< draft-hu-pce-stitching-lsp-association-00.txt   draft-hu-pce-stitching-lsp-association-01.txt >
PCE workgroup Fangwei Hu PCE Quan Xiong
Internet-Draft Quan Xiong Internet-Draft Greg Mirsky
Intended status: Standards Track Greg Mirsky Intended status: Standards Track ZTE Corporation
Expires: June 13, 2019 ZTE Corporation Expires: January 8, 2020 Fangwei Hu
Individual
Weiqiang Cheng Weiqiang Cheng
China Mobile China Mobile
Dec 10, 2018 July 7, 2019
Stitching LSP Association Stitching LSP Association
draft-hu-pce-stitching-lsp-association-00.txt draft-hu-pce-stitching-lsp-association-01
Abstract 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.
[I-D.ietf-pce-association-group] proposed an association mechanism
for a set of LSPs.
This document defines the stitching LSP association type and This document defines the stitching LSP association type and
stitching LSP association TLV for the inter-domain Segment Routing stitching LSP association TLV for the inter-domain scenairo.
MPLS-TP network.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
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 June 13, 2019. This Internet-Draft will expire on January 8, 2020.
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
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2.2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Operation Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Stitching LSPs in SR-MPLS Inter-domain Scenario . . . . . . . 3
4. Stitching LSP Association Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4. PCEP Extension for Stitching LSP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4.1. Stitching LSP Association Object . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4.1. Stitching LSP Association Type and Group . . . . . . . . 4
4.2. Stitching TLV format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4.2. Stitching LSP Association TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7.1. Association Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 7.1. Association Object Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7.2. Stitching Association TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
8. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 8. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
[I-D.hu-mpls-sr-inter-domain-use-cases] provides stitching path label [RFC5440] describes the Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP)
to indicate the the packet from the border nodes to forward to which is used between a Path Computation Element (PCE) and a Path
another AS domain. The border nodes should install the following Computation Client (PCC) (or other PCE) to enable computation of
MPLS data entries: Multi-protocol Label Switching (MPLS) for Traffic Engineering Label
Switched Path (TE LSP). [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group] proposed an
incomging label: Stiching Path Label association mechanism to create a grouping of LSPs in the context of
outgoing label: the SID list of the next AS domain + next Stitching Path label a PCE.
[I-D.xiong-pce-stateful-pce-sr-inter-domain] introduces the procedure [I-D.xiong-pce-stateful-pce-sr-inter-domain] introduces the procedure
and the PCEP extension to form the inter-domain MPLS-TP MPLS data and the PCEP extension to form the inter-domain MPLS data entries and
entries. This document proposes the related LSP association group the multiple LSPs from multiple contiguous domains need to be
extension. stitched to an end-to-end LSP in SR inter-domain scenario.
This document proposes a new association object type called
"stitching Association LSP type" and TLV called "Stitching LSP
Association TLV" to associate a grouping of LSPs from multiple
domains for inter-domain scenario.
2. Conventions used in this document 2. Conventions used in this document
2.1. Terminology 2.1. Terminology
The terminology is defined as [RFC5440],
[I-D.ietf-pce-association-group] and
[I-D.xiong-pce-stateful-pce-sr-inter-domain].
2.2. Requirements Language 2.2. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here. capitals, as shown here.
3. Operation Overview 3. Stitching LSPs in SR-MPLS Inter-domain Scenario
[I-D.ietf-pce-association-group] introduces a generic mechanism to As described in [I-D.xiong-pce-stateful-pce-sr-inter-domain], the
create a grouping of LSPs. This grouping can then be used to define domains of the networks may be IGP Areas in stitching inter-domain
associations between sets of LSPs or between a set of LSPs and a set scenario. As Figure 1 shown, the multiple SR-MPLS domains may be
of attributes. This document proposes a new optional association interconnect with a ABR within areas. The multiple LSPs in each
object type called "stitching Association LSP type" and the related domain can be stitched to an end-to-end LSP. The LSP-1, LSP-2 and
TLV called "stitching association LSP TLV" to form the inter-domain LSP-3 can be associated to a group.
