[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 03

PCE Working Group                                           S. Sivabalan
Internet-Draft                                               C. Filsfils
Intended status: Standards Track                              S. Previdi
Expires: April 16, 2017                              Cisco Systems, Inc.
                                                             J. Tantsura
                                                                Ericsson
                                                             J. Hardwick
                                                     Metaswitch Networks
                                                              M. Nanduri
                                                   Microsoft Corporation
                                                        October 13, 2016


        Carrying Binding Label/Segment-ID in PCE-based Networks.
              draft-sivabalan-pce-binding-label-sid-02.txt

Abstract

   It is possible to associate a binding label to RSVP-TE signaled
   Traffic Engineering Label Switching Path or binding Segment-ID (SID)
   to Segment Routed Traffic Engineering path.  Such a binding label/SID
   can be used by an upstream node for steering traffic into the
   appropriate TE path to enforce TE policies.  This document proposes
   an approach for reporting binding label/SID to Path Computation
   Element (PCE) for supporting PCE-based Traffic Engineering policies.

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 [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 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 April 16, 2017.



Sivabalan, et al.        Expires April 16, 2017                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft          Binding Label/Segment-ID            October 2016


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.  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.  Path Binding TLV  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   4.  Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     6.1.  TE-PATH-BINDING TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     6.2.  PCEP Error Type and Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   7.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   8.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9

1.  Introduction

   A PCE can compute Traffic Engineering paths (TE paths) through a
   network that are subject to various constraints.  Currently, TE paths
   are either set up using the RSVP-TE signaling protocol or Segment
   Routed (SR).  We refer to such paths as RSVP-TE paths and SR-TE paths
   respectively in this document.

   Similar to assigning label to a Forwarding Equivalence Class (FEC)
   via Label Distribution Protocol (LDP), a binding label can be
   assigned to a RSVP-TE LSP.  If the topmost label of an incoming
   packet is the binding label, the packet is steered onto the RSVP-TE
   LSP.  As such, any upstream node can use binding labels to steer the
   packets that it originates to appropriate TE LSPs to enforce TE
   policy.  Similarly, a binding SID (see
   [I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions] and
   [I-D.ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions]) can be used to enforce TE
   policy with SR-TE path.  Note that if an SR-TE path is represented as
   a forwarding-adjacency, then the corresponding adjacency SID can be



Sivabalan, et al.        Expires April 16, 2017                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft          Binding Label/Segment-ID            October 2016


   used as the binding SID.  In such case, the path is advertised using
   the routing protocols as described in [RFC5440].  The binding SID
   provides an alternate mechanism without additional overhead on
   routing protocols.

   [RFC5440] describes the Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) for
   communication between a Path Computation Client (PCC) and a PCE or
   between a pair of PCEs.[I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] specifies
   extension to PCEP that allows a PCC to delegate its LSPs to a PCE.
   The PCE can then update the state of LSPs delegated to it.
   [I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp] specifies a mechanism allowing a PCE
   to dynamically instantiate an LSP on a PCC by sending the path and
   characteristics of the LSP.  The PCEP extension to setup and maintain
   SR-TE paths is specified in [I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing].

   Binding label/SID has local significance to the ingress node of the
   corresponding TE path.  When a stateful PCE is deployed for setting
   up TE paths, it may be desirable to report the binding label or SID
   to the PCE for the purpose of enforcing end-to-end TE policy.  A
   sample Data Center (DC) use-case is illustrated in the following
   diagram.  In the MPLS DC network, an SR LSP (without traffic
   engineering) is established using a prefix SID advertised by BGP (see
   [I-D.keyupate-idr-bgp-prefix-sid]).  In IP/MPLS WAN, an SR-TE LSP is
   setup using the PCE.  The list of SIDs of the SR-TE LSP is {A, B, C,
   D}. The gateway node 1 (which is the PCC) allocates a binding SID X
   and reports it to the PCE.  In order for the access node to steer the
   traffic over the SR-TE LSP, the PCE passes the SID stack {Y, X} where
   Y is the prefix SID of the gateway node-1 to the access node.  In the
   absence of the binding SID X, the PCE should pass the SID stack {Y,
   A, B, C, D} to the access node.  This example also illustrates the
   additional benefit of using the binding SID to reduce the number of
   SIDs imposed on the access nodes with a limited forwarding capacity.



















