| < draft-anand-spring-poi-sr-06.txt | draft-anand-spring-poi-sr-07.txt > | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SPRING Working Group Madhukar Anand | SPRING Working Group Madhukar Anand | |||
| Internet-Draft Sanjoy Bardhan | Internet-Draft Ciena Corporation | |||
| Intended Status: Standard Track Infinera Corporation | Intended Status: Standard Track | |||
| Sanjoy Bardhan | ||||
| Infinera Corporation | ||||
| Ramesh Subrahmaniam | Ramesh Subrahmaniam | |||
| Individual | Individual | |||
| Jeff Tantsura | Jeff Tantsura | |||
| Nuage Networks | Apstra | |||
| Utpal Mukhopadhyaya | Utpal Mukhopadhyaya | |||
| Equinix Inc | Equinix Inc | |||
| Clarence Filsfils | Clarence Filsfils | |||
| Cisco Systems, Inc. | Cisco Systems, Inc. | |||
| Expires: January 31, 2019 July 30, 2018 | Expires: August 1, 2019 January 28, 2019 | |||
| Packet-Optical Integration in Segment Routing | Packet-Optical Integration in Segment Routing | |||
| draft-anand-spring-poi-sr-06 | draft-anand-spring-poi-sr-07 | |||
| 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 transport networks in an opaque | links in segment routing to represent transport/optical networks in | |||
| way into the segment routing domain. An instance of this class would | an opaque way into the segment routing domain. An instance of this | |||
| be optical networks that are typically transport centric. In the IP | class would be optical networks that are typically transport centric | |||
| centric network, this will help in defining a common control protocol | by having very few devices with the capability to process packets. | |||
| for packet optical integration that will include optical paths as | In the IP centric network, this will help in defining a common | |||
| 'transport segments' or sub-paths as an augmentation to packet paths. | control protocol for packet optical integration that will include | |||
| The transport segment option also defines a general mechanism to | optical paths as 'transport segments' or sub-paths as an augmentation | |||
| allow for future extensibility of segment routing into non-packet | to packet paths. The transport segment option also defines a general | |||
| domains. | 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 | |||
| provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. | provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. | |||
| Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering | Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering | |||
| Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that | Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that | |||
| other groups may also distribute working documents as | other groups may also distribute working documents as | |||
| Internet-Drafts. | Internet-Drafts. | |||
| 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 | |||
| skipping to change at page 2, line 23 ¶ | skipping to change at page 2, line 25 ¶ | |||
| material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." | material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." | |||
| The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at | The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at | |||
| http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html | http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html | |||
| The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at | The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at | |||
| http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html | http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html | |||
| Copyright and License Notice | Copyright and License Notice | |||
| Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the | Copyright (c) 2019 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 | |||
| (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of | (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of | |||
| publication of this document. Please review these documents | publication of this document. Please review these documents | |||
| carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect | carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect | |||
| to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must | to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must | |||
| include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of | include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of | |||
| the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as | the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as | |||
| skipping to change at page 2, line 45 ¶ | skipping to change at page 2, line 47 ¶ | |||
| Table of Contents | Table of Contents | |||
| 1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 | 1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 | |||
| 2. Reference Taxonomy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 | 2. Reference Taxonomy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 | |||
| 3. Use case - Packet Optical Integration . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 | 3. Use case - Packet Optical Integration . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 | |||
| 4. Mechanism overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 | 4. Mechanism overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 | |||