MPLS forwarding entry for the border nodes.
As defined in [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group], stitching LSP B E X
Association could be created dynamically or configured by the + + . . + +
operator when operator-configured association is needed. + + . . + +
+ + . . + +
A SR-MPLS C SR-MPLS G SR-MPLS Z
+ IGP 1 + . IGP 2 . + IGP 3 +
+ + . . + +
+ + . . + +
D F Y
4. Stitching LSP Association Group |-------------------->|------------------->|---------------------->|
LSP-1 LSP-2 LSP-3
4.1. Stitching LSP Association Object Figure 1: Stitching LSP in SR-MPLS Inter-domain Scenario
A new Association Type for the Association Object is defined in this 4. PCEP Extension for Stitching LSP
document, 4.1. Stitching LSP Association Type and Group
Association Type (TBD) = Stitching Path Segment LSP Association An association ID will be used to identify the group and a new
Group. Association Type is defined in this document, based on the generic
Association object :
The Association Types is operator-configured associations in nature Association Type (TBD) = Stitching LSP Association Group (SLAG).
and statically created by the operator on the PCEP peers. The LSP
belonging to these associations 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 this
Association Type, and MUST be ignored, so that the entire range of
association ID can be used for it.
The Association ID, Association Source, optional Global Association SLAG may carry optional TLVs including but not limited to :
Source and optional Extended Association ID in the Stitching Path
Segment LSP Association Group Object are initialized using the
procedures defined in [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group] and [RFC7551].
4.2. Stitching TLV format STITCHING-LSP-ASSOCIATION-TLV: Used to identify the role of stitching
LSPs, described in Section 4.2.
The format of the Stitching LSP Association Group TLV is shown in As [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group] specified, the capability
Figure 1. advertisement of the association types supported by a PCEP speaker is
performed by defining a ASSOC-Type-List TLV to be carried within an
OPEN object. The association type which defined in this document
should be added in the list and be advertised between the PCEP
speakers before the stitching LSP association.
Stitching LSP Association could be created dynamically or configured
by the operator when operator-configured association is needed.
4.2. Stitching LSP Association TLV
The format of the Stitching LSP Association TLV is shown in Figure 1.
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 | | Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved | | Reserved |S|T|D|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: Stitching LSP Association Group TLV Figure 2: Stitching LSP Association TLV
The fields of the Stitching LSP Association Group TLV are following: The fields of the Stitching LSP Association TLV are following:
Type:16bits, it indicates the stitching LSP Association Group Type:16bits, it indicates the stitching LSP Association Group
TLV(TBD2, the value is assigned by IANA).
Length: the value is 4, it indicates the length of the TLV is 4 TLV: TBD2, the value is assigned by IANA).
bytes.
Reserved: it is reserved for future use. Length: the value is 4, it indicates the length of the TLV is 4
bytes.
5. Security Considerations Reserved: it is reserved for future use.
6. Acknowledgements Stitching LSP Association Flags-S:1bit, indicates stitching LSP of
the source domain when it is set.
7. IANA Considerations Stitching LSP Association Flags-T:1bit, indicates stitching LSP of
the transit domain when it is set.
7.1. Association Types Stitching LSP Association Flags-D:1bit, indicates stitching LSP of
the destination layer when it is set.
IANA is requested to make the assignment of values for the sub- 5. Security Considerations
registry "ASSOCIATION Type Field" as follows:
+--------+------------------+ TBA
| Value | Reference |
+--------+------------------+
| TBD1 | [this document] |
+--------+------------------+
Table 1 6. Acknowledgements
7.2. Stitching Association TLV TBA
This document defines a new TLV for carrying additional information 7. IANA Considerations
of LSPs within a Stitching LSP Association Group. IANA is requested
to add the assignment of a new value in the existing "PCEP TLV Type
Indicators" registry as follows:
+-------+-------------------------------------+------------------+ 7.1. Association Object Type
| Type | Description | Reference |
+-------+-------------------------------------+------------------+
| TBD2 | Stitching LSP Association Group TLV | [this document] |
+-------+-------------------------------------+------------------+
Table 2 This document defines a new association type and TLV in Association
object which originally defined in [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group].
