draft-ietf-idr-te-lsp-distribution-00.txt   draft-ietf-idr-te-lsp-distribution-01.txt 
Network Working Group J. Dong Network Working Group J. Dong
Internet-Draft M. Chen Internet-Draft M. Chen
Intended status: Standards Track Huawei Technologies Intended status: Standards Track Huawei Technologies
Expires: July 28, 2014 H. Gredler Expires: January 5, 2015 H. Gredler
Juniper Networks, Inc. Juniper Networks, Inc.
S. Previdi S. Previdi
Cisco Systems, Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc.
January 24, 2014 J. Tantsura
Ericsson
July 4, 2014
Distribution of MPLS Traffic Engineering (TE) LSP State using BGP Distribution of MPLS Traffic Engineering (TE) LSP State using BGP
draft-ietf-idr-te-lsp-distribution-00 draft-ietf-idr-te-lsp-distribution-01
Abstract Abstract
This document describes a mechanism to collect the Traffic This document describes a mechanism to collect the Traffic
Engineering (TE) LSP information using BGP. Such information can be Engineering (TE) LSP information using BGP. Such information can be
used by external components for path reoptimization, service used by external components for path reoptimization, service
placement and network visualization. placement and network visualization.
Requirements Language Requirements Language
skipping to change at page 1, line 43 skipping to change at page 1, line 45
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 http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://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 July 28, 2014. This Internet-Draft will expire on January 5, 2015.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2014 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
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://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 2, line 21 skipping to change at page 2, line 26
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Carrying LSP State Information in BGP . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. Carrying LSP State Information in BGP . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. LSP Identifier Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.1. LSP Identifier Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2. LSP State Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.2. LSP State Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3. Operational Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
In some network environments, the states of established Multi- In some network environments, the states of established Multi-
Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE) Label Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE) Label
Switched Paths (LSPs) in the network are required by some components Switched Paths (LSPs) in the network are required by some components
external to the network domain. Usually this information is directly external to the network domain. Usually this information is directly
maintained by the ingress Label Edge Routers (LERs) of the MPLS TE maintained by the ingress Label Edge Routers (LERs) of the MPLS TE
LSPs. LSPs.
skipping to change at page 3, line 34 skipping to change at page 3, line 38
Figure 1. Management-Based PCE Usage Figure 1. Management-Based PCE Usage
In networks with composite PCE nodes as specified in section 5.1 of In networks with composite PCE nodes as specified in section 5.1 of
[RFC4655], the PCE is implemented on several routers in the network, [RFC4655], the PCE is implemented on several routers in the network,
and the PCCs in the network can use the mechanism described in and the PCCs in the network can use the mechanism described in
[I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] to report the LSP information to the PCE [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] to report the LSP information to the PCE
nodes. An external component may further need to collect the LSP nodes. An external component may further need to collect the LSP
information from all the PCEs in the network to get a global view of information from all the PCEs in the network to get a global view of
the LSP states in the network. the LSP states in the network.
In some networks, a centralized controller is used for service In multi-area or multi-AS scenarios, each area or AS can have a child
placement. Obtaining the TE LSP state information is quite important PCE to collect the LSP states of its own domain, in addition a parent
for making appropriate service placement decisions with the purpose PCE needs to collect the LSP information from multiple child PCEs to
of both meeting the application's requirements and utilizing the obtain a global view of LSPs inside and across the domains involved.
network resource efficiently.
In another network scenario, a centralized controller is used for
service placement. Obtaining the TE LSP state information is quite
important for making appropriate service placement decisions with the
purpose of both meeting the application's requirements and utilizing
the network resource efficiently.
The Network Management System (NMS) may need to provide global The Network Management System (NMS) may need to provide global
visibility of the TE LSPs in the network as part of the network visibility of the TE LSPs in the network as part of the network
visualization function. visualization function.
BGP has been extended to distribute link-state and traffic BGP has been extended to distribute link-state and traffic
engineering information and share with some external components engineering information to some external components
[I-D.ietf-idr-ls-distribution]. Using the same protocol to collect [I-D.ietf-idr-ls-distribution]. Using the same protocol to collect
other network layer information would be desired by the external other network layer information would be desirable for the external
components, which avoids introducing multiple protocols for network components, which avoids introducing multiple protocols for network
information collection. This document describes a mechanism to information collection. This document describes a mechanism to
distribute the TE LSP information to external components using BGP. distribute the TE LSP information to external components using BGP.
2. Carrying LSP State Information in BGP 2. Carrying LSP State Information in BGP
2.1. LSP Identifier Information 2.1. LSP Identifier Information
The TE LSP Identifier information is advertised in BGP UPDATE The TE LSP Identifier information is advertised in BGP UPDATE
messages using the MP_REACH_NLRI and MP_UNREACH_NLRI attributes messages using the MP_REACH_NLRI and MP_UNREACH_NLRI attributes
skipping to change at page 6, line 4 skipping to change at page 6, line 7
same as specified in [RFC3209]. same as specified in [RFC3209].
