draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-ipv6-07.txt   draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-ipv6-08.txt 
PCE Working Group C. Li PCE Working Group C. Li
Internet-Draft Huawei Technologies Internet-Draft Huawei Technologies
Intended status: Standards Track M. Negi Intended status: Standards Track M. Negi
Expires: May 6, 2021 RtBrick Inc Expires: May 28, 2021 RtBrick Inc
S. Sivabalan
Ciena Corporation
M. Koldychev M. Koldychev
Cisco Systems, Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc.
P. Kaladharan P. Kaladharan
RtBrick Inc RtBrick Inc
Y. Zhu Y. Zhu
China Telecom China Telecom
November 2, 2020 November 24, 2020
PCEP Extensions for Segment Routing leveraging the IPv6 data plane PCEP Extensions for Segment Routing leveraging the IPv6 data plane
draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-ipv6-07 draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-ipv6-08
Abstract Abstract
The Source Packet Routing in Networking (SPRING) architecture The Source Packet Routing in Networking (SPRING) architecture
describes how Segment Routing (SR) can be used to steer packets describes how Segment Routing (SR) can be used to steer packets
through an IPv6 or MPLS network using the source routing paradigm. through an IPv6 or MPLS network using the source routing paradigm.
SR enables any head-end node to select any path without relying on a SR enables any head-end node to select any path without relying on a
hop-by-hop signaling technique (e.g., LDP or RSVP-TE). hop-by-hop signaling technique (e.g., LDP or RSVP-TE).
It depends only on "segments" that are advertised by Link- State It depends only on "segments" that are advertised by Link- State
skipping to change at page 2, line 20 skipping to change at page 2, line 20
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 May 6, 2021. This Internet-Draft will expire on May 28, 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 14, line 27 skipping to change at page 14, line 27
message."). In case the MSD-Type in SRv6-PCE-CAPABILITY sub-TLV message."). In case the MSD-Type in SRv6-PCE-CAPABILITY sub-TLV
received by the PCE does not correspond to one of the SRv6 MSD types, received by the PCE does not correspond to one of the SRv6 MSD types,
the PCE MUST respond with a PCErr message (Error-Type=1 "PCEP session the PCE MUST respond with a PCErr message (Error-Type=1 "PCEP session
establishment failure" and Error-Value=1 "reception of an invalid establishment failure" and Error-Value=1 "reception of an invalid
Open message or a non Open message."). Open message or a non Open message.").
Note that the MSD-Type, MSD-Value exchanged via the SRv6-PCE- Note that the MSD-Type, MSD-Value exchanged via the SRv6-PCE-
CAPABILITY sub-TLV indicates the SRv6 SID imposition limit for the CAPABILITY sub-TLV indicates the SRv6 SID imposition limit for the
PCC node. However, if a PCE learns these via different means, e.g PCC node. However, if a PCE learns these via different means, e.g
routing protocols, as specified in: routing protocols, as specified in:
[I-D.li-ospf-ospfv3-srv6-extensions]; [I-D.ietf-lsr-ospfv3-srv6-extensions];
[I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions]; [I-D.ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext], [I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions]; [I-D.ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext],
then it ignores the values in the SRv6-PCE-CAPABILITY sub-TLV. then it ignores the values in the SRv6-PCE-CAPABILITY sub-TLV.
Furthermore, whenever a PCE learns the other advanced SRv6 MSD via Furthermore, whenever a PCE learns the other advanced SRv6 MSD via
different means, it MUST use that value regardless of the values different means, it MUST use that value regardless of the values
exchanged in the SRv6-PCE-CAPABILITY sub-TLV. exchanged in the SRv6-PCE-CAPABILITY sub-TLV.
Once an SRv6-capable PCEP session is established with a non-zero SRv6 Once an SRv6-capable PCEP session is established with a non-zero SRv6
MSD value, the corresponding PCE MUST NOT send SRv6 paths with a MSD value, the corresponding PCE MUST NOT send SRv6 paths with a
number of SIDs exceeding that SRv6 MSD value (based on the SRv6 MSD number of SIDs exceeding that SRv6 MSD value (based on the SRv6 MSD
Type). If a PCC needs to modify the SRv6 MSD value, it MUST close Type). If a PCC needs to modify the SRv6 MSD value, it MUST close
skipping to change at page 22, line 22 skipping to change at page 22, line 22
Matsushima, S., and D. Voyer, "IPv6 Segment Routing Header Matsushima, S., and D. Voyer, "IPv6 Segment Routing Header
(SRH)", RFC 8754, DOI 10.17487/RFC8754, March 2020, (SRH)", RFC 8754, DOI 10.17487/RFC8754, March 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8754>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8754>.
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy] [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy]
Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Voyer, D., Bogdanov, A., and Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Voyer, D., Bogdanov, A., and
P. Mattes, "Segment Routing Policy Architecture", draft- P. Mattes, "Segment Routing Policy Architecture", draft-
ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy-09 (work in progress), ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy-09 (work in progress),
November 2020. November 2020.
[I-D.li-ospf-ospfv3-srv6-extensions] [I-D.ietf-lsr-ospfv3-srv6-extensions]
Li, Z., Hu, Z., Cheng, D., Talaulikar, K., and P. Psenak, Li, Z., Hu, Z., Cheng, D., Talaulikar, K., and P. Psenak,
"OSPFv3 Extensions for SRv6", draft-li-ospf- "OSPFv3 Extensions for SRv6", draft-ietf-lsr-
ospfv3-srv6-extensions-07 (work in progress), November ospfv3-srv6-extensions-01 (work in progress), August 2020.
2019.
[I-D.ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext] [I-D.ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext]
Dawra, G., Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Chen, M., Dawra, G., Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Chen, M.,
daniel.bernier@bell.ca, d., and B. Decraene, "BGP Link daniel.bernier@bell.ca, d., and B. Decraene, "BGP Link
State Extensions for SRv6", draft-ietf-idr-bgpls- State Extensions for SRv6", draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-
srv6-ext-04 (work in progress), November 2020. srv6-ext-05 (work in progress), November 2020.
Appendix A. Contributor Appendix A. Contributor
The following persons contributed to this document: The following persons contributed to this document:
Dhruv Dhody Dhruv Dhody
Huawei Technologies Huawei Technologies
Divyashree Techno Park, Whitefield Divyashree Techno Park, Whitefield
Bangalore, Karnataka 560066 Bangalore, Karnataka 560066
India India
skipping to change at page 24, line 4 skipping to change at page 24, line 4
China China
EMail: c.l@huawei.com EMail: c.l@huawei.com
Mahendra Singh Negi Mahendra Singh Negi
RtBrick Inc RtBrick Inc
Bangalore, Karnataka Bangalore, Karnataka
India India
EMail: mahend.ietf@gmail.com EMail: mahend.ietf@gmail.com
Siva Sivabalan
Ciena Corporation
EMail: msiva282@gmail.com
Mike Koldychev Mike Koldychev
Cisco Systems, Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc.
Canada Canada
EMail: mkoldych@cisco.com EMail: mkoldych@cisco.com
Prejeeth Kaladharan Prejeeth Kaladharan
RtBrick Inc RtBrick Inc
Bangalore, Karnataka Bangalore, Karnataka
India India
 End of changes. 9 change blocks. 
10 lines changed or deleted 16 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/