idnits 2.17.1 draft-hu-pce-stitching-lsp-association-01.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** There are 4 instances of too long lines in the document, the longest one being 3 characters in excess of 72. ** The abstract seems to contain references ([I-D.ietf-pce-association-group]), which it shouldn't. Please replace those with straight textual mentions of the documents in question. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year == The document doesn't use any RFC 2119 keywords, yet seems to have RFC 2119 boilerplate text. -- The document date (July 7, 2019) is 1753 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Unused Reference: 'RFC8231' is defined on line 245, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Outdated reference: A later version (-10) exists of draft-ietf-pce-association-group-09 == Outdated reference: A later version (-02) exists of draft-xiong-pce-stateful-pce-sr-inter-domain-00 Summary: 2 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 5 warnings (==), 1 comment (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 PCE Quan Xiong 3 Internet-Draft Greg Mirsky 4 Intended status: Standards Track ZTE Corporation 5 Expires: January 8, 2020 Fangwei Hu 6 Individual 7 Weiqiang Cheng 8 China Mobile 9 July 7, 2019 11 Stitching LSP Association 12 draft-hu-pce-stitching-lsp-association-01 14 Abstract 16 The Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) provides 17 mechanisms for Path Computation Elements (PCEs) to perform path 18 computations in response to Path Computation Clients (PCCs) requests. 19 [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group] proposed an association mechanism 20 for a set of LSPs. 22 This document defines the stitching LSP association type and 23 stitching LSP association TLV for the inter-domain scenairo. 25 Status of This Memo 27 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 28 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 30 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 31 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 32 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 33 Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 35 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 36 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 37 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 38 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 40 This Internet-Draft will expire on January 8, 2020. 42 Copyright Notice 44 Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 45 document authors. All rights reserved. 47 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 48 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 49 (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 50 publication of this document. Please review these documents 51 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 52 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 53 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 54 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 55 described in the Simplified BSD License. 57 Table of Contents 59 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 60 2. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 61 2.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 62 2.2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 63 3. Stitching LSPs in SR-MPLS Inter-domain Scenario . . . . . . . 3 64 4. PCEP Extension for Stitching LSP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 65 4.1. Stitching LSP Association Type and Group . . . . . . . . 4 66 4.2. Stitching LSP Association TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 67 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 68 6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 69 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 70 7.1. Association Object Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 71 8. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 72 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 74 1. Introduction 76 [RFC5440] describes the Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) 77 which is used between a Path Computation Element (PCE) and a Path 78 Computation Client (PCC) (or other PCE) to enable computation of 79 Multi-protocol Label Switching (MPLS) for Traffic Engineering Label 80 Switched Path (TE LSP). [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group] proposed an 81 association mechanism to create a grouping of LSPs in the context of 82 a PCE. 84 [I-D.xiong-pce-stateful-pce-sr-inter-domain] introduces the procedure 85 and the PCEP extension to form the inter-domain MPLS data entries and 86 the multiple LSPs from multiple contiguous domains need to be 87 stitched to an end-to-end LSP in SR inter-domain scenario. 89 This document proposes a new association object type called 90 "stitching Association LSP type" and TLV called "Stitching LSP 91 Association TLV" to associate a grouping of LSPs from multiple 92 domains for inter-domain scenario. 94 2. Conventions used in this document 96 2.1. Terminology 98 The terminology is defined as [RFC5440], 99 [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group] and 100 [I-D.xiong-pce-stateful-pce-sr-inter-domain]. 