2.2. LSP State Information 2.2. LSP State Information
The LSP State TLV is used to describe the characteristics of the TE The LSP State TLV is used to describe the characteristics of the TE
LSPs, which is carried in the optional non-transitive BGP Attribute LSPs, which is carried in the optional non-transitive BGP Attribute
"LINK_STATE Attribute" defined in [I-D.ietf-idr-ls-distribution]. "LINK_STATE Attribute" defined in [I-D.ietf-idr-ls-distribution].
The "Value" field of the LSP State TLV corresponds to the format and The "Value" field of the LSP State TLV corresponds to the format and
semantics of a set of objects defined in [RFC3209], [RFC3473] and semantics of a set of objects defined in [RFC3209], [RFC3473] and
other extensions for TE LSPs. Rather than replicating all RSVP-TE
[RFC5440] for TE LSPs. Rather than replicating all RSVP-TE related related objects in this document, the semantics and encodings of
objects in this document the semantics and encodings of existing existing TE LSP objects are re-used. Hence all TE LSP objects are
RSVP-TE objects are re-used. Hence all RSVP-TE LSP objects are
regarded as sub-TLVs. The LSP State TLV SHOULD only be used with regarded as sub-TLVs. The LSP State TLV SHOULD only be used with
IPv4/IPv6 TE LSP NLRI. IPv4/IPv6 TE LSP NLRI.
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
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 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length | | Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | | |
~ TE LSP Objects (variable) ~ ~ TE LSP Objects (variable) ~
| | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 4. LSP State TLV Figure 4. LSP State TLV
Currently the TE LSP Objects that can be carried in the LSP State TLV Currently the TE LSP Objects that can be carried in the LSP State TLV
include: include:
o LSP Attributes (LSPA) Object [RFC5440] o SENDER_TSPEC and FLOW_SPEC [RFC2205]
o SESSION_ATTRIBUTE [RFC3209]
o Explicit Route Object (ERO) [RFC3209] o Explicit Route Object (ERO) [RFC3209]
o Record Route Object (RRO) [RFC3209] o Record Route Object (RRO) [RFC3209]
o FAST_REROUTE Object [RFC4090]
o DETOUR Object [RFC4090]
o EXCLUDE_ROUTE Object (XRO) [RFC4874]
o SECONDARY_EXPLICIT_ROUTE Object (SERO) [RFC4873]
o SECONDARY_RECORD_ROUTE (SRRO) [RFC4873]
o LSP_ATTRIBUTES Object [RFC5420]
o LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES Object [RFC5420]
o PROTECTION Object [RFC3473][RFC4872][RFC4873]
o ASSOCIATION Object [RFC4872]
o PRIMARY_PATH_ROUTE Object [RFC4872]
o ADMIN_STATUS Object [RFC3473]
o BANDWIDTH Object [RFC5440] o BANDWIDTH Object [RFC5440]
o METRIC Object [RFC5440] o METRIC Object [RFC5440]
o Protection Object [RFC3473] Other TE LSP objects which reflect specific state or attribute of the
LSP may also be carried in the LSP state TLV, which is for further
study.
o Admin_Status Object [RFC3473] 3. Operational Considerations
Other TE LSP objects may also be carried in LSP state TLV, which is The Existing BGP operational procedures apply to this document. No
for further study. new operation procedures are defined in this document. The
operational considerations as specified in
[I-D.ietf-idr-ls-distribution] apply to this document .
3. IANA Considerations 4. IANA Considerations
IANA needs to assign one new TLV type for "LSP State TLV" from the IANA needs to assign two code points for "IPv4 TE LSP NLRI" and "IPv6
TLV registry of Link_State Attribute. TE LSP NLRI" from the BGP-LS registry of NLRI Types.
IANA needs to assign one Protocol-ID for 'RSVP-TE' from the BGP-TE/LS IANA needs to assign one Protocol-ID for "RSVP-TE" from the BGP-LS
registry of Protocol-IDs. registry of Protocol-IDs.
4. Security Considerations IANA needs to assign one new TLV type for "LSP State TLV" from the
registry of BGP-LS Attribute TLVs.
5. Security Considerations
Procedures and protocol extensions defined in this document do not Procedures and protocol extensions defined in this document do not
affect the BGP security model. See [RFC6952] for details. affect the BGP security model. See [RFC6952] for details.
5. References 6. Acknowledgements
5.1. Normative References The authors would like to thank Dhruv Dhody and Mohammed Abdul Aziz
Khalid for their review and valuable comments.
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-idr-ls-distribution] [I-D.ietf-idr-ls-distribution]
Gredler, H., Medved, J., Previdi, S., Farrel, A., and S. Gredler, H., Medved, J., Previdi, S., Farrel, A., and S.
