| < draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid-13.txt | draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid-14.txt > | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PCE Working Group S. Sivabalan | PCE Working Group S. Sivabalan | |||
| Internet-Draft Ciena Corporation | Internet-Draft Ciena Corporation | |||
| Intended status: Standards Track C. Filsfils | Intended status: Standards Track C. Filsfils | |||
| Expires: 14 August 2022 Cisco Systems, Inc. | Expires: 3 September 2022 Cisco Systems, Inc. | |||
| J. Tantsura | J. Tantsura | |||
| Microsoft Corporation | Microsoft Corporation | |||
| S. Previdi | S. Previdi | |||
| C. Li, Ed. | C. Li, Ed. | |||
| Huawei Technologies | Huawei Technologies | |||
| 10 February 2022 | 2 March 2022 | |||
| Carrying Binding Label/Segment Identifier (SID) in PCE-based Networks. | Carrying Binding Label/Segment Identifier (SID) in PCE-based Networks. | |||
| draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid-13 | draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid-14 | |||
| Abstract | Abstract | |||
| In order to provide greater scalability, network confidentiality, and | In order to provide greater scalability, network confidentiality, and | |||
| service independence, Segment Routing (SR) utilizes a Binding Segment | service independence, Segment Routing (SR) utilizes a Binding Segment | |||
| Identifier (SID) (called BSID) as described in RFC 8402. It is | Identifier (SID) (called BSID) as described in RFC 8402. It is | |||
| possible to associate a BSID to an RSVP-TE-signaled Traffic | possible to associate a BSID to an RSVP-TE-signaled Traffic | |||
| Engineering Label Switched Path or an SR Traffic Engineering path. | Engineering Label Switched Path or an SR Traffic Engineering path. | |||
| The BSID can be used by an upstream node for steering traffic into | The BSID can be used by an upstream node for steering traffic into | |||
| the appropriate TE path to enforce SR policies. This document | the appropriate TE path to enforce SR policies. This document | |||
| skipping to change at page 1, line 47 ¶ | skipping to change at page 1, line 47 ¶ | |||
| 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 14 August 2022. | This Internet-Draft will expire on 3 September 2022. | |||
| Copyright Notice | Copyright Notice | |||
| Copyright (c) 2022 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 (https://trustee.ietf.org/ | Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/ | |||
| license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. | license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. | |||
| Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights | Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights | |||
| skipping to change at page 10, line 29 ¶ | skipping to change at page 10, line 29 ¶ | |||
| and the resulting PCErr message MAY include the offending TE-PATH- | and the resulting PCErr message MAY include the offending TE-PATH- | |||
| BINDING TLV in the PCEP-ERROR object. | BINDING TLV in the PCEP-ERROR object. | |||
| If a PCE recognizes an invalid binding value (e.g., label value from | If a PCE recognizes an invalid binding value (e.g., label value from | |||
| the reserved MPLS label space), it MUST send a PCErr message with | the reserved MPLS label space), it MUST send a PCErr message with | |||
| Error-Type = 10 ("Reception of an invalid object") and Error Value = | Error-Type = 10 ("Reception of an invalid object") and Error Value = | |||
| 2 ("Bad label value") as specified in [RFC8664]. | 2 ("Bad label value") as specified in [RFC8664]. | |||
| For SRv6 BSIDs, it is RECOMMENDED to always explicitly specify the | For SRv6 BSIDs, it is RECOMMENDED to always explicitly specify the | |||
| SRv6 Endpoint Behavior and SID Structure in the TE-PATH-BINDING TLV | SRv6 Endpoint Behavior and SID Structure in the TE-PATH-BINDING TLV | |||
| by setting the BT (Binding Type) to 3. This enables the sender to | by setting the BT (Binding Type) to 3. This can enable the sender to | |||
| have control of the SRv6 Endpoint Behavior and SID Structure. A | have control of the SRv6 Endpoint Behavior and SID Structure. A | |||
| sender MAY choose to set the BT to 2, in which case the receiving | sender MAY choose to set the BT to 2, in which case the receiving | |||
| implementation chooses how to interpret the SRv6 Endpoint Behavior | implementation chooses how to interpret the SRv6 Endpoint Behavior | |||
| and SID Structure according to local policy. | and SID Structure according to local policy. | |||