Sivabalan, et al.        Expires April 16, 2017                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft          Binding Label/Segment-ID            October 2016


           SID stack
           {Y, X}              +-----+
    _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _| PCE |
   |                           +-----+
   |                              ^
   |                              | Binding
   |           .-----.            | SID (X)     .-----.
   |          (       )           |            (       )
   V       .--(         )--.      |        .--(         )--.
+------+  (                 )  +-------+  (                 )  +-------+
|Access|_(  MPLS DC Network  )_|Gateway|_(    IP/MPLS WAN    )_|Gateway|
| Node | (  ==============>  ) |Node-1 | ( ================> ) |Node-2 |
+------+  (     SR path     )  +-------+  (    SR-TE path   )  +-------+
           '--(         )--'    Prefix     '--(         )--'
               (       )        SID of         (       )
                '-----'         Node-1          '-----'
                                is Y            SIDs for SR-TE LSP:
                                                {A, B, C, D}



                Figure 1: A sample Use-case of Binding SID

   It may be possible for a PCE to request a PCC to allocate a specific
   binding label/SID by sending an update message.  If the PCC can
   successfully allocate the specified binding value, it reports the
   binding value to the PCE.  Otherwise, the PCC sends an error message
   to the PCE indicating the cause of the failure.

   In this document, we introduce a new OPTIONAL TLV that a PCC can use
   in order to report the binding label/SID associated with a TE LSP, or
   a PCE to request a PCC to allocate a binding label/SID.  This TLV is
   intended for TE LSPs established using RSVP-TE, SR, or any other
   future method.  Also, in the case of SR-TE LSPs, the TLV can carry an
   MPLS label (for SR-TE path with MPLS data-plane) or a binding SID
   (e.g., IPv6 address for SR-TE paths with IPv6 data-plane).  However,
   use of this TLV for carrying non-MPLS binding SID will be described
   in separate document(s).  Binding value means either MPLS label or
   SID throughout this document.

2.  Terminology

   The following terminologies are used in this document:

   LER:  Label Edge Router.
   LSP:  Label Switched Path.
   LSR:  Label Switching Router.
   PCC:  Path Computation Client.



Sivabalan, et al.        Expires April 16, 2017                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft          Binding Label/Segment-ID            October 2016


   PCE:  Path Computation Element
   PCEP:  Path Computation Element Protocol.
   SID:  Segment Identifier.
   SR:  Segment Routing.
   TLV:  Type, Length, and Value.

3.  Path Binding TLV

   The new optional TLV is called "TE-PATH-BINDING TLV" whose format is
   shown in the diagram below is defined to carry binding label or SID
   for a TE path.  This TLV is associated with the LSP object specified
   in ([I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce]).  The type of this TLV is to be
   allocated by IANA.

       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              |             Length            |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |        Binding Type (BT)      |          Binding Value        |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      ~            Binding Value (continued) (variable length)        ~
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                       Figure 2: TE-PATH-BINDING TLV

   TE-PATH-BINDING TLV is a generic TLV such that it is able to carry
   MPLS label binding as well as other types of future bindings (e.g.,
   IPv6 SR path).  It is formatted according to the rules specified in
   [RFC5440].  The two octet Binding Type (BT) field identifies the type
   of binding included in the TLV.  This document specifies the
   following BT values:

   o  BT = 0: The binding value is an MPLS label carried in the format
      specified in [RFC5462] where only the label value is valid, and
      other fields (TC, S, and TTL)fields MUST be considered invalid.
      The Length MUST be set to 6.
   o  BT = 1: Similar to the case where BT is 0 except that all the
      fields on the MPLS label entry are set on transmission.  However,
      the receiver MAY choose to override TC, S, and TTL values
      according its local policy.

