idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip-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-teas-native-ip-scenarios], [I-D.ietf-teas-pce-native-ip]), which it shouldn't. Please replace those with straight textual mentions of the documents in question. == There are 2 instances of lines with private range IPv4 addresses in the document. If these are generic example addresses, they should be changed to use any of the ranges defined in RFC 6890 (or successor): 192.0.2.x, 198.51.100.x or 203.0.113.x. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (November 16, 2018) is 1980 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) == Missing Reference: 'RFC2119' is mentioned on line 96, but not defined == Unused Reference: 'RFC8281' is defined on line 345, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Outdated reference: A later version (-14) exists of draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller-00 == Outdated reference: A later version (-12) exists of draft-ietf-teas-native-ip-scenarios-02 ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational draft: draft-ietf-teas-native-ip-scenarios (ref. 'I-D.ietf-teas-native-ip-scenarios') == Outdated reference: A later version (-17) exists of draft-ietf-teas-pce-native-ip-02 ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational draft: draft-ietf-teas-pce-native-ip (ref. 'I-D.ietf-teas-pce-native-ip') ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 8283 Summary: 4 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 7 warnings (==), 1 comment (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 PCE Working Group A. Wang 3 Internet-Draft China Telecom 4 Intended status: Standards Track B. Khasanov 5 Expires: May 20, 2019 Huawei 6 S. Cheruathur 7 Juniper Networks 8 C. Zhu 9 ZTE Corporation 10 S. Fang 11 Huawei 12 November 16, 2018 14 PCEP Extension for Native IP Network 15 draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip-02 17 Abstract 19 This document defines the PCEP extension for CCDR application in 20 Native IP network. The scenario and architecture of CCDR in native 21 IP is described in [I-D.ietf-teas-native-ip-scenarios] and 22 [I-D.ietf-teas-pce-native-ip]. This draft describes the key 23 information that is transferred between PCE and PCC to accomplish the 24 end2end traffic assurance in Native IP network under central control 25 mode. 27 Status of This Memo 29 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 30 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 32 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 33 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 34 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 35 Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 37 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 38 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 39 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 40 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 42 This Internet-Draft will expire on May 20, 2019. 44 Copyright Notice 46 Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 47 document authors. All rights reserved. 49 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 50 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 51 (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 52 publication of this document. Please review these documents 53 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 54 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 55 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 56 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 57 described in the Simplified BSD License. 59 Table of Contents 61 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 62 2. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 63 3. CCI Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 64 4. CCI Object associated TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 65 4.1. Peer Address List TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 66 4.2. Peer Prefix Association TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 67 4.2.1. Prefix sub TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 68 4.3. Explicit Peer Route TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 69 5. Management Consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 70 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 71 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 72 8. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 73 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 75 1. Introduction 77 Traditionally, MPLS-TE traffic assurance requires the corresponding 78 network devices support MPLS or the complex RSVP/LDP/Segment Routing 79 etc. technologies to assure the end-to-end traffic performance. But 80 in native IP network, there will be no such signaling protocol to 81 synchronize the action among different network devices. It is 82 necessary to use the central control mode that described in [RFC8283] 83 to correlate the forwarding behavior among different network devices. 84 Draft [I-D.ietf-teas-pce-native-ip] describes the architecture and 85 solution philosophy for the end2end traffic assurance in Native IP 86 network via Dual/Multi BGP solution. This draft describes the 87 corresponding PCEP extension to transfer the key information about 88 peer address list, peer prefix association and the explicit peer 89 route on on-path router. 