[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [Email] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05

PCE Working Group                                                  C. Li
Internet-Draft                                                   M. Chen
Updates: 8281 (if approved)                                     D. Dhody
Intended status: Standards Track                                   Z. Li
Expires: December 22, 2018                                       J. Dong
                                                     Huawei Technologies
                                                           June 20, 2018


PCEP Extension for Segment Routing (SR) Bi-directional Associated Paths
                     draft-li-pce-sr-bidir-path-00

Abstract

   The Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) provides
   mechanisms for Path Computation Elements (PCEs) to perform path
   computations in response to Path Computation Clients (PCCs) requests.
   The Stateful PCE extensions allow stateful control of Multiprotocol
   Label Switching (MPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE) Label Switched Paths
   (LSPs) using PCEP.  Furthermore, PCEP can be used for computing paths
   in SR networks.

   This document defines PCEP extensions for grouping two reverse
   unidirectional SR Paths into an Associated Bidirectional SR path when
   using a Stateful PCE for both PCE-Initiated and PCC-Initiated LSPs as
   well as when using a Stateless PCE.

Requirements Language

   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.

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




Li, et al.              Expires December 22, 2018               [Page 1]


Internet-Draft    SR Bidirectional Association in PCEP         June 2018


   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 December 22, 2018.

Copyright Notice

   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.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  PCEP Extension for Bi-directional SR Path . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.1.  Double-sided Bidirectional SR Path Association Group
           Object  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  Bi-directional Flag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   5.  Procedures of Bi-directional Path Computation . . . . . . . .   5
     5.1.  PCE Initiated SR Paths  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     5.2.  PCC Initiated SR Paths  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     5.3.  Stateless PCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     5.4.  Error Handling  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   7.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   8.  Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   9.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     9.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     9.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11

1.  Introduction

   Segment routing (SR) [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing] leverages the
   source routing and tunneling paradigms.  SR supports to steer packets
   into an explicit forwarding path according to the Segment Routing
   Policy ( SR Policy) [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy] at the
   ingress node.



Li, et al.              Expires December 22, 2018               [Page 2]


Internet-Draft    SR Bidirectional Association in PCEP         June 2018


   However, the SR Policies defined in
   [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy] only supports uni-
   directional SR paths.  For supporting bi-directional paths
   [I-D.cheng-spring-mpls-path-segment], new SR policies carrying Path
   ID and bi-directional path information are defined in
   [I-D.li-idr-sr-policy-path-segment-distribution].

   [RFC5440] describes the Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication
   Protocol (PCEP).  PCEP enables the communication between a Path
   Computation Client (PCC) and a PCE, or between PCE and PCE, for the
   purpose of computation of Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) as
   well as Generalzied MPLS (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering Label Switched
   Path (TE LSP) characteristics.

   [RFC8231] specifies a set of extensions to PCEP to enable stateful
   control of TE LSPs within and across PCEP sessions in compliance with
   [RFC4657].  It includes mechanisms to effect LSP State
   Synchronization between PCCs and PCEs, delegation of control over
   LSPs to PCEs, and PCE control of timing and sequence of path
   computations within and across PCEP sessions.  The model of operation
   where LSPs are initiated from the PCE is described in [RFC8281].

   [I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing] specifies extensions to the Path
   Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) [RFC5440] for SR networks, that
   allow a stateful PCE to compute and initiate SR-TE paths, as well as
   a PCC to request, report or delegate SR paths.
   [I-D.negi-pce-segment-routing-ipv6] extend PCEP to support SR for
   IPv6 data plane.

   [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group] introduces a generic mechanism to
   create a grouping of LSPs which can then be used to define
   associations between a set of LSPs and/or a set of attributes, for
   example primary and secondary LSP associations, and is equally
   applicable to the active and passive modes of a Stateful PCE
   [RFC8231] or a stateless PCE [RFC5440].

   [I-D.ietf-pce-association-bidir] defines PCEP extensions for grouping
   two reverse unidirectional MPLS TE LSPs into an Associated
   Bidirectional LSP when using a Stateful PCE for both PCE-Initiated
   and PCC-Initiated LSPs as well as when using a Stateless PCE.

   This document extends the bidirectional association to segment
   routing by specifying PCEP extensions for grouping two reverse
   unidirectional SR paths into a bi-directional SR path.

   [I-D.li-pce-sr-path-segment] defines a procedure for path ID in PCEP
   for SR by defining the PATH-ID TLV.  The path ID can be a path
   segment in SR-MPLS [I-D.cheng-spring-mpls-path-segment], or a path ID



Li, et al.              Expires December 22, 2018               [Page 3]


Internet-Draft    SR Bidirectional Association in PCEP         June 2018


   in SRv6 [I-D.li-spring-passive-pm-for-srv6-np], or other IDs that can
   identify an SR path.  The PATH-ID MUST be included for associated
   bidirectional SR paths.

