| < draft-anand-spring-poi-sr-00.txt | draft-anand-spring-poi-sr-01.txt > | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SPRING Working Group Madhukar Anand | SPRING Working Group Madhukar Anand | |||
| Internet-Draft Sanjoy Bardhan | Internet-Draft Sanjoy Bardhan | |||
| Intended Status: Informational Ramesh Subrahmaniam | Intended Status: Informational Ramesh Subrahmaniam | |||
| Infinera Corporation | Infinera Corporation | |||
| Expires: September 21, 2016 March 20, 2016 | ||||
| Jeff Tantsura | ||||
| Individual | ||||
| Expires: January 7, 2017 July 6, 2016 | ||||
| Packet-Optical Integration in Segment Routing | Packet-Optical Integration in Segment Routing | |||
| draft-anand-spring-poi-sr-00 | draft-anand-spring-poi-sr-01 | |||
| Abstract | Abstract | |||
| This document illustrates a way to integrate a new class of nodes and | This document illustrates a way to integrate a new class of nodes and | |||
| links in segment routing to represent networks in an opaque way for | links in segment routing to represent transport networks in an opaque | |||
| further extensibility of the link-state protocols that help with | way into the segment routing domain. An instance of this class would | |||
| segment routing. An instance of the opaque definition would be | be optical networks that are typically transport centric. In the IP | |||
| optical networks that are typically transport centric. In the IP | ||||
| centric network, this will help in defining a common control protocol | centric network, this will help in defining a common control protocol | |||
| for packet optical integration that will include optical paths as | for packet optical integration that will include optical paths as | |||
| opaque 'segments' or sub-paths as an augmentation to the defined | 'transport segments' or sub-paths as an augmentation to the defined | |||
| extensions of segment routing. This opaque option defines a general | extensions of segment routing. The transport segment option also | |||
| mechanism to allow for future extensibility of segment routing. | defines a general mechanism to allow for future extensibility of | |||
| segment routing into non-packet domains. | ||||
| Requirements Language | Requirements Language | |||
| The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", | The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", | |||
| "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this | "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this | |||
| document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. | document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. | |||
| Status of this Memo | Status of this Memo | |||
| This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the | This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the | |||
| skipping to change at page 2, line 28 ¶ | skipping to change at page 2, line 31 ¶ | |||
| 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 | 1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 | |||
| 2. Reference Taxonomy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 | 2. Reference Taxonomy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 | |||
| 3. Use case - Packet Optical Integration . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 | 3. Use case - Packet Optical Integration . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 | |||
| 4. Mechanism overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 | 4. Mechanism overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 | |||
| 5. IS-IS extensions for supporting the opaque adjacency segment . 6 | 5. PCEP-LS extensions for supporting the transport segment . . . 6 | |||
| 6. OSPF extensions for supporting the opaque adjacency segment . 8 | 6. OSPF extensions for supporting the transport segment . . . . . 7 | |||
| 7. OSPFv3 extensions for supporting the opaque adjacency | 7. OSPFv3 extensions for supporting the transport segment . . . . 9 | |||
| segment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 | 8. IS-IS extensions for supporting the transport segment . . . . 10 | |||
| 8. BGP-LS extensions for supporting the opaque adjacency | 9. BGP-LS extensions for supporting the transport segment . . . . 12 | |||
| segment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 | 10. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 | |||
| 8.1 Link Attribute TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 | ||||
| 8.2 Opaque Adjacency SID TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 | ||||
| 9. PCEP-LS extensions for supporting the opaque adjacency | ||||
| segment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 | ||||
| 10. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 | ||||
| 11. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 | 11. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 | |||
| 12 IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 | 12 IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 | |||
| 13 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 | 12.1 PCEP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 | |||
| 13.1 Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 | 12.2 OSPF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 | |||
| 13.2 Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 | 12.3 OSPFv3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 | |||
| Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 | 12.4 IS-IS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 | |||
| 12.5 BGP-LS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 | ||||
| 13 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 | ||||
| 13.1 Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 | ||||
| 13.2 Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 | ||||
| Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 | ||||
| 1 Introduction | 1 Introduction | |||
| Packet and optical transport networks have evolved independently with | Packet and optical transport networks have evolved independently with | |||
| different control plane mechanisms that have to be provisioned and | different control plane mechanisms that have to be provisioned and | |||
| maintained separately. Consequently, coordinating packet and optical | maintained separately. Consequently, coordinating packet and optical | |||