IANA is requested to make allocations from the registry, as follows:
8. Normative References +--------+---------------------------------+------------------+
| Value | Name | Reference |
+--------+---------------------------------+------------------+
| TBD | Stitching LSP Association Type | [this document] |
| TBD | Stitching LSP Association TLV | [this document] |
+--------+---------------------------------+------------------+
[I-D.cheng-spring-mpls-path-segment] Table 1
Cheng, W., Wang, L., Li, H., Chen, M., Gandhi, R., Zigler,
R., and S. Zhan, "Path Segment in MPLS Based Segment
Routing Network", draft-cheng-spring-mpls-path-segment-03
(work in progress), October 2018.
[I-D.hu-mpls-sr-inter-domain-use-cases] 8. Normative References
hu, f., Xiong, Q., Mirsky, G., and W. Cheng, "Segment
Routing in MPLS-TP Inter-domain Use Cases", draft-hu-mpls-
sr-inter-domain-use-cases-00 (work in progress), December
2018.
[I-D.ietf-pce-association-group] [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group]
Minei, I., Crabbe, E., Sivabalan, S., Ananthakrishnan, H., Minei, I., Crabbe, E., Sivabalan, S., Ananthakrishnan, H.,
Dhody, D., and Y. Tanaka, "PCEP Extensions for Dhody, D., and Y. Tanaka, "PCEP Extensions for
Establishing Relationships Between Sets of LSPs", draft- Establishing Relationships Between Sets of LSPs", draft-
ietf-pce-association-group-06 (work in progress), June ietf-pce-association-group-09 (work in progress), April
2018. 2019.
[I-D.xiong-pce-stateful-pce-sr-inter-domain] [I-D.xiong-pce-stateful-pce-sr-inter-domain]
Xiong, Q., hu, f., Mirsky, G., and W. Cheng, "Stateful PCE Xiong, Q., hu, f., Mirsky, G., and W. Cheng, "Stateful PCE
for SR-MPLS-TP Inter-domain", draft-xiong-pce-stateful- for SR-MPLS-TP Inter-domain", draft-xiong-pce-stateful-
pce-sr-inter-domain-00 (work in progress), December 2018. pce-sr-inter-domain-00 (work in progress), December 2018.
[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>.
[RFC7551] Zhang, F., Ed., Jing, R., and R. Gandhi, Ed., "RSVP-TE [RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation
Extensions for Associated Bidirectional Label Switched Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440,
Paths (LSPs)", RFC 7551, DOI 10.17487/RFC7551, May 2015, DOI 10.17487/RFC5440, March 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7551>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5440>.
[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>.
Authors' Addresses [RFC8231] Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Medved, J., and R. Varga, "Path
Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)
Fangwei Hu Extensions for Stateful PCE", RFC 8231,
ZTE Corporation DOI 10.17487/RFC8231, September 2017,
No.889 Bibo Rd <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8231>.
Shanghai 201203
China
Phone: +86 21 68896273 Authors' Addresses
Email: hu.fangwei@zte.com.cn
Quan Xiong Quan Xiong
ZTE Corporation ZTE Corporation
No.6 Huashi Park Rd No.6 Huashi Park Rd
Wuhan, Hubei 430223 Wuhan, Hubei 430223
China China
Phone: +86 27 83531060 Phone: +86 27 83531060
Email: xiong.quan@zte.com.cn Email: xiong.quan@zte.com.cn
Greg Mirsky Greg Mirsky
ZTE Corporation ZTE Corporation
USA USA
Email: gregimirsky@gmail.com Email: gregimirsky@gmail.com
Fangwei Hu
Individual
China
Email: hufwei@gmail.com
Weiqiang Cheng Weiqiang Cheng
China Mobile China Mobile
Beijing Beijing
China China
Email: chengweiqiang@chinamobile.com Email: chengweiqiang@chinamobile.com
 End of changes. 47 change blocks. 
120 lines changed or deleted 135 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/