draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip-06.txt   draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip-07.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 19, 2021 S. Fang Expires: March 15, 2021 S. Fang
Huawei R. Tan
Huawei Technologies,Co.,Ltd
C. Zhu C. Zhu
ZTE Corporation ZTE Corporation
August 18, 2020 September 11, 2020
PCEP Extension for Native IP Network PCEP Extension for Native IP Network
draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip-06 draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip-07
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 [RFC8735] and of CCDR in native IP is described in [RFC8735] 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
(PCE) and Path Computation Clients (PCC) to accomplish the End to End (PCE) and Path Computation Clients (PCC) to accomplish the End to End
skipping to change at page 1, line 42 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 19, 2021. This Internet-Draft will expire on March 15, 2021.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2020 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
skipping to change at page 2, line 20 skipping to change at page 2, line 20
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. New Objects Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4. STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
5. Objects Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 5. PCE-Initiated Native IP TE Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5.1. Peer Address List Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 6. New Objects Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5.2. Peer Prefix Association Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 7. Objects Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5.3. Explicit Peer Route Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 7.1. BGP Peer Info Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. Management Consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 7.2. Explicit Peer Route Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 7.3. Peer Prefix Association Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 8. New Error-Types and Error-Values Defined . . . . . . . . . . 14
8.1. PCEP Object Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 9. Management Consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
9. Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
10. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 11. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 11.1. PCEP Object Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
12. Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
13. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
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
no such signaling protocol to synchronize the action among different no such signaling protocol to synchronize the action among different
skipping to change at page 3, line 22 skipping to change at page 3, line 24
.This document uses the following terms defined in [RFC5440]: PCE, .This document uses the following terms defined in [RFC5440]: PCE,
PCEP PCEP
The following terms are defined in this document: The following terms are defined in this document:
o CCDR: Central Control Dynamic Routing o CCDR: Central Control Dynamic Routing
o E2E: End to End o E2E: End to End
o EPR: Explicit Peer Route o BPI: BGP Peer Info
o PAL: Peer Address List o EPR: Explicit Peer Route
o PPA: Peer Prefix Association o PPA: Peer Prefix Association
o QoS: Quality of Service o QoS: Quality of Service
4. New Objects Extension 4. STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV
The format of STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY is defined in [RFC8231] and
included here for easy reference with the addition of the new N flag.
The right bits of N flag have been defined by other RFC documents.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length=4 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Flags |N|*|*|*|*|*|*|I|S|U|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-++-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-++-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV Format
A new flag is defined to indicate the sender's support for traffic
engineering in Native IP network. The newly defined PCEP Objects and
its proceeding procedures, as stated in Section 6 MUST be supported
by PCC or PCE when this flag is set.
N( NATIVE-IP-TE-CAPABILITY-----1 bit): If set to 1 by a PCC/PCE, the
N flag indicate that the PCC/PCE can support the traffic engineering
in Native IP network. The NATIVE-IP-TE-CAPABILITY flag MUST be set
by both the PCC and PCE in order to enable PCE-initiated Native IP
traffic engineering.
5. PCE-Initiated Native IP TE Procedures
PCE-Initated Native IP TE solution utilizing the existing PCE LSP
Initate Request message(PCInitiate)[RFC8281], PCE Report
message(PCRpt) [RFC8281]and PCE Update message(PCUpd)[RFC8281] to
accomplish the multi BGP sessions establishment, end to end TE path
deployment, and route prefixes advertisement among different BGP
sessions.
There is no label switch path within the Native IP environment, but
there exist the end to end forwarding path that assigned to the
priority traffic. Such path can be identified by the PLSP-ID that
defined in Label Switched Path(LSP) object [RFC8231]_. _The PLSP-ID
is assigned by each PCC, based on the Symbolic Path Name TLV in the
LSP object that from PCInitiate message. The Symbolic Path Name TLV
can be used to identify the end to end TE path in Native IP
environment. The association of Symbolic Path Name and each PLSP-ID
in every PCC assures the TE policies are assigned end to end in the
network.
