< draft-ietf-idr-te-lsp-distribution-00.txt		draft-ietf-idr-te-lsp-distribution-01.txt >
	Network Working Group J. Dong		Network Working Group J. Dong
	Internet-Draft M. Chen		Internet-Draft M. Chen
	Intended status: Standards Track Huawei Technologies		Intended status: Standards Track Huawei Technologies
	Expires: July 28, 2014 H. Gredler		Expires: January 5, 2015 H. Gredler
	Juniper Networks, Inc.		Juniper Networks, Inc.
	S. Previdi		S. Previdi
	Cisco Systems, Inc.		Cisco Systems, Inc.
	January 24, 2014		J. Tantsura
			Ericsson
			July 4, 2014
	Distribution of MPLS Traffic Engineering (TE) LSP State using BGP		Distribution of MPLS Traffic Engineering (TE) LSP State using BGP
	draft-ietf-idr-te-lsp-distribution-00		draft-ietf-idr-te-lsp-distribution-01
	Abstract		Abstract
	This document describes a mechanism to collect the Traffic		This document describes a mechanism to collect the Traffic
	Engineering (TE) LSP information using BGP. Such information can be		Engineering (TE) LSP information using BGP. Such information can be
	used by external components for path reoptimization, service		used by external components for path reoptimization, service
	placement and network visualization.		placement and network visualization.
	Requirements Language		Requirements Language
	skipping to change at page 1, line 43 ¶		skipping to change at page 1, line 45 ¶
	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 http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.		Drafts is at http://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 July 28, 2014.		This Internet-Draft will expire on January 5, 2015.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the		Copyright (c) 2014 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
	skipping to change at page 2, line 21 ¶		skipping to change at page 2, line 26 ¶
	include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of		include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
	the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as		the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
	described in the Simplified BSD License.		described in the Simplified BSD License.
	Table of Contents		Table of Contents
	1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2		1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
	2. Carrying LSP State Information in BGP . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		2. Carrying LSP State Information in BGP . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	2.1. LSP Identifier Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		2.1. LSP Identifier Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	2.2. LSP State Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		2.2. LSP State Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		3. Operational Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	5. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	5.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	5.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8		7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
			7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
			Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
	1. Introduction		1. Introduction
	In some network environments, the states of established Multi-		In some network environments, the states of established Multi-
	Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE) Label		Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE) Label
	Switched Paths (LSPs) in the network are required by some components		Switched Paths (LSPs) in the network are required by some components
	external to the network domain. Usually this information is directly		external to the network domain. Usually this information is directly
	maintained by the ingress Label Edge Routers (LERs) of the MPLS TE		maintained by the ingress Label Edge Routers (LERs) of the MPLS TE
	LSPs.		LSPs.
	skipping to change at page 3, line 34 ¶		skipping to change at page 3, line 38 ¶
	Figure 1. Management-Based PCE Usage		Figure 1. Management-Based PCE Usage
	In networks with composite PCE nodes as specified in section 5.1 of		In networks with composite PCE nodes as specified in section 5.1 of
	[RFC4655], the PCE is implemented on several routers in the network,		[RFC4655], the PCE is implemented on several routers in the network,
	and the PCCs in the network can use the mechanism described in		and the PCCs in the network can use the mechanism described in
	[I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] to report the LSP information to the PCE		[I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] to report the LSP information to the PCE
	nodes. An external component may further need to collect the LSP		nodes. An external component may further need to collect the LSP
	information from all the PCEs in the network to get a global view of		information from all the PCEs in the network to get a global view of
	the LSP states in the network.		the LSP states in the network.
	In some networks, a centralized controller is used for service		In multi-area or multi-AS scenarios, each area or AS can have a child
	placement. Obtaining the TE LSP state information is quite important		PCE to collect the LSP states of its own domain, in addition a parent
	for making appropriate service placement decisions with the purpose		PCE needs to collect the LSP information from multiple child PCEs to
	of both meeting the application's requirements and utilizing the		obtain a global view of LSPs inside and across the domains involved.
	network resource efficiently.
