draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip-04.txt   draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip-05.txt 
PCE Working Group A. Wang PCE Working Group A. Wang
Internet-Draft China Telecom Internet-Draft China Telecom
Intended status: Standards Track B. Khasanov Intended status: Standards Track B. Khasanov
Expires: February 27, 2020 Huawei Expires: August 21, 2020 S. Fang
S. Cheruathur Huawei
Juniper Networks
C. Zhu C. Zhu
ZTE Corporation ZTE Corporation
S. Fang February 18, 2020
Huawei
August 26, 2019
PCEP Extension for Native IP Network PCEP Extension for Native IP Network
draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip-04 draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip-05
Abstract Abstract
This document defines the Path Computation Element Communication This document defines the Path Computation Element Communication
Protocol (PCEP) extension for Central Control Dynamic Routing (CCDR) Protocol (PCEP) extension for Central Control Dynamic Routing (CCDR)
based application in Native IP network. The scenario and framework based application in Native IP network. The scenario and framework
of CCDR in native IP is described in of CCDR in native IP is described in
[I-D.ietf-teas-native-ip-scenarios] and [I-D.ietf-teas-native-ip-scenarios] and
[I-D.ietf-teas-pce-native-ip]. This draft describes the key [I-D.ietf-teas-pce-native-ip]. This draft describes the key
information that is transferred between Path Computation Element information that is transferred between Path Computation Element
skipping to change at page 1, line 46 skipping to change at page 1, line 43
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 February 27, 2020. This Internet-Draft will expire on August 21, 2020.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2020 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 2, line 34 skipping to change at page 2, line 29
3. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. CCI Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4. CCI Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
5. CCI Object associated TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5. CCI Object associated TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5.1. Peer Address List TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5.1. Peer Address List TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5.2. Peer Prefix Association TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5.2. Peer Prefix Association TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.2.1. Prefix sub TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5.2.1. Prefix sub TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.3. Explicit Peer Route TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5.3. Explicit Peer Route TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. Management Consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6. Management Consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8.1. CCI Object Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 8.1. CCI Object Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8.2. CCI Object Associated TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 8.2. CCI Object Associated TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
9. Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 9. Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
Traditionally, Multiprotocol Label Switching Traffic Engineering Traditionally, Multiprotocol Label Switching Traffic Engineering
(MPLS-TE) traffic assurance requires the corresponding network (MPLS-TE) traffic assurance requires the corresponding network
devices support Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) or the complex devices support Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) or the complex
Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP)/Label Distribution Protocol Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP)/Label Distribution Protocol
(LDP) /Segment Routing etc. technologies to assure the End-to-End (LDP) /Segment Routing etc. technologies to assure the End-to-End
(E2E) traffic performance. But in native IP network, there will be (E2E) traffic performance. But in native IP network, there will be
skipping to change at page 4, line 4 skipping to change at page 3, line 46
Draft [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller] introduces the Draft [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller] introduces the
Central Controller's Instructions (CCI) object which is included in Central Controller's Instructions (CCI) object which is included in
the PCInitiate and PCRpt message to transfer the centrally control the PCInitiate and PCRpt message to transfer the centrally control
instruction and status between Path Computation Element (PCE) and instruction and status between Path Computation Element (PCE) and
Path Computation Clients (PCC). This object is extended to include Path Computation Clients (PCC). This object is extended to include
the construction for native IP solution. Additional Type-Length- the construction for native IP solution. Additional Type-Length-
Values (TLVs) are defined and included in this extended CCI object. Values (TLVs) are defined and included in this extended CCI object.
CCI Object-Class is TBD, should be same as that defined in draft CCI Object-Class is TBD, should be same as that defined in draft
[I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller] [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller]
CCI Object-Type is TBD for Native IP network
CCI Object-Type is TBD for Native IP network
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| CC-ID | | CC-ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved | Flags | | Reserved | Flags |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | | |
// Optional TLV // // Optional TLV //
| | | |
skipping to change at page 5, line 20 skipping to change at page 5, line 18
| Type=TBD | Length | | Type=TBD | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Peer Num | Resv. | | Peer Num | Resv. |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Peer ID | AT | Resv. | | Peer ID | AT | Resv. |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Local AS Number | | Local AS Number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Peer AS Number | | Peer AS Number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ETTL | Peer Cookie |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Local IP Address(4/16 Bytes) | | Local IP Address(4/16 Bytes) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Peer IP Address(4/16 Bytes) | | Peer IP Address(4/16 Bytes) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Additional Peer Info. | | Additional Peer Info. |
// (From Peer ID to Peer IP Address) // // (From Peer ID to Peer IP Address) //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: Peer Address List TLV Format Figure 2: Peer Address List TLV Format
Type: 2 Bytes, value is TBD. Type: 2 Bytes, value is TBD.