4.  Operation

   The binding value is allocated by PCC and reported to PCE via PCRpt
   message.  If a PCE does not recognize the TE-PATH-BINDING TLV, it
   MUST ignore the TLV in accordance with ([RFC5440]).  If a PCE




Sivabalan, et al.        Expires April 16, 2017                 [Page 5]


Internet-Draft          Binding Label/Segment-ID            October 2016


   recognizes the TLV but does not support the TLV, it MUST send PCErr
   with Error-Type = 2 (Capability not supported).

   If a TE-PATH-BINDING TLV is absent in PCRpt message, PCE MUST assume
   that the corresponding LSP does not have any binding.  If there are
   more than one TE-PATH-BINDING TLVs, only the first TLV MUST be
   processed and the rest MUST be silently ignored.  If PCE recognizes
   an invalid binding value (e.g., label value from the reserved label
   space when MPLS label binding is used), it MUST send the PCErr
   message with Error-Type = 10 ("Reception of an invalid object") and
   Error Value = TBD ("Bad label value") as specified in
   [I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing].

   If a PCE requires a PCC to allocate a specific binding value, it may
   do so by sending a PCUpd message containing a TE-PATH-BINDING TLV.
   If the value can be successfully allocated, the PCC reports the
   binding value to the PCE.  If the PCC considers the binding value
   specified by the PCE invalid, it MUST send a PCErr message with
   Error-Type = TBD ("Binding SID failure") and Error Value = TBD
   ("Invalid SID").  If the binding value is valid, but the PCC is
   unable to allocate the binding value, it MUST send a PCErr message
   with Error-Type = TBD ("Binding label/SID failure") and Error Value =
   TBD ("Unable to allocate the specified label/SID").

   If a PCC receives TE-PATH-BINDING TLV in any message other than
   PCUpd, it MUST close the corresponding PCEP session with the reason
   "Reception of a malformed PCEP message" according ([RFC5440]).
   Similarly, if a PCE receives a TE-PATH-BINDING TLV in any message
   other than a PCRpt or if the TE-PATH-BINDING TLV is associated with
   any object other than LSP object, the PCE MUST close the
   corresponding PCEP session with the reason "Reception of a malformed
   PCEP message" according ([RFC5440]).

   If a PCC wishes to withdraw or modify a previously reported binding
   value, it MUST send a PCRpt message without any TE-PATH-BINDING TLV
   or with the TE-PATH-BINDING TLV containing the new binding value
   respectively.

   If a PCE wishes to modify a previously requested binding value, it
   MUST send a PCUpd message with TE-PATH-BINDING TLV containing the new
   binding value.  Absense of TE-PATH-BINDING TLV in PCUpd message means
   that the PCE does not specify a binding value in which case the
   binding value allocation is governed by the PCC's local policy.

   If a PCC receives a valid binding value from a PCE which is different
   than the current binding value, it MUST try to allocate the new
   value.  If the new binding value is successfully allocated, the PCC
   MUST report the new value to the PCE.  Otherwise, it MUST send a



Sivabalan, et al.        Expires April 16, 2017                 [Page 6]


Internet-Draft          Binding Label/Segment-ID            October 2016


   PCErr message with Error-Type = TBD ("Binding label/SID failure") and
   Error Value = TBD ("Unable to allocate the specified label/SID").

5.  Security Considerations

   No additional security measure is required.

6.  IANA Considerations

6.1.  TE-PATH-BINDING TLV

   IANA is requested to allocate a new TLV type (recommended value is
   31)for TE-PATH-BINDING TLV specified in this document.

   This document requests that a registry is created to manage the value
   of the Binding Type field in the TE-PATH-BINDING TLV.