6. New Objects Extension
Three new objects are defined in this draft: Three new objects are defined in this draft:
o PAL Object: Peer Address List Object, used to tell the network o BPI Object: BGP Peer Info Object, used to indicate the PCC which
device which peer it should be peered with dynamically. peer it should be peered with dynamically.
o PPA Object: Peer Prefix Association Object, used to tell which o PPA Object: Peer Prefix Association Object, used to indicate the
prefixes should be advertised via the corresponding peer. PCC which prefixes should be advertised via the corresponding
peer.
o EPR Object: Explicit Peer Route object, used to point out which o EPR Object: Explicit Peer Route object, used to indicate the PCC
route should be taken into to arrive to the peer. which route should be taken into to arrive to the peer.
5. Objects Formats 7. Objects Formats
Each extension object takes the similar format, that is to say, it Each extension object takes the similar format, that is to say, it
began with the common object header defined in [RFC5440] as the began with the common object header defined in [RFC5440] as the
following: following:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Object-Class | OT |Res|P|I| Object Length(bytes) | | Object-Class | OT |Res|P|I| Object Length(bytes) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| (Object body) | | (Object body) |
// // // //
| | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: PCEP Object Format Figure 2: PCEP Object Format
Different object-class, object type and the corresponding object body Different object-class, object type and the corresponding object body
is defined separately in the following section . is defined separately in the following section.
5.1. Peer Address List Object 7.1. BGP Peer Info Object
The Peer Address List object is used in a PCE Initiate message The BGP Peer Info object is used to specify the information about the
[RFC8281] defined to specify the IP address of peer that the received peer that the PCC should establish the BGP relationship with. This
network device should establish the BGP relationship with. This object should only be included and sent to the head and end router of
Object should only be included and sent to the head and end router of
the E2E path in case there is no Route Reflection (RR) involved. If the E2E path in case there is no Route Reflection (RR) involved. If
the RR is used between the head and end routers, then such the RR is used between the head and end routers, then such
information should be sent to head router, RR and end router information should be sent to head router, RR and end router
respectively. respectively.
Peer Address List Object-Class is TBD By default, there MUST be no prefix be distributed via such BGP
session that established by this object.
Peer Address List Object-Type is 1 for IPv4 and 2 for IPv6 By default, the Local/Peer IP address SHOULD be dedicated to the
usage of native IP TE solution, and SHOULD not be used by other BGP
sessions that established by manual or non PCE initiated
configuration.
The format of the Peer Address List object body for IPv4(Object- BGP Peer Info Object-Class is TBD
Type=1) is as follows:
BGP Peer Info Object-Type is 1 for IPv4 and 2 for IPv6
The format of the BGP Peer Info object body for IPv4(Object-Type=1)
is as follows:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Peer Num | Peer Id |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Local AS Number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Peer AS Number | | Peer AS Number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ETTL | Peer Cookie | | ETTL | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Local IP Address | | Local IP Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Peer IP Address | | Peer IP Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Additional Peer Info. | | Additional TLVs |
// (From Peer ID to Peer IP Address) //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: Peer Address List Object Body Format for IPv4 Figure 3: BGP Peer Info Object Body Format for IPv4
The format of the Peer Address List object body for IPv6(Object- The format of the BGP Peer Info object body for IPv6(Object-Type=2)
Type=2) is as follows: is as follows:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Peer Num | Peer ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Local AS Number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Peer AS Number | | Peer AS Number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ETTL | Peer Cookie | | ETTL | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Local IP Address (16 bytes) | | |
+ +
| Local IP Address (16 bytes) |
+ +
| |
+ +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Peer IP Address (16 bytes) | | |
+ +
| Peer IP Address (16 bytes) |
+ +
| |
+ +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Additional Peer Info. | | Additional TLVs |
// (From Peer ID to Peer IP Address) //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3: Peer Address List Object Body Format for IPv6 Figure 4: BGP Peer Info Object Body Format for IPv6
Peer Num : 2 Bytes, Peer Address Number on the advertised router.
Peer-ID: 2 Bytes, 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.
Local AS Number: 4 Bytes, to indicate the AS number of the Local
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 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. should be 0 and ignored when Local AS and Peer AS is same.
Peer Cookie: Used for establishing the secure BGP session between two Reserved: Bits reserved for future use.
peers. The PCEP client should use the MD5 algorithm to generate the
encrypted message.