			In another network scenario, a centralized controller is used for
			service placement. Obtaining the TE LSP state information is quite
			important for making appropriate service placement decisions with the
			purpose of both meeting the application's requirements and utilizing
			the network resource efficiently.
	The Network Management System (NMS) may need to provide global		The Network Management System (NMS) may need to provide global
	visibility of the TE LSPs in the network as part of the network		visibility of the TE LSPs in the network as part of the network
	visualization function.		visualization function.
	BGP has been extended to distribute link-state and traffic		BGP has been extended to distribute link-state and traffic
	engineering information and share with some external components		engineering information to some external components
	[I-D.ietf-idr-ls-distribution]. Using the same protocol to collect		[I-D.ietf-idr-ls-distribution]. Using the same protocol to collect
	other network layer information would be desired by the external		other network layer information would be desirable for the external
	components, which avoids introducing multiple protocols for network		components, which avoids introducing multiple protocols for network
	information collection. This document describes a mechanism to		information collection. This document describes a mechanism to
	distribute the TE LSP information to external components using BGP.		distribute the TE LSP information to external components using BGP.
	2. Carrying LSP State Information in BGP		2. Carrying LSP State Information in BGP
	2.1. LSP Identifier Information		2.1. LSP Identifier Information
	The TE LSP Identifier information is advertised in BGP UPDATE		The TE LSP Identifier information is advertised in BGP UPDATE
	messages using the MP_REACH_NLRI and MP_UNREACH_NLRI attributes		messages using the MP_REACH_NLRI and MP_UNREACH_NLRI attributes
	skipping to change at page 6, line 4 ¶		skipping to change at page 6, line 7 ¶
	same as specified in [RFC3209].		same as specified in [RFC3209].
	2.2. LSP State Information		2.2. LSP State Information
	The LSP State TLV is used to describe the characteristics of the TE		The LSP State TLV is used to describe the characteristics of the TE
	LSPs, which is carried in the optional non-transitive BGP Attribute		LSPs, which is carried in the optional non-transitive BGP Attribute
	"LINK_STATE Attribute" defined in [I-D.ietf-idr-ls-distribution].		"LINK_STATE Attribute" defined in [I-D.ietf-idr-ls-distribution].
	The "Value" field of the LSP State TLV corresponds to the format and		The "Value" field of the LSP State TLV corresponds to the format and
	semantics of a set of objects defined in [RFC3209], [RFC3473] and		semantics of a set of objects defined in [RFC3209], [RFC3473] and
			other extensions for TE LSPs. Rather than replicating all RSVP-TE
	[RFC5440] for TE LSPs. Rather than replicating all RSVP-TE related		related objects in this document, the semantics and encodings of
	objects in this document the semantics and encodings of existing		existing TE LSP objects are re-used. Hence all TE LSP objects are
	RSVP-TE objects are re-used. Hence all RSVP-TE LSP objects are
	regarded as sub-TLVs. The LSP State TLV SHOULD only be used with		regarded as sub-TLVs. The LSP State TLV SHOULD only be used with
	IPv4/IPv6 TE LSP NLRI.		IPv4/IPv6 TE LSP NLRI.