skipping to change at page 6, line 5 skipping to change at page 5, line 50
Equal to 4, if the following IP address of peer is belong to IPv4; 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. Equal to 6 if the following IP address of peer is belong to IPv6.
Resv: 1 Bytes, Reserved for future use. Resv: 1 Bytes, Reserved for future use.
Local AS Number: 4 Bytes, to indicate the AS number of the Local Local AS Number: 4 Bytes, to indicate the AS number of the Local
Peer. Peer.
Peer AS Number: 4 Bytes, to indicate the AS number of Remote Peer. Peer AS Number: 4 Bytes, to indicate the AS number of Remote Peer.
ETTL: 1 Bytes, to indicate the multi hop count for EBGP session. It
should be 0 and ignored when Local AS and Peer AS is same.
Peer Cookie: Used for establishing the secure BGP session between two
peers. The PCEP client should use the MD5 algorithm to generate the
encrypted message.
Local IP Address(4/16 Bytes): IPv4 address of the local router, used 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; to peer with other end router. When AT equal to 4, length is 32bit;
when AT equal to 16, length is 128bit. when AT equal to 16, length is 128bit.
Peer IP Address(4/16 Bytes): IPv4 address of the peer router, used to 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; 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; IPv6 address of the peer when AT equal to 16, length is 128bit;
5.2. Peer Prefix Association TLV 5.2. Peer Prefix Association TLV
skipping to change at page 6, line 27 skipping to change at page 6, line 31
only be included and sent to the head/end router of the end2end path only be included and sent to the head/end router of the end2end path
in case there is no RR involved. If the RR is used between the head 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 and end routers, then such information should be sent to head
router,RR and end router respectively. router,RR and end router respectively.
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=TBD | Length | | Type=TBD | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Peer ID | AT | Prefixes Num | | Peer ID | Prefixes Num |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Peer Associated IP Prefix sub TLV(Variable) | | Peer Associated IP Prefix sub TLV(Variable) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3: Peer Prefix Association TLV Format Figure 3: Peer Prefix Association TLV Format
Type: 2 Bytes, value is TBD Type: 2 Bytes, value is TBD
Length: 2 Bytes, the length of the following fields. Length: 2 Bytes, the length of the following fields.
Peer-ID: 2 Bytes, to indicate which peer should be used to advertise Peer-ID: 2 Bytes, to indicate which peer should be used to advertise
the following IP Prefix TLV. This value is assigned in the Peer the following IP Prefix TLV. This value is assigned in the Peer
Address List object and is referred in this object. Address List object and is referred in this object.
AT: 2 Bytes, 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.
Prefixes Num: 2 Bytes, number of prefixes that advertised by the Prefixes Num: 2 Bytes, number of prefixes that advertised by the
corresponding Peer. It should be equal to number of the following IP corresponding Peer. It should be equal to number of the following IP
prefix sub TLV. prefix sub TLV.
Peer Associated IP Prefix sub TLV: Variable Length, indicate the Peer Associated IP Prefix sub TLV: Variable Length, indicate the
advertised IP Prefix. advertised IP Prefix.
5.2.1. Prefix sub TLV 5.2.1. Prefix sub TLV
Prefix sub TLV is used to carry the prefix information, which has the Prefix sub TLV is used to carry the prefix information, which has the
following format: following format:
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=TBD | Length | | Type=TBD | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| AT | Prefix Length | Resv. | | AT | Prefix Length | Prefix Value |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Prefix Value | | Prefix Value |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 4: Prefix sub TLV Format Figure 4: Prefix sub TLV Format
Type: 2 Bytes, value is TBD Type: 2 Bytes, value is TBD
Length: 2 Bytes, the length of the following fields. Length: 2 Bytes, the length of the following fields.