Local IP Address(4/16 Bytes): IP address of the local router, used to Local IP Address(4/16 Bytes): IP address of the local router, used to
peer with other end router. When Object-Type is 1, length is 4 peer with other end router. When Object-Type is 1, length is 4
bytes; when Object-Type is 2, length is 16 bytes. bytes; when Object-Type is 2, length is 16 bytes.
Peer IP Address(4/16 Bytes): IP address of the peer router, used to Peer IP Address(4/16 Bytes): IP address of the peer router, used to
peer with the local router. When Object-Type is 1, length is 4 peer with the local router. When Object-Type is 1, length is 4
bytes; when Object-Type is 2, length is 16 bytes; bytes; when Object-Type is 2, length is 16 bytes;
5.2. Peer Prefix Association Object Additional TLVs: TLVs that associated with this object, can be used
to convey other necessary information for dynamic BGP session
establishment. Its definition is out of the current document.
The Peer Prefix Association object is defined to specify the IP The detail procedures for the usage of this object is shown
prefixes that should be advertised by the corresponding Peer. This below(PCInitiate and PCRpt message pair, other message pairs are
object should only be included and sent to the head/end router of the similar)
end2end path in case there is no RR involved. If the RR is used M2 PCInitiate Message: M3 PCInitiate Message:
between the head and end routers, then such information should be PLSP-ID=X1(Symbolic Path Name=Class A) PLSP-ID=X1(Symbolic Path Name=Class A)
sent to head router,RR and end router respectively. BPI Object(Local IP=R3_A, Peer IP=R1_A) BPI Object(Local IP=R3_A, Peer IP=R7_A)
Peer Prefix Association Object-Class is TBD M2-R PCRpt Message: M3-R PCRpt Message:
PLSP-ID=X1 PLSP-ID=X1
BPI Object(Local IP=R3_A, Peer IP=R1_A) BPI Object(Local IP=R3_A, Peer IP=R7_A)
^ ^
| |
| |
| |
| |
| +------------------+ |
M1 PCInitiate Message: + +----------+ PCE +-----------+ + M4 PCInitiate Message:
PLSP-ID=X1(Symbolic Path Name=Class A) | | | +--------^---------+ | | | PLSP-ID=X7(Symbolic Path Name=Class A)
BPI Object(Local IP=R1_A, Peer IP=R3_A) | | | | | | | BPI Object(Local IP=R7_A,Peer IP=R3_A)
| | +----------------------------+ | |
| | | | |
M1-R PCRpt Message: ^ | | | | | ^M4-R PCRpt Message:
PLSP-ID=X1 | | | +v-+ | | | PLSP-ID=X7
BPI Object(Local IP=R1_A, Peer IP=R3_A | | +------------------+R3+-------------------+ | | BPI Object(Local IP=R3_A, Peer IP=R1_A) )
| | | +--+ | | |
| | | | | |
| | +v-+ +--+ +--+ +-v+ | |
+ v |R1+----------+R5+----------+R6+---------+R7| v +
++-+ +--+ +--+ +-++
| |
| |
| +--+ +--+ |
+------------+R2+----------+R4+-----------+
Peer Prefix Association Object-Type is 1 for IPv4 and 2 for IPv6 Figure 5: BGP Peer Establishment Procedures(R3 act as RR)
The format of the Peer Prefix Association object body is as follows: When PCC receives this object with the R bit set to 0 in SRP object
in PCInitiate message, the PCC should try to establish the BGP
session with the indicated Peer AS and Local/Peer IP address.
0 1 2 3 When PCC creates successfully the BGP session that is indicated by
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 the associated information, it should report the result via the PCRpt
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ messages, with this object included, and the corresponding SRP and
| Peer ID | Prefixes Num | LSP object.
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Prefix Length | Prefix Value |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Prefix Value |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 4: Peer Prefix Association Object Body Format
Peer-ID: 2 Bytes, to indicate which peer should be used to advertise When PCC receives this object with the R bit set to 1 in SRP object
the following IP Prefix TLV. This value is assigned in the Peer in PCInitiate message, the PCC should clear the BGP session that
Address List object and is referred in this object. indicated by Local/Peer IP address.
