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

Versions: 00

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   and derivative works of it may not be created, and it may not be
   published except as an Internet-Draft.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]


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