| 5. Transport Segments as SR Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 | 5. Transport Segments as SR Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 | |||
| 6. PCEP extensions for supporting the transport segment . . . . . 10 | 6. PCEP extensions for supporting the transport segment . . . . . 10 | |||
| 7. BGP-LS extensions for supporting the transport segment . . . . 11 | 7. BGP-LS extensions for supporting the transport segment . . . . 11 | |||
| 7.1 Node Attribuites TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 | 7.1 Node Attributes TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 | |||
| 7.2 SR-Optical-Node-Capability TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 | 7.2 SR-Optical-Node-Capability Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 | |||
| 7.3 Prefix Attribute TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 | 7.3 Prefix Attribute TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 | |||
| 7.3.1 Transport Segment SID Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 | 7.3.1 Transport Segment SID Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 | |||
| 8. Note about Transport Segments and Scalability . . . . . . . . . 13 | 8. Note about Transport Segments and Scalability . . . . . . . . . 13 | |||
| 9. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 | 9. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 | |||
| 10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 | 10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 | |||
| 11 IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 | 11 IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 | |||
| 11.1 PCEP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 | 11.1 PCEP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 | |||
| 11.2 BGP-LS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 | 11.2 BGP-LS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 | |||
| 12 Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 | 12 Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 | |||
| 13 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 | 13 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 | |||
| 13.1 Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 | 13.1 Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 | |||
| 13.2 Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 | 13.2 Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 | |||
| skipping to change at page 4, line 21 ¶ | skipping to change at page 4, line 21 ¶ | |||
| 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) [RFC8402]. | Segment Routing (SR) [RFC8402]. | |||
| This document introduces a new type of segment, Transport segment, as | This document introduces a new type of segment, Transport segment, as | |||
| a special case of SR traffic engineering (SR-TE) policy (Type 1, Sec | a special case of SR traffic engineering (SR-TE) policy (Type 1, Sec | |||
| 5. [I-D.draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy]). Specifically, the | 5. [I-D.draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy]). Specifically, the | |||
| structure of SR-TE policy and constraints associated in the transport | structure of SR-TE policy and constraints associated in the | |||
| network are different from those outlined for the packet networks. | transport/optical network are different from those outlined for the | |||
| Transport segment can be used to model abstracted paths through the | packet networks. Transport segment can be used to model abstracted | |||
| optical transport domain and integrate it with the packet network for | paths through the transport/optical domain and integrate it with the | |||
| delivering end-to-end services. In addition, this also introduces a | packet network for delivering end-to-end services. In addition, this | |||
| notion of a Packet optical gateway (POG). These are nodes in the | also introduces a notion of a Packet optical gateway (POG). These are | |||
| network that map packet services to the optical domain that originate | nodes in the network that map packet services to the optical domain | |||
| and terminate these transport segments. Given a transport segment, a | that originate and terminate these transport segments. Given a | |||
| POG will expand it to a path in the optical transport network. A POG | transport segment, a POG will expand it to a path in the optical | |||
| can be viewed as SR traffic engineering policy headend. | transport network. A POG can be viewed as SR traffic engineering | |||
| policy headend. | ||||
| The concept of POG introduced here allows for multiple instantiations | The concept of POG introduced here allows for multiple instantiations | |||
| of the concept. In one case, the packet device is distinct from the | of the concept. In one case, the packet device is distinct from the | |||
| optical transport device, and the POG is a logical entity that spans | transport/optical device, and the POG is a logical entity that spans | |||
| these two devices. In this case, the POG functionality is achieved | these two devices. In this case, the POG functionality is achieved | |||
| with the help of external coordination between the packet and optical | with the help of external coordination between the packet and optical | |||