Prefixes Num: 2 Bytes, number of prefixes that advertised by the When PCC clears successfully the specified BGP session, it should
corresponding Peer. It should be equal to number of the following IP report the result via the PCRpt message, with this object included,
prefix sub TLV. and the corresponding SRP and LSP object.
Prefix Length: 2 Bytes, the prefix length. For example, for When PCC receives this object with the LSP object in PCE Update
10.0.0.0/8, this field will be equal to 8; for 2001:DB8::/32, this message, the PCC should update the BGP session that identified by the
field will be equal to 32. PLSP-ID with the updated information contained in this object.
Prefix Value: Variable length, the value of the prefix. For example, When PCC updates successfully the BGP session that is indicated by
for 10.0.0.0/8, this field will be 10.0.0.0; for 2001:DB8::/32, this the PLSP-ID, it should report the result via the PCRpt message, with
field will be equal to 2001:DB8::. this object included, and the corresponding SRP and LSP object.
5.3. Explicit Peer Route Object Upon PCC can't build the BGP session that required by this object, it
should report the error values with the newly defined error type and
error value, which is indicated in Section 8
7.2. Explicit Peer Route Object
The Explicit Peer Route object is defined to specify the explicit The Explicit Peer Route object is defined to specify the explicit
peer route to the corresponding peer address on each device that is peer route to the corresponding peer address on each device that is
on the E2E assurance path. This Object should be sent to all the on the E2E assurance path. This Object should be sent to all the
devices that locates on the E2E assurance path that calculated by devices that locates on the E2E assurance path that calculated by
PCE. PCE.
The path established by this object should have higher priority than
other path calculated by dynamic IGP protocol, but should be lower
priority that the static route configured by manual or NETCONF
channel.
Explicit Peer Route Object-Class is TBD. Explicit Peer Route Object-Class is TBD.
Explicit Peer Route Object-Type is 1 for IPv4 and 2 for IPv6 Explicit Peer Route Object-Type is 1 for IPv4 and 2 for IPv6
The format of Explicit Peer Route object body for IPv4(Object-Type=1) The format of Explicit Peer Route object body for IPv4(Object-Type=1)
is as follows: is as follows:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Route Priority | Path Identifier | | Route Priority | Resv. |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Peer Address | | IPv4 Peer Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Next Hop Address to the Peer | | Next Hop Address to the IPv4 Peer Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 6: Explicit Peer Route Object Body Format for IPv4 Figure 6: Explicit Peer Route Object Body Format for IPv4
The format of Explicit Peer Route object body for IPv6(Object-Type=2) The format of Explicit Peer Route object body for IPv6(Object-Type=2)
is as follows: is as follows:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Route Priority | Path Identifier | | Route Priority | Resv. |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Peer Address (16 bytes) | | |
+ +
| IPv6 Peer Address |
+ +
| |
+ +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Next Hop Address to the Peer(16 bytes) | | |
+ +
| Next Hop Address to the IPv6 Peer Address |
+ +
| |
+ +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 6: Explicit Peer Route Object Body Format for IPv4 Figure 7: Explicit Peer Route Object Body Format for IPv6
Route Priority: 2 Bytes, The priority of this explicit route. The Route Priority: 2 Bytes, The priority of this explicit route. The
higher priority should be preferred by the device. higher priority should be preferred by the device.
Path Identifier: To indicate the path to peer address, especially for Resv.: Bit reserved for future use.
the same peer.
Peer Address: To indicate the peer address. Peer Address: To indicate the peer address.
Next Hop Address to the Peer: To indicate the next hop address to the Next Hop Address to the Peer: To indicate the next hop address to the
corresponding peer. corresponding peer.