                Value    Description           Reference

                  0      MPLS Label            This document

6.2.  PCEP Error Type and Value

   IANA is requested to allocate code-points in the PCEP-ERROR Object
   Error Types and Values registry for the following new error-values:


   Error-Type   Meaning
   ----------   -------
   TBD (recommended 22)  Binding SID failure:

                 Error-value = TBD (recommended 1):  Invalid SID
                 Error-value = TBD (recommended 2):  Unable to allocate
                                                     binding SID

7.  Acknowledgements

   We like to thank Milos Fabian for his valuable comments.

8.  Normative References

   [I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions]
              Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Bashandy, A., Gredler, H.,
              Litkowski, S., Decraene, B., and j. jefftant@gmail.com,
              "IS-IS Extensions for Segment Routing", draft-ietf-isis-
              segment-routing-extensions-08 (work in progress), October
              2016.




Sivabalan, et al.        Expires April 16, 2017                 [Page 7]


Internet-Draft          Binding Label/Segment-ID            October 2016


   [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", draft-ietf-ospf-segment-
              routing-extensions-09 (work in progress), July 2016.

   [I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp]
              Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Sivabalan, S., and R. Varga, "PCEP
              Extensions for PCE-initiated LSP Setup in a Stateful PCE
              Model", draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp-07 (work in
              progress), July 2016.

   [I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing]
              Sivabalan, S., Medved, J., Filsfils, C., Crabbe, E.,
              Raszuk, R., Lopez, V., Tantsura, J., Henderickx, W., and
              J. Hardwick, "PCEP Extensions for Segment Routing", draft-
              ietf-pce-segment-routing-08 (work in progress), October
              2016.

   [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce]
              Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Medved, J., and R. Varga, "PCEP
              Extensions for Stateful PCE", draft-ietf-pce-stateful-
              pce-16 (work in progress), September 2016.

   [I-D.keyupate-idr-bgp-prefix-sid]
              Patel, K., Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Sreekantiah, A.,
              Ray, S., and H. Gredler, "Segment Routing Prefix SID
              extensions for BGP", draft-keyupate-idr-bgp-prefix-sid-05
              (work in progress), July 2015.

   [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>.

   [RFC4206]  Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Label Switched Paths (LSP)
              Hierarchy with Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
              (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE)", RFC 4206,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4206, October 2005,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4206>.

   [RFC5440]  Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation
              Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5440, March 2009,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5440>.






Sivabalan, et al.        Expires April 16, 2017                 [Page 8]


Internet-Draft          Binding Label/Segment-ID            October 2016


   [RFC5462]  Andersson, L. and R. Asati, "Multiprotocol Label Switching
              (MPLS) Label Stack Entry: "EXP" Field Renamed to "Traffic
              Class" Field", RFC 5462, DOI 10.17487/RFC5462, February
              2009, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5462>.

Authors' Addresses

   Siva Sivabalan
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   2000 Innovation Drive
   Kanata, Ontario  K2K 3E8
   Canada

   Email: msiva@cisco.com


   Clarence Filsfils
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   Pegasus Parc
   De kleetlaan 6a, DIEGEM  BRABANT 1831
   BELGIUM

   Email: cfilsfil@cisco.com


   Stefano Previdi
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   Via Del Serafico, 200
   Rome, Rome  00142
   Italy

   Email: sprevidi@cisco.com


   Jeff Tantsura
   Ericsson
   300 Holger Way
   San Jose, CA  95134
   USA

   Email: jeff.tantsura@ericsson.com










Sivabalan, et al.        Expires April 16, 2017                 [Page 9]


Internet-Draft          Binding Label/Segment-ID            October 2016


   Jonathan Hardwick
   Metaswitch Networks
   100 Church Street
   Enfield, Middlesex
   UK

   Email: Jonathan.Hardwick@metaswitch.com


   Mohan Nanduri
   Microsoft Corporation
   One Microsoft Way
   Redmond, WA  98052
   USA

   Email: mnanduri@microsoft.com



































Sivabalan, et al.        Expires April 16, 2017                [Page 10]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.127, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/