| devices. In another case, the packet and optical components are | devices. In another case, the packet and optical components are | |||
| integrated into one physical device, and the co-ordination required | integrated into one physical device, and the co-ordination required | |||
| for functioning of the POG is performed by this integrated device. | for functioning of the POG is performed by this integrated device. | |||
| It must be noted that in either case, it is the packet/optical data | It must be noted that in either case, it is the packet/optical data | |||
| plane that is either disaggregated or integrated. Control of the | plane that is either disaggregated or integrated. Control of the | |||
| devices can be logically centralized or distributed in either | devices can be logically centralized or distributed in either | |||
| scenario. The focus of this document is to define the logical | scenario. The focus of this document is to define the logical | |||
| functions of a POG without going into the exact instantiations of the | functions of a POG without going into the exact instantiations of the | |||
| skipping to change at page 5, line 29 ¶ | skipping to change at page 5, line 29 ¶ | |||
| used in the Packet Optical Gateways (POG). The path is usually | used in the Packet Optical Gateways (POG). The path is usually | |||
| constructed for each domain that may be manually derived or through a | constructed for each domain that may be manually derived or through a | |||
| stateful PCE which is run specifically in that domain. | stateful PCE which is run specifically in that domain. | |||
| P5 | P5 | |||
| P1 _ .-'-._ ,'P4 | P1 _ .-'-._ ,'P4 | |||
| `._ .-' `-. ,' | `._ .-' `-. ,' | |||
| `. _.-' `-._ ,' | `. _.-' `-._ ,' | |||
| `-. .-' `-. ,' | `-. .-' `-. ,' | |||
| P2`.-'--------------------------`-.- P3 | P2`.-'--------------------------`-.- P3 | |||
| |\ /| | |\ /| | |||
| | \ / | Packet | | \ / | Packet | |||
| ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, | ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, | |||
| | \ / | | | \ / | | |||
| | \ / | Transport | | \ / | Optical | |||
| | \ / | | | \ / | | |||
| | ................./ | | | ................/ | | |||
| | ,'O2 O3`. | | | ,'O2 O3`. | | |||
| | ,' `. | | | ,' `. | | |||
| |,' `.| | |,' `.| | |||
| O1\ | O4 | O1\ | O4 | |||
| \ ,' | \ ,' | |||
| \ ,' | \ ,' | |||
| .......................- | .......................- | |||
| O6 O5 | O6 O5 | |||
| Figure 1: Representation of a packet-optical path | Figure 1: Representation of a packet-optical path | |||
| In Figure 1 above, the nodes represent a packet optical network. | In Figure 1 above, the nodes represent a packet optical network. | |||
| P1,...,P5 are packet devices. Nodes P2 and P3 are connected via optical | P1,...,P5 are packet devices. Nodes P2 and P3 are connected via optical | |||
| network comprising of nodes O1,...,O6. Nodes P2 and P3 are POGs that | network (e.g., DWDM) comprising of nodes O1,...,O6. Nodes P2 and P3 are | |||
| communicate with other packet devices and also with the devices in the | POGs that communicate with other packet devices and also with the | |||
| optical transport domain. In defining a path between nodes P2 and P3, we | devices in the transport/optical domain. POGs P2 and P3 are connected to | |||
| will need to specify the nodes and the links in both the packet and | optical nodes O2/O3 and O3/O4 respectively via multiple links that are | |||
| optical transport domains. | visible to the packet network. In defining a path between nodes P2 and | |||
| P3, we will need to specify the nodes and the links in both the packet | ||||
| and transport/optical domains. | ||||
| To leverage segment routing to define a service between P1 and P4, the | To leverage segment routing to define a service between P1 and P4, the | |||
| ingress node P1 would append all outgoing packets in a SR header | ingress node P1 would append all outgoing packets in a SR header | |||
| consisting of the SIDs that constitute the path. In the packet domain | consisting of the SIDs that constitute the path. In the packet domain | |||
| this would mean P1 would send its packets towards P4 using a segment | this would mean P1 would send its packets towards P4 using a segment | |||
| list {P2, P3, P4} or {P2, P5, P3, P4} as the case may be. The operator | list {P2, P3, P4} or {P2, P5, P3, P4} as the case may be. The operator | |||
| would need to use a different mechanism in the optical domain to set up | would need to use a different mechanism in the optical domain to set up | |||
| the optical paths comprising the nodes O1, O2 and O3. Each POG would | the paths between the two POGs P2 and P3. For instance, if the packet is | |||
| announce the active optical path as a transport segment - for example, | forwarded on the link from P2 towards O1 with the expectation that it | |||
| the optical path {O1, O2, O3} could be represented as a label Om and the | would come out on the link O4-P3, it could be routed in the optical | |||
| optical path {O2, O3} could be represented as a transport label On. Both | network using either path {O1, O2, O3, O4} or {O1, O6, O5, O4}. | |||
| Om and On will be advertised by Packet node P2. These paths are not | Currently, this decision is made in the optical domain, and there are no | |||