6. Management Consideration The detail procedures for the usage of this object is shown
below(PCInitiate and PCRpt message pair, other message pairs are
similar)
+------------------+
M4 PCInitiate Message: + +----------+ PCE +-----------+ + M1 PCInitiate Message:
PLSP-ID=X1(Symbolic Path Name=Class A) | | +----^---^---^-----+ | | PLSP-ID=X7(Symbolic Path Name=Class A)
EPR Object(Peer Address=R7_A | | | | | | | EPR Object(Peer Address=R1_A
Next Hop=R2_A) | | | | | | | Next Hop=R4_A)
| | | | | | |
M4-R PCRpt Message: ^ | | | | | | | ^ M1-R PCRpt Message:
PLSP-ID=X1 | | | | +v-+ | | | | PLSP-ID=X7
EPR Object(Peer Address=R7_A | | +------------- ----+R3+-------------------+ | | EPR Object(Peer Address=R1_A )
Next Hop=R2_A) | | | | +--+ | | | | Next Hop=R4_A)
| | | | | | | |
| | +v-+ +--+ | | +--+ +-v+ | |
+ v |R1+------+R5+- -----------------+R6+----+R7| v +
++-+ +--+ | | +--+ +-++
| | | |
| +---+ +---+ |
| +v-+ +v-+ |
+----------+R2+- ---------+R4+-----------+
M3 PCInitiate Message M2 PCInitiate Message
PLSP-ID=X2(Symbolic Path Name=Class A) PLSP-ID=X4(Symbolic Path Name=Class A)
EPR Object(Peer Address=R1_A EPR Object(Peer Address=R1_A
Next Hop=R1_A) Next Hop=R2_A)
M3-R PCRpt Message M2-R PCRpt Message
PLSP-ID=X2(Symbolic Path Name=Class A) PLSP-ID=X4(Symbolic Path Name=Class A)
EPR Object(Peer Address=R1_A EPR Object(Peer Address=R1_A
Next Hop=R1_A) Next Hop=R2_A)
Figure 8: Explicit Route Establish Procedures(From R1 to R7)
When PCC receives this object with the R bit set to 0 in SRP object
in PCInitiate message, the PCC should install the explicit route to
the the peer.
When PCC install successfully the explicit route to the peer, it
should report the result via the PCRpt messages, with this object
included, and the corresponding SRP and LSP object.
When PCC receives this object with the R bit set to 1 in SRP object
in PCInitiate message, the PCC should clear the explicit route to the
peer that indicated by this object.
When PCC clear successfully the explicit route that indicated by this
object, it should report the result via the PCRpt message, with this
object included, and the corresponding SRP and LSP object.
When PCC receives this object in PCUpd message, the PCC should update
the explicit route according to info indicated in this object.
When PCC updates the path successfully, it should report the result
via the PCRpt message, with this object included, and the
corresponding SRP and LSP object.
Upon the error occurs, the PCC SHOULD send the corresponding error
information that defined in Section 8
7.3. Peer Prefix Association Object
The Peer Prefix Association object is defined to specify the IP
prefixes that should be advertised to the corresponding peer. This
object should only be included and sent to the head/end router of the
end2end path.
The prefixes information included in this object MUST only be
advertised to the indicated peer, MUST not be advertised to other BGP
peers.
Peer Prefix Association Object-Class is TBD
Peer Prefix Association Object-Type is 1 for IPv4 and 2 for IPv6
The format of the Peer Prefix Association object body is as follows:
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 IPv4 Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
// IPv4 Prefix subobjects //
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 9: Peer Prefix Association Object Body Format for IPv4
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 IPv6 Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
// IPv6 Prefix subobjects //
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 10: Peer Prefix Association Object Body Format for IPv6
Peer IPv4 Address: 4 Bytes. Identifies the peer IPv4 address that
the associated prefixes will be sent to.
IPv4 Prefix subojects: List of IPv4 Prefix subobjects that defined in
[RFC3209], identify the prefixes that will be sent to the peer that
identified by Peer IPv4 Address List.
Peer IPv6 Address: 16 Bytes. Identifies the peer IPv6 address that
the associated prefixes will be sent to.
IPv6 Prefix subojects: List of IPv6 Prefix subobjects that defined in
[RFC3209], identify the prefixes that will be sent to the peer that
identified by Peer IPv6 Address List.
