| < draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-13.txt | draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-14.txt > | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PCE S. Sivabalan | PCE S. Sivabalan | |||
| Internet-Draft C. Filsfils | Internet-Draft C. Filsfils | |||
| Intended status: Standards Track Cisco Systems, Inc. | Intended status: Standards Track Cisco Systems, Inc. | |||
| Expires: April 15, 2019 J. Tantsura | Expires: April 16, 2019 J. Tantsura | |||
| Individual | Apstra, Inc. | |||
| W. Henderickx | W. Henderickx | |||
| Nokia | Nokia | |||
| J. Hardwick | J. Hardwick | |||
| Metaswitch Networks | Metaswitch Networks | |||
| October 12, 2018 | October 13, 2018 | |||
| PCEP Extensions for Segment Routing | PCEP Extensions for Segment Routing | |||
| draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-13 | draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-14 | |||
| Abstract | Abstract | |||
| Segment Routing (SR) enables any head-end node to select any path | Segment Routing (SR) enables any head-end node to select any path | |||
| without relying on a hop-by-hop signaling technique (e.g., LDP or | without relying on a hop-by-hop signaling technique (e.g., LDP or | |||
| RSVP-TE). It depends only on "segments" that are advertised by Link- | RSVP-TE). It depends only on "segments" that are advertised by Link- | |||
| State Interior Gateway Protocols (IGPs). A Segment Routed Path can | State Interior Gateway Protocols (IGPs). A Segment Routed Path can | |||
| be derived from a variety of mechanisms, including an IGP Shortest | be derived from a variety of mechanisms, including an IGP Shortest | |||
| Path Tree (SPT), explicit configuration, or a Path Computation | Path Tree (SPT), explicit configuration, or a Path Computation | |||
| Element (PCE). This document specifies extensions to the Path | Element (PCE). This document specifies extensions to the Path | |||
| skipping to change at page 2, line 10 ¶ | skipping to change at page 2, line 10 ¶ | |||
| 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 15, 2019. | This Internet-Draft will expire on April 16, 2019. | |||
| Copyright Notice | Copyright Notice | |||
| Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the | Copyright (c) 2018 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 | |||
| skipping to change at page 3, line 19 ¶ | skipping to change at page 3, line 19 ¶ | |||
| 10.3. New SR-ERO Flag Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 | 10.3. New SR-ERO Flag Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 | |||
| 10.4. PCEP-Error Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 | 10.4. PCEP-Error Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 | |||
| 10.5. PCEP TLV Type Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 | 10.5. PCEP TLV Type Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 | |||
| 10.6. New Path Setup Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 | 10.6. New Path Setup Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 | |||
| 10.7. New Metric Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 | 10.7. New Metric Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 | |||
| 10.8. SR PCE Capability Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 | 10.8. SR PCE Capability Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 | |||
| 11. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 | 11. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 | |||
| 12. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 | 12. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 | |||
| 13. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 | 13. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 | |||
| 13.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 | 13.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 | |||
| 13.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 | 13.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 | |||
| Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 | Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 | |||
| 1. Introduction | 1. Introduction | |||
| Segment Routing (SR) technology leverages the source routing and | Segment Routing (SR) leverages the source routing paradigm. Using | |||
| tunneling paradigms. A source node can choose a path without relying | SR, a source node steers a packet through a path without relying on | |||
| on hop-by-hop signaling protocols such as LDP or RSVP-TE. Each path | hop-by-hop signaling protocols such as LDP or RSVP-TE. Each path is | |||
| is specified as a set of "segments" advertised by link-state routing | specified as an ordered list of instructions called "segments". Each | |||
| protocols (IS-IS or OSPF). [RFC8402] provides an introduction to the | segment is an instruction to route the packet to a specific place in | |||