| known to the packet SR domain and is only relevant to the optical domain | mechanisms in the packet network to influence that. The transport | |||
| D between P2 and P3. A PCE that is run in Domain D would be | segment mechanism proposed in this draft has been designed with an | |||
| responsible for calculating paths corresponding to label Om and On. The | explicit goal of providing better control of optical path selection to | |||
| expanded segment list would read as {P2, Om, P3, P4} or {P2, On, P3, | the packet network and applications running on them. | |||
| P4}. It is to be noted that there are other possible paths between P2 | ||||
| and P3 in the optical domain involving optical nodes O5, O6, and O4. | Under the proposed scheme, each POG would announce active optical paths | |||
| There may be multiple optical paths between P2 and P3 corresponding to | to the other POG as a transport segment - for example, the optical path | |||
| multiple SR policies. For example, some optical paths can be low-cost, | from P2 to P3 comprising {O1, O2, O3, O4} could be represented as a | |||
| some are low-latency, and some others can be high-bandwidth paths. | transport segment label Om and the optical path from P2 to P3 comprising | |||
| Transport segments for all these candidate viable alternative paths may | devices {O1, O5, O6, O4} could be represented as a transport segment | |||
| be generated statically or dynamically.They may be pre-computed or may | label On. Both Om and On will be advertised by POG P2 as two optical | |||
| be generated on the fly when a customer at node P1 requests a service | paths between P2 and P3 with specific properties. The specifics of the | |||
| towards node P4. A discussion on transport segments and scalability can | optical paths, including specific intermediate devices, need not be | |||
| be found in Section 8. | exposed to the packet SR domain and are only relevant to the optical | |||
| domain between P2 and P3. A PCE that is run in the optical domain | ||||
| would be responsible for calculating paths corresponding to label Om and | ||||
| On. The expanded segment list would read as {P2, Om, P3, P4} or {P2, On, | ||||
| P3, P4}. Multiple optical paths between P2 and P3 corresponding to | ||||
| different properties can be exposed as transport segments in the packet | ||||
| domain. For example, some optical paths can be low operational cost | ||||
| paths, some could be low-latency, and some others can be high-bandwidth | ||||
| paths. Transport segments for all these candidate viable alternative | ||||
| paths may be generated statically or dynamically.They may be pre- | ||||
| computed or may be generated on the fly when a customer at node P1 | ||||
| requests a service towards node P4. A discussion on transport segments | ||||
| and scalability can be found in Section 8. | ||||
| Use-case examples of transport segments. | Use-case examples of transport segments. | |||
| 1. Consider the scenario where there are multiple fibers between two | 1. Consider the scenario where there are multiple fibers between two | |||
| packet end points. The network operator may choose to route packet | packet end points. The network operator may choose to route packet | |||
| traffic on the first fiber, and reserve the second fiber only for | traffic on the first fiber, and reserve the second fiber only for | |||
| maintenance or low priority traffic. | maintenance or low priority traffic. | |||
| 2. As a second use-case, consider the case where the packet end points | 2. As a second use-case, consider the case where the packet end points | |||
| are connected by optical transport provided by two different service | are connected by transport/optical network provided by two different | |||
| providers. The packet operator wants to preferentially route traffic | service providers. The packet operator wants to preferentially route | |||
| over one of the providers and use the second provider as a backup. | traffic over one of the providers and use the second provider as a | |||
| backup. | ||||
| 3. Finally, let the packet end points be connected by optical paths that | 3. Finally, let the packet end points be connected by optical paths that | |||
| may span multiple optical domains i.e. different administrative control. | may span multiple optical domains i.e. different administrative control. | |||
| For instance, one optical transport path may lie completely in one | For instance, one transport/optical path may lie completely in one | |||
| country while the other optical transport path transits another country. | country while the other transport/optical path transits another country. | |||
| Weather, tariffs, security considerations and other factors may | Weather, tariffs, security considerations and other factors may | |||
| determine how the packet operator wants to route different types of | determine how the packet operator wants to route different types of | |||
| traffic on this network. | traffic on this network. | |||
| All of the above use-cases can be supported by first mapping distinct | All of the above use-cases can be supported by first mapping distinct | |||
| optical transport paths to different transport segments and then, | transport/optical paths to different transport segments and then, | |||