	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 |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| |		| |
	~ TE LSP Objects (variable) ~		~ TE LSP Objects (variable) ~
	| |		| |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	Figure 4. LSP State TLV		Figure 4. LSP State TLV
	Currently the TE LSP Objects that can be carried in the LSP State TLV		Currently the TE LSP Objects that can be carried in the LSP State TLV
	include:		include:
	o LSP Attributes (LSPA) Object [RFC5440]		o SENDER_TSPEC and FLOW_SPEC [RFC2205]
			o SESSION_ATTRIBUTE [RFC3209]
	o Explicit Route Object (ERO) [RFC3209]		o Explicit Route Object (ERO) [RFC3209]
	o Record Route Object (RRO) [RFC3209]		o Record Route Object (RRO) [RFC3209]
			o FAST_REROUTE Object [RFC4090]
			o DETOUR Object [RFC4090]
			o EXCLUDE_ROUTE Object (XRO) [RFC4874]
			o SECONDARY_EXPLICIT_ROUTE Object (SERO) [RFC4873]
			o SECONDARY_RECORD_ROUTE (SRRO) [RFC4873]
			o LSP_ATTRIBUTES Object [RFC5420]
			o LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES Object [RFC5420]
			o PROTECTION Object [RFC3473][RFC4872][RFC4873]
			o ASSOCIATION Object [RFC4872]
			o PRIMARY_PATH_ROUTE Object [RFC4872]
			o ADMIN_STATUS Object [RFC3473]
	o BANDWIDTH Object [RFC5440]		o BANDWIDTH Object [RFC5440]
	o METRIC Object [RFC5440]		o METRIC Object [RFC5440]
	o Protection Object [RFC3473]		Other TE LSP objects which reflect specific state or attribute of the
			LSP may also be carried in the LSP state TLV, which is for further
			study.
	o Admin_Status Object [RFC3473]		3. Operational Considerations
	Other TE LSP objects may also be carried in LSP state TLV, which is		The Existing BGP operational procedures apply to this document. No
	for further study.		new operation procedures are defined in this document. The
			operational considerations as specified in
			[I-D.ietf-idr-ls-distribution] apply to this document .
	3. IANA Considerations		4. IANA Considerations
	IANA needs to assign one new TLV type for "LSP State TLV" from the		IANA needs to assign two code points for "IPv4 TE LSP NLRI" and "IPv6
	TLV registry of Link_State Attribute.		TE LSP NLRI" from the BGP-LS registry of NLRI Types.
	IANA needs to assign one Protocol-ID for 'RSVP-TE' from the BGP-TE/LS		IANA needs to assign one Protocol-ID for "RSVP-TE" from the BGP-LS
	registry of Protocol-IDs.		registry of Protocol-IDs.
	4. Security Considerations		IANA needs to assign one new TLV type for "LSP State TLV" from the
			registry of BGP-LS Attribute TLVs.
			5. Security Considerations
	Procedures and protocol extensions defined in this document do not		Procedures and protocol extensions defined in this document do not
	affect the BGP security model. See [RFC6952] for details.		affect the BGP security model. See [RFC6952] for details.
	5. References		6. Acknowledgements
	5.1. Normative References		The authors would like to thank Dhruv Dhody and Mohammed Abdul Aziz
			Khalid for their review and valuable comments.
			7. References
			7.1. Normative References
	[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-04		Information using BGP", draft-ietf-idr-ls-distribution-05
	(work in progress), November 2013.		(work in progress), May 2014.
	[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, March 1997.		Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
			[RFC2205] Braden, B., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S., and S.
			Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1
			Functional Specification", RFC 2205, September 1997.
	[RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.,		[RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.,
	and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP		and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
	Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001.		Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001.
	[RFC3473] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching		[RFC3473] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
	(GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic		(GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic
	Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473, January 2003.		Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473, January 2003.
			[RFC4090] Pan, P., Swallow, G., and A. Atlas, "Fast Reroute
			Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP Tunnels", RFC 4090, May
			2005.
	[RFC4760] Bates, T., Chandra, R., Katz, D., and Y. Rekhter,		[RFC4760] Bates, T., Chandra, R., Katz, D., and Y. Rekhter,
	"Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4", RFC 4760, January		"Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4", RFC 4760, January
	2007.		2007.
			[RFC4872] Lang, J., Rekhter, Y., and D. Papadimitriou, "RSVP-TE
			Extensions in Support of End-to-End Generalized Multi-
			Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Recovery", RFC 4872, May
			2007.
			[RFC4873] Berger, L., Bryskin, I., Papadimitriou, D., and A. Farrel,
			"GMPLS Segment Recovery", RFC 4873, May 2007.