| networks for delivering services such as end-to-end traffic | networks for delivering services such as end-to-end traffic | |||
| engineering or failure response has proved challenging. To address | engineering or failure response has proved challenging. To address | |||
| this challenge, a unified control and management paradigm that | this challenge, a unified control and management paradigm that | |||
| provides an incremental path to complete packet-optical integration | provides an incremental path to complete packet-optical integration | |||
| while leveraging existing signaling and routing protocols in either | while leveraging existing signaling and routing protocols in either | |||
| domains is needed. This document introduces such a paradigm based on | domains is needed. This document introduces such a paradigm based on | |||
| Segment Routing (SR) [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing]. | Segment Routing (SR) [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing]. | |||
| This document introduces a new type of segment, Opaque Adjacency | This document introduces a new type of segment, Transport segment. | |||
| Segment. Opaque Adjacency Segment can be used to model abstracted | Transport segment can be used to model abstracted paths through the | |||
| paths through the optical transport domain and integrate it with the | optical transport domain and integrate it with the packet network for | |||
| packet network for delivering end-to-end services. In addition, this | delivering end-to-end services. In addition, this also introduces a | |||
| also introduces a notion of a Packet optical gateway (POG). These are | notion of a Packet optical gateway (POG). These are nodes in the | |||
| nodes in the network that map packet services to the optical domain | network that map packet services to the optical domain that originate | |||
| that originate and terminate these opaque adjacency segments. Given | and terminate these transport segments. Given a transport segment, a | |||
| an opaque adjacency, a POG will expand it to a path in the optical | POG will expand it to a path in the optical transport network. | |||
| transport network. | ||||
| 2. Reference Taxonomy | 2. Reference Taxonomy | |||
| POG - Packet optical gateway Device | POG - Packet optical gateway Device | |||
| SR Edge Router - The Edge Router which is the first SR capable device | SR Edge Router - The Edge Router which is the ingress device | |||
| CE - Customer Edge Device that is outside of the SR domain | CE - Customer Edge Device that is outside of the SR domain | |||
| PCE - Path Computation Engine | PCE - Path Computation Engine | |||
| Controller - A network controller | Controller - A network controller | |||
| 3. Use case - Packet Optical Integration | 3. Use case - Packet Optical Integration | |||
| Many operators build and operate their networks that are both multi- | Many operators build and operate their networks that are both multi- | |||
| skipping to change at page 4, line 27 ¶ | skipping to change at page 4, line 26 ¶ | |||
| service is established by specifying a path between P1 and P4. Note | service is established by specifying a path between P1 and P4. Note | |||
| that in defining this path, we will need to specify both the nodes | that in defining this path, we will need to specify both the nodes | |||
| and the links that make up this service. POGs advertise themselves | and the links that make up this service. POGs advertise themselves | |||
| along with their adjacencies and the domains they belong to. To | along with their adjacencies and the domains they belong to. To | |||
| leverage segment routing to define the above service, the ingress | leverage segment routing to define the above service, the ingress | |||
| node P1 would append all outgoing packets in a SR header consisting | node P1 would append all outgoing packets in a SR header consisting | |||
| of the SIDs that constitute the path. In the packet domain this would | of the SIDs that constitute the path. In the packet domain this would | |||
| mean P1 would send its packets towards P4 using the segment list {P2, | mean P1 would send its packets towards P4 using the segment list {P2, | |||
| P4}. The operator would need to use a different mechanism in the | P4}. The operator would need to use a different mechanism in the | |||
| optical domain to set up the optical paths denoted by O1, O2 and O3. | optical domain to set up the optical paths denoted by O1, O2 and O3. | |||
| Each POG would announce the active optical path as an opaque | Each POG would announce the active optical path as a transport | |||
| adjacency - for example, in the case of P1, the optical path O1 would | segment - for example, in the case of P1, the optical path O1 would | |||
| represent an optical path that includes the optical nodes Om and On | represent an optical path that includes the optical nodes Om and On | |||
| as shown on Figure 2. This path is not known to the packet SR domain | as shown on Figure 2. This path is not known to the packet SR domain | |||
| and is only relevant to the optical domain D between P1 and P2. A | and is only relevant to the optical domain D between P1 and P2. A | |||
| PCE that is run in Domain D would be responsible for calculating path | PCE that is run in Domain D would be responsible for calculating path | |||
| O1. | O1. | |||
| |-----Om--------On-----| | |-----Om--------On-----| | |||
| P1----| (D) |------P2 | P1----| (D) |------P2 | |||
| |-----Ox---------Oy----| | |-----Ox---------Oy----| | |||
| Figure 2: POG with multiple optical paths through an optical domain | Figure 2: POG with multiple optical paths through an optical domain | |||
| Similarly, the transit POGs P2 and P3 in Figure 1 would announce | Similarly, the transit POGs P2 and P3 in Figure 1 would announce | |||
| opaque adjacencies O2 and O3. The border POG would include the | transport segments O2 and O3. The border POG would include the | |||
| optical paths O1, O2 and O3 to the segment list for P1 to P4. The | optical paths O1, O2 and O3 to the segment list for P1 to P4. The | |||