| depending on the need, affixing appropriate transport segment identifier | depending on the need, affixing appropriate transport segment identifier | |||
| to the specific packet to route it appropriately through the transport | to the specific packet to route it appropriately through the transport | |||
| domain. | domain. | |||
| +------------------------+ | +------------------------+ | |||
| | | | | | | |||
| +--------------+----' PCE or Controller |----+---------------+ | +--------------+----' PCE or Controller |----+---------------+ | |||
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |||
| | | +------------------------+ | | | | | +------------------------+ | | | |||
| | | | | | | | | | | |||
| | | .-----. | | | | | .-----. | | | |||
| | | ( ) | | | | | ( ) | | | |||
| +-------+ +-------+ .--( )--. +-------+ +-------+ | +-------+ +-------+ .--( )--. +-------+ +-------+ | |||
| | SR | |Packet | ( ) |Packet | | SR | | | SR | |Packet | ( ) |Packet | | SR | | |||
| | Edge | |Optical|-( Optical Transport )_ |Optical| | Edge | | | Edge | |Optical|-( Transport/optical )_ |Optical| | Edge | | |||
| |Router | ... |Gateway| ( Domain ) |Gateway| ... |Router | | |Router | ... |Gateway| ( Domain ) |Gateway| ... |Router | | |||
| +---+.--+ +-------+ ( ) +-------+ +---+.--+ | +---+.--+ +-------+ ( ) +-------+ +---+.--+ | |||
| | '--( )--' | | | '--( )--' | | |||
| ,--+. ( ) ,-+-. | ,--+. ( ) ,-+-. | |||
| ( CE ) '-----' ( CE ) | ( CE ) '-----' ( CE ) | |||
| `---' `---' | `---' `---' | |||
| Figure 3. Reference Topology for Transport Segment Mechanism | Figure 3. Reference Topology for Transport Segment Mechanism | |||
| 4. Mechanism overview | 4. Mechanism overview | |||
| The current proposal assumes that the SR domains run standard | The current proposal assumes that the SR domains run standard | |||
| protocols without any modification to discover the topology and | protocols without any modification to discover the topology and | |||
| distribute labels. There are also no modifications necessary in the | distribute labels. There are also no modifications necessary in the | |||
| control plane mechanisms in the optical transport domains. The only | control plane mechanisms in the transport/optical domains. The only | |||
| requirement of a transport segment is that the optical path be setup | requirement of a transport segment is that the optical path be setup | |||
| before they are announced to the packet network. For example, the | before they are announced to the packet network. For example, the | |||
| optical paths may be setup using a domain-specific controller or a | optical paths may be setup using a domain-specific controller or a | |||
| PCE based on requirements from the packet domain (such as bandwidth, | PCE based on requirements from the packet domain (such as bandwidth, | |||
| QoS, latency and cost) taking into consideration the constraints in | QoS, latency and cost) taking into consideration the constraints in | |||
| the optical network. | the optical network. | |||
| The mechanism for supporting the transport segment is as follows. | The mechanism for supporting the transport segment is as follows. | |||
| 1. Firstly, the Packet Optical Gateway (POG) devices are announced | 1. Firstly, the Packet Optical Gateway (POG) devices are announced | |||
| in the packet domain. This is indicated by advertising a new SR node | in the packet domain. This is indicated by advertising a new SR node | |||
| capability flag. The exact extensions to support this capability are | capability flag. The exact extensions to support this capability are | |||
| described in the subsequent sections of this document. | described in the subsequent sections of this document. | |||
| 2. Then, the POG devices announce candidate optical transport | 2. Then, the POG devices announce candidate transport/optical | |||
| paths between that POG (Source POG) and other POGs (Destination POG) | paths between that POG (Source POG) and other POGs (Destination POG) | |||
| via appropriate mechanisms in the packet domain. The paths are | via appropriate mechanisms in the packet domain. The paths are | |||
| announced with an appropriate optical transport domain ID and a | announced with an appropriate transport/optical domain ID and a | |||
| Binding SID representing the transport segment from a source POG to a | Binding SID representing the transport segment from a source POG to a | |||
| destination POG. The appropriate protocol-specific extensions to | destination POG. The appropriate protocol-specific extensions to | |||
| carry path characteristics and Binding SID corresponding to a optical | carry path characteristics and Binding SID corresponding to a optical | |||
| path are described in the subsequent sections of this document. | path are described in the subsequent sections of this document. | |||
| 3.The transport SR policy can also optionally be announced with a | 3.The transport SR policy can also optionally be announced with a | |||
| set of attributes that characterizes the path in the optical | set of attributes that characterizes the path in the | |||
| transport domain between the two POG devices. For instance, those | transport/optical domain between the two POG devices. For instance, | |||
