< draft-cls-ppr-te-attributes-00.txt   draft-cls-ppr-te-attributes-01.txt >
LSR Working Group U. Chunduri, Ed. LSR Working Group U. Chunduri, Ed.
Internet-Draft R. Li Internet-Draft R. Li
Intended status: Standards Track Huawei USA Intended status: Standards Track Huawei USA
Expires: January 17, 2019 K. Smith Expires: November 17, 2019 K. Smith
Vodafone Vodafone
July 16, 2018 May 16, 2019
Resources for Preferred Path Routes in IGPs Resources for Preferred Path Routes in IGPs
draft-cls-ppr-te-attributes-00 draft-cls-ppr-te-attributes-01
Abstract Abstract
Preferred Path Routing (PPR) is concerned with setting up the route Preferred Path Routing (PPR) is concerned with setting up the route
for a given prefix as specified in the path description along with a for a given prefix as specified in the path description along with a
corresponding data plane/forwarding identifier PPR-ID. This document corresponding data plane/forwarding identifier PPR-ID. This document
specifies an extension to PPR, a mechanism to perform resource specifies an extension to PPR, a mechanism to perform resource
reservations nodes on Preferred Path Routes (PPR) for IGPs (IS-IS, reservations nodes on Preferred Path Routes (PPR) for IGPs (IS-IS,
OSPFv2, OSPFv3). This is done by specifying the resources that need OSPFv2, OSPFv3). This is done by specifying the resources that need
to be reserved along the path using PPR path attributes. to be reserved along the path using PPR path attributes.
skipping to change at page 1, line 46 skipping to change at page 1, line 46
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on January 17, 2019. This Internet-Draft will expire on November 17, 2019.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
skipping to change at page 3, line 17 skipping to change at page 3, line 17
RSVP [RFC2205] allows out of band signaling along a specified path RSVP [RFC2205] allows out of band signaling along a specified path
for resource reservations. This is done by sending PATH/RESV message for resource reservations. This is done by sending PATH/RESV message
with flow-spec/filter-spec. RSVP-TE [RFC3209], builds on RSVP with flow-spec/filter-spec. RSVP-TE [RFC3209], builds on RSVP
protocol and defines new objects, modifies existing objects for MPLS protocol and defines new objects, modifies existing objects for MPLS
LSP establishment with resources (reserved bandwidth). This is less LSP establishment with resources (reserved bandwidth). This is less
widely deployed perhaps due to soft-state maintenance, scaling and widely deployed perhaps due to soft-state maintenance, scaling and
management overhead considerations. [RFC8370] addresses some of the management overhead considerations. [RFC8370] addresses some of the
concerns by specifying refresh independence and per-peer flow control concerns by specifying refresh independence and per-peer flow control
which would reduce processing cycles required to maintain LSP state. which would reduce processing cycles required to maintain LSP state.
Segment Routing [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing] enables packet Segment Routing [RFC8402] enables packet steering with a specified
steering with a specified path in the packet itself. This is defined path in the packet itself designed for MPLS and IPv6 data plane SRH.
for MPLS (with a set of stacked labels) and IPv6 (path described as Routing with Preferred Paths with an optimized data plane (regardless
list of IPv6 addresses in SRHeader) data planes called SR-MPLS and of the type of data plane) is described in
SRv6 respectively. Routing with Preferred Paths with an optimized [I-D.chunduri-lsr-isis-preferred-path-routing]. With PPR nodes in
data plane (regardless of the type of data plane) is described in IGP compute the nexthops based on the path description of the prefix
[I-D.chunduri-lsr-isis-preferred-path-routing].With PPR nodes in IGP for increasing dataplane performance and reducing the packet
compute the nexthops based on the path description for the prefix. overhead. While both these allow packet steering on a specified path
This results in multiple benefits, including increased performance, (either encoded in the packet itself or through a data plane
compatibility and reduction of the data plane overhead of both path identifier), they do not have any notion of QoS or resources reserved
and services along the path. While these allow packet steering on a along the path.
specified path (either encoded in the packet itself or through a data
plane identifier), they do not have any notion of QoS or resources
reserved along the path.