The detail procedures for the usage of this object is shown
below(PCInitiate and PCRpt message pair, other message pairs are
similar)
+------------------+
M1 PCInitiate Message: + +----------+ PCE +-----------+ + M2 PCInitiate Message:
PLSP+ID=X1(Symbolic Path Name=Class A) | | +--------^---------+ | | PLSP+ID=X7(Symbolic Path Name=Class A)
PPA Object(Peer IP=R7_A, Prefix=1_A) | | | | | PPA Object(Peer IP=R1_A, Prefix=7_A)
| | | | |
| | | | |
M1-R PCRpt Message: ^ | | | | | ^ M2-R PCRpt Message:
PLSP+ID=X1 | | | +v-+ | | | PLSP+ID=X7
PPA Object(Peer IP=R7_A,Prefix=1_A) | | +------------------+R3+-------------------+ | | PPA Object(Peer IP=R1_A, Prefix=7_A) )
| | | +--+ | | |
| | | | | |
| | +v-+ +--+ +--+ +-v+ | |
+ v |R1+----------+R5+----------+R6+---------+R7| v +
++-+ +--+ +--+ +-++
| |
| |
| +--+ +--+ |
+------------+R2+----------+R4+-----------+
Figure 11: BGP Prefix Advertisement Procedures
When PCC receives this object with the R bit set to 0 in SRP object
in PCInitiate message, the PCC should send the prefixes indicated in
this object to the appointed BGP peer.
When PCC sends successfully the prefixes to the appointed BGP peer,
it should report the result via the PCRpt messages, with this object
included, and the corresponding SRP and LSP object.
When PCC receives this object with the R bit set to 1 in SRP object
in PCInitiate message, the PCC should withdraw the prefixes
advertisement to the peer that indicated by this object.
When PCC withdraws successfully the prefixes that indicated by this
object, it should report the result via the PCRpt message, with this
object included, and the corresponding SRP and LSP object.
When PCC receives this object in PCUpd message, it should update the
BGP routes advertised to the associated peer.
When PCC updates the advertised BGP routes successfully, it should
report the result via the PCRpt message, with this object included,
and the corresponding SRP and LSP object.
The IPv4 prefix MUST only be advertised via the IPv4 BGP session and
the IPv6 prefix MUST only be advertised via the IPv6 BGP session. If
mismatch occur, an error should be reported.
When the peer info that associated with the PLSP-ID is not the same
as the peer info that indicated in this object in PCC, a error should
be reported via the PCRpt message.
Upon the error occurs, the PCC SHOULD send the corresponding error
information that defined in Section 8
The object type of the above three objects should be identical to
assure the prefixes from one address family are advertised via the
peer belong to same address family, and the traffic is forwarded to
the next hop also belong to same address family. If the mismatch
occur, the error should be reported to the PCE.
For one PLSP-ID on the PCC, the object type of PAL object should be
equal to object type of PPA object. If not, the mismatch occurs and
the related error should be reported.
8. New Error-Types and Error-Values Defined
A PCEP-ERROR object is used to report a PCEP error and is
characterized by an Error-Type that specifies that type of error and
an Error-value that provides additional information about the error.
An additional Error-Type and several Error-values are defined to
represent some the errors related to the newly defined objects, which
are related to Native IP TE procedures.
+============+===============+==============================+
| Error-Type | Meaning | Error-value |
+============+===============+==============================+
| TBD | Native IP | |
| | TE failure | |
+------------+---------------+------------------------------+
| | | 0: Unassigned |
+------------+---------------+------------------------------+
| | | 1: Peer AS not match |
+------------+---------------+------------------------------+
| | | 2: Peer IP can't be reached |
+------------+---------------+------------------------------+
| | | 3: Peer Address mismatch |
+------------+---------------+------------------------------+
| | | 4: PAL/PPA Object AF mismatch|
+------------+---------------+------------------------------+
| | | 5: PAL/EPR Object AF mismatch|
+------------+---------------+------------------------------+
| | | 6: PPA/EPR object AF mismatch|
+------------+---------------+------------------------------+
| | | 7: |
+------------+---------------+------------------------------+
| | | 8: |
+------------+---------------+------------------------------+
| | | 9: |
+------------+---------------+------------------------------+
Figure 12: Newly defined Error-Type and Error-Value
9. Management Consideration
The information transferred in this draft is mainly used for the The information transferred in this draft is mainly used for the
light weight BGP session setup, the prefix distribution and the light weight BGP session setup, the prefix distribution and the
explicit route deployment. The planning, allocation and distribution explicit route deployment. The planning, allocation and distribution
of the peer addresses within IGP should be accomplished in advanced of the peer addresses within IGP should be accomplished in advanced
and they are out of the scope of this draft. and they are out of the scope of this draft.
