Internet DRAFT - draft-wang-pcep-extension-native-ip
draft-wang-pcep-extension-native-ip
TEAS Working Group A.Wang
Internet Draft China Telecom
Boris Khasanov
Huawei Technologies
Sudhir Cheruathur
Juniper Networks
Intended status: Standard Track October 24,2016
Expires: April 23, 2017
PCEP Extension for Native IP Network
draft-wang-pcep-extension-native-ip-00.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and derivative works of it may not be created, and it may not be
published except as an Internet-Draft.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 is 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
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
<A.Wang> Expires December 30,2016 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft PCE Extension for Native IP Network June 30, 2016
This Internet-Draft will expire on April 24, 2017.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 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 PCEP extension for PCE application in
Native IP network. The scenario and architecture of PCE in native IP
is described in [I-D.draft-wang-teas-pce-native-ip-01.txt]. This
draft describes the key information that is transferred between PCE
and PCC to accomplish the end2end traffic assurance in Native IP
network under central control mode.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ................................................... 2
2. Conventions used in this document ...............................3
3. New Objects Extension .......................................... 3
4. Object Formats. ................................................ 3
4.1. BGP PEER Object...............................................4
4.2. BGP PREFIX Object................................................5
4.3. STATICROUTE Object ..........................................6
5. Management Consideration.............................................7
6. Security Considerations............................................7
7. IANA Considerations .............................................7
8. Conclusions .....................................................7
9. References ......................................................7
9.1. Normative References........................................7
9.2. Informative References......................................7
10. Acknowledgments ................................................8
1. Introduction
Traditionally, MPLS-TE traffic assurance requires the corresponding
network devices support MPLS or the complex RSVP/LDP/Segment Routing
etc. technologies to assure the end-to-end traffic performance. But
in native IP network, there will be no such signaling protocol to
synchronize the action among different network devices. It is
<A.Wang> Expires December 30,2016 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft PCE Extension for Native IP Network June 30, 2016
necessary to use the central control mode that described in [I-
D.draft-zhao-teas-pce-control-function] to correlate the forwarding
behavior among different network devices. Draft [I-D.draft-wang-
teas-pce-native-ip-00.txt] describes the architecture and solution
philosophy for the end2end traffic assurance in Native IP network
via Dual/Multi BGP solution. This draft describes the corresponding
PCEP extension to transfer the key information about BGP peer
relationship, BGP Prefix advertised and the static route on on-path
router.
2. Conventions used in this document
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
3. New Objects Extension
Three new objects are defined in this draft, they are BGP PEER
object, BGP PREFIX object and STATICROUTE object.
BGP PEER object is used to tell the network device which peer it
should be peered with dynamically, BGP PREFIX object is used to tell
which prefixes should be advertised via the corresponding BGP peer
and STATICROUTE object is used to point out which route should be to
taken to arrive to the bgp peer.
4. Object Formats.
Each extension object takes the similar format, that is to say, it
began with the common object header defined in [RFC5440] as the
following:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Object-Class | OT |Res|P|I| Object Length (bytes) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
// (Object body) //
| |
<A.Wang> Expires December 30,2016 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft PCE Extension for Native IP Network June 30, 2016
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Different object-class, object type and the corresponding object
body is defined separated in the following section.
4.1. BGP PEER Object.
The BGP PEER object is used in a PCE Initiate message [draft-ietf-
pce-pce-initiated-lsp] to specify the ip address of BGP peer that
the received network device should establish the BGP relationship
with.
This Object should only be sent to the head and end router of the
end2end path in case there is no RR involved. If the RR is used
between the head end routers, then such information should be sent
to head router/RR and end router/RR respectively.
BGP PEER Object Object-Class is **
BGP PEER Object Object-Type is **
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Peer-Id | AT |Resv.
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IP Address of BGP Peer(4/16 Bytes) |
// IP Address of BGP Peer(4/16 Bytes) //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Peer-Id(8 bits): To distinguish the different BGP Peer, will be
referenced in BGP PREFIX object, if the PCE use multiBGP solution
for different QoS assurance requirement.
AT(8 bits): Address Type. To indicate the address type of BGP Peer.
Equal to 4, if the following IP address of BGP peer is belong to
IPv4; Equal to 6 if the following IP address of BGP peer is belong
to IPv6.
Resv(16 bits): Reserved for future use.