This document extends PPR to indicate the resources to be reserved This document extends PPR to indicate the resources to be reserved
along the preferred path. These resources are required in some along the preferred path. These resources are required in some
deployments [I-D.clt-dmm-tn-aware-mobility], for not only providing deployments [I-D.clt-dmm-tn-aware-mobility], for not only providing
committed bandwidth or deterministic latency, but also for assuring committed bandwidth or deterministic latency, but also for assuring
overall service level guarantee in the network. This approach does overall service level guarantee in the network. This approach does
not require per-hop provisioning and also reduces the OPEX by not require per-hop provisioning and also reduces the OPEX by
minimizing the number of protocols needed and allows dynamism with minimizing the number of protocols needed and allows dynamism with
FRR capabilities. Unlike RSVP-TE [RFC3209], the approach does not FRR capabilities. Unlike [RFC3209], this does not rely on periodic
rely on periodic refreshes for state synchronization between refreshes between neighbors for state synchronization.
neighbors.
1.1. Acronyms 1.1. Acronyms
IS-IS LSP- IS-IS Link State PDU
LSP - Label Switched Path
MPLS - Multi Protocol Label Switching MPLS - Multi Protocol Label Switching
MTU - Maximum Transferrable Unit MTU - Maximum Transferrable Unit
PPR - Preferred Path Routing/Route PPR - Preferred Path Routing/Route
PPR-ID - Preferred Path Route Identifier, a data plane identifier PPR-ID - Preferred Path Route Identifier, a data plane identifier
SID - Segment Identifier SID - Segment Identifier
SR-MPLS - Segment Routing with MPLS data plane SR-MPLS - Segment Routing with MPLS data plane
skipping to change at page 5, line 17 skipping to change at page 5, line 17
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Type | Length | Reserved | |Type | Length | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Minimum bandwidth | | Minimum bandwidth |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Maximum bandwidth | | Maximum bandwidth |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: Bandwidth Sub-TLV Format Figure 1: Bandwidth Sub-TLV Format
o Type: TBD (IANA) o Type: 5 (IANA)
o Length: 10 Octets o Length: 10 Octets
o Minimum bandwidth: The minimum bandwidth required, or CIR, unit o Minimum bandwidth: The minimum bandwidth required, or CIR, unit
Mbps Mbps
o Maximum bandwidth: The maximum bandwidth required, or PIR, unit o Maximum bandwidth: The maximum bandwidth required, or PIR, unit
Mbps Mbps
3.1.2. Burst Size Sub-TLV 3.1.2. Burst Size Sub-TLV
skipping to change at page 5, line 41 skipping to change at page 5, line 41
0 1 2 3 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 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 | Reserved | |Type | Length | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Burst Size | | Burst Size |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: Burst Size Sub-TLV Format Figure 2: Burst Size Sub-TLV Format
o Type: TBD (IANA) o Type: 6 (IANA)
o Length: 6 Octets o Length: 6 Octets
o Burst size: The burst size, unit K bytes o Burst size: The burst size, unit K bytes
3.1.3. Per-hop Queuing Latency Sub-TLV 3.1.3. Per-hop Queuing Latency Sub-TLV
This is the bounded latency for each hop on the PPR. This is not the This is the bounded latency for each hop on the PPR. This is not the
end to end latency. end to end latency.
0 1 2 3 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 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 | Reserved |T| Flags | |Type | Length | Reserved |T| Flags |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Latency | | Latency |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3: Per-hop Queuing Latency Sub-TLV Format Figure 3: Per-hop Queuing Latency Sub-TLV Format
o Type: TBD (IANA) o Type: 7 (IANA)
o Length: 6 Octets o Length: 6 Octets
o Flags: 1 Octet o Flags: 1 Octet
T Bit - Set to 0, if Queuing Latency in milliseconds and Set to 1, If T Bit - Set to 0, if Queuing Latency in milliseconds and Set to 1, If
Queuing Latency in microseconds Queuing Latency in microseconds
Latency: Expected maximum queuing latency for each hop Latency: Expected maximum queuing latency for each hop
skipping to change at page 6, line 41 skipping to change at page 6, line 41
0 1 2 3 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 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 | Reserved| Flags | |Type | Length | Reserved| Flags |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Lifetime | | Lifetime |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 4: Lifetime Sub-TLV Format Figure 4: Lifetime Sub-TLV Format
o Type: TBD (IANA) o Type: 8 (IANA)
o Length: 6 Octets o Length: 6 Octets
o Flags: 1 Octet o Flags: 1 Octet
o Life Time: Life time of reservations done at each node in Seconds o Life Time: Life time of reservations done at each node in Seconds
See the usage of this TLV and procedures after Lifetime expiration See the usage of this TLV and procedures after Lifetime expiration
and related details in Section 4. and related details in Section 4.