2.  Terminology

   This memo makes use of the terms defined in
   [I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing].  The reader is assumed to be familiar
   with the terminology defined in [RFC5440], [RFC8231], [RFC8281],
   [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group] and
   [I-D.ietf-pce-association-bidir].

3.  PCEP Extension for Bi-directional SR Path

   As per [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group], LSPs are associated by
   adding them to a common association group.
   [I-D.ietf-pce-association-bidir] specifies PCEP extensions for
   grouping two reverse unidirectional MPLS-TE LSPs into an Associated
   Bidirectional LSP for both single-sided and double-sided initiation
   cases by defining two new Bidirectional LSP Association Groups.

   This document extends the procedure for SR bidirectional associated
   paths by defining a new bidirectional association type (i.e.  Double-
   sided Bi-directional SR Path Association Group).  The document
   further describe the mechanism of associating two unidirectional SR
   path into a bidirectional SR path.  [I-D.li-pce-sr-path-segment]
   defines a procedure for path ID in PCEP for SR by defining the PATH-
   ID TLV.  The bidirectional SR path MUST also use the PATH-ID TLV.

3.1.  Double-sided Bidirectional SR Path Association Group Object

   As defined in [I-D.ietf-pce-association-bidir], two LSPs are
   associated as a bi-directional MPLS-TE LSP by a common bi-directional
   LSP association group.  For associating two SR paths, this document
   defines a new association group called 'Double-sided Bidirectional SR
   Path Association Group' as follows:

   o  Association Type (TBD) = Double-sided Bidirectional SR Path
      Association Group

   Similar to other bidirectional associations, this Association Type is
   operator-configured in nature and statically created by the operator
   on the PCEP peers.  The paths belonging to this association is
   conveyed via PCEP messages to the PCEP peer.  Operator-configured
   Association Range TLV [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group] MUST NOT be
   sent for these Association Types, and MUST be ignored, so that the
   entire range of association ID can be used for them.  The handling of
   the Association ID, Association Source, optional Global Association



Li, et al.              Expires December 22, 2018               [Page 4]


Internet-Draft    SR Bidirectional Association in PCEP         June 2018


   Source and optional Extended Association ID in this association are
   set in the same way as [I-D.ietf-pce-association-bidir].

   A member of the Double-sided Bi-directional SR Path Association Group
   can take the role of a forward or reverse SR path and follows the
   rules similar to the rules defined in
   [I-D.ietf-pce-association-bidir] for LSPs.

   o  An SR path (forward or reverse) can not be part of more than one
      Double-sided Bi-directional SR Path Association Group.

   o  The endpoints of the SR paths in this associations cannot be
      different.

   For describing the SR paths in this association group, such as
   direction and co-routed information, this association group reuses
   the Bi-directional LSP Association Group TLV defined in
   [I-D.ietf-pce-association-bidir].  All fields and processing rules
   are as per [I-D.ietf-pce-association-bidir].

4.  Bi-directional Flag

   As defined in [RFC5440], the B-flag in RP object MUST be set when the
   PCC specifies that the path computation request relates to a bi-
   directional TE LSP.  In this document, the B-flag also MUST be set
   when the PCC specifies that the path computation request relates to a
   bi-directional SR path.  Likely, when a stateful PCE initiates or
   updates a bi-directional SR paths including LSPs and SR paths, the
   B-flag in SRP object [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-stateful-pce-gmpls] MUST be
   set as well.

5.  Procedures of Bi-directional Path Computation

   Two uni-directional SR paths can be associated by the association
   group object as specified in [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group].  A
   bidirectional LSP association group object is defined in
   [I-D.ietf-pce-association-bidir] (for MPLS-TE).  This documents
   extends the mechanism for bidirectional SR paths.  Two SR paths can
   be associated together by including the Bi-directional SR Path
   Association Group in the PCEP messages.  The PATH-ID TLV
   [I-D.li-pce-sr-path-segment] MUST also be included in the LSP object
   for these SR paths.

   There is also a need to include the reverse direction path in the
   PCEP messages, to do this the PCE SHOULD inform the reverse SR path
   to the ingress PCC and vice versa.  To achieve this a PCInitiate
   message for the reverse SR path is sent to the ingress PCC and a
   PCInitiate message for the forward SR path is sent to the egress PCC



Li, et al.              Expires December 22, 2018               [Page 5]


Internet-Draft    SR Bidirectional Association in PCEP         June 2018


   (with the same association group).  These PCInitiate message MUST not
   trigger initiation of SR paths.  The information of reverse direction
   path can be used for several scenarios, such as directed BFD
   [I-D.ietf-mpls-bfd-directed].