| could define the path attributes such as path identifier, latency, | those could define the path attributes such as path identifier, | |||
| bandwidth, quality, directionality, or optical path protection | latency, bandwidth, quality, directionality, or optical path | |||
| schemes. These attributes can be used to determine the "color" of the | protection schemes. These attributes can be used to determine the | |||
| SR-TE policy in the tuple <Source POG, Destination POG, color> used | "color" of the SR-TE policy in the tuple <Source POG, Destination | |||
| to prioritize different candidate paths between the POGs. | POG, color> used to prioritize different candidate paths between the | |||
| POGs. | ||||
| 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 transport segment Binding SID entry | forwarding table to map every transport segment Binding SID entry | |||
| into an appropriate forwarding action relevant in the optical domain, | into an appropriate forwarding action relevant in the optical domain, | |||
| such as mapping it to a optical label-switched path. | such as mapping it to a optical label-switched path. | |||
| 5. The transport SR policy is communicated to the PCE or | 5. The transport SR policy is communicated to the PCE or | |||
| Controller using extensions to BGP-LS or PCEP as described in | Controller using extensions to BGP-LS or PCEP as described in | |||
| subsequent sections of this document. | subsequent sections of this document. | |||
| skipping to change at page 10, line 13 ¶ | skipping to change at page 10, line 21 ¶ | |||
| subsequent section. | subsequent section. | |||
| 6. PCEP extensions for supporting the transport segment | 6. PCEP extensions for supporting the transport segment | |||
| To communicate the Packet-Optical Gateway capability of the device, we | To communicate the Packet-Optical Gateway capability of the device, we | |||
| introduce a new PCEP capabilities TLV is defined as follows(extensions | introduce a new PCEP capabilities TLV is defined as follows(extensions | |||
| to [I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing]): | to [I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing]): | |||
| Value Meaning Reference | Value Meaning Reference | |||
| -------- ------------------------------------ ----------------- | -------- ------------------------------------ ----------------- | |||
| 27 TRANSPORT-SR-PCE-CAPABILITY This document | TBD1 TRANSPORT-SR-PCE-CAPABILITY This document | |||
| A new type of TLV to accommodate a transport segment is defined | A new type of TLV to accommodate a transport segment is defined | |||
| by extending Binding SIDs [I-D.sivabalan-pce-binding-label-sid] | by extending Binding SIDs [I-D.sivabalan-pce-binding-label-sid] | |||
| 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 | | |||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |||
| | Binding Type (BT) | Domain ID | | | Binding Type (BT) | Domain ID | | |||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |||
| | Binding Value | | | Binding Value | | |||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |||
| ~ Transport Segment Sub TLVs (variable length) ~ | ~ Transport Segment Sub TLVs (variable length) ~ | |||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |||
| where: | where: | |||
| Type: TBD, suggested value 32 | Type: TBD | |||
| Length: variable. | Length: variable. | |||
| Binding Type: 0 or 1 as defined in | Binding Type: 0 or 1 as defined in | |||
| [I-D.sivabalan-pce-binding-label-sid] | [I-D.sivabalan-pce-binding-label-sid] | |||
| Domain ID: An identifier for the transport domain | Domain ID: An identifier for the transport domain | |||
| Binding Value: is the transport segment label | Binding Value: is the transport segment label | |||
| Transport Segment Sub TLVs: TBD | Transport Segment Sub TLVs: TBD | |||
| IANA will be requested to allocate a new TLV type (recommended value | IANA will be requested to allocate a new TLV type for | |||
| is 32) for TRANSPORT-SEGMENT-BINDING-TLV as specified in this document: | TRANSPORT-SEGMENT-BINDING-TLV as specified in this document: | |||
| 1 Transport Segment Label (This document) | TBD Transport Segment Label (This document) | |||
| 7. BGP-LS extensions for supporting the transport segment | 7. BGP-LS extensions for supporting the transport segment | |||
| 7.1 Node Attribuites TLV | 7.1 Node Attributes TLV | |||
| To communicate the Packet-Optical Gateway capability of the | To communicate the Packet-Optical Gateway capability of the | |||
| device, we introduce an new optical informational capability | device, we introduce an new optical informational capability | |||
| the following new Node Attribute TLV is defined: | the following new Node Attribute TLV is defined: | |||
| +-----------+----------------------------+----------+---------------+ | +-----------+----------------------------+----------+---------------+ | |||
| | TLV Code | Description | Length | Section | | | TLV Code | Description | Length | Section | | |||
| | Point | | | | | | Point | | | | | |||
| +-----------+----------------------------+----------+---------------+ | +-----------+----------------------------+----------+---------------+ | |||
| | 1172 | SR-Optical-Node-Capability | variable | | | | TBD | SR-Optical-Node-Capability | variable | | | |||
| | | TLV | | | | | | TLV | | | | |||