AT: 1 Byte, Address Type. To indicate the address type of Peer. AT: 1 Byte, Address Type. To indicate the address type of Peer.
Equal to 4, if the following "Prefix address" belong to IPv4; Equal Equal to 4, if the following "Prefix address" belong to IPv4; Equal
to 6 if the following "Prefix address" belong to IPv6. to 6 if the following "Prefix address" belong to IPv6.
Prefix Length: 1 Byte, the length of the following prefix. For Prefix Length: 1 Byte, the prefix length. For example, for
example, for 10.0.0.0/8, this field will be equal to 8. 10.0.0.0/8, this field will be equal to 8; for 2001:DB8::/32, this
field will be equal to 32.
Prefix Value: Variable length, the value of the prefix. For example, Prefix Value: Variable length, the value of the prefix. For example,
for 10.0.0./8, this field will be 10.0.0.0 for 10.0.0.0/8, this field will be 10.0.0.0; for 2001:DB8::/32, this
field will be equal to 2001:DB8::.
5.3. Explicit Peer Route TLV 5.3. Explicit Peer Route TLV
The Explicit Peer Route TLV is defined to specify the explicit peer The Explicit Peer Route TLV is defined to specify the explicit peer
route to the corresponding peer address on each device that is on the route to the corresponding peer address on each device that is on the
E2E assurance path. This TLV should be sent to all the devices that E2E assurance path. This TLV should be sent to all the devices that
locates on the E2E assurance path that calculated by PCE. locates on the E2E assurance path that calculated by PCE.
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=TBD | Length | | Type=TBD | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Peer ID | AT | Route Priority| |Route Priority| AT | Peer Address(IPv4/IPv6) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Next Hop Address to the Peer(IPv4/IPv6) | | Next Hop Address to the Peer(IPv4/IPv6) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 5: Explicit Peer Route TLV Figure 5: Explicit Peer Route TLV
Type: 2 Bytes, value is TBD Type: 2 Bytes, value is TBD
Length: 2 Bytes, the length of following fields. Length: 2 Bytes, the length of following fields.
Peer-ID: 2 Bytes, to indicate the peer that the following next hop Route Priority: 1 Byte, The priority of this explicit route. The
address point to. This value is assigned in the Peer Address List higher priority should be preferred by the device.
object and is referred in this object.
AT: 1 Byte, Address Type. To indicate the address type of explicit AT: 1 Byte, Address Type. To indicate the address type of explicit
peer route. Equal to 4, if the following next hop address to the peer route. Equal to 4, if the following peer and next hop address
peer belongs to IPv4; Equal to 6 if the following next hop address to belongs to IPv4; Equal to 6 if the following peer and next hop
the peer belongs to IPv6. address belongs to IPv6.
Route Priority: 1 Byte, The priority of this explicit route. The Peer Address: Variable Length, to indicate the peer address.
higher priority should be preferred by the device.
Next Hop Address to the Peer: Variable Length, to indicate the next Next Hop Address to the Peer: Variable Length, to indicate the next
hop address to the corresponding peer that indicated by the Peer-ID. hop address to the corresponding peer that indicated by the Peer-ID.
If AT=4, the length will be 4 bytes, if AT=6, the length will be 16
bytes.
6. Management Consideration 6. Management Consideration
TBD The information transferred in this draft is mainly used for the
light weight BGP session setup, the prefix distribution and the
explicit route deployment. The planning, allocation and distribution
of the peer addresses within IGP should be accomplished in advanced
and they are out of the scope of this draft.
7. Security Considerations 7. Security Considerations
TBD Service provider should consider the protection of PCE and their
communication with the underlay devices, which is described in
document [RFC5440] and [RFC8253]
8. IANA Considerations 8. IANA Considerations
8.1. CCI Object Type 8.1. CCI Object Type
IANA is requested to allocate new registry for the CCI Object Type: IANA is requested to allocate new registry for the CCI Object Type:
Object-Type Value CCI Object Name Reference Object-Type Value CCI Object Name Reference
3 Native IP This document 3 Native IP This document
8.2. CCI Object Associated TLV 8.2. CCI Object Associated TLV
IANA is requested to confirm the early allocation of the following IANA is requested to confirm the early allocation of the following
skipping to change at page 9, line 24 skipping to change at page 9, line 37
Thanks Dhruv Dhody for his valuable suggestions and comments. Thanks Dhruv Dhody for his valuable suggestions and comments.