| expanded segment list would read as {O1, P2, O2, P3, O3, P4}. | expanded segment list would read as {O1, P2, O2, P3, O3, P4}. | |||
| There are potentially two locations for Borders POGs - one that has | There are potentially two locations for Borders POGs - one that has | |||
| last-mile access nodes and the other being Data Center Interconnect | last-mile access nodes and the other being Data Center Interconnect | |||
| nodes. The POGs that are in the core of the network which connect | nodes. The POGs that are in the core of the network which connect | |||
| with long haul optical networks are usually Transit POGs. | with long haul optical networks are usually Transit POGs. | |||
| +------------------------+ | +------------------------+ | |||
| | | | | | | |||
| skipping to change at page 5, line 23 ¶ | skipping to change at page 5, line 23 ¶ | |||
| +-------+ +-------+ .--( )--. +-------+ +-------+ | +-------+ +-------+ .--( )--. +-------+ +-------+ | |||
| | SR | |Packet | ( ) |Packet | | SR | | | SR | |Packet | ( ) |Packet | | SR | | |||
| | Edge | |Optical|-( Optical Transport )_ |Optical| | Edge | | | Edge | |Optical|-( Optical Transport )_ |Optical| | Edge | | |||
| |Router | ... |Gateway| ( Domain ) |Gateway| ... |Router | | |Router | ... |Gateway| ( Domain ) |Gateway| ... |Router | | |||
| +---+.--+ +-------+ ( ) +-------+ +---+.--+ | +---+.--+ +-------+ ( ) +-------+ +---+.--+ | |||
| | '--( )--' | | | '--( )--' | | |||
| ,--+. ( ) ,-+-. | ,--+. ( ) ,-+-. | |||
| ( CE ) '-----' ( CE ) | ( CE ) '-----' ( CE ) | |||
| `---' `---' | `---' `---' | |||
| Figure 3. Reference Topology for Opaque Adjacency Segment | Figure 3. Reference Topology for Transport Segment | |||
| 4. Mechanism overview | 4. Mechanism overview | |||
| The current proposal assumes that the SR domains run standard IGP | The current proposal assumes that the SR domains run standard IGP | |||
| protocols to discover the topology and distribute labels without any | protocols to discover the topology and distribute labels without any | |||
| modification. There are also no modifications to the control plane | modification. There are also no modifications to the control plane | |||
| mechanisms in the Optical transport domains. The mechanism for | mechanisms in the Optical transport domains. The mechanism for | |||
| supporting the opaque adjacency segment is as follows. | supporting the transport segment is as follows. | |||
| 1. Firstly, the Packet Optical Gateway (POG) devices announce | 1. Firstly, the Packet Optical Gateway (POG) devices announce | |||
| themselves in the SR domain. This is indicated by advertising a new | themselves in the SR domain. This is indicated by advertising a new | |||
| SR node capability flag. The exact extensions to support this | SR node capability flag. The exact extensions to support this | |||
| capability are described in the subsequent sections of this | capability are described in the subsequent sections of this | |||
| document. | document. | |||
| 2. Then, the POG devices announce paths to other POGs through the | 2. Then, the POG devices announce paths to other POGs through the | |||
| optical transport domain as an opaque adjacency segment (opaque | optical transport domain as a transport segment (transport segment | |||
| adjacency SID) in the SR domain. The paths are announced with an | binding SID) in the SR domain. The paths are announced with an | |||
| appropriate transit domain type, optical transport domain ID, and a | appropriate optical transport domain ID, and a label (Packet-Optical | |||
| label to be used to bind to the opaque adjacency segment. The | Label) to be used to bind to the transport segment. The appropriate | |||
| appropriate IGP segment routing extensions to carry this information | IGP segment routing extensions to carry this information is described | |||
| is described in the subsequent sections of this document. | in the subsequent sections of this document. | |||
| 3. The opaque adjacency segment can also optionally be announced | 3. The transport segment can also optionally be announced with a | |||
| with a set of attributes that characterizes the path in the optical | set of attributes that characterizes the path in the optical | |||
| transport domain between the two POG devices. For instance, those | transport domain between the two POG devices. For instance, those | |||
| attributes could define the OTN mapping used (e.g., ODU4, | attributes could define the OTN mapping used (e.g., ODU4, | |||
| ODU3,ODU3e1....ODU1), timeslots (1-8 or 4,6,7 or 1-2,5), or optical | ODU3,ODU3e1....ODU1), timeslots (1-8 or 4,6,7 or 1-2,5), or optical | |||
| path protection schemes. | path protection schemes. | |||
| 4. The POG device is also responsible for programming its | 4. The POG device is also responsible for programming its | |||
| forwarding table to map every opaque adjacency label entry into an | forwarding table to map every transport segment label entry into an | |||
| appropriate forwarding action relevant in the optical domain, such as | appropriate forwarding action relevant in the optical domain, such as | |||
| mapping it to a label-switched path. | mapping it to a label-switched path. | |||
| 5. The opaque adjacency segment is communicated to the PCE or | 5. The transport segment is communicated to the PCE or Controller | |||
| Controller using extensions to BGP-LS or PCEP-LS as described in | using extensions to BGP-LS or PCEP-LS as described in subsequent | |||
| subsequent sections of this document. | sections of this document. | |||
| 6. Finally, the PCE or Controller then uses the opaque adjacency | 6. Finally, the PCE or Controller then uses the transport segment | |||
| segment label to influence the path leaving the SR domain into the | label to influence the path leaving the SR domain into the optical | |||
| optical domain, thereby defining the end-to-end path for a given | domain, thereby defining the end-to-end path for a given service. | |||
| service. | ||||
| 5. IS-IS extensions for supporting the opaque adjacency segment | 5. PCEP-LS extensions for supporting the transport segment | |||
| A new IS-IS sub-TLV is defined: the Opaque Adjacency Segment | To communicate the Packet-Optical Gateway capability of the device, | |||