| +-----------+----------------------------+----------+---------------+ | +-----------+----------------------------+----------+---------------+ | |||
| Table 1: Node Attribute TLVs | Table 1: Node Attribute TLVs | |||
| These TLVs can ONLY be added to the Node Attribute associated with | These TLVs can ONLY be added to the Node Attribute associated with | |||
| the node NLRI that originates the corresponding SR TLV. | the node NLRI that originates the corresponding SR TLV. | |||
| 7.2 SR-Optical-Node-Capability TLV | 7.2 SR-Optical-Node-Capability Sub-TLV | |||
| The SR Capabilities sub-TLV has following format: | 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 | RESERVED | | | Flags | RESERVED | | |||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |||
| skipping to change at page 12, line 4 ¶ | skipping to change at page 12, line 9 ¶ | |||
| 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 | RESERVED | | | Flags | RESERVED | | |||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |||
| where: | where: | |||
| Type : TBD, Suggested Value 1157 | Type : TBD, Suggested Value 1157 | |||
| Length: variable. | Length: variable. | |||
| Flags: The Flags field currently has only one bit defined. If the bit | Flags: The Flags field currently has only one bit defined. If the bit | |||
| is set it has the capability of an Packet Optical Gateway. | is set it has the capability of an Packet Optical Gateway. | |||
| 7.3 Prefix Attribute TLVs | 7.3 Prefix Attribute TLVs | |||
| The following Prefix Attribute Binding SID Sub-TLVs have been added: | The following Prefix Attribute Binding SID Sub-TLVs have been added: | |||
| +------------+-------------------------+----------+-----------------+ | +------------+-------------------------+----------+-----------------+ | |||
| | TLV Code | Description | Length | Section | | | TLV Code | Description | Length | Section | | |||
| | Point | | | | | | Point | | | | | |||
| +------------+-------------------------+----------+-----------------+ | +------------+-------------------------+----------+-----------------+ | |||
| | 1173 | TRANSPORT-SEGMENT-SID | 12 | | | | TBD | TRANSPORT-SEGMENT-SID | 12 | | | |||
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |||
| +------------+-------------------------+----------+-----------------+ | +------------+-------------------------+----------+-----------------+ | |||
| Table 4: Prefix Attribute - Binding SID Sub-TLVs | Table 4: Prefix Attribute - Binding SID Sub-TLVs | |||
| The Transport segment TLV allows a node to advertise an transport | The Transport segment TLV allows a node to advertise an transport | |||
| segment within a single IGP domain. The transport segment SID TLV | segment within a single IGP domain. The transport segment SID TLV | |||
| TRANSPORT-SEGMENT-TLV has the following format: | TRANSPORT-SEGMENT-TLV has the following format: | |||
| 7.3.1 Transport Segment SID Sub-TLV | 7.3.1 Transport Segment SID Sub-TLV | |||
| skipping to change at page 14, line 14 ¶ | skipping to change at page 14, line 20 ¶ | |||
| to handle a large number of transport segments (and identifiers). This | to handle a large number of transport segments (and identifiers). This | |||
| framework does leave open the possibility of handling a large number | framework does leave open the possibility of handling a large number | |||
| of transport segments in future. For instance, a hierarchical | of transport segments in future. For instance, a hierarchical | |||
| partitioning of the optical domain along with stacking of multiple | partitioning of the optical domain along with stacking of multiple | |||
| transport segment identifiers could be explored towards reducing | transport segment identifiers could be explored towards reducing | |||
| the overall number of transport segment identifiers. | the overall number of transport segment identifiers. | |||
| 9. Summary | 9. Summary | |||
| The motivation for introducing a new type of segment - transport | The motivation for introducing a new type of segment - transport | |||
| segment - is to integrate transport networks with the segment | segment - is to integrate transport/optical networks with the segment | |||
| routing domain and expose characteristics of the transport domain into | routing domain and expose characteristics of the transport/optical | |||
| the packet domain. An end-to-end path across packet and transport | domain into the packet domain. An end-to-end path across packet and | |||
| domains can then be specified by attaching appropriate SIDs to the | transport/optical domains can then be specified by attaching | |||
| packet. An instance of transport segments has been defined here for | appropriate SIDs to the packet. An instance of transport segments has | |||
| optical networks, where paths between packet-optical gateway devices | been defined here for optical networks, where paths between | |||
| have been abstracted using binding SIDs. Extensions to various | packet-optical gateway devices have been abstracted using | |||
| protocols to announce the transport segment have been proposed | binding SIDs. Extensions to various protocols to announce the | |||
| in this document. | transport segment have been proposed in this document. | |||
| 10. Security Considerations | 10. Security Considerations | |||
