ingress protection instruction download/report
on a PCEP session.
5.2. BIER-TE Path Ingress Protection
This section specifies the extensions to PCEP for the backup ingress
and the traffic source. The extensions let the traffic source
S1: fast detect the failure of the primary ingress and switch the
traffic to the backup ingress when the traffic source detects the
failure of the primary ingress, or
S2: always send the traffic to both the primary ingress and the
backup ingress.
The extensions let the backup ingress
B1: always import the traffic received from the traffic source with
possible service ID into the backup BIER-TE path, or
B2: import the traffic with possible service ID into the backup
BIER-TE path when the backup ingress detects the failure of the
primary ingress.
The following lists the combinations of Si and Bi (i = 1,2) for
different ways of failure detects.
Source Detect: S1 and B1.
Backup Ingress Detect: S2 and B2.
Both Detect: S1 and B2.
Chen, et al. Expires 15 May 2024 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft BIER-TE Ingress Protection November 2023
5.2.1. Extensions for Backup Ingress
For the packets from the traffic source, if the primary ingress
(i.e., the ingress of the primary BIER-TE path) encapsulates the
packets with a service ID or label into the BIER-TE path, the backup
ingress MUST have this service ID or label and encapsulates the
packets with the service ID or label into the backup BIER-TE path
when the primary ingress fails.
If the backup ingress is requested to detect the failure of the
primary ingress, it MUST have the information about the primary
ingress such as the address of the primary ingress.
A new TLV called BIER-TE_INGRESS_PROTECTION TLV is defined to
transfer the information about the primary ingress and/or the service
ID or label. When a PCE sends the PCC of a backup ingress a
PCInitiate message for initiating a backup BIER-TE path/tunnel to
protect the primary ingress of a primary BIER-TE path/tunnel, the
message contains this TLV in the RP/SRP object. Its format is
illustrated 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 = TBD3 | Length (variable) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved | Flags |A|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ ~
~ sub-TLVs (optional) ~
~ ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3: BIER-TE_INGRESS_PROTECTION TLV
Type: TBD3 is to be assigned by IANA.
Length: Variable.
Reserved: 2 octets. Must be set to zero in transmission and ignored
on reception.
Flags: 2 octets. One flag bit is defined.
A flag bit: it is set to 1 or 0 by PCE.
o 1 is to request the backup ingress to let the forwarding
Chen, et al. Expires 15 May 2024 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft BIER-TE Ingress Protection November 2023
entry for the backup BIER-TE path/tunnel be Active always.
In this case, the traffic source detects the failure of the
primary ingress and switches the traffic to the backup
ingress when it detects the failure.
o 0 is to request the backup ingress to detect the failure of
the primary ingress and let the forwarding entry for the
backup BIER-TE path/tunnel be Active when the primary
ingress fails. In this case, the TLV includes the primary
ingress address in a Primary-Ingress sub-TLV. The traffic
source can send the traffic to both the primary ingress and
the backup ingress. It may switch the traffic to the backup
ingress from the primary ingress when it detects the failure
of the primary ingress.
Two optional sub-TLVs are defined. One is Service sub-TLV. The
other is Primary-Ingress sub-TLV. The Multicast Flow Specification
TLV for IPv4 or IPv6, which is defined in
[I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-flowspec], is used as a sub-TLV to indicate the
traffic to be imported into the backup BIER-TE path.
5.2.1.1. Service sub-TLV
A Service sub-TLV contains a service label such as VPN service label
or ID to be added into a packet to be carried by a BIER-TE path/
tunnel. It has two formats: one for the service identified by a
label and the other for the service identified by a service
identifier (ID) of 32 or 128 bits, which are illustrated 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 = TBD4 | Length (4) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| zero | Service Label (20 bits) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 4: Service Label sub-TLV
Type: TBD4 is to be assigned by IANA.
Length: 4.
Service Label: the least significant 20 bits. It represents a label
of 20 bits.
Chen, et al. Expires 15 May 2024 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft BIER-TE Ingress Protection November 2023
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 = TBD5 | Length (4/16) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Service ID (4 or 16 octets) |
~ ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 5: Service ID sub-TLV
Type: TBD5 is to be assigned by IANA.
Length: 4 or 16.
Service ID: 4 or 16 octets. It represents Identifier (ID) of a
service in 4 or 16 octets.
5.2.1.2. Primary-Ingress sub-TLV
A Primary-Ingress sub-TLV indicates the IP address of the primary
ingress node of a primary BIER-TE path/tunnel. It has two formats:
one for primary ingress node IPv4 address and the other for primary
ingress node IPv6 address, which are illustrated 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 = TBD6 | Length (4) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Primary Ingress IPv4 Address (4 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 6: Primary Ingress IPv4 Address sub-TLV
Type: TBD6 is to be assigned by IANA.
Length: 4.
Primary Ingress IPv4 Address: 4 octets. It represents an IPv4 host
address of the primary ingress node of a BIER-TE path/tunnel.
Chen, et al. Expires 15 May 2024 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft BIER-TE Ingress Protection November 2023
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 = TBD7 | Length (16) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Primary Ingress IPv6 Address (16 octets) |
~ ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 7: Primary Ingress IPv6 Address sub-TLV
Type: TBD7 is to be assigned by IANA.
Length: 16.
Primary Ingress IPv6 Address: 16 octets. It represents an IPv6 host
address of the primary ingress node of a BIER-TE path/tunnel.
5.2.2. Extensions for Traffic Source
If the traffic source is requested to detect the failure of the
primary ingress and switch the traffic (to be sent to the primary
ingress) to the backup ingress when the primary ingress fails, it
MUST have the information about the backup ingress, the primary
ingress and the traffic. This information may be transferred via a
CCI object for BIER-TE-INGRESS-PROTECTION to the PCC of the traffic
source node from a PCE.