91 2. Conventions used in this document 93 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 94 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 95 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. 97 3. CCI Objects 99 Draft [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller] introduces the 100 CCI object which is included in the PCInitiate and PCRpt message to 101 transfer the centrally control instruction and status between PCE and 102 PCC. This object is extended to include the construction for native 103 IP solution. Additionally TLVs are defined and included in this 104 extend CCI object. 106 CCI Object-Class is TBD, should be same as that defined in draft 107 [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller] 109 CCI Object-Type is TBD for Native IP network 111 0 1 2 3 112 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 1 113 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 114 | CC-ID | 115 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 116 | Reserved | Flags | 117 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 118 | | 119 // Optional TLV // 120 | | 121 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 123 The fields in the CCI object are as follows: 125 CC-ID: A PCEP-specific identifier for the CCI information. A PCE 126 creates an CC-ID for each instruction, the value is unique within the 127 scope of the PCE and is constant for the lifetime of a PCEP session. 128 The values 0 and 0xFFFFFFFF are reserved and MUST NOT be used. 130 Flags: Is used to carry any additional information pertaining to the 131 CCI. 133 Optional TLV: Additional TLVs that are associated with the Native IP 134 construction. 136 4. CCI Object associated TLV 138 Three new TLVs are defined in this draft: 140 o PAL TLV: Peer Address List TLV, used to tell the network device 141 which peer it should be peered with dynamically 143 o PPA TLV: Peer Prefix Association TLV,used to tell which prefixes 144 should be advertised via the corresponding peer 146 o EPR TLV: Explicit Peer Route TLV,used to point out which route 147 should be taken to arrive to the peer. 149 4.1. Peer Address List TLV 151 The Peer Address List TLV is defined to specify the IP address of 152 peer that the received network device should establish the BGP 153 relationship with. This TLV should only be included and sent to the 154 head and end router of the end2end path in case there is no RR 155 involved. If the RR is used between the head and end routers, then 156 such information should be sent to head router, RR and end router 157 respectively. 159 0 1 2 3 160 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 1 161 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 162 | Type=TBD | Length | 163 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 164 | Peer Num | Resv. | 165 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 166 | Peer ID | AT | Resv. | 167 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 168 | Local AS Number | 169 | Peer AS Number | 170 | Local IP Address(4/16 Bytes) | 171 | Peer IP Address(4/16 Bytes) | 172 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 173 | Peer ID | AT | Resv. | 174 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 175 | Local AS Number | 176 | Peer AS Number | 177 | Local IP Address(4/16 Bytes) | 178 // Peer IP Address(4/16 Bytes) // 179 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 181 Type: TBD 183 Length: The length of the following fields. 185 Peer Num : Peer Address Number on the advertised router. 187 Peer-ID: To distinguish the different peer pair, will be referenced 188 in Peer Prefix Association, if the PCE use multi-BGP solution for 189 different QoS assurance requirement. 191 AT: Address Type. To indicate the address type of Peer. Equal to 4, 192 if the following IP address of peer is belong to IPv4; Equal to 6 if 193 the following IP address of peer is belong to IPv6. 195 Resv: Reserved for future use. 197 Local AS Number: To indicate the AS number of the Local Peer. 199 Peer AS Number: To indicate the AS number of Remote Peer. 201 Local IP Address(4/16 Bytes): IPv4 address of the local router, used 202 to peer with other end router. When AT equal to 4, length is 32bit; 203 when AT equal to 16, length is 128bit. 205 Peer IP Address(4/16 Bytes): IPv4 address of the peer router, used to 206 peer with the local router. When AT equal to 4, length is 32bit; 207 IPv6 address of the peer when AT equal to 16, length is 128bit; 209 4.2. Peer Prefix Association TLV 211 The Peer Prefix Association TLV is defined to specify the IP prefixes 212 that should be advertised by the corresponding Peer. This TLV should 213 only be included and sent to the head/end router of the end2end path 214 in case there is no RR involved. If the RR is used between the head 215 and end routers, then such information should be sent to head 216 router,RR and end router respectively. 218 0 1 2 3 219 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 1 220 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 221 | Type=TBD | Length | 222 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 223 | Peer ID | AT | Prefixes Num | 224 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 225 | Peer Associated IP Prefix sub TLV | 226 // Peer Associated IP Prefix sub TLV // 227 | Peer Associated IP Prefix sub TLV | 228 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 230 Type: TBD 232 Length: The length of the following fields. 