| This document does not introduce any new security considerations. | This document does not introduce any new security considerations. | |||
| 11 IANA Considerations | 11 IANA Considerations | |||
| This documents request allocation for the following TLVs and subTLVs. | This documents request allocation for the following TLVs and subTLVs. | |||
| 11.1 PCEP | 11.1 PCEP | |||
| Packet-Optical Gateway capability of the device | Packet-Optical Gateway capability of the device | |||
| Value Meaning Reference | Value Meaning Reference | |||
| -------- ------------------------------------ ----------------- | -------- ------------------------------------ ----------------- | |||
| 27 TRANSPORT-SR-PCE-CAPABILITY This document | TBD1 TRANSPORT-SR-PCE-CAPABILITY This document | |||
| A new type of TLV to accommodate a transport segment is defined | A new type of TLV to accommodate a transport segment is defined | |||
| by extending Binding SIDs [I-D.sivabalan-pce-binding-label-sid] | by extending Binding SIDs [I-D.sivabalan-pce-binding-label-sid] | |||
| Value Description Reference | Value Description Reference | |||
| TBD2 TRANSPORT-SR-PCEP-TLV This document | ||||
| 32 TRANSPORT-SR-PCEP-TLV This document | ||||
| This document requests that a registry is created to manage the value | This document requests that a registry is created to manage the value | |||
| of the Binding Type field in the TRANSPORT-SR-PCEP TLV. | of the Binding Type field in the TRANSPORT-SR-PCEP TLV. | |||
| Value Description Reference | Value Description Reference | |||
| 1 Transport Segment Label This document | TBD3 Transport Segment Label This document | |||
| 11.2 BGP-LS | 11.2 BGP-LS | |||
| Node Attributes TLV: | Node Attributes TLV: | |||
| Value Description Reference | Value Description Reference | |||
| 1172 TRANSPORT-SR-BGPLS-CAPABILITY This document | TBD4 TRANSPORT-SR-BGPLS-CAPABILITY This document | |||
| Prefix Attribute Binding SID SubTLV: | Prefix Attribute Binding SID SubTLV: | |||
| Value Description Reference | Value Description Reference | |||
| 1173 TRANSPORT-SR-BGPLS-TLV This document | TBD5 TRANSPORT-SR-BGPLS-TLV This document | |||
| 12 Acknowledgements | 12 Acknowledgements | |||
| We would like to thank Peter Psenak, and Radhakrishna | We would like to thank Peter Psenak, Bruno Decraene Ketan | |||
| Valiveti for their comments and review of this document. | Talaulikar and Radhakrishna Valiveti for their comments and | |||
| review of this document. | ||||
| 13 References | 13 References | |||
| 13.1 Normative References | 13.1 Normative References | |||
| [RFC8402] | [RFC8402] | |||
| Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Ginsberg, L., Decraene, B., | Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Ginsberg, L., Decraene, B., | |||
| Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment Routing Architecture", | Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment Routing Architecture", | |||
| RFC 8402, July 2018. | RFC 8402, July 2018. | |||
| skipping to change at page 16, line 11 ¶ | skipping to change at page 16, line 16 ¶ | |||
| June 2018. | June 2018. | |||
| [I-D.draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy] | [I-D.draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy] | |||
| Filsfils, C., Sivabalan, S., Voyer, D., Bogdanov, A., | Filsfils, C., Sivabalan, S., Voyer, D., Bogdanov, A., | |||
| and Mattes, P., "Segment Routing Policy Architecture", | and Mattes, P., "Segment Routing Policy Architecture", | |||
| draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy-01.txt | draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy-01.txt | |||
| (work in progress), June 2018. | (work in progress), June 2018. | |||
| 13.2 Informative References | 13.2 Informative References | |||
| [RFC5513] Farrel, A., "IANA Considerations for Three Letter | ||||
| Acronyms", RFC 5513, DOI 10.17487/RFC5513, April 1 2009, | ||||
| <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5513>. | ||||
| [RFC5514] Vyncke, E., "IPv6 over Social Networks", | ||||
| RFC 5514, DOI 10.17487/RFC5514, April 1 2009, | ||||
| <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5514>. | ||||
| [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 | Ciena Corporation | |||
| 169 W Java Dr, Sunnyvale, CA 94089 | 3939, N 1st Street, San Jose, CA, 95134 | |||
| Email: madanand@ciena.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 | |||
| Email: svr_fremont@yahoo.com | Email: svr_fremont@yahoo.com | |||
| Jeff Tantsura | Jeff Tantsura | |||
| Nuage Networks | Apstra | |||
| 755 Ravendale Drive | 333 Middlefield Road Suite 200 | |||
| Mountain View CA 94043 | Menlo Park, CA 94025 | |||
| Email: jefftant.ietf@gmail.com | Email: jefftant.ietf@gmail.com | |||
| Utpal Mukhopadhyaya | Utpal Mukhopadhyaya | |||
| Equinix Inc | Equinix Inc | |||
| 1188 E. Arques, Sunnyvale, CA 94085 | 1188 E. Arques, Sunnyvale, CA 94085 | |||
| Email: umukhopadhyaya@equinix.com | Email: umukhopadhyaya@equinix.com | |||
| Clarence Filsfils | Clarence Filsfils | |||
| Cisco Systems, Inc. | Cisco Systems, Inc. | |||
| Brussels | Brussels | |||
| BE | BE | |||
| Email: cfilsfil@cisco.com | Email: cfilsfil@cisco.com | |||
| End of changes. 46 change blocks. | ||||
| 117 lines changed or deleted | 143 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/ | ||||