5.1.  PCE Initiated SR Paths

   As specified in [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group] Bidirectional SR
   Association Group can be created by a Stateful PCE.

   o  Stateful PCE can create and update the forward and reverse SR path
      independently for Double-sided Bi-directional SR Path Association
      Groups.

   o  Stateful PCE can establish and remove the association relationship
      on a per SR path basis.

   o  Stateful PCE can create and update the SR path and the association
      on a PCC via PCInitiate and PCUpd messages, respectively, using
      the procedures described in [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group].

   o  The Path-ID TLV MUST be included for each SR path in the LSP
      object.

   o  The opposite direction SR path (LSP2(R) at S, LSP1(F) at D )
      SHOULD be informed via PCInitiate message with the matching
      association group.


                               +-----+
                               | PCE |
                               +-----+
   PCUpd/PCInitiate            /    \         PCUpd/PCInitiate
   Tunnel 1 (F)               /      \        Tunnel 2 (R)
   (LSP1 (F), LSP2 (R))      /        \       (LSP2 (R), LSP1 (F))
   Assoc#1                  /          \      Assoc#1
                           /            \
                          v              v
                     +-----+    LSP1     +-----+
                     |  S  |------------>|  D  |
                     |     |<------------|     |
                     +-----+    LSP2     +-----+

    Figure 1: PCE-Initiated Double-sided Bidirectional SR Path







Li, et al.              Expires December 22, 2018               [Page 6]


Internet-Draft    SR Bidirectional Association in PCEP         June 2018


5.2.  PCC Initiated SR Paths

   As specified in [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group] Bidirectional SR
   Association Group can also be created by a PCC.

   o  PCC can create and update the forward and reverse SR paths
      independently for Double-sided Bi-directional SR Path Association
      Groups.

   o  PCC can establish and remove the association relationship on a per
      SR path basis.

   o  PCC MUST report the change in the association group of an SR path
      to PCE(s) via PCRpt message.

   o  PCC can report the forward and reverse SR paths independently to
      PCE(s) via PCRpt message.

   o  PCC can delegate the forward and reverse SR paths independently to
      a Stateful PCE, where PCE would control the SR paths.

   o  Stateful PCE can update the SR paths in the Double-sided Bi-
      directional SR Path Association Group via PCUpd message, using the
      procedures described in [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group].

   o  The Path-ID TLV MUST be handled as defined in
      [I-D.li-pce-sr-path-segment].

   o  The opposite direction SR path (LSP2(R) at S, LSP1(F) at D )
      SHOULD be informed via PCInitiate message with the matching
      association group.




















Li, et al.              Expires December 22, 2018               [Page 7]


Internet-Draft    SR Bidirectional Association in PCEP         June 2018


                               +-----+
                               | PCE |
                               +-----+
   Reports/Delegates:          ^    ^       Reports/Delegates
   Tunnel 1 (F)               /      \        Tunnel 2 (R)
   (LSP1 (F))                /        \       (LSP2 (R))
                            /          \
                           /            \
                          /              \
                      +-----+    LSP1     +-----+
                      |  S  |------------>|  D  |
                      |     |<------------|     |
                      +-----+    LSP2     +-----+

     Figure 2a: PCC-Initiated Double-sided Bidirectional SR Path

                               +-----+
                               | PCE |
                               +-----+
   PCUpd/PCInitiate            /    \         PCUpd/PCInitiate
   Tunnel 1 (F)               /      \        Tunnel 2 (R)
   (LSP1 (F), LSP2 (R))      /        \       (LSP2 (R), LSP1 (F))
   Assoc#1                  /          \      Assoc#1
                           /            \
                          v              v
                     +-----+    LSP1     +-----+
                     |  S  |------------>|  D  |
                     |     |<------------|     |
                     +-----+    LSP2     +-----+

     Figure 2b: PCC-Initiated Double-sided Bidirectional SR Path
                along with opposite direction SR path


5.3.  Stateless PCE

   As defined in [I-D.ietf-pce-association-bidir], for a stateless PCE,
   it might be useful to associate a path computation request to an
   association group, thus enabling it to associate a common set of
   configuration parameters or behaviors with the request.  A PCC can
   request co-routed or non co-routed forward and reverse direction
   paths from a stateless PCE for a bidirectional LSP association group.

5.4.  Error Handling

   The error handling as described in [I-D.ietf-pce-association-bidir]
   continue to apply.




Li, et al.              Expires December 22, 2018               [Page 8]


Internet-Draft    SR Bidirectional Association in PCEP         June 2018


6.  IANA Considerations

   TBA

7.  Security Considerations

   TBA

8.  Acknowledgments

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>.

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

   [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>.

   [RFC8281]  Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Sivabalan, S., and R. Varga, "Path
              Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)
              Extensions for PCE-Initiated LSP Setup in a Stateful PCE
              Model", RFC 8281, DOI 10.17487/RFC8281, December 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8281>.