| SR architecture. The corresponding IS-IS and OSPF extensions are | the network, or to perform a specific service on the packet. A | |||
| specified in [I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions] and | database of segments can be distributed through the network using a | |||
| [I-D.ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions], respectively. The SR | routing protocol (such as IS-IS or OSPF) or by any other means. | |||
| architecture defines a "segment" as a piece of information advertised | Several types of segment are defined. A node segment represents an | |||
| by a link-state routing protocols, e.g., an IGP prefix or an IGP | ECMP-aware shortest-path to a specific node, and is always identified | |||
| adjacency. Several types of segments are defined. A Node segment | uniquely within the SR/IGP domain. An adjacency segment represents a | |||
| represents an ECMP-aware shortest-path computed by IGP to a specific | unidirectional adjacency. An adjacency segment is local to the node | |||
| node, and is always identified uniquely within the SR/IGP domain. An | which advertises it. Both node segments and adjacency segments can | |||
| Adjacency Segment represents a unidirectional adjacency. An | be used for SR Traffic Engineering (SR-TE). | |||
| Adjacency Segment is local to the node which advertises it. Both | ||||
| Node segments and Adjacency segments can be used for SR Traffic | [RFC8402] describes the SR architecture. The corresponding IS-IS and | |||
| Engineering (SR-TE). | OSPF extensions are specified in | |||
| [I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions] and | ||||
| [I-D.ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions], respectively. | ||||
| The SR architecture can be implemented using either an MPLS | The SR architecture can be implemented using either an MPLS | |||
| forwarding plane [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls] or an IPv6 | forwarding plane [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls] or an IPv6 | |||
| forwarding plane [I-D.ietf-6man-segment-routing-header]. The MPLS | forwarding plane [I-D.ietf-6man-segment-routing-header]. The MPLS | |||
| forwarding plane can be applied to SR without any change, in which | forwarding plane can be applied to SR without any change, in which | |||
| case an SR path corresponds to an MPLS Label Switching Path (LSP). | case an SR path corresponds to an MPLS Label Switching Path (LSP). | |||
| This document is relevant to the MPLS forwarding plane only. In this | This document is relevant to the MPLS forwarding plane only. In this | |||
| document, "Node-SID" and "Adjacency-SID" denote Node Segment | document, "Node-SID" and "Adjacency-SID" denote Node Segment | |||
| Identifier and Adjacency Segment Identifier respectively. | Identifier and Adjacency Segment Identifier respectively. | |||
| skipping to change at page 28, line 14 ¶ | skipping to change at page 28, line 14 ¶ | |||
| 12. Acknowledgements | 12. Acknowledgements | |||
| We thank Ina Minei, George Swallow, Marek Zavodsky, Dhruv Dhody, Ing- | We thank Ina Minei, George Swallow, Marek Zavodsky, Dhruv Dhody, Ing- | |||
| Wher Chen and Tomas Janciga for the valuable comments. | Wher Chen and Tomas Janciga for the valuable comments. | |||
| 13. References | 13. References | |||
| 13.1. Normative References | 13.1. Normative References | |||
| [I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd] | ||||
| Tantsura, J., Chunduri, U., Mirsky, G., and S. Sivabalan, | ||||
| "Signaling MSD (Maximum SID Depth) using Border Gateway | ||||
| Protocol Link-State", draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment- | ||||
| routing-msd-02 (work in progress), August 2018. | ||||
| [I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions] | ||||
| Previdi, S., Ginsberg, L., Filsfils, C., Bashandy, A., | ||||
| Gredler, H., Litkowski, S., Decraene, B., and J. Tantsura, | ||||
| "IS-IS Extensions for Segment Routing", draft-ietf-isis- | ||||
| segment-routing-extensions-19 (work in progress), July | ||||
| 2018. | ||||
| [I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd] | ||||
| Tantsura, J., Chunduri, U., Aldrin, S., and L. Ginsberg, | ||||
| "Signaling MSD (Maximum SID Depth) using IS-IS", draft- | ||||
| ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd-16 (work in progress), | ||||
| September 2018. | ||||
| [I-D.ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions] | ||||
| Psenak, P., Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Gredler, H., | ||||
| Shakir, R., Henderickx, W., and J. Tantsura, "OSPF | ||||
| Extensions for Segment Routing", draft-ietf-ospf-segment- | ||||
| routing-extensions-25 (work in progress), April 2018. | ||||