| If a PCC wishes to withdraw a previously reported binding value, it | If a PCC wishes to withdraw a previously reported binding value, it | |||
| MUST send a PCRpt message with the specific TE-PATH-BINDING TLV with | MUST send a PCRpt message with the specific TE-PATH-BINDING TLV with | |||
| R flag set to 1. If a PCC wishes to modify a previously reported | R flag set to 1. If a PCC wishes to modify a previously reported | |||
| binding, it MUST withdraw the former binding value (with R flag set | binding, it MUST withdraw the former binding value (with R flag set | |||
| in the former TE-PATH-BINDING TLV) and include a new TE-PATH-BINDING | in the former TE-PATH-BINDING TLV) and include a new TE-PATH-BINDING | |||
| skipping to change at page 23, line 25 ¶ | skipping to change at page 23, line 25 ¶ | |||
| [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>. | |||
| [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy] | [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy] | |||
| Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Voyer, D., Bogdanov, A., and | Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Voyer, D., Bogdanov, A., and | |||
| P. Mattes, "Segment Routing Policy Architecture", Work in | P. Mattes, "Segment Routing Policy Architecture", Work in | |||
| Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-spring-segment- | Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-spring-segment- | |||
| routing-policy-16, 28 January 2022, | routing-policy-18, 17 February 2022, | |||
| <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-spring- | <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-spring- | |||
| segment-routing-policy-16.txt>. | segment-routing-policy-18.txt>. | |||
| [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang] | [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang] | |||
| Dhody, D., Hardwick, J., Beeram, V. P., and J. Tantsura, | Dhody, D., Hardwick, J., Beeram, V. P., and J. Tantsura, | |||
| "A YANG Data Model for Path Computation Element | "A YANG Data Model for Path Computation Element | |||
| Communications Protocol (PCEP)", Work in Progress, | Communications Protocol (PCEP)", Work in Progress, | |||
| Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-pce-pcep-yang-18, 25 January | Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-pce-pcep-yang-18, 25 January | |||
| 2022, <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-pce- | 2022, <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-pce- | |||
| pcep-yang-18.txt>. | pcep-yang-18.txt>. | |||
| [I-D.li-pce-controlled-id-space] | [I-D.li-pce-controlled-id-space] | |||
| Li, C., Chen, M., Wang, A., Cheng, W., and C. Zhou, "PCE | Li, C., Chen, M., Wang, A., Cheng, W., and C. Zhou, "PCE | |||
| Controlled ID Space", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, | Controlled ID Space", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, | |||
| draft-li-pce-controlled-id-space-09, 22 August 2021, | draft-li-pce-controlled-id-space-10, 24 February 2022, | |||
| <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-li-pce-controlled- | <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-li-pce-controlled- | |||
| id-space-09.txt>. | id-space-10.txt>. | |||
| [I-D.ietf-pce-sr-path-segment] | [I-D.ietf-pce-sr-path-segment] | |||
| Li, C., Chen, M., Cheng, W., Gandhi, R., and Q. Xiong, | Li, C., Chen, M., Cheng, W., Gandhi, R., and Q. Xiong, | |||
| "Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) | "Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) | |||
| Extension for Path Segment in Segment Routing (SR)", Work | Extension for Path Segment in Segment Routing (SR)", Work | |||
| in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-pce-sr-path- | in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-pce-sr-path- | |||
| segment-04, 12 August 2021, | segment-05, 13 February 2022, | |||
| <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-pce-sr-path- | <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-pce-sr-path- | |||
| segment-04.txt>. | segment-05.txt>. | |||
| Appendix A. Contributor Addresses | Appendix A. Contributor Addresses | |||
| Jonathan Hardwick | Jonathan Hardwick | |||
| Metaswitch Networks | Metaswitch Networks | |||
| 33 Genotin Road | 33 Genotin Road | |||
| Enfield | Enfield | |||
| United Kingdom | United Kingdom | |||
| EMail: Jonathan.Hardwick@metaswitch.com | EMail: Jonathan.Hardwick@metaswitch.com | |||
| End of changes. 11 change blocks. | ||||
| 11 lines changed or deleted | 11 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/ | ||||