< draft-chunduri-rtgwg-preferred-path-routing-01.txt   draft-chunduri-rtgwg-preferred-path-routing-02.txt >
RTGWG S. Bryant, Ed. RTGWG S. Bryant, Ed.
Internet-Draft University of Surrey 5GIC Internet-Draft University of Surrey 5GIC
Intended status: Standards Track U. Chunduri, Ed. Intended status: Standards Track U. Chunduri, Ed.
Expires: April 28, 2022 Intel Corporation Expires: November 10, 2022 Intel Corporation
A. Clemm A. Clemm
Futurewei Futurewei
October 25, 2021 May 09, 2022
Preferred Path Routing Framework Preferred Path Routing Framework
draft-chunduri-rtgwg-preferred-path-routing-01 draft-chunduri-rtgwg-preferred-path-routing-02
Abstract Abstract
Capacity demands, Traffic Engineering (TE) and determinism are some Capacity demands, Traffic Engineering (TE) and determinism are some
of key requirements for various cellular, edge and industrial of key requirements for various cellular, edge and industrial
deployments. These deployments span from many underlying data pane deployments. These deployments span from many underlying data pane
technologies including native IPv4, native IPv6 along with MPLS and technologies including native IPv4, native IPv6 along with MPLS and
Segment Routing (SR). Segment Routing (SR).
This document provides a framework for Preferred Path Routing (PPR). This document provides a framework for Preferred Path Routing (PPR).
skipping to change at page 2, line 7 skipping to change at page 2, line 7
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on April 28, 2022. This Internet-Draft will expire on November 10, 2022.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2022 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
skipping to change at page 22, line 4 skipping to change at page 22, line 4
Key aspect of the solution concerns with specifying the resources to Key aspect of the solution concerns with specifying the resources to
be reserved along the preferred path, through path attributes TLVs. be reserved along the preferred path, through path attributes TLVs.
Reservations are expressed in terms of required resources Reservations are expressed in terms of required resources
(bandwidth), traffic characteristics (burst size), and service level (bandwidth), traffic characteristics (burst size), and service level
parameters (expected maximum latency at each hop) based on the parameters (expected maximum latency at each hop) based on the
capabilities of each node and link along the path. The second part capabilities of each node and link along the path. The second part
of the solution is providing mechanism to indicate the status of the of the solution is providing mechanism to indicate the status of the
reservations requested i.e. if these have been honored by individual reservations requested i.e. if these have been honored by individual
node/links in the path. This can be done by defining a new TLV/Sub- node/links in the path. This can be done by defining a new TLV/Sub-
TLV in respective IGPs. Another aspect is additional node level TLVs TLV in respective IGPs. Another aspect is additional node level TLVs
and extensions to IS-IS-TE [RFC7810] and OSPF-TE [RFC7471] to provide and extensions to IS-IS-TE [RFC8570] and OSPF-TE [RFC7471] to provide
accounting/usage statistics that have to be maintained at each node accounting/usage statistics that have to be maintained at each node
per preferred path. per preferred path.
6. IANA Considerations 6. IANA Considerations
This document does not request any allocations from IANA. This document does not request any allocations from IANA.
7. Security Considerations 7. Security Considerations
Advertisement of the additional information defined in this document Advertisement of the additional information defined in this document
skipping to change at page 22, line 43 skipping to change at page 22, line 43
[I-D.ietf-isis-encapsulation-cap] [I-D.ietf-isis-encapsulation-cap]
Xu, X., Decraene, B., Raszuk, R., Chunduri, U., Contreras, Xu, X., Decraene, B., Raszuk, R., Chunduri, U., Contreras,
L. M., and L. Jalil, "Advertising Tunnelling Capability in L. M., and L. Jalil, "Advertising Tunnelling Capability in
IS-IS", draft-ietf-isis-encapsulation-cap-01 (work in IS-IS", draft-ietf-isis-encapsulation-cap-01 (work in
progress), April 2017. progress), April 2017.
[I-D.ietf-lsr-flex-algo] [I-D.ietf-lsr-flex-algo]
Psenak, P., Hegde, S., Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., and Psenak, P., Hegde, S., Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., and
A. Gulko, "IGP Flexible Algorithm", draft-ietf-lsr-flex- A. Gulko, "IGP Flexible Algorithm", draft-ietf-lsr-flex-
algo-18 (work in progress), October 2021. algo-19 (work in progress), April 2022.