			[RFC4874] Lee, CY., Farrel, A., and S. De Cnodder, "Exclude Routes -
			Extension to Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic
			Engineering (RSVP-TE)", RFC 4874, April 2007.
			[RFC5420] Farrel, A., Papadimitriou, D., Vasseur, JP., and A.
			Ayyangarps, "Encoding of Attributes for MPLS LSP
			Establishment Using Resource Reservation Protocol Traffic
			Engineering (RSVP-TE)", RFC 5420, February 2009.
	[RFC5440] Vasseur, JP. and JL. Le Roux, "Path Computation Element		[RFC5440] Vasseur, JP. and JL. Le Roux, "Path Computation Element
	(PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440, March		(PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440, March
	2009.		2009.
	5.2. Informative References		7.2. Informative References
	[I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce]		[I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce]
	Crabbe, E., Medved, J., Minei, I., and R. Varga, "PCEP		Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Medved, J., and R. Varga, "PCEP
	Extensions for Stateful PCE", draft-ietf-pce-stateful-		Extensions for Stateful PCE", draft-ietf-pce-stateful-
	pce-07 (work in progress), October 2013.		pce-09 (work in progress), June 2014.
	[RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J., and J. Ash, "A Path Computation		[RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J., and J. Ash, "A Path Computation
	Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655, August 2006.		Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655, August 2006.
	[RFC6952] Jethanandani, M., Patel, K., and L. Zheng, "Analysis of		[RFC6952] Jethanandani, M., Patel, K., and L. Zheng, "Analysis of
	BGP, LDP, PCEP, and MSDP Issues According to the Keying		BGP, LDP, PCEP, and MSDP Issues According to the Keying
	and Authentication for Routing Protocols (KARP) Design		and Authentication for Routing Protocols (KARP) Design
	Guide", RFC 6952, May 2013.		Guide", RFC 6952, May 2013.
	Authors' Addresses		Authors' Addresses
	Jie Dong		Jie Dong
	Huawei Technologies		Huawei Technologies
	Huawei Building, No. 156 Beiqing Rd.		Huawei Campus, No. 156 Beiqing Rd.
	Beijing 100095		Beijing 100095
	China		China
	Email: jie.dong@huawei.com		Email: jie.dong@huawei.com
	Mach(Guoyi) Chen		Mach(Guoyi) Chen
	Huawei Technologies		Huawei Technologies
	Huawei Building, No. 156 Beiqing Rd.		Huawei Campus, No. 156 Beiqing Rd.
	Beijing 100095		Beijing 100095
	China		China
	Email: mach.chen@huawei.com		Email: mach.chen@huawei.com
	Hannes Gredler		Hannes Gredler
	Juniper Networks, Inc.		Juniper Networks, Inc.
	1194 N. Mathilda Ave.		1194 N. Mathilda Ave.
	Sunnyvale, CA 94089		Sunnyvale, CA 94089
	US		US
	skipping to change at page 8, line 30 ¶		skipping to change at page 10, line 4 ¶
	Email: mach.chen@huawei.com		Email: mach.chen@huawei.com
	Hannes Gredler		Hannes Gredler
	Juniper Networks, Inc.		Juniper Networks, Inc.
	1194 N. Mathilda Ave.		1194 N. Mathilda Ave.
	Sunnyvale, CA 94089		Sunnyvale, CA 94089
	US		US
	Email: hannes@juniper.net		Email: hannes@juniper.net
	Stefano Previdi		Stefano Previdi
	Cisco Systems, Inc.		Cisco Systems, Inc.
	Via Del Serafico, 200		Via Del Serafico, 200
	Rome 00142		Rome 00142
	Italy		Italy
	Email: sprevidi@cisco.com		Email: sprevidi@cisco.com
			Jeff Tantsura
			Ericsson
			300 Holger Way
			San Jose, CA 95134
			US
			Email: jeff.tantsura@ericsson.com
End of changes. 31 change blocks.
	41 lines changed or deleted		108 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/