102 2.2. Requirements Language 104 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 105 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and 106 "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 107 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all 108 capitals, as shown here. 110 3. Stitching LSPs in SR-MPLS Inter-domain Scenario 112 As described in [I-D.xiong-pce-stateful-pce-sr-inter-domain], the 113 domains of the networks may be IGP Areas in stitching inter-domain 114 scenario. As Figure 1 shown, the multiple SR-MPLS domains may be 115 interconnect with a ABR within areas. The multiple LSPs in each 116 domain can be stitched to an end-to-end LSP. The LSP-1, LSP-2 and 117 LSP-3 can be associated to a group. 119 B E X 120 + + . . + + 121 + + . . + + 122 + + . . + + 123 A SR-MPLS C SR-MPLS G SR-MPLS Z 124 + IGP 1 + . IGP 2 . + IGP 3 + 125 + + . . + + 126 + + . . + + 127 D F Y 129 |-------------------->|------------------->|---------------------->| 130 LSP-1 LSP-2 LSP-3 132 Figure 1: Stitching LSP in SR-MPLS Inter-domain Scenario 134 4. PCEP Extension for Stitching LSP 135 4.1. Stitching LSP Association Type and Group 137 An association ID will be used to identify the group and a new 138 Association Type is defined in this document, based on the generic 139 Association object : 141 Association Type (TBD) = Stitching LSP Association Group (SLAG). 143 SLAG may carry optional TLVs including but not limited to : 145 STITCHING-LSP-ASSOCIATION-TLV: Used to identify the role of stitching 146 LSPs, described in Section 4.2. 148 As [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group] specified, the capability 149 advertisement of the association types supported by a PCEP speaker is 150 performed by defining a ASSOC-Type-List TLV to be carried within an 151 OPEN object. The association type which defined in this document 152 should be added in the list and be advertised between the PCEP 153 speakers before the stitching LSP association. 155 Stitching LSP Association could be created dynamically or configured 156 by the operator when operator-configured association is needed. 158 4.2. Stitching LSP Association TLV 160 The format of the Stitching LSP Association TLV is shown in Figure 1. 162 0 1 2 3 163 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 1 164 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 165 | Type | Length | 166 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 167 | Reserved |S|T|D| 168 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 170 Figure 2: Stitching LSP Association TLV 172 The fields of the Stitching LSP Association TLV are following: 174 Type:16bits, it indicates the stitching LSP Association Group 176 TLV: TBD2, the value is assigned by IANA). 178 Length: the value is 4, it indicates the length of the TLV is 4 179 bytes. 181 Reserved: it is reserved for future use. 183 Stitching LSP Association Flags-S:1bit, indicates stitching LSP of 184 the source domain when it is set. 186 Stitching LSP Association Flags-T:1bit, indicates stitching LSP of 187 the transit domain when it is set. 189 Stitching LSP Association Flags-D:1bit, indicates stitching LSP of 190 the destination layer when it is set. 192 5. Security Considerations 194 TBA 196 6. Acknowledgements 198 TBA 200 7. IANA Considerations 202 7.1. Association Object Type 204 This document defines a new association type and TLV in Association 205 object which originally defined in [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group]. 206 IANA is requested to make allocations from the registry, as follows: 208 +--------+---------------------------------+------------------+ 209 | Value | Name | Reference | 210 +--------+---------------------------------+------------------+ 211 | TBD | Stitching LSP Association Type | [this document] | 212 | TBD | Stitching LSP Association TLV | [this document] | 213 +--------+---------------------------------+------------------+ 215 Table 1 217 8. Normative References 219 [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group] 220 Minei, I., Crabbe, E., Sivabalan, S., Ananthakrishnan, H., 221 Dhody, D., and Y. Tanaka, "PCEP Extensions for 222 Establishing Relationships Between Sets of LSPs", draft- 223 ietf-pce-association-group-09 (work in progress), April 224 2019. 226 [I-D.xiong-pce-stateful-pce-sr-inter-domain] 227 Xiong, Q., hu, f., Mirsky, G., and W. Cheng, "Stateful PCE 228 for SR-MPLS-TP Inter-domain", draft-xiong-pce-stateful- 229 pce-sr-inter-domain-00 (work in progress), December 2018. 231 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 232 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 233 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 234 . 236 [RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation 237 Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440, 238 DOI 10.17487/RFC5440, March 2009, 239 . 241 [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 242 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 243 May 2017, . 245 [RFC8231] Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Medved, J., and R. Varga, "Path 246 Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) 247 Extensions for Stateful PCE", RFC 8231, 248 DOI 10.17487/RFC8231, September 2017, 249 . 251 Authors' Addresses 253 Quan Xiong 254 ZTE Corporation 255 No.6 Huashi Park Rd 256 Wuhan, Hubei 430223 257 China 259 Phone: +86 27 83531060 260 Email: xiong.quan@zte.com.cn 262 Greg Mirsky 263 ZTE Corporation 264 USA 266 Email: gregimirsky@gmail.com 267 Fangwei Hu 268 Individual 269 China 271 Email: hufwei@gmail.com 273 Weiqiang Cheng 274 China Mobile 275 Beijing 276 China 278 Email: chengweiqiang@chinamobile.com