idnits 2.17.1 draft-hu-pce-stitching-lsp-association-02.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 : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** 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 (October 22, 2019) is 1648 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(See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Outdated reference: A later version (-02) exists of draft-xiong-pce-stateful-pce-sr-inter-domain-01 Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 3 warnings (==), 1 comment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: April 24, 2020 Fangwei Hu 6 Individual 7 Weiqiang Cheng 8 China Mobile 9 October 22, 2019 11 Stitching LSP Association 12 draft-hu-pce-stitching-lsp-association-02 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 April 24, 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. I-flag in LSP Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 66 4.2. Stitching LSP Association Type and Group . . . . . . . . 4 67 4.3. Stitching LSP Association TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 68 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 69 6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 70 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 71 7.1. New LSP Flag Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 72 7.2. Association Object Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 73 8. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 74 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 76 1. Introduction 78 [RFC5440] describes the Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) 79 which is used between a Path Computation Element (PCE) and a Path 80 Computation Client (PCC) (or other PCE) to enable computation of 81 Multi-protocol Label Switching (MPLS) for Traffic Engineering Label 82 Switched Path (TE LSP). [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group] proposed an 83 association mechanism to create a grouping of LSPs in the context of 84 a PCE. 86 [I-D.xiong-pce-stateful-pce-sr-inter-domain] introduces the procedure 87 and the PCEP extension to form the inter-domain MPLS data entries and 88 the multiple LSPs from multiple contiguous domains need to be 89 stitched to an end-to-end LSP in SR inter-domain scenario. 91 This document proposes a new association object type called 92 "stitching Association LSP type" and TLV called "Stitching LSP 93 Association TLV" to associate a grouping of LSPs from multiple 94 domains for inter-domain scenario. 96 2. Conventions used in this document 98 2.1. Terminology 100 The terminology is defined as [RFC5440], 101 [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group] and 102 [I-D.xiong-pce-stateful-pce-sr-inter-domain]. 104 2.2. Requirements Language 106 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 107 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and 108 "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 109 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all 110 capitals, as shown here. 112 3. Stitching LSPs in SR-MPLS Inter-domain Scenario 114 As described in [I-D.xiong-pce-stateful-pce-sr-inter-domain], the 115 domains of the networks may be IGP Areas in stitching inter-domain 116 scenario. As Figure 1 shown, the multiple SR-MPLS domains may be 117 interconnect with a ABR within areas. The multiple LSPs in each 118 domain can be stitched to an inter-domain end-to-end LSP. The LSP-1, 119 LSP-2 and LSP-3 can be associated to a group. 121 .................. ................. .................... 122 . . . . . . 123 +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ 124 | A | | X | | Y | | Z | 125 +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ 126 . IGP-1 . . IGP-2 . . IGP-3 . 127 .................. ................. ................... 129 |--------LSP-1------>|-------LSP-2------->|-------LSP-3------->| 130 |--------------Stitching LSP Association Group---------------->| 132 Figure 1: Stitching LSPs in SR-MPLS Inter-domain Scenario 134 4. PCEP Extension for Stitching LSP 136 4.1. I-flag in LSP Object 138 The LSP Object is defined in Section 7.3 of [RFC8231]. This document 139 defiend a new flag (I-flag) for the LSP Object as Figure 2 shown: 141 0 1 2 3 142 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 1 143 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 144 | PLSP-ID | Flag|I|C| O |A|R|S|D| 145 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 146 // TLVs // 147 | | 148 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 150 Figure 2: I-flag in LSP Object 152 I (Request for Inter-domain Path) : If the bit is set to 1, it 153 indicates that the PCC requests PCE to compute the end-to-end path 154 for inter-domain scenario carried in PCReq message. A parent PCE 155 would set this bit to 1 to indicate that it is an end-to-end inter- 156 domain path and a chid PCE would set it to 1 to indicate that the 157 path is part of an end-to-end inter-domain path. That may be encoded 158 in the PCRep, PCUpd or PCInitiate message. 