skipping to change at page 14, line 15 skipping to change at page 14, line 15
Advertisement of the additional information defined in this document Advertisement of the additional information defined in this document
introduces no new security concerns in IS-IS or OSPF protocols. introduces no new security concerns in IS-IS or OSPF protocols.
8. References 8. References
8.1. Normative References 8.1. Normative References
[I-D.chunduri-lsr-isis-preferred-path-routing] [I-D.chunduri-lsr-isis-preferred-path-routing]
Chunduri, U., Li, R., White, R., Tantsura, J., Contreras, Chunduri, U., Li, R., White, R., Tantsura, J., Contreras,
L., and Y. Qu, "Preferred Path Routing (PPR) in IS-IS", L., and Y. Qu, "Preferred Path Routing (PPR) in IS-IS",
draft-chunduri-lsr-isis-preferred-path-routing-01 (work in draft-chunduri-lsr-isis-preferred-path-routing-03 (work in
progress), July 2018. progress), May 2019.
[I-D.chunduri-lsr-ospf-preferred-path-routing] [I-D.chunduri-lsr-ospf-preferred-path-routing]
Chunduri, U., Qu, Y., White, R., Tantsura, J., and L. Chunduri, U., Qu, Y., White, R., Tantsura, J., and L.
Contreras, "Preferred Path Routing (PPR) in OSPF", draft- Contreras, "Preferred Path Routing (PPR) in OSPF", draft-
chunduri-lsr-ospf-preferred-path-routing-01 (work in chunduri-lsr-ospf-preferred-path-routing-03 (work in
progress), July 2018. progress), May 2019.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
8.2. Informative References 8.2. Informative References
[I-D.clt-dmm-tn-aware-mobility] [I-D.clt-dmm-tn-aware-mobility]
Chunduri, U., Li, R., Tantsura, J., Contreras, L., and X. Chunduri, U., Li, R., Bhaskaran, S., Tantsura, J.,
Foy, "Transport Network aware Mobility for 5G", draft-clt- Contreras, L., and P. Muley, "Transport Network aware
dmm-tn-aware-mobility-01 (work in progress), July 2018. Mobility for 5G", draft-clt-dmm-tn-aware-mobility-03 (work
in progress), February 2019.
[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.
[RFC2205] Braden, R., Ed., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S., and S. [RFC2205] Braden, R., Ed., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S., and S.
Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1 Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1
Functional Specification", RFC 2205, DOI 10.17487/RFC2205, Functional Specification", RFC 2205, DOI 10.17487/RFC2205,
September 1997, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2205>. September 1997, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2205>.
[RFC2328] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328, [RFC2328] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2328, April 1998, DOI 10.17487/RFC2328, April 1998,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2328>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2328>.
skipping to change at page 16, line 14 skipping to change at page 16, line 10
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>. May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC8370] Beeram, V., Ed., Minei, I., Shakir, R., Pacella, D., and [RFC8370] Beeram, V., Ed., Minei, I., Shakir, R., Pacella, D., and
T. Saad, "Techniques to Improve the Scalability of RSVP-TE T. Saad, "Techniques to Improve the Scalability of RSVP-TE
Deployments", RFC 8370, DOI 10.17487/RFC8370, May 2018, Deployments", RFC 8370, DOI 10.17487/RFC8370, May 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8370>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8370>.
[RFC8402] Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Ginsberg, L.,
Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment
Routing Architecture", RFC 8402, DOI 10.17487/RFC8402,
July 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8402>.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Uma Chunduri (editor) Uma Chunduri (editor)
Huawei USA Huawei USA
2330 Central Expressway 2330 Central Expressway
Santa Clara, CA 95050 Santa Clara, CA 95050
USA USA
Email: uma.chunduri@huawei.com Email: uma.chunduri@huawei.com
 End of changes. 16 change blocks. 
39 lines changed or deleted 39 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.47. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/