TEAS
PCE Working Group                                               A.Wang
Internet Draft                                                A. Wang
Internet-Draft                                             China Telecom
                                                         Boris
Intended status: Standards Track                             B. Khasanov
Expires: December 28, 2018                                        Huawei Technologies
                                                      Sudhir
                                                           S. Cheruathur
                                                        Juniper Networks
                                                               Chun
                                                                  C. Zhu
                                                         ZTE Company

Intended status: Standard Track Corporation
                                                           June 26, 2018
Expires: December 25, 2018

                  PCEP Extension for Native IP Network
                 draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip-00.txt
               draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip-01

Abstract

   This document defines the PCEP extension for CCDR application in
   Native IP network.  The scenario and architecture of CCDR in native
   IP is described in [I-D.ietf-teas-native-ip-scenarios] and
   [I-D.ietf-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.

Status of this 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 https://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 December 25, 28, 2018.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2018 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
   (https://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.

Abstract
   This document defines the PCEP extension for CCDR application in
   Native IP network. The scenario and architecture of CCDR in native
   IP is described in [draft-ietf-teas-native-ip-scenarios] and [draft-
   ietf-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............................ document . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   3.  New Objects Extension........................................ Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   4.  Object Formats. ............................................. Formats  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     4.1.  Peer Address List object................................ object  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     4.2.  Peer Prefix Association................................. Association . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     4.3. EXPLICIT PEER ROUTE Object.............................. 6  4.3. Explicit Peer Route Object . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   5.  Management Consideration..................................... Consideration  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   6.  Security Considerations...................................... 7 Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   7.  IANA Considerations ......................................... 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   8. Conclusions ................................................. 7
   9. References .................................................. 7
      9.1.  Normative References.................................... 7
      9.2. Informative References.................................. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   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
   necessary to use the central control mode that described in [draft-
   ietf-teas-pce-control-function] [RFC8283]
   to correlate the forwarding behavior among different network devices.
   Draft [draft-ietf-teas-pce-native-
   ip] [I-D.ietf-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). draft:

   o  PAL Object: Peer Address List object is Object, used to tell the network
      device which peer it should be peered with dynamically, dynamically

   o  PPA Object: Peer Prefix Association
   is used Object,used to tell which
      prefixes should be advertised via the corresponding peer and

   o  EPR Objec: Explicit Peer Route object is used object,used to point out which
      route should be to taken to arrive to the peer.

4.  Object Formats. 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) Length(bytes)   |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |

      //                       (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. object

   The Peer Address List object is used in a PCE Initiate message
   message[RFC8281] [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 and 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.

   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; 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

   The Peer Prefix Association object is carried within in a PCE
   Initiate message [draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp] [RFC8281] 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 and 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    Peer Id    |      AT       |      Resv.    | Prefixes Num. |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                Peer Associated IP Prefix TLV                  |
   //               Peer Associated IP Prefix TLV                 //
   |                Peer Associated IP Prefix TLV                  |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   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 number 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  4.3.  Explicit Peer Route Object

   THE EXPLICIT PEER ROUTE

   The Explicit Peer Route Object is carried in a PCE Initiate message
   [draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp]
   [RFC8281] 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

   Explict Peer Route Object Object-Class is **

   EXPLICIT PEER ROUTE

   Explict 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    Peer Id    |      AT       |              Resv.            |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |          Next Hop Address to the Peer (IPv4/IPv6) Peer(IPv4/IPv6)              |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   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. Consideration

   TBD

6.  Security Considerations

   TBD

7.  IANA Considerations

   TBD

8. Conclusions

   TBD

9. References

9.1.  Normative References

   [RFC4655] Farrel,

   [I-D.ietf-teas-native-ip-scenarios]
              Wang, A., Vasseur, J.-P., Huang, X., Qou, C., Huang, L., 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

   [I-D. draft-ietf-teas-native-ip-scenarios]
   Wang, X.Huang et al. K. Mi, "CCDR
              Scenario, Simulation and Suggestion"
   https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-teas-native-ip-
   scenarios/ Suggestion", draft-ietf-teas-
              native-ip-scenarios-00 (work in progress), February, 2018

   [I-D. draft-ietf-teas-pce-native-ip]
   Aijun February 2018.

   [I-D.ietf-teas-pce-native-ip]
              Wang, Quintin A., Zhao, Boris Q., Khasanov, Huaimo Chen,Raghavendra
   Mallya, Shaofu Peng B., and K. Mi, "PCE in
              Native IP Network",
   https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-teas-pce-native-ip/ draft-ietf-teas-pce-native-ip-00 (work
              in progress), February, 2018

   [I-D.draft-ietf-teas-pce-control-function] February 2018.

   [RFC8281]  Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Sivabalan, S., and R. Varga, "Path
              Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)
              Extensions for PCE-Initiated LSP Setup in a Stateful PCE
              Model", RFC 8281, DOI 10.17487/RFC8281, December 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8281>.

   [RFC8283]  Farrel, Q.Zhao A., Ed., Zhao, Q., Ed., Li, Z., and C. Zhou, "An
              Architecture for use Use of PCE and PCEP the PCE Communication
              Protocol (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 Control",
              RFC 8283, DOI 10.17487/RFC8283, December 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8283>.

Authors' Addresses

   Aijun Wang
   China Telecom
   Beiqijia Town, Changping District
   Beijing,China
   Beijing, Beijing  102209
   China

   Email: wangaj.bri@chinatelecom.cn

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

   EMail:

   Email: khasanov.boris@huawei.com

   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

   Email: zhu.chun1@zte.com.cn