| [I-D.ietf-ospf-segment-routing-msd] | ||||
| Tantsura, J., Chunduri, U., Aldrin, S., and P. Psenak, | ||||
| "Signaling MSD (Maximum SID Depth) using OSPF", draft- | ||||
| ietf-ospf-segment-routing-msd-20 (work in progress), | ||||
| August 2018. | ||||
| [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang] | ||||
| Dhody, D., Hardwick, J., Beeram, V., and J. Tantsura, "A | ||||
| YANG Data Model for Path Computation Element | ||||
| Communications Protocol (PCEP)", draft-ietf-pce-pcep- | ||||
| yang-08 (work in progress), June 2018. | ||||
| [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, | |||
| <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. | <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. | |||
| [RFC3032] Rosen, E., Tappan, D., Fedorkow, G., Rekhter, Y., | [RFC3032] Rosen, E., Tappan, D., Fedorkow, G., Rekhter, Y., | |||
| Farinacci, D., Li, T., and A. Conta, "MPLS Label Stack | Farinacci, D., Li, T., and A. Conta, "MPLS Label Stack | |||
| Encoding", RFC 3032, DOI 10.17487/RFC3032, January 2001, | Encoding", RFC 3032, DOI 10.17487/RFC3032, January 2001, | |||
| <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3032>. | <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3032>. | |||
| [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>. | |||
| [RFC7420] Koushik, A., Stephan, E., Zhao, Q., King, D., and J. | ||||
| Hardwick, "Path Computation Element Communication Protocol | ||||
| (PCEP) Management Information Base (MIB) Module", | ||||
| RFC 7420, DOI 10.17487/RFC7420, December 2014, | ||||
| <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7420>. | ||||
| [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC | [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC | |||
| 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, | 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, | |||
| May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>. | May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>. | |||
| [RFC8231] Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Medved, J., and R. Varga, "Path | [RFC8231] Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Medved, J., and R. Varga, "Path | |||
| Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) | Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) | |||
| Extensions for Stateful PCE", RFC 8231, | Extensions for Stateful PCE", RFC 8231, | |||
| DOI 10.17487/RFC8231, September 2017, | DOI 10.17487/RFC8231, September 2017, | |||
| <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8231>. | <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8231>. | |||
| skipping to change at page 30, line 13 ¶ | skipping to change at page 29, line 18 ¶ | |||
| July 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8408>. | July 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8408>. | |||
| 13.2. Informative References | 13.2. Informative References | |||
| [I-D.ietf-6man-segment-routing-header] | [I-D.ietf-6man-segment-routing-header] | |||
| Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Leddy, J., Matsushima, S., and | Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Leddy, J., Matsushima, S., and | |||
| d. daniel.voyer@bell.ca, "IPv6 Segment Routing Header | d. daniel.voyer@bell.ca, "IPv6 Segment Routing Header | |||
| (SRH)", draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header-14 (work in | (SRH)", draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header-14 (work in | |||
| progress), June 2018. | progress), June 2018. | |||
| [I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd] | ||||
| Tantsura, J., Chunduri, U., Mirsky, G., and S. Sivabalan, | ||||
| "Signaling MSD (Maximum SID Depth) using Border Gateway | ||||
| Protocol Link-State", draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment- | ||||
| routing-msd-02 (work in progress), August 2018. | ||||
| [I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions] | ||||
| Previdi, S., Ginsberg, L., Filsfils, C., Bashandy, A., | ||||
| Gredler, H., Litkowski, S., Decraene, B., and J. Tantsura, | ||||
| "IS-IS Extensions for Segment Routing", draft-ietf-isis- | ||||
| segment-routing-extensions-19 (work in progress), July | ||||
| 2018. | ||||
| [I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd] | ||||
| Tantsura, J., Chunduri, U., Aldrin, S., and L. Ginsberg, | ||||
| "Signaling MSD (Maximum SID Depth) using IS-IS", draft- | ||||
| ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd-19 (work in progress), | ||||
| October 2018. | ||||
| [I-D.ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions] | ||||
| Psenak, P., Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Gredler, H., | ||||
| Shakir, R., Henderickx, W., and J. Tantsura, "OSPF | ||||
| Extensions for Segment Routing", draft-ietf-ospf-segment- | ||||