| Identifier sub-TLV (Opaque-Adj-SID sub-TLV). The Opaque-Adj-SID sub- | we introduce a new PCEP capabilities TLV is defined as | |||
| TLV is an optional sub-TLV carrying the opaque adjacency SID with | follows(extensions to [I-D.draft-sivabalan-pce-segment-routing]): | |||
| flags and fields that may be used, in future extensions of Segment | ||||
| Routing, for carrying other types of Opaque Adjacency SIDs. | ||||
| Multiple Opaque-Adj-SID sub-TLVs MAY be associated with a pair of | Value Meaning Reference | |||
| POG devices to represent multiple paths within the optical domain | -------- ------------------------------------ ----------------- | |||
| with perhaps different characteristics. | 27 TRANSPORT-SR-PCE-CAPABILITY This document | |||
| 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 | A new type of TLV to accommodate a transport segment is defined | |||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | by extending Binding SIDs [I-D.draft-sivabalan-pce-binding-label-sid-01] | |||
| | Type | Length | Flags | Weight | | 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 | |||
| | Domain ID |Opaque Sub Type| Reserved | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | Type | Length | | |||
| | Remote POG System ID | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |||
| + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | Binding Type (BT) | Domain ID | | |||
| | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | Binding Value | | |||
| | Packet-Optical Label | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | ~ Transport Segment Sub TLVs (variable length) ~ | |||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | ||||
| Where: | -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |||
| Type: TBD, suggested value 33 | where: | |||
| Type: TBD, suggested value 32 | ||||
| Length: variable. | ||||
| Binding Type: 0 or 1 as defined in | ||||
| [I-D.draft-sivabalan-pce-binding-label-sid-01] | ||||
| Domain ID: An identifier for the transport domain | ||||
| Binding Value: is the transport segment label | ||||
| Transport Segment Sub TLVs: TBD | ||||
| IANA will be requested to allocate a new TLV type (recommended value | ||||
| is 32) for TRANSPORT-SEGMENT-BINDING-TLV as specified in this document: | ||||
| 1 Transport Segment Label (This document) | ||||
| 6. OSPF extensions for supporting the transport segment | ||||
| To communicate the Packet-Optical Gateway capability of the | ||||
| device, we introduce an new optical informational capability bit in the | ||||
| Router Information capabilities TLV (as defined in [RFC4970]). | ||||
| Bit-24 - Optical - If set, then the router is capable of performing | ||||
| Packet Optical Gateway function. | ||||
| Further, a new OSPF sub-TLV (similar to the ERO SubTLV) of SID/Label | ||||
| Binding Sub-TLV (TRANSPORT-SEGMENT-BINDING-SUBTLV) to carry the | ||||
| transport segment label is defined 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 | ||||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | ||||
| | Type | Length | | ||||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | ||||
| | Domain ID | Flags | Reserved | | ||||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | ||||
| | Packet-Optical Label | | ||||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | ||||
| ~ Transport Segment Sub TLVs (variable length) ~ | ||||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | ||||
| where: | ||||
| Type : TBD, Suggested Value 9 | ||||
| Length: variable. | Length: variable. | |||
| Domain ID: An identifier for the transport domain | ||||
| Flags: 1 octet field of following flags: | Flags: 1 octet field of following flags: | |||
| V - Value flag. If set, then the packet-optical label carries | V - Value flag. If set, then the optical label carries a value. | |||
| a value. By default the flag is SET. | By default the flag is SET. | |||
| L - Local. Local Flag. If set, then the value/index carried by | L - Local. Local Flag. If set, then the value/index carried by | |||
| the Adj-SID has local significance. By default the flag is SET. | the Adj-SID has local significance. By default the flag is SET. | |||
| 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 | 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 | |||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |||
| |V|L| | |V|L| | |||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |||
| Other bits: Reserved. These MUST be zero when sent and are ignored | Packet-Optical Label : according to the V and L flags, it contains | |||
| when received. | either: | |||
| Weight: TBD | * A 3 octet local label where the 20 rightmost bits are | |||
| used for encoding the label value. In this case the V and | ||||
| L flags MUST be set. | ||||
| * A 4 octet index defining the offset in the label space | ||||
| advertised by this router. In this case V and L flags MUST | ||||
| be unset. | ||||
| Transport Segment Sub TLVs: TBD | ||||
| Multiple TRANSPORT-SEGMENT-BINDING-SUBTLV MAY be associated with a pair | ||||
| of POG devices to represent multiple paths within the optical domain | ||||
| 7. OSPFv3 extensions for supporting the transport segment | ||||
| To communicate the Packet-Optical Gateway capability of the | ||||
| device, we introduce an new optical informational capability bit in the | ||||
| Router Information capabilities TLV (as defined in [RFC4970]). | ||||
| Bit-24 - Optical - If set, then the router is capable of performing | ||||
| Packet Optical Gateway function. | ||||
| Further, a new OSPFv3 sub-TLV similar to the ERO SubTLV) of SID/Label | ||||
| Binding Sub-TLV (TRANSPORT-SEGMENT-BINDING-SUBTLV) to carry the | ||||
| transport segment label is defined 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 | ||||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | ||||
| | Type | Length | | ||||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | ||||
| | Domain ID | Flags | Reserved | | ||||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | ||||
| | Packet-Optical Label | | ||||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | ||||
| ~ Transport Segment Sub TLVs (variable length) ~ | ||||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | ||||
| where: | ||||
| Type : TBD,Suggested Value 12 | ||||
| Length: variable. | ||||