If the traffic source PCC does not accept the request from the PCE or
support the extensions, the PCE SHOULD have the information about the
behavior of the traffic source configured such as whether it detects
the failure of the primary ingress. Based on the information, the
PCE instructs the backup ingress accordingly.
The Central Control Instructions (CCI) Object is defined in
[I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller] for a PCE as a
controller to send instructions for LSPs to a PCC. This document
defines a new object-type (TBDt) for BIER-TE ingress protection based
on the CCI object. The body of the object with the new object-type
is illustrated below. The object may be in PCRpt, PCUpd, or
PCInitiate message.
Chen, et al. Expires 15 May 2024 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft BIER-TE Ingress Protection November 2023
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| CC-ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved | Flags |B|D|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
// Optional TLV //
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 8: BIER-TE-INGRESS-PROTECTION Object Body
CC-ID: It is the same as described in
[I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller].
Flags: Two flag bits D and B are defined as follows:
D: D = 1 instructs the PCC of the traffic source to Detect the
failure of the primary ingress and switch the traffic to the
backup ingress when it detects the failure.
B: B = 1 instructs the PCC of the traffic source to send the
traffic to Both the primary ingress and the backup ingress.
Optional TLV: Primary ingress TLV, backup ingress TLV and/or
Multicast Flow Specification TLV.
The primary ingress sub-TLV defined above is used as a TLV to contain
the information about the primary ingress in the object. The
Multicast Flow Specification TLV for IPv4 or IPv6, which is defined
in [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-flowspec], is used to contain the information
about the traffic in the object. A new TLV, called backup ingress
TLV, is defined to contain the information about the backup ingress
in the object.
5.2.2.1. Backup-Ingress TLV
A Backup-Ingress TLV indicates the IP address of the ingress node of
a backup BIER-TE path/tunnel. It has two formats: one for backup
ingress node IPv4 address and the other for backup ingress node IPv6
address, which are illustrated below. They have the same format as
the Primary-Ingress sub-TLVs.
Chen, et al. Expires 15 May 2024 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft BIER-TE Ingress Protection November 2023
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 = TBD8 | Length (4) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Backup Ingress IPv4 Address (4 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 9: Backup Ingress IPv4 Address TLV
Type: TBD8 is to be assigned by IANA.
Length: 4.
Backup Ingress IPv4 Address: 4 octets. It represents an IPv4 host
address of the backup ingress.
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 = TBD9 | Length (16) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Backup Ingress IPv6 Address (16 octets) |
~ ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 10: Backup Ingress IPv6 Address TLV
Type: TBD9 is to be assigned by IANA.
Length: 16.
Backup Ingress IPv6 Address: 16 octets. It represents an IPv6 host
address of the backup ingress node.
6. IANA Considerations
TBD
7. Security Considerations
TBD
8. Acknowledgements
TBD
Chen, et al. Expires 15 May 2024 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft BIER-TE Ingress Protection November 2023
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,
<https://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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5440>.
[RFC8231] Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Medved, J., and R. Varga, "Path
Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)
Extensions for Stateful PCE", RFC 8231,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8231, September 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8231>.
9.2. Informative References
[I-D.chen-bier-te-frr]
Chen, H., McBride, M., Liu, Y., Wang, A., Mishra, G. S.,
Fan, Y., Liu, L., and X. Liu, "BIER-TE Fast ReRoute", Work
in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-chen-bier-te-frr-05, 30
July 2023, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-
chen-bier-te-frr-05>.
[I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller]
Li, Z., Peng, S., Negi, M. S., Zhao, Q., and C. Zhou,
"Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)
Procedures and Extensions for Using the PCE as a Central
Controller (PCECC) of LSPs", Work in Progress, Internet-
Draft, draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller-
14, 5 March 2021, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/
draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller-14>.
[I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-flowspec]
Dhody, D., Farrel, A., and Z. Li, "Path Computation
Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extension for Flow
Specification", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
ietf-pce-pcep-flowspec-13, 14 October 2021,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-pce-
pcep-flowspec-13>.
Chen, et al. Expires 15 May 2024 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft BIER-TE Ingress Protection November 2023
[RFC8402] Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Ginsberg, L.,
Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment
Routing Architecture", RFC 8402, DOI 10.17487/RFC8402,
July 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8402>.
[RFC8424] Chen, H., Ed. and R. Torvi, Ed., "Extensions to RSVP-TE
for Label Switched Path (LSP) Ingress Fast Reroute (FRR)
Protection", RFC 8424, DOI 10.17487/RFC8424, August 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8424>.
Authors' Addresses
Huaimo Chen
Futurewei
Boston, MA,
United States of America
Email: Huaimo.chen@futurewei.com
Mike McBride
Futurewei
Email: michael.mcbride@futurewei.com
Gyan S. Mishra
Verizon Inc.
13101 Columbia Pike
Silver Spring, MD 20904
United States of America
Phone: 301 502-1347
Email: gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com
Yisong Liu
China Mobile
Email: liuyisong@chinamobile.com
Aijun Wang
China Telecom
Beiqijia Town, Changping District
Beijing
102209
China
Email: wangaj3@chinatelecom.cn
Chen, et al. Expires 15 May 2024 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft BIER-TE Ingress Protection November 2023
Lei Liu
Fujitsu
United States of America
Email: liulei.kddi@gmail.com
Xufeng Liu
Alef Edge
McLean, VA
United States of America
Email: xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com
Chen, et al. Expires 15 May 2024 [Page 17]