| routing-extensions-25 (work in progress), April 2018. | ||||
| [I-D.ietf-ospf-segment-routing-msd] | ||||
| Tantsura, J., Chunduri, U., Aldrin, S., and P. Psenak, | ||||
| "Signaling MSD (Maximum SID Depth) using OSPF", draft- | ||||
| ietf-ospf-segment-routing-msd-23 (work in progress), | ||||
| October 2018. | ||||
| [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang] | ||||
| Dhody, D., Hardwick, J., Beeram, V., and J. Tantsura, "A | ||||
| YANG Data Model for Path Computation Element | ||||
| Communications Protocol (PCEP)", draft-ietf-pce-pcep- | ||||
| yang-08 (work in progress), June 2018. | ||||
| [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls] | [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls] | |||
| Bashandy, A., Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Decraene, B., | Bashandy, A., Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Decraene, B., | |||
| Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment Routing with MPLS | Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment Routing with MPLS | |||
| data plane", draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls-14 | data plane", draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls-14 | |||
| (work in progress), June 2018. | (work in progress), June 2018. | |||
| [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy] | [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy] | |||
| Filsfils, C., Sivabalan, S., daniel.voyer@bell.ca, d., | Filsfils, C., Sivabalan, S., daniel.voyer@bell.ca, d., | |||
| bogdanov@google.com, b., and P. Mattes, "Segment Routing | bogdanov@google.com, b., and P. Mattes, "Segment Routing | |||
| Policy Architecture", draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing- | Policy Architecture", draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing- | |||
| skipping to change at page 30, line 35 ¶ | skipping to change at page 30, line 33 ¶ | |||
| [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, DOI 10.17487/RFC3209, December 2001, | Tunnels", RFC 3209, DOI 10.17487/RFC3209, December 2001, | |||
| <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3209>. | <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3209>. | |||
| [RFC4657] Ash, J., Ed. and J. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation | [RFC4657] Ash, J., Ed. and J. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation | |||
| Element (PCE) Communication Protocol Generic | Element (PCE) Communication Protocol Generic | |||
| Requirements", RFC 4657, DOI 10.17487/RFC4657, September | Requirements", RFC 4657, DOI 10.17487/RFC4657, September | |||
| 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4657>. | 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4657>. | |||
| [RFC7420] Koushik, A., Stephan, E., Zhao, Q., King, D., and J. | ||||
| Hardwick, "Path Computation Element Communication Protocol | ||||
| (PCEP) Management Information Base (MIB) Module", | ||||
| RFC 7420, DOI 10.17487/RFC7420, December 2014, | ||||
| <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7420>. | ||||
| [RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for | [RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for | |||
| Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, | Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, | |||
| RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017, | RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017, | |||
| <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>. | <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>. | |||
| Authors' Addresses | Authors' Addresses | |||
| Siva Sivabalan | Siva Sivabalan | |||
| Cisco Systems, Inc. | Cisco Systems, Inc. | |||
| 2000 Innovation Drive | 2000 Innovation Drive | |||
| skipping to change at page 31, line 13 ¶ | skipping to change at page 31, line 13 ¶ | |||
| Email: msiva@cisco.com | Email: msiva@cisco.com | |||
| Clarence Filsfils | Clarence Filsfils | |||
| Cisco Systems, Inc. | Cisco Systems, Inc. | |||
| Pegasus Parc | Pegasus Parc | |||
| De kleetlaan 6a, DIEGEM BRABANT 1831 | De kleetlaan 6a, DIEGEM BRABANT 1831 | |||
| BELGIUM | BELGIUM | |||
| Email: cfilsfil@cisco.com | Email: cfilsfil@cisco.com | |||
| Jeff Tantsura | Jeff Tantsura | |||
| Individual | Apstra, Inc. | |||
| 444 San Antonio Rd, 10A | 444 San Antonio Rd, 10A | |||
| Palo Alto, CA 94306 | Palo Alto, CA 94306 | |||
| USA | USA | |||
| Email: jefftant.ietf@gmail.com | Email: jefftant.ietf@gmail.com | |||
| Wim Henderickx | Wim Henderickx | |||
| Nokia | Nokia | |||
| Copernicuslaan 50 | Copernicuslaan 50 | |||
| Antwerp 2018, CA 95134 | Antwerp 2018, CA 95134 | |||
| End of changes. 11 change blocks. | ||||
| 67 lines changed or deleted | 69 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/ | ||||