   [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group]
              Minei, I., Crabbe, E., Sivabalan, S., Ananthakrishnan, H.,
              Dhody, D., and Y. Tanaka, "PCEP Extensions for
              Establishing Relationships Between Sets of LSPs", draft-
              ietf-pce-association-group-06 (work in progress), June
              2018.





Li, et al.              Expires December 22, 2018               [Page 9]


Internet-Draft    SR Bidirectional Association in PCEP         June 2018


   [I-D.ietf-pce-association-bidir]
              Barth, C., Gandhi, R., and B. Wen, "PCEP Extensions for
              Associated Bidirectional Label Switched Paths (LSPs)",
              draft-ietf-pce-association-bidir-01 (work in progress),
              May 2018.

   [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-stateful-pce-gmpls]
              Zhang, X., Lee, Y., Zhang, F., Casellas, R., Dios, O., and
              Z. Ali, "Path Computation Element (PCE) Protocol
              Extensions for Stateful PCE Usage in GMPLS-controlled
              Networks", draft-ietf-pce-pcep-stateful-pce-gmpls-08 (work
              in progress), February 2018.

   [I-D.negi-pce-segment-routing-ipv6]
              Negi, M., Kaladharan, P., Dhody, D., and S. Sivabalan,
              "PCEP Extensions for Segment Routing leveraging the IPv6
              data plane", draft-negi-pce-segment-routing-ipv6-01 (work
              in progress), March 2018.

   [I-D.li-pce-sr-path-segment]
              Li, C., Chen, M., Dong, J., Li, Z., and D. Dhody, "Path
              Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)
              Extension for Path Identification in Segment Routing
              (SR)", draft-li-pce-sr-path-segment-00 (work in progress),
              June 2018.

9.2.  Informative References

   [RFC4657]  Ash, J., Ed. and J. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation
              Element (PCE) Communication Protocol Generic
              Requirements", RFC 4657, DOI 10.17487/RFC4657, September
              2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4657>.

   [I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing]
              Sivabalan, S., Filsfils, C., Tantsura, J., Henderickx, W.,
              and J. Hardwick, "PCEP Extensions for Segment Routing",
              draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-11 (work in progress),
              November 2017.

   [I-D.ietf-mpls-bfd-directed]
              Mirsky, G., Tantsura, J., Varlashkin, I., and M. Chen,
              "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) Directed Return
              Path", draft-ietf-mpls-bfd-directed-08 (work in progress),
              December 2017.







Li, et al.              Expires December 22, 2018              [Page 10]


Internet-Draft    SR Bidirectional Association in PCEP         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", draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-
              policy-01 (work in progress), June 2018.

   [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing]
              Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Ginsberg, L., Decraene, B.,
              Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment Routing
              Architecture", draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-15 (work
              in progress), January 2018.

   [I-D.cheng-spring-mpls-path-segment]
              Cheng, W., Wang, L., Li, H., Chen, M., Zigler, R., and S.
              Zhan, "Path Segment in MPLS Based Sement Routing Network",
              draft-cheng-spring-mpls-path-segment-01 (work in
              progress), March 2018.

   [I-D.li-spring-passive-pm-for-srv6-np]
              Li, C. and M. Chen, "Passive Performance Measurement for
              SRv6 Network Programming", draft-li-spring-passive-pm-for-
              srv6-np-00 (work in progress), March 2018.

   [I-D.li-idr-sr-policy-path-segment-distribution]
              Li, C., Chen, M., Dong, J., and Z. Li, "Segment Routing
              Policies for Path Segment and Bi-directional Path", draft-
              li-idr-sr-policy-path-segment-distribution-00 (work in
              progress), April 2018.

Authors' Addresses

   Cheng Li
   Huawei Technologies
   Huawei Campus, No. 156 Beiqing Rd.
   Beijing  100095
   China

   Email: chengli13@huawei.com


   Mach(Guoyi) Chen
   Huawei Technologies
   Huawei Campus, No. 156 Beiqing Rd.
   Beijing  100095
   China

   Email: Mach.chen@huawei.com




Li, et al.              Expires December 22, 2018              [Page 11]


Internet-Draft    SR Bidirectional Association in PCEP         June 2018


   Dhruv Dhody
   Huawei Technologies
   Divyashree Techno Park, Whitefield
   Bangalore, Karnataka  560066
   India

   Email: dhruv.ietf@gmail.com


   Zhenbin Li
   Huawei Technologies
   Huawei Campus, No. 156 Beiqing Rd.
   Beijing  100095
   China

   Email: lizhenbin@huawei.com


   Jie Dong
   Huawei Technologies
   Huawei Campus, No. 156 Beiqing Rd.
   Beijing  100095
   China

   Email: jie.dong@huawei.com


























Li, et al.              Expires December 22, 2018              [Page 12]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129c, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/