| Domain ID: An identifier for the transport domain | Domain ID: An identifier for the transport domain | |||
| Opaque Sub Type: TBD | Flags: 1 octet field of following flags: | |||
| V - Value flag. If set, then the optical label carries a value. | ||||
| By default the flag is SET. | ||||
| L - Local. Local Flag. If set, then the value/index carried by | ||||
| the Adj-SID has local significance. By default the flag is SET. | ||||
| Remote POG System-ID: 6 octets of IS-IS System-ID of length | 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 | |||
| "ID Length" as defined in [ISO10589]. | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |||
| |V|L| | ||||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | ||||
| Packet-Optical Label : according to the V and L flags, it contains | Packet-Optical Label : according to the V and L flags, it contains | |||
| either: | either: | |||
| * A 3 octet local label where the 20 rightmost bits are | * A 3 octet local label where the 20 rightmost bits are | |||
| used for encoding the label value. In this case the V and | used for encoding the label value. In this case the V and | |||
| L flags MUST be set. | L flags MUST be set. | |||
| * A 4 octet index defining the offset in the label space | * A 4 octet index defining the offset in the label space | |||
| advertised by this router. In this case V and L flags MUST | advertised by this router. In this case V and L flags MUST | |||
| be unset. | be unset. | |||
| Further, to communicate the Packet-Optical Gateway capability of the | Transport Segment Sub TLVs: TBD | |||
| device, we introduce a new flag O in the SR Node Capabilities sub-TLV: | ||||
| Multiple TRANSPORT-SEGMENT-BINDING-SUBTLV MAY be associated with a pair | ||||
| of POG devices to represent multiple paths within the optical domain | ||||
| 8. IS-IS extensions for supporting the transport segment | ||||
| To communicate the Packet-Optical Gateway capability of the device, we | ||||
| introduce a new flag O in the SR Node Capabilities sub-TLV: | ||||
| 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 | 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 | |||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |||
| |I|V|H|O| | | |I|V|H|O| | | |||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |||
| I, V, H flags are defined in [I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions]. | I, V, H flags are defined in [I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions] | |||
| O-Flag: If set, then the router is capable of performing Packet Optical | ||||
| Gateway function. | ||||
| 6. OSPF extensions for supporting the opaque adjacency segment | O-Flag: If set, then the router is capable of performing Packet | |||
| Optical Gateway function. | ||||
| A new OSPF sub-TLV is defined: the Opaque Adjacency Segment Identifier | Further, a new IS-IS sub-TLV (similar to the ERO SubTLV) of SID/Label | |||
| sub-TLV (Opaque-Adj-SID sub-TLV). The Opaque-Adj-SID sub-TLV is an | Binding Sub-TLV (TRANSPORT-SEGMENT-BINDING-SUBTLV) to carry the | |||
| optional sub-TLV of the Extended Link TLV carrying the opaque adjacency | transport segment label is defined as follows. | |||
| SID with flags and fields that may be used, in future extensions of | ||||
| Segment Routing, for carrying other types of Opaque Adjacency SIDs. | ||||
| Multiple Opaque-Adj-SID sub-TLVs MAY be associated with a pair of | First, we define the O flag in the SID/Label Binding TLV | |||
| POG devices to represent multiple paths within the optical domain | ||||
| with perhaps different characteristics. | ||||
| 0 1 2 3 | 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 | |||
| 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 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |F|M|S|D|A|O| | | |||
| | Type | Length | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | F, M, S, D, and A flags: are defined in [I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing | |||
| | Flags | Reserved | MT-ID | Weight | | -extensions] | |||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | O-Flag: If set, then the F flag, Range, Prefix Length FEC Prefix, must | |||
| | Domain ID |Opaque Sub Type| Reserved | | ||||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | ||||
| | Remote POG Router-ID | | ||||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | ||||
| | Packet-Optical Label | | ||||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | ||||
| where: | ||||
| Type: TBD, suggested value 3 | be ignored in the SID/Label Binding TLV | |||
| Secondly, we define the SubTLV of the SID/Label Binding Sub-TLV: | ||||
| 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 | | ||||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | ||||
| | Domain ID | Flags | Reserved | | ||||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | ||||
| | Packet-Optical Label | | ||||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | ||||
| ~ Transport Segment Sub TLVs (variable length) ~ | ||||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | ||||
| where: | ||||
| Type : TBD, Suggested Value 151 | ||||
| Length: variable. | Length: variable. | |||
| Domain ID: An identifier for the transport domain | ||||
| Flags: 1 octet field of following flags: | Flags: 1 octet field of following flags: | |||
| V - Value flag. If set, then the optical label carries a value. | V - Value flag. If set, then the optical label carries a value. | |||
| By default the flag is SET. | By default the flag is SET. | |||
| L - Local. Local Flag. If set, then the value/index carried by | L - Local. Local Flag. If set, then the value/index carried by | |||
| the Adj-SID has local significance. By default the flag is SET. | the Adj-SID has local significance. By default the flag is SET. | |||
| 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 | 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 | |||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |||
| |V|L| | |V|L| | |||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |||
| Other bits: Reserved. These MUST be zero when sent and are ignored | ||||
| when received. | ||||
| MT-ID: Multi-Topology ID (as defined in [RFC4915]). | ||||
| Weight: TBD | ||||
| Domain ID: An identifier for the transport domain | ||||