[I-D.ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa] [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa]
Litkowski, S., Bashandy, A., Filsfils, C., Francois, P., Litkowski, S., Bashandy, A., Filsfils, C., Francois, P.,
Decraene, B., and D. Voyer, "Topology Independent Fast Decraene, B., and D. Voyer, "Topology Independent Fast
Reroute using Segment Routing", draft-ietf-rtgwg-segment- Reroute using Segment Routing", draft-ietf-rtgwg-segment-
routing-ti-lfa-07 (work in progress), June 2021. routing-ti-lfa-08 (work in progress), January 2022.
[I-D.ietf-teas-enhanced-vpn] [I-D.ietf-teas-enhanced-vpn]
Dong, J., Bryant, S., Li, Z., Miyasaka, T., and Y. Lee, "A Dong, J., Bryant, S., Li, Z., Miyasaka, T., and Y. Lee, "A
Framework for Enhanced Virtual Private Network (VPN+) Framework for Enhanced Virtual Private Network (VPN+)
Services", draft-ietf-teas-enhanced-vpn-09 (work in Services", draft-ietf-teas-enhanced-vpn-10 (work in
progress), October 2021. progress), March 2022.
[RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation [RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation
Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440, Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5440, March 2009, DOI 10.17487/RFC5440, March 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5440>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5440>.
[RFC5659] Bocci, M. and S. Bryant, "An Architecture for Multi- [RFC5659] Bocci, M. and S. Bryant, "An Architecture for Multi-
Segment Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge", RFC 5659, Segment Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge", RFC 5659,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5659, October 2009, DOI 10.17487/RFC5659, October 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5659>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5659>.
skipping to change at page 23, line 39 skipping to change at page 23, line 39
[RFC6241] Enns, R., Ed., Bjorklund, M., Ed., Schoenwaelder, J., Ed., [RFC6241] Enns, R., Ed., Bjorklund, M., Ed., Schoenwaelder, J., Ed.,
and A. Bierman, Ed., "Network Configuration Protocol and A. Bierman, Ed., "Network Configuration Protocol
(NETCONF)", RFC 6241, DOI 10.17487/RFC6241, June 2011, (NETCONF)", RFC 6241, DOI 10.17487/RFC6241, June 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6241>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6241>.
[RFC7471] Giacalone, S., Ward, D., Drake, J., Atlas, A., and S. [RFC7471] Giacalone, S., Ward, D., Drake, J., Atlas, A., and S.
Previdi, "OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Previdi, "OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric
Extensions", RFC 7471, DOI 10.17487/RFC7471, March 2015, Extensions", RFC 7471, DOI 10.17487/RFC7471, March 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7471>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7471>.
[RFC7810] Previdi, S., Ed., Giacalone, S., Ward, D., Drake, J., and
Q. Wu, "IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions",
RFC 7810, DOI 10.17487/RFC7810, May 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7810>.
[RFC8300] Quinn, P., Ed., Elzur, U., Ed., and C. Pignataro, Ed., [RFC8300] Quinn, P., Ed., Elzur, U., Ed., and C. Pignataro, Ed.,
"Network Service Header (NSH)", RFC 8300, "Network Service Header (NSH)", RFC 8300,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8300, January 2018, DOI 10.17487/RFC8300, January 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8300>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8300>.
[RFC8402] Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Ginsberg, L., [RFC8402] Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Ginsberg, L.,
Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment
Routing Architecture", RFC 8402, DOI 10.17487/RFC8402, Routing Architecture", RFC 8402, DOI 10.17487/RFC8402,
July 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8402>. July 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8402>.
[RFC8570] Ginsberg, L., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Giacalone, S., Ward,
D., Drake, J., and Q. Wu, "IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE)
Metric Extensions", RFC 8570, DOI 10.17487/RFC8570, March
2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8570>.
[RFC8660] Bashandy, A., Ed., Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S., [RFC8660] Bashandy, A., Ed., Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S.,
Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment
Routing with the MPLS Data Plane", RFC 8660, Routing with the MPLS Data Plane", RFC 8660,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8660, December 2019, DOI 10.17487/RFC8660, December 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8660>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8660>.
[RFC8754] Filsfils, C., Ed., Dukes, D., Ed., Previdi, S., Leddy, J., [RFC8754] Filsfils, C., Ed., Dukes, D., Ed., Previdi, S., Leddy, J.,
Matsushima, S., and D. Voyer, "IPv6 Segment Routing Header Matsushima, S., and D. Voyer, "IPv6 Segment Routing Header
(SRH)", RFC 8754, DOI 10.17487/RFC8754, March 2020, (SRH)", RFC 8754, DOI 10.17487/RFC8754, March 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8754>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8754>.
 End of changes. 11 change blocks. 
15 lines changed or deleted 15 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/