10. References 10. References
10.1. Normative References 10.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller] [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller]
Zhao, Q., Li, Z., Negi, M., and C. Zhou, "PCEP Procedures Zhao, Q., Li, Z., Negi, M., and C. Zhou, "PCEP Procedures
and Protocol Extensions for Using PCE as a Central and Protocol Extensions for Using PCE as a Central
Controller (PCECC) of LSPs", draft-ietf-pce-pcep- Controller (PCECC) of LSPs", draft-ietf-pce-pcep-
extension-for-pce-controller-02 (work in progress), July extension-for-pce-controller-03 (work in progress),
2019. November 2019.
[I-D.ietf-teas-pce-native-ip] [I-D.ietf-teas-pce-native-ip]
Wang, A., Zhao, Q., Khasanov, B., Chen, H., and R. Mallya, Wang, A., Zhao, Q., Khasanov, B., and H. Chen, "PCE in
"PCE in Native IP Network", draft-ietf-teas-pce-native- Native IP Network", draft-ietf-teas-pce-native-ip-05 (work
ip-03 (work in progress), April 2019. in progress), January 2020.
[RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation [RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation
Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440, Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5440, March 2009, DOI 10.17487/RFC5440, March 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5440>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5440>.
[RFC8253] Lopez, D., Gonzalez de Dios, O., Wu, Q., and D. Dhody,
"PCEPS: Usage of TLS to Provide a Secure Transport for the
Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)",
RFC 8253, DOI 10.17487/RFC8253, October 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8253>.
[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, A., Ed., Zhao, Q., Ed., Li, Z., and C. Zhou, "An [RFC8283] Farrel, A., Ed., Zhao, Q., Ed., Li, Z., and C. Zhou, "An
Architecture for Use of PCE and the PCE Communication Architecture for Use of PCE and the PCE Communication
Protocol (PCEP) in a Network with Central Control", Protocol (PCEP) in a Network with Central Control",
RFC 8283, DOI 10.17487/RFC8283, December 2017, RFC 8283, DOI 10.17487/RFC8283, December 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8283>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8283>.
10.2. Informative References 10.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-teas-native-ip-scenarios] [I-D.ietf-teas-native-ip-scenarios]
Wang, A., Huang, X., Qou, C., Li, Z., and P. Mi, Wang, A., Huang, X., Qou, C., Li, Z., and P. Mi,
"Scenarios and Simulation Results of PCE in Native IP "Scenarios and Simulation Results of PCE in Native IP
Network", draft-ietf-teas-native-ip-scenarios-06 (work in Network", draft-ietf-teas-native-ip-scenarios-12 (work in
progress), June 2019. progress), October 2019.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Aijun Wang Aijun Wang
China Telecom China Telecom
Beiqijia Town, Changping District Beiqijia Town, Changping District
Beijing, Beijing 102209 Beijing, Beijing 102209
China China
Email: wangaj3@chinatelecom.cn Email: wangaj3@chinatelecom.cn
Boris Khasanov Boris Khasanov
Huawei Technologies,Co.,Ltd Huawei Technologies,Co.,Ltd
Moskovskiy Prospekt 97A Moskovskiy Prospekt 97A
St.Petersburg 196084 St.Petersburg 196084
Russia Russia
Email: khasanov.boris@huawei.com Email: khasanov.boris@huawei.com
Sheng Fang
Huawei Technologies, Co.,
Ltd
Huawei Bld., No.156 Beiqing Rd.
Beijing
China
Sudhir Cheruathur Email: fsheng@huawei.com
Juniper Networks
1133 Innovation Way
Sunnyvale, California 94089
USA
Email: scheruathur@juniper.net
Chun Zhu Chun Zhu
ZTE Corporation ZTE Corporation
50 Software Avenue, Yuhua District 50 Software Avenue, Yuhua District
Nanjing, Jiangsu 210012 Nanjing, Jiangsu 210012
China China
Email: zhu.chun1@zte.com.cn Email: zhu.chun1@zte.com.cn
Sheng Fang
Huawei Technologies, Co., Ltd
Huawei Bld., No.156 Beiqing Rd.
Beijing
China
Email: fsheng@huawei.com
 End of changes. 31 change blocks. 
50 lines changed or deleted 67 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/