Internet DRAFT - draft-huang-teas-bgp-community-pce
draft-huang-teas-bgp-community-pce
TEAS L. Huang, Ed.
Internet-Draft China Mobile
Intended status: Standards Track A. Wang
Expires: January 17, 2018 China Telecom
July 16, 2017
BGP community based PCE in native IP network
draft-huang-teas-bgp-community-pce-00
Abstract
This document describes a BGP community based method to steer traffic
under the PCE architecture in the native IP network.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF 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 http://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 January 17, 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.
Huang & Wang Expires January 17, 2018 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft huang-bgp-community-pce-00 July 2017
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Terminology and Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. Machanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1. Introduction
In the draft [I-D.wang-teas-pce-native-ip], the scenario for TE in
native IP network is described and a dual/multi-BGP sessions solution
is proposed to meet the TE requirements. This document is for the
same scenario and requirements as [I-D.wang-teas-pce-native-ip],
however, a BGP community based method is used for steering traffic
instead of dual/multi-BGP sessions.
2. Terminology and Abbreviations
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 [RFC2119].
3. Machanism
To differentiate traffics with various priority, BGP community is
used to classify route prefixes. Assign a specific next-hop address
for a specific BGP community which could be done by BGP route policy.
Then through controling the path for a specific next-hop address we
can steer the related traffic.
The following is an example with a simple topology:
Huang & Wang Expires January 17, 2018 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft huang-bgp-community-pce-00 July 2017
BGP BGP
| For IP12 -- IP22 |
lo1 +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -+ lo1
| |
| |
| |
For IP11 -- IP21
lo0 +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -+ lo0
| |
| ----------------- |
////// Path-1 \\\\\\
+---+--+ /// \\\ +--+---+
IP12---+ || || +---IP22
| R1 | | R2 |
IP11---+ || || +---IP21
+------+ \\\ /// +------+
\\\\\\ Path-2 //////
-----------------
Figure 1: A simple topology as an example
In this topology, assume traffic between IP11 and IP21 is normal
traffic, traffic between IP12 and IP22 is high priority. The
following procedures can fulfill the differentiated traffic steering:
(1) On R1, assign BGP community 100:100 for IP11 and 100:200 for
IP12. On R2, assign BGP community 100:100 for IP21 and 100:200 for
IP22.
(2) On R1, use BGP route policy to set the next-hop as lo0 for
prefixes with community 100:100 and lo1 for prefixes with community
100:200. Make the same configuration on R2.
(3) On R1, set an explicit route to R2's lo0 through path-1 and
another explicit route to R2's lo1 through path-2. On R2, set an
explicit route to R1's lo0 through path-1 and another explicit route
to R1's lo1 through path-2.
Through the above procedures traffic with different priority can be
steered to appointed path as needed. More BGP communities and
loopback interfaces/addresses can be created for more traffic classes
in a more complex enviroment.
Huang & Wang Expires January 17, 2018 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft huang-bgp-community-pce-00 July 2017
In a PCE enabled network, the above procedures can be fulfilled in a
automated way. PCE can set the binding of BGP community and route
prefixes, BGP community and next-hops/loopback addresses. PCE can
change the BGP community for specific prefixes to steer the related
traffic to a different priority/path. PCE also can set explicit
route hop by hop for a specific next-hop/loopback address to steer
the related traffic as needed. In addition, PCEP need to be extended
to transfer the necessary parameters, such as BGP communities, next-
hop/loopback addresses, related route prefixes and explicit route for
a specific next-hop. How to extend PCEP is out of this document's
scope.
4. Security Considerations
5. IANA Considerations
6. Normative References
[I-D.wang-teas-pce-native-ip]
Wang, A., Zhao, Q., Khasanov, B., Mi, K., Mallya, R., and
S. Peng, "PCE in Native IP Network", draft-wang-teas-pce-
native-ip-03 (work in progress), March 2017.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
Authors' Addresses
Lu Huang (editor)
China Mobile
32 Xuanwumen West Ave, Xicheng District
Beijing 100053
China
Email: hlisname@yahoo.com
Aijun Wang
China Telecom
Beiqijia Town, Changping District
Beijing
China
Email: wangaj.bri@chinatelecom.cn
Huang & Wang Expires January 17, 2018 [Page 4]