<A.Wang> Expires December 30,2016 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft PCE Extension for Native IP Network June 30, 2016
IP Address of BGP Peer(4/16 Bytes): IPv4 address of the BGP peer
when AT equal to 4, length is 32bit; IPv6 address of the BGP peer
when AT equal to 16, length is 128bit;
4.2. BGP PREFIX Object
THE BGP PREFIX object is carried within in a PCE Initiate message
[draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp] to specify the IP prefixes that
should be advertised by the corresponding BGP Peer.
This Object should only be sent to the head and end router of the
end2end path in case there is no RR involved. If the RR is used
between the head end routers, then such information should be sent
to head router/RR and end router/RR respectively.
BGP PREFIX Object Object-Class is **
BGP PREFIX Object Object-Type is **
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Peer-Id | AT | Resv. | Prefixes Num.
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| BGP Advertised IP Prefix TLV |
// BGP Advertised IP Prefix TLV //
| BGP Advertised IP Prefix TLV |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Peer-Id(8 bits): To indicate which BGP peer should be used to
advertise the following IP Prefix TLV. This value is assigned in
the BGP PEER object and is referred in this object.
AT(8 bits): Address Type. To indicate the address type of BGP Peer.
Equal to 4, if the following IP address of BGP peer is belong to
IPv4; Equal to 6 if the following IP address of BGP peer is belong
to IPv6.
<A.Wang> Expires December 30,2016 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft PCE Extension for Native IP Network June 30, 2016
Resv(8 bits): Reserved for future use.
Prefixes Num(8 bits): Number of prefixes that advertised by the
corresponding BGP Peer. It should be equal to num of the following
IP prefix TLV.
BGP Advertised IP Prefix TLV: Variable Length, use the TLV format to
indicate the advertised IP Prefix.
4.3. STATICROUTE Object
THE STATICROUTE Object is carried in a PCE Initiate message [draft-
ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp] to specify the static route to the
corresponding BGP peer address on each device that is on the end2end
assurance path.
This Object should be sent to all the devices that locates on the
end2end assurance path that calculated by PCE.
STATICROUTE Object Object-Class is **
STATICROUTE Object Object-Type is **
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Peer-Id | AT | Resv. |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Next Hop Address to the BGP Peer (IPv4/IPv6) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Peer-Id(8 bits): To indicate the BGP peer that the following next
hop address point to. This value is assigned in the BGP PEER
object and is referred in this object.
AT(8 bits): Address Type. To indicate the address type of
staticroute. Equal to 4, if the following next hop address to the
BGP peer is belong to IPv4; Equal to 6 if the following next hop
address to the BGP peer is belong to IPv6.
Resv(16 bits): Reserved for future use.
<A.Wang> Expires December 30,2016 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft PCE Extension for Native IP Network June 30, 2016
Next Hop Address to the BGP Peer TLV: Variable Length, use the TLV
format to indicate the next hop address to the corresponding BGP
peer that indicated by the Peer-Id.
5. Management Consideration.
6. Security Considerations
TBD
7. IANA Considerations
TBD
8. Conclusions
TBD
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J.-P., and J. Ash, "A Path
Computation Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC
4655, August 2006,<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4655>.
[RFC5440]Vasseur, JP., Ed., and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path
Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol
(PCEP)", RFC 5440, March 2009,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5440>.
9.2. Informative References
[I-D.draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp-07]
E.Crabbe, I.Minei, S.Sivabalan, R.Varga, "PCEP Extensions for PCE-
initiated LSP Setup in a Stateful PCE Model",
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp-07
(work in progress), July, 2016
<A.Wang> Expires December 30,2016 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft PCE Extension for Native IP Network June 30, 2016
[I-D.draft-wang-teas-pce-native-ip-01]
Aijun Wang, Quintin Zhao, Boris Khasanov, Raghavendra Mallya, "PCE
in Native IP Network", https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wang-teas-
pce-native-ip-01(work in progress),October, 2016
[I-D.draft-zhao-teas-pce-control-function]
Farrel, Q.Zhao "An Architecture for use of PCE and PCEP in a Network
with Central Control"
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-zhao-teas-pce-control-
function/ (work in progress),June, 2016
10. Acknowledgments
TBD
Authors' Addresses
Aijun Wang
China Telecom
Beiqijia Town, Changping District
Beijing,China
Email: wangaj@ctbri.com.cn
Boris Khasanov
Huawei Technologies
Moskovskiy Prospekt 97A
St.Petersburg 196084
Russia
EMail: khasanov.boris@huawei.com
Sudhir Cheruathur
Juniper Networks
1133 Innovation Way
Sunnyvale, California 94089 USA
Email: scheruathur@juniper.net
<A.Wang> Expires December 30,2016 [Page 8]