160 4.2. Stitching LSP Association Type and Group 162 An association ID will be used to identify the group and a new 163 Association Type is defined in this document, based on the generic 164 Association object : 166 Association Type (TBD) = Stitching LSP Association Group (SLAG). 168 SLAG may carry optional TLVs including but not limited to : 170 STITCHING-LSP-ASSOCIATION-TLV: Used to identify the role of stitching 171 LSPs, described in Section 4.3. 173 As [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group] specified, the capability 174 advertisement of the association types supported by a PCEP speaker is 175 performed by defining a ASSOC-Type-List TLV to be carried within an 176 OPEN object. The association type which defined in this document 177 should be added in the list and be advertised between the PCEP 178 speakers before the stitching LSP association. 180 Stitching LSP Association could be created dynamically or configured 181 by the operator when operator-configured association is needed. 183 4.3. Stitching LSP Association TLV 185 The format of the Stitching LSP Association TLV is shown in Figure 3. 187 0 1 2 3 188 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 1 189 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 190 | Type | Length | 191 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 192 | Reserved |S|T|D| 193 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 195 Figure 3: Stitching LSP Association TLV 197 The fields of the Stitching LSP Association TLV are following: 199 Type:16 bits, it indicates the stitching LSP Association Group 201 TLV: TBD2, the value is assigned by IANA). 203 Length: the value is 4, it indicates the length of the TLV is 4 204 bytes. 206 Reserved: it is reserved for future use. 208 Stitching LSP Association Flags-S:1bit, indicates stitching LSP of 209 the source domain when it is set. 211 Stitching LSP Association Flags-T:1bit, indicates stitching LSP of 212 the transit domain when it is set. 214 Stitching LSP Association Flags-D:1bit, indicates stitching LSP of 215 the destination layer when it is set. 217 5. Security Considerations 219 TBA 221 6. Acknowledgements 223 TBA 225 7. IANA Considerations 227 7.1. New LSP Flag Registry 229 [RFC8231] defines the LSP object; per that RFC, IANA created a 230 registry to manage the value of the LSP object's Flag field. IANA is 231 requested to make allocations from the registry, as follows: 233 +--------+------------------------------------+------------------+ 234 | Value | Name | Reference | 235 +--------+------------------------------------+------------------+ 236 | TBD | Request for Inter-domain Path (I) | [this document] | 237 +--------+------------------------------------+------------------+ 239 Table 1 241 7.2. Association Object Type 243 This document defines a new association type and TLV in Association 244 object which originally defined in [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group]. 245 IANA is requested to make allocations from the registry, as follows: 247 +--------+---------------------------------+------------------+ 248 | Value | Name | Reference | 249 +--------+---------------------------------+------------------+ 250 | TBD | Stitching LSP Association Type | [this document] | 251 | TBD | Stitching LSP Association TLV | [this document] | 252 +--------+---------------------------------+------------------+ 254 Table 2 256 8. Normative References 258 [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group] 259 Minei, I., Crabbe, E., Sivabalan, S., Ananthakrishnan, H., 260 Dhody, D., and Y. Tanaka, "Path Computation Element 261 Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for Establishing 262 Relationships Between Sets of Label Switched Paths 263 (LSPs)", draft-ietf-pce-association-group-10 (work in 264 progress), August 2019. 266 [I-D.xiong-pce-stateful-pce-sr-inter-domain] 267 Xiong, Q., hu, f., Mirsky, G., and W. Cheng, "Stateful PCE 268 for SR-MPLS Inter-domain", draft-xiong-pce-stateful-pce- 269 sr-inter-domain-01 (work in progress), July 2019. 271 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 272 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 273 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 274 . 276 [RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation 277 Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440, 278 DOI 10.17487/RFC5440, March 2009, 279 . 281 [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 282 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 283 May 2017, . 285 [RFC8231] Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Medved, J., and R. Varga, "Path 286 Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) 287 Extensions for Stateful PCE", RFC 8231, 288 DOI 10.17487/RFC8231, September 2017, 289 . 291 Authors' Addresses 293 Quan Xiong 294 ZTE Corporation 295 No.6 Huashi Park Rd 296 Wuhan, Hubei 430223 297 China 299 Phone: +86 27 83531060 300 Email: xiong.quan@zte.com.cn 302 Greg Mirsky 303 ZTE Corporation 304 USA 306 Email: gregimirsky@gmail.com 308 Fangwei Hu 309 Individual 310 China 312 Email: hufwei@gmail.com 314 Weiqiang Cheng 315 China Mobile 316 Beijing 317 China 319 Email: chengweiqiang@chinamobile.com