| Opaque Sub Type: TBD | ||||
| Remote POG Router-ID: 4 octets of OSPF Router-ID | ||||
| Packet-Optical Label : according to the V and L flags, it contains | Packet-Optical Label : according to the V and L flags, it contains | |||
| either: | either: | |||
| * A 3 octet local label where the 20 rightmost bits are | * A 3 octet local label where the 20 rightmost bits are | |||
| used for encoding the label value. In this case the V and | used for encoding the label value. In this case the V and | |||
| L flags MUST be set. | L flags MUST be set. | |||
| * A 4 octet index defining the offset in the label space | * A 4 octet index defining the offset in the label space | |||
| advertised by this router. In this case V and L flags MUST | advertised by this router. In this case V and L flags MUST | |||
| be unset. | be unset. | |||
| Further, to communicate the Packet-Optical Gateway capability of the | Transport Segment Sub TLVs: TBD | |||
| device, we introduce an new optical informational capability bit in the | ||||
| Router Information capabilities TLV (as defined in [RFC4970]). | ||||
| Bit-24 - Optical - If set, then the router is capable of performing | Multiple TRANSPORT-SEGMENT-BINDING-SUBTLV MAY be associated with a pair | |||
| Packet Optical Gateway function. | of POG devices to represent multiple paths within the optical domain | |||
| with perhaps different characteristics. | ||||
| 7. OSPFv3 extensions for supporting the opaque adjacency segment | 9. BGP-LS extensions for supporting the transport segment | |||
| The Opaque-Adj-SID Sub-TLV is an optional Sub-TLV of the | 9.1 Node Attribuites TLV | |||
| Router-Link TLV as defined in [I-D.ietf-ospf-ospfv3-lsa-extend]. | ||||
| It MAY appear multiple times in Router-Link TLV. | ||||
| Multiple Opaque-Adj-SID sub-TLVs MAY be associated with a pair of | To communicate the Packet-Optical Gateway capability of the | |||
| POG devices to represent multiple paths within the optical domain | device, we introduce an new optical informational capability | |||
| with perhaps different characteristics. | the following new Node Attribute TLV is defined: | |||
| The Opaque-Adj-SID Sub-TLV has the following format: | +-----------+----------------------------+----------+---------------+ | |||
| | TLV Code | Description | Length | Section | | ||||
| | Point | | | | | ||||
| +-----------+----------------------------+----------+---------------+ | ||||
| | 1172 | SR-Optical-Node-Capability | variable | | | ||||
| | | TLV | | | | ||||
| +-----------+----------------------------+----------+---------------+ | ||||
| Table 1: Node Attribute TLVs | ||||
| These TLVs can ONLY be added to the Node Attribute associated with | ||||
| the node NLRI that originates the corresponding SR TLV. | ||||
| 9.2 SR-Optical-Node-Capability TLV | ||||
| The SR Capabilities sub-TLV has 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 | Length | | | Type | Length | | |||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | ||||
| | Flags | Weight | Reserved | | ||||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | ||||
| | Domain ID |Opaque Sub Type| Reserved | | ||||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | ||||
| | Remote POG Router-ID | | ||||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | ||||
| | Packet-Optical Label | | ||||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |||
| | Flags | RESERVED | | ||||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | ||||
| where: | where: | |||
| Type: TBD, suggested value 6 | Type : TBD, Suggested Value 1157 | |||
| Length: variable. | ||||
| Flags: The Flags field currently has only one bit defined. If the bit | ||||
| is set it has the capability of an Packet Optical Gateway. | ||||
| 9.3 Prefix Attribute TLVs | ||||
| The following Prefix Attribute Binding SID Sub-TLVs have been added: | ||||
| +------------+-------------------------+----------+-----------------+ | ||||
| | TLV Code | Description | Length | Section | | ||||
| | Point | | | | | ||||
| +------------+-------------------------+----------+-----------------+ | ||||
| | 1173 | TRANSPORT-SEGMENT-SID | 12 | | | ||||
| | | | | | | ||||
| +------------+-------------------------+----------+-----------------+ | ||||
| Table 4: Prefix Attribute - Binding SID Sub-TLVs | ||||
| The Transport segment TLV allows a node to advertise an transport | ||||
| segment within a single IGP domain. The transport segment SID TLV | ||||
| TRANSPORT-SEGMENT-TLV has the following format: | ||||
| 9.3.1 Transport Segment SID Sub-TLV | ||||
| Further, a new sub-TLV (similar to the IPV4 ERO SubTLV) of | ||||
| Binding SID Sub-TLV (TRANSPORT-SEGMENT-BINDING-SUBTLV) to carry the | ||||
| transport segment label is defined as follows. | ||||
| 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 | | ||||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | ||||
| | Domain ID | Flags | Reserved | | ||||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | ||||
| | Packet-Optical Label | | ||||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | ||||
| ~ Transport Segment Sub TLVs (variable length) ~ | ||||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | ||||
| where: | ||||
| Type : TBD | ||||
| Length: variable. | Length: variable. | |||
| Domain ID: An identifier for the transport domain | ||||
| Flags: 1 octet field of following flags: | Flags: 1 octet field of following flags: | |||
| V - Value flag. If set, then the optical label carries a value. | V - Value flag. If set, then the optical label carries a value. | |||
| By default the flag is SET. | By default the flag is SET. | |||
| L - Local. Local Flag. If set, then the value/index carried by | L - Local. Local Flag. If set, then the value/index carried by | |||
| the Adj-SID has local significance. By default the flag is SET. | the Adj-SID has local significance. By default the flag is SET. | |||
| 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 | 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 | |||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |||
| |V|L| | |V|L| | |||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |||
| Other bits: Reserved. These MUST be zero when sent and are ignored | ||||
| when received. | ||||