Ray, "North-Bound Distribution of Link-State and TE Ray, "North-Bound Distribution of Link-State and TE
Information using BGP", draft-ietf-idr-ls-distribution-04 Information using BGP", draft-ietf-idr-ls-distribution-05
(work in progress), November 2013. (work in progress), May 2014.
[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, March 1997. Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2205] Braden, B., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S., and S.
Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1
Functional Specification", RFC 2205, September 1997.
[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, December 2001. Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001.
[RFC3473] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching [RFC3473] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic
Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473, January 2003. Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473, January 2003.
[RFC4090] Pan, P., Swallow, G., and A. Atlas, "Fast Reroute
Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP Tunnels", RFC 4090, May
2005.
[RFC4760] Bates, T., Chandra, R., Katz, D., and Y. Rekhter, [RFC4760] Bates, T., Chandra, R., Katz, D., and Y. Rekhter,
"Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4", RFC 4760, January "Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4", RFC 4760, January
2007. 2007.
[RFC4872] Lang, J., Rekhter, Y., and D. Papadimitriou, "RSVP-TE
Extensions in Support of End-to-End Generalized Multi-
Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Recovery", RFC 4872, May
2007.
[RFC4873] Berger, L., Bryskin, I., Papadimitriou, D., and A. Farrel,
"GMPLS Segment Recovery", RFC 4873, May 2007.
[RFC4874] Lee, CY., Farrel, A., and S. De Cnodder, "Exclude Routes -
Extension to Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic
Engineering (RSVP-TE)", RFC 4874, April 2007.
[RFC5420] Farrel, A., Papadimitriou, D., Vasseur, JP., and A.
Ayyangarps, "Encoding of Attributes for MPLS LSP
Establishment Using Resource Reservation Protocol Traffic
Engineering (RSVP-TE)", RFC 5420, February 2009.
[RFC5440] Vasseur, JP. and JL. Le Roux, "Path Computation Element [RFC5440] Vasseur, JP. and JL. Le Roux, "Path Computation Element
(PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440, March (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440, March
2009. 2009.
5.2. Informative References 7.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce]
Crabbe, E., Medved, J., Minei, I., and R. Varga, "PCEP Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Medved, J., and R. Varga, "PCEP
Extensions for Stateful PCE", draft-ietf-pce-stateful- Extensions for Stateful PCE", draft-ietf-pce-stateful-
pce-07 (work in progress), October 2013. pce-09 (work in progress), June 2014.
[RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J., and J. Ash, "A Path Computation [RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J., and J. Ash, "A Path Computation
Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655, August 2006. Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655, August 2006.
[RFC6952] Jethanandani, M., Patel, K., and L. Zheng, "Analysis of [RFC6952] Jethanandani, M., Patel, K., and L. Zheng, "Analysis of
BGP, LDP, PCEP, and MSDP Issues According to the Keying BGP, LDP, PCEP, and MSDP Issues According to the Keying
and Authentication for Routing Protocols (KARP) Design and Authentication for Routing Protocols (KARP) Design
Guide", RFC 6952, May 2013. Guide", RFC 6952, May 2013.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Jie Dong Jie Dong
Huawei Technologies Huawei Technologies
Huawei Building, No. 156 Beiqing Rd. Huawei Campus, No. 156 Beiqing Rd.
Beijing 100095 Beijing 100095
China China
Email: jie.dong@huawei.com Email: jie.dong@huawei.com
Mach(Guoyi) Chen Mach(Guoyi) Chen
Huawei Technologies Huawei Technologies
Huawei Building, No. 156 Beiqing Rd. Huawei Campus, No. 156 Beiqing Rd.
Beijing 100095 Beijing 100095
China China
Email: mach.chen@huawei.com Email: mach.chen@huawei.com
Hannes Gredler Hannes Gredler
Juniper Networks, Inc. Juniper Networks, Inc.
1194 N. Mathilda Ave. 1194 N. Mathilda Ave.
Sunnyvale, CA 94089 Sunnyvale, CA 94089
US US
skipping to change at page 8, line 30 skipping to change at page 10, line 4
Email: mach.chen@huawei.com Email: mach.chen@huawei.com
Hannes Gredler Hannes Gredler
Juniper Networks, Inc. Juniper Networks, Inc.
1194 N. Mathilda Ave. 1194 N. Mathilda Ave.
Sunnyvale, CA 94089 Sunnyvale, CA 94089
US US
Email: hannes@juniper.net Email: hannes@juniper.net
Stefano Previdi Stefano Previdi
Cisco Systems, Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc.
Via Del Serafico, 200 Via Del Serafico, 200
Rome 00142 Rome 00142
Italy Italy
Email: sprevidi@cisco.com Email: sprevidi@cisco.com
Jeff Tantsura
Ericsson
300 Holger Way
San Jose, CA 95134
US
Email: jeff.tantsura@ericsson.com
 End of changes. 31 change blocks. 
41 lines changed or deleted 108 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.41. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/