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

Versions: 00 01

TEAS Working Group                                             A.Wang
Internet Draft                                           China Telecom
                                                         Boris Khasanov
                                                    Huawei Technologies
                                                      Sudhir Cheruathur
                                                       Juniper Networks
                                                               Chun Zhu
                                                            ZTE Company

Intended status: Standard Track                            March 9,2017
Expires: September 8, 2017


                   PCEP Extension for Native IP Network
                 draft-wang-pce-extension-native-ip-01.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   and derivative works of it may not be created, and it may not be
   published except as an Internet-Draft.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





<A.Wang>              Expires December 30,2016                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft   PCE Extension for Native IP Network      March 8, 2017
   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html

   This Internet-Draft will expire on September8, 201717.

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.

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]. 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. Peer Address List object................................ 4
      4.2. Peer Prefix Association................................. 5
      4.3. EXPLICIT PEER ROUTE 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.................................. 8
   10. Acknowledgments ............................................ 8

1. Introduction

   Traditionally, MPLS-TE traffic assurance requires the corresponding
   network devices support MPLS or the complex RSVP/LDP/Segment Routing


<A.Wang>              Expires September 7, 2017               [Page 2]


Internet-Draft   PCE Extension for Native IP Network      March 8, 2017
   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
   necessary to use the central control mode that described in [I-
   D.draft-ietf-teas-pce-control-function] to correlate the forwarding
   behavior among different network devices. Draft [I-D.draft-wang-
   teas-pce-native-ip] 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 peer address
   list, peer prefix association and the explicit peer 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 Peer Address
   List Object (PAL Object), Peer Prefix Association Object (PPA Object)
   and Explicit Peer Route object (EPR Object).

   Peer Address List object is used to tell the network device which
   peer it should be peered with dynamically, Peer Prefix Association
   is used to tell which prefixes should be advertised via the
   corresponding peer and Explicit Peer Route object is used to point
   out which route should be to taken to arrive to the 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)       |

      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

      |                                                               |



<A.Wang>              Expires September 7, 2017               [Page 3]


Internet-Draft   PCE Extension for Native IP Network      March 8, 2017
      //                        (Object body)                        //

      |                                                               |

      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Different object-class, object type and the corresponding object
   body is defined separated in the following section.

4.1. Peer Address List object.

   The Peer Address List object is used in a PCE Initiate message
   [draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp] to specify the ip address of 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.

   Peer Address List object Object-Class is **

   Peer Address List 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 Num    |   Peer-Id    |     AT        |      Resv.

   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   |                 Local IP Address(4/16 Bytes)                  |

   //                 Peer IP Address(4/16 Bytes)                 //

   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Peer Num (8 bits): Peer Address Number on the advertised router.

    Peer-Id(8 bits): To distinguish the different peer pair, will be
      referenced in Peer Prefix Association, if the PCE use multi-BGP
      solution for different QoS assurance requirement.





<A.Wang>              Expires September 7, 2017               [Page 4]


Internet-Draft   PCE Extension for Native IP Network      March 8, 2017
   AT(8 bits): Address Type. To indicate the address type of Peer.
      Equal to 4, if the following IP address of peer is belong to IPv4;
      Equal to 6 if the following IP address of peer is belong to IPv6.

   Resv(8 bits): Reserved for future use.

   Local IP Address(4/16 Bytes): IPv4 address of the local router, used
      to peer with other end router. When AT equal to 4, length is 32bit;
      when AT equal to 16, length is 128bit;

   Peer IP Address(4/16 Bytes): IPv4 address of the peer router, used
      to peer with the local router. When AT equal to 4, length is 32bit;
      IPv6 address of the peer when AT equal to 16, length is 128bit;

4.2. Peer Prefix Association

   THE Peer Prefix Association 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 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.



   Peer Prefix Association object Object-Class is **

   Peer Prefix Association 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.

   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   |             Peer Associated IP Prefix TLV                     |

   //            Peer Associated IP Prefix TLV                    //

   |             Peer Associated IP Prefix TLV                     |

   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+



<A.Wang>              Expires September 7, 2017               [Page 5]


Internet-Draft   PCE Extension for Native IP Network      March 8, 2017
   Peer-Id(8 bits): To indicate which peer should be used to advertise
      the following IP Prefix TLV. This value is assigned in the Peer
      Address List object and is referred in this object.

   AT(8 bits): Address Type. To indicate the address type of Peer.
      Equal to 4, if the following IP address of peer is belong to IPv4;
      Equal to 6 if the following IP address of peer is belong to IPv6.

   Resv(8 bits): Reserved for future use.

    Prefixes Num(8 bits): Number of prefixes that advertised by the
      corresponding Peer. It should be equal to num of the following IP
      prefix TLV.

    Peer Associated IP Prefix TLV: Variable Length, use the TLV format
      to indicate the advertised IP Prefix.



4.3. EXPLICIT PEER ROUTE Object

   THE EXPLICIT PEER ROUTE Object is carried in a PCE Initiate message
   [draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp] to specify the explicit peer
   route to the corresponding 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.

   EXPLICIT PEER ROUTE Object Object-Class is **

   EXPLICIT PEER ROUTE 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 Peer (IPv4/IPv6)            |

   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+





<A.Wang>              Expires September 7, 2017               [Page 6]


Internet-Draft   PCE Extension for Native IP Network      March 8, 2017
   Peer-Id(8 bits): To indicate the peer that the following next hop
      address point to. This value is assigned in the Peer Address List
      object and is referred in this object.

   AT(8 bits): Address Type. To indicate the address type of explicit
      peer route. Equal to 4, if the following next hop address to the
      peer is belong to IPv4; Equal to 6 if the following next hop
      address to the peer is belong to IPv6.

   Resv(16 bits): Reserved for future use.

    Next Hop Address to the Peer TLV: Variable Length, use the TLV
      format to indicate the next hop address to the corresponding 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,


<A.Wang>              Expires September 7, 2017               [Page 7]


Internet-Draft   PCE Extension for Native IP Network      March 8, 2017
                     <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

   [I-D.draft-wang-teas-pce-native-ip]
   Aijun Wang, Quintin Zhao, Boris Khasanov, Raghavendra Mallya, Shaofu
   Peng "PCE in Native IP Network", https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-
   wang-teas-pce-native-ip-02(work in progress), March, 2017

   [I-D.draft-ietf-teas-pce-control-function]
   Farrel, Q.Zhao "An Architecture for use of PCE and PCEP in a Network
   with Central Control"
   https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-teas-pce-central-control-01

   (work in progress),December, 2016



10. Acknowledgments

   TBD



Authors' Addresses

   Aijun Wang
   China Telecom
   Beiqijia Town, Changping District
   Beijing,China

   Email: wangaj.bri@chinatelecom.cn


   Boris Khasanov
   Huawei Technologies
   Moskovskiy Prospekt 97A
   St.Petersburg 196084
   Russia

   EMail: khasanov.boris@huawei.com




<A.Wang>              Expires September 7, 2017               [Page 8]


Internet-Draft   PCE Extension for Native IP Network      March 8, 2017
   Sudhir Cheruathur
   Juniper Networks
   1133 Innovation Way
   Sunnyvale, California 94089 USA

   Email: scheruathur@juniper.net

    Chun Zhu
   ZTE Corporation
   50 Software Avenue, Yuhua District
   Nanjing, Jiangsu 210012
   China
   Email:zhu.chun1@zte.com.cn





































<A.Wang>              Expires September 7, 2017               [Page 9]


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