| Weight: TBD | ||||
| Domain ID: An identifier for the transport domain | ||||
| Opaque Sub Type: TBD | ||||
| Remote POG Router-ID: 4 octets of OSPFv3 Router-ID | ||||
| Packet-Optical Label : according to the V and L flags, it contains | Packet-Optical Label : according to the V and L flags, it contains | |||
| either: | either: | |||
| * A 3 octet local label where the 20 rightmost bits are | * A 3 octet local label where the 20 rightmost bits are | |||
| used for encoding the label value. In this case the V and | used for encoding the label value. In this case the V and | |||
| L flags MUST be set. | L flags MUST be set. | |||
| * A 4 octet index defining the offset in the label space | * A 4 octet index defining the offset in the label space | |||
| advertised by this router. In this case V and L flags MUST | advertised by this router. In this case V and L flags MUST | |||
| be unset. | be unset. | |||
| Further, to communicate the Packet-Optical Gateway capability of the | Transport Segment Sub TLVs: TBD | |||
| device, we introduce an new optical informational capability bit in the | ||||
| Router Information capabilities TLV (as defined in [RFC4970]). | ||||
| Bit-24 - Optical - If set, then the router is capable of performing | Multiple TRANSPORT-SEGMENT-TLV MAY be associated with a pair | |||
| Packet Optical Gateway function. | of POG devices to represent multiple paths within the optical domain | |||
| 8. BGP-LS extensions for supporting the opaque adjacency segment | 10. Summary | |||
| 8.1 Link Attribute TLVs | The motivation for introducing a new type of segment - transport | |||
| The following new Link Attribute TLVs are defined: | segment - is to integrate transport networks with the segment routing | |||
| domain and expose characteristics of the transport domain into the | ||||
| packet domain. An end-to-end path across packet and transport domains | ||||
| can then be specified by attaching appropriate SIDs to the packet. | ||||
| An instance of transport segments has been defined here for optical | ||||
| networks, where paths between packet-optical gateway devices has been | ||||
| abstracted using binding SIDs. Extensions to various protocols to | ||||
| announce the transport segment have been proposed in this document. | ||||
| +-----------+----------------------------+----------+---------------+ | 11. Security Considerations | |||
| | TLV Code | Description | Length | Section | | ||||
| | Point | | | | | ||||
| +-----------+----------------------------+----------+---------------+ | ||||
| | 1101 | Opaque Adjacency Segment | variable | | | ||||
| | | Identifier (Opq-Adj-SID)TLV| | | | ||||
| +-----------+----------------------------+----------+---------------+ | ||||
| Table 1: BGP-LS Link Attribute TLVs | This document does not introduce any new security considerations. | |||
| These TLVs can ONLY be added to the Link Attribute associated with | 12 IANA Considerations | |||
| the link whose local node originates the corresponding SR TLV. | ||||
| The Opaque adjacency segment TLV allows a node to advertise an opaque | This documents request allocation for the following TLVs and subTLVs. | |||
| adjacency within a single IGP domain. | ||||
| 8.2 Opaque Adjacency SID TLV | 12.1 PCEP | |||
| The Opaque Adjacency SID (Opq-Adj-SID) TLV has the following format: | Packet-Optical Gateway capability of the device | |||
| 0 1 2 3 | Value Meaning Reference | |||
| 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 | -------- ------------------------------------ ----------------- | |||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | 27 TRANSPORT-SR-PCE-CAPABILITY This document | |||
| | Type | Length | | ||||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | ||||
| | Flags | Weight | Reserved | | ||||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | ||||
| | Domain ID |Opaque Sub Type| Reserved | | ||||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | ||||
| | Remote POG System ID/Router-ID | | ||||
| + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | ||||
| | | | ||||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | ||||
| | Packet-Optical Label | | ||||
| +---------------------------------------------------------------+ | ||||
| Where: | A new type of TLV to accommodate a transport segment is defined | |||
| by extending Binding SIDs [I-D.draft-sivabalan-pce-binding-label-sid-01] | ||||
| Type: TBD, suggested value 1101. | Value Description Reference | |||
| Length: Variable. | 32 TRANSPORT-SR-PCEP-TLV This document | |||
| Flags: 1 octet field of following flags as defined in the previous | This document requests that a registry is created to manage the value | |||
| sections for IS-IS and OSPF. | of the Binding Type field in the TRANSPORT-SR-PCEP TLV. | |||
| Weight: TBD. | Value Description Reference | |||
| Domain ID: An identifier for the optical transport domain | 1 Transport Segment Label This document | |||
| Opaque Sub Type : TBD | 12.2 OSPF | |||
| Transport-Segment SubTLV of OSPF Extended Prefix LSA | ||||
| Remote POG Router-ID/System-ID: 4 octets of OSPF Router-ID or 6 Octets | Value Description Reference | |||
| of IS-IS System ID. | ||||
| Packet-Optical Label: 4 octet field carrying the label as defined | 9 TRANSPORT-SR-OSPF-SUBTLV This document | |||
| in the previous sections for IS-IS and OSPF. | ||||
| 9. PCEP-LS extensions for supporting the opaque adjacency segment | 12.3 OSPFv3 | |||
| Transport-Segment SubTLV of OSPFv3 Extend-LSA Sub-TLV registry | ||||
| Changes similar to BGP-LS are needed for supporting the opaque | Value Description Reference | |||
| adjacency segment in PCEP-LS. Details TBD. | ||||
| 10. Summary | 12 TRANSPORT-SR-OSPFv3-SUBTLV This document | |||
| The motivation for introducing an opaque adjacency segment that is | 12.4 IS-IS | |||
| separate from an IGP adjacency segment is to distinguish between a | Transport-Segment SubTLV of Segment Identifier / Label Binding TLV | |||
| real IGP adjacency (which is typically a symmetric relationship | Value Description Reference | |||
| between the devices that share a route flooding domain), and a | ||||
| relationship between devices in potentially two different domains such | ||||
| as packet and optical domains with no real IGP adjacency. Further, | ||||