234 Peer-ID: To indicate which peer should be used to advertise the 235 following IP Prefix TLV. This value is assigned in the Peer Address 236 List object and is referred in this object. 238 AT: Address Type. To indicate the address type of Peer. Equal to 4, 239 if the following IP address of peer is belong to IPv4; Equal to 6 if 240 the following IP address of peer is belong to IPv6. 242 Prefixes Num: Number of prefixes that advertised by the corresponding 243 Peer. It should be equal to number of the following IP prefix sub 244 TLV. 246 Peer Associated IP Prefix sub TLV: Variable Length, indicate the 247 advertised IP Prefix. 249 4.2.1. Prefix sub TLV 251 Prefix sub TLV is used to carry the prefix information, which has the 252 following format: 254 0 1 2 3 255 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 1 256 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 257 | Type=TBD | Length | 258 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 259 | AT | Prefix Length | Resv. | 260 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 261 | Prefix Value | 262 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 264 Type: TBD 266 Length: The length of the following fields. 268 AT: Address Type. To indicate the address type of Peer. Equal to 4, 269 if the following IP address of peer is belong to IPv4; Equal to 6 if 270 the following IP address of peer is belong to IPv6. 272 Prefix Length: The length of the following prefix. For example, for 273 10.0.0.0/8, this field will be equal to 8. 275 Prefix Value: The value of the prefix. For example, for 10.0.0./8, 276 this field will be 10.0.0.0 278 4.3. Explicit Peer Route TLV 280 The Explicit Peer Route TLV is defined to specify the explicit peer 281 route to the corresponding peer address on each device that is on the 282 end2end assurance path. This TLV should be sent to all the devices 283 that locates on the end2end assurance path that calculated by PCE. 285 0 1 2 3 286 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 1 287 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 288 | Type=TBD | Length | 289 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 290 | Peer ID | AT | Resv. | 291 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 292 | Next Hop Address to the Peer(IPv4/IPv6) | 293 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 295 Type: TBD 297 Length: The length of following fields. 299 Peer-ID: To indicate the peer that the following next hop address 300 point to. This value is assigned in the Peer Address List object and 301 is referred in this object. 303 AT: Address Type. To indicate the address type of explicit peer 304 route. Equal to 4, if the following next hop address to the peer is 305 belong to IPv4; Equal to 6 if the following next hop address to the 306 peer is belong to IPv6. Resv(16 bits): Reserved for future use. 308 Next Hop Address to the Peer: Variable Length, to indicate the next 309 hop address to the corresponding peer that indicated by the Peer-ID. 310 If AT=4, the length will be 4 bytes, if AT=6, the length will be 16 311 bytes. 313 5. Management Consideration 315 TBD 317 6. Security Considerations 319 TBD 321 7. IANA Considerations 323 TBD 325 8. Normative References 327 [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller] 328 Zhao, Q., Li, Z., Dhody, D., Karunanithi, S., Farrel, A., 329 and C. Zhou, "PCEP Procedures and Protocol Extensions for 330 Using PCE as a Central Controller (PCECC) of LSPs", draft- 331 ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller-00 (work in 332 progress), November 2018. 334 [I-D.ietf-teas-native-ip-scenarios] 335 Wang, A., Huang, X., Qou, C., Li, Z., and P. Mi, 336 "Scenario, Simulation and Suggestion of PCE in Native IP 337 Network", draft-ietf-teas-native-ip-scenarios-02 (work in 338 progress), October 2018. 340 [I-D.ietf-teas-pce-native-ip] 341 Wang, A., Zhao, Q., Khasanov, B., Chen, H., and R. Mallya, 342 "PCE in Native IP Network", draft-ietf-teas-pce-native- 343 ip-02 (work in progress), October 2018. 345 [RFC8281] Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Sivabalan, S., and R. Varga, "Path 346 Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) 347 Extensions for PCE-Initiated LSP Setup in a Stateful PCE 348 Model", RFC 8281, DOI 10.17487/RFC8281, December 2017, 349 . 351 [RFC8283] Farrel, A., Ed., Zhao, Q., Ed., Li, Z., and C. Zhou, "An 352 Architecture for Use of PCE and the PCE Communication 353 Protocol (PCEP) in a Network with Central Control", 354 RFC 8283, DOI 10.17487/RFC8283, December 2017, 355 . 357 Authors' Addresses 359 Aijun Wang 360 China Telecom 361 Beiqijia Town, Changping District 362 Beijing, Beijing 102209 363 China 365 Email: wangaj.bri@chinatelecom.cn 367 Boris Khasanov 368 Huawei Technologies,Co.,Ltd 369 Moskovskiy Prospekt 97A 370 St.Petersburg 196084 371 Russia 373 Email: khasanov.boris@huawei.com 374 Sudhir Cheruathur 375 Juniper Networks 376 1133 Innovation Way 377 Sunnyvale, California 94089 378 USA 380 Email: scheruathur@juniper.net 382 Chun Zhu 383 ZTE Corporation 384 50 Software Avenue, Yuhua District 385 Nanjing, Jiangsu 210012 386 China 388 Email: zhu.chun1@zte.com.cn 390 Sheng Fang 391 Huawei Technologies, Co., Ltd 392 Huawei Bld., No.156 Beiqing Rd. 393 Beijing 394 China 396 Email: fsheng@huawei.com