7. Security Considerations 10. Security Considerations
Service provider should consider the protection of PCE and their Service provider should consider the protection of PCE and their
communication with the underlay devices, which is described in communication with the underlay devices, which is described in
document [RFC5440] and [RFC8253] document [RFC5440] and [RFC8253]
8. IANA Considerations 11. IANA Considerations
11.1. PCEP Object Types
8.1. PCEP Object Types
IANA is requested to allocate new registry for the PCEP Object Type: IANA is requested to allocate new registry for the PCEP Object Type:
Object-Type Value Name Reference Object-Type Value Name Reference
TBD Peer Address List This document TBD BGP Peer Info This document
Object-Type Object-Type
1: IPv4 address 1: IPv4 address
2: IPv6 address 2: IPv6 address
TBD Peer Prefix Association This document TBD Peer Prefix Association This document
Object-Type Object-Type
1: IPv4 address 1: IPv4 address
2: IPv6 address 2: IPv6 address
TBD Explicit Peer Route This document TBD Explicit Peer Route This document
Object-Type Object-Type
1: IPv4 address 1: IPv4 address
2: IPv6 address 2: IPv6 address
9. Acknowledgement 12. Acknowledgement
Thanks Dhruv Dhody for his valuable suggestions and comments. Thanks Dhruv Dhody, Mike Koldychev, Siva Sivabalan, Adam Simpson for
his valuable suggestions and comments.
10. Normative References 13. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-teas-pce-native-ip] [I-D.ietf-teas-pce-native-ip]
Wang, A., Khasanov, B., Zhao, Q., and H. Chen, "PCE in Wang, A., Khasanov, B., Zhao, Q., and H. Chen, "PCE in
Native IP Network", draft-ietf-teas-pce-native-ip-10 (work Native IP Network", draft-ietf-teas-pce-native-ip-11 (work
in progress), August 2020. in progress), August 2020.
[RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.,
and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
Tunnels", RFC 3209, DOI 10.17487/RFC3209, December 2001,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3209>.
[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>.
[RFC8231] Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Medved, J., and R. Varga, "Path
Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)
Extensions for Stateful PCE", RFC 8231,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8231, September 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8231>.
[RFC8253] Lopez, D., Gonzalez de Dios, O., Wu, Q., and D. Dhody, [RFC8253] Lopez, D., Gonzalez de Dios, O., Wu, Q., and D. Dhody,
"PCEPS: Usage of TLS to Provide a Secure Transport for the "PCEPS: Usage of TLS to Provide a Secure Transport for the
Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)", Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)",
RFC 8253, DOI 10.17487/RFC8253, October 2017, RFC 8253, DOI 10.17487/RFC8253, October 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8253>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8253>.
[RFC8281] Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Sivabalan, S., and R. Varga, "Path [RFC8281] Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Sivabalan, S., and R. Varga, "Path
Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)
Extensions for PCE-Initiated LSP Setup in a Stateful PCE Extensions for PCE-Initiated LSP Setup in a Stateful PCE
Model", RFC 8281, DOI 10.17487/RFC8281, December 2017, Model", RFC 8281, DOI 10.17487/RFC8281, December 2017,
skipping to change at page 10, line 33 skipping to change at page 18, line 4
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 Sheng Fang
Huawei Technologies, Co., Huawei Technologies,Co.,Ltd
Ltd
Huawei Bld., No.156 Beiqing Rd. Huawei Bld., No.156 Beiqing Rd.
Beijing Beijing
China China
Email: fsheng@huawei.com Email: fsheng@huawei.com
Ren Tan
Huawei Technologies,Co.,Ltd
Huawei Bld., No.156 Beiqing Rd.
Beijing
China
Email: tanren@huawei.com
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
 End of changes. 65 change blocks. 
126 lines changed or deleted 454 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/