| the opaque adjacency segment can carry optional information that is | ||||
| of significance only in the optical domain, and hence, opaque, to | ||||
| the IGPs. This is specifically useful if the optical domain is | ||||
| bridging the same IGP domain, then, the POG can attach both the | ||||
| adjacency SID and the opaque adjacency SID to influence the | ||||
| end-to-end path in the packet and optical domains respectively. | ||||
| 11. Security Considerations | 151 TRANSPORT-SR-ISIS-SUBTLV This document | |||
| This document does not introduce any new security considerations. | 12.5 BGP-LS | |||
| Node Attributes TLV: | ||||
| 12 IANA Considerations | Value Description Reference | |||
| TBD. | 1172 TRANSPORT-SR-BGPLS-CAPABILITY This document | |||
| Prefix Attribute Binding SID SubTLV: | ||||
| Value Description Reference | ||||
| 1173 TRANSPORT-SR-BGPLS-TLV This document | ||||
| 13 References | 13 References | |||
| 13.1 Normative References | 13.1 Normative References | |||
| [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing] | [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing] | |||
| Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., | Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., | |||
| and r. rjs@rob.sh, "Segment Routing Architecture", draft- | and r. rjs@rob.sh, "Segment Routing Architecture", draft- | |||
| ietf-spring-segment-routing-04 (work in progress), July | ietf-spring-segment-routing-04 (work in progress), July | |||
| 2015. | 2015. | |||
| skipping to change at page 15, line 4 ¶ | skipping to change at page 17, line 12 ¶ | |||
| [I-D.ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions] | [I-D.ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions] | |||
| Psenak, P., Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Gredler, H., | Psenak, P., Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Gredler, H., | |||
| Shakir, R., Henderickx, W., and J. Tantsura, "OSPFv3 | Shakir, R., Henderickx, W., and J. Tantsura, "OSPFv3 | |||
| Extensions for Segment Routing", draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3- | Extensions for Segment Routing", draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3- | |||
| segment-routing-extensions-03 (work in progress), June | segment-routing-extensions-03 (work in progress), June | |||
| 2015. | 2015. | |||
| [I-D.ietf-idr-ls-distribution] | [I-D.ietf-idr-ls-distribution] | |||
| Gredler, H., Medved, J., Previdi, S., Farrel, A., and S. | Gredler, H., Medved, J., Previdi, S., Farrel, A., and S. | |||
| Ray, "North-Bound Distribution of Link-State and TE | Ray, "North-Bound Distribution of Link-State and TE | |||
| Information using BGP", draft-ietf-idr-ls-distribution-13 | Information using BGP", draft-ietf-idr-ls-distribution-13 | |||
| (work in progress), October 2015. | (work in progress), October 2015. | |||
| [RFC4970] Lindem, A., Ed., Shen, N., Vasseur, JP., Aggarwal, R., and | [RFC4970] Lindem, A., Ed., Shen, N., Vasseur, JP., Aggarwal, R., and | |||
| S. Shaffer, "Extensions to OSPF for Advertising Optional | S. Shaffer, "Extensions to OSPF for Advertising Optional | |||
| Router Capabilities", RFC 4970, DOI 10.17487/RFC4970, July | Router Capabilities", RFC 4970, DOI 10.17487/RFC4970, July | |||
| 2007, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4970>. | 2007, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4970>. | |||
| [I-D.sivabalan-pce-binding-label-sid] | ||||
| Sivabalan, S., Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Tantsura, J., | ||||
| Hardwick, J., and M. Nanduri, "Carrying Binding Label/ | ||||
| Segment-ID in PCE-based Networks.", draft-sivabalan-pce- | ||||
| binding-label-sid-01 (work in progress), March 2016. | ||||
| [I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing] | ||||
| Sivabalan, S., Medved, J., Filsfils, C., Crabbe, E., | ||||
| Lopez, V., Tantsura, J., Henderickx, W., and J. Hardwick, | ||||
| "PCEP Extensions for Segment Routing", draft-ietf-pce- | ||||
| segment-routing-07 (work in progress), March 2016. | ||||
| 13.2 Informative References | 13.2 Informative References | |||
| [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate | [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate | |||
| Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, | Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, | |||
| DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, | DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, | |||
| <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. | <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. | |||
| Authors' Addresses | Authors' Addresses | |||
| Madhukar Anand | Madhukar Anand | |||
| skipping to change at page 15, line 26 ¶ | skipping to change at page 18, line 4 ¶ | |||
| [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate | [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate | |||
| Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, | Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, | |||
| DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, | DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, | |||
| <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. | <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. | |||
| Authors' Addresses | Authors' Addresses | |||
| Madhukar Anand | Madhukar Anand | |||
| Infinera Corporation | Infinera Corporation | |||
| 169 W Java Dr, Sunnyvale, CA 94089 | 169 W Java Dr, Sunnyvale, CA 94089 | |||
| Email: manand@infinera.com | Email: manand@infinera.com | |||
| Sanjoy Bardhan | Sanjoy Bardhan | |||
| Infinera Corporation | Infinera Corporation | |||
| 169 W Java Dr, Sunnyvale, CA 94089 | 169 W Java Dr, Sunnyvale, CA 94089 | |||
| Email: sbardhan@infinera.com | Email: sbardhan@infinera.com | |||
| Ramesh Subrahmaniam | Ramesh Subrahmaniam | |||
| Infinera Corporation | Infinera Corporation | |||
| 169 W Java Dr, Sunnyvale, CA 94089 | 169 W Java Dr, Sunnyvale, CA 94089 | |||
| Email: RSubrahmaniam@@infinera.com | Email: RSubrahmaniam@@infinera.com | |||
| Jeff Tantsura | ||||
| Email: jefftant.ietf@gmail.com | ||||
| End of changes. 81 change blocks. | ||||
| 235 lines changed or deleted | 364 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/ | ||||