Internet DRAFT - draft-chen-pce-association-ecmp
draft-chen-pce-association-ecmp
Networking Working Group Ran. Chen
Internet-Draft Fangwei. Hu
Intended status: Standards Track ZTE Corporation
Expires: April 22, 2018 October 19, 2017
Path Computation Element communication Protocol extension for Associated
ECMP
draft-chen-pce-association-ecmp-01
Abstract
[I-D.ietf-pce-association-group]introduces and explains a generic
mechanism to create a grouping of LSPs. The grouping can then be
used to define associations between a set of LSPs and/or a set of
attributes (such as configuration parameters or behaviours) and is
equally applicable to the active and passive modes of a stateful PCE
[I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] as well as a stateless PCE [RFC5440].
This document specifies a PCEP extension to bind one or more LSPs
into an ECMP Associated Group.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on April 22, 2018.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
Chen & Hu Expires April 22, 2018 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft PCEP Associated ECMP October 2017
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
4. Protocol extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4.1. Association Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4.2. Per-packet ECMP Association TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4.3. Per-flow ECMP Association TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6.1. Association Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6.2. Per-packet ECMP Association TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6.3. Per-flow ECMP Association Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8. Normative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1. Introduction
[I-D.ietf-pce-association-group]introduces and explains a generic
mechanism to create a grouping of LSPs. The grouping can then be
used to define associations between a set of LSPs and/or a set of
attributes (such as configuration parameters or behaviours) and is
equally applicable to the active and passive modes of a stateful PCE
[I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] as well as a stateless PCE [RFC5440].
This document specifies a PCEP extension to bind one or more LSPs
into an ECMP Associated Group.
2. Conventions used in this document
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC2119.
3. Overview
As shown in Figure 1, assume that paths AHE, ABCDE, and ABGE all have
the same path cost. The three paths can be associated to form an
associated ECMP Associated Group.
Chen & Hu Expires April 22, 2018 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft PCEP Associated ECMP October 2017
Note: The LSPs can also be binded into an ECMP Associated Group that
satisfies the set of required constraints (i.g. bandwidth constraint,
delay constraint). The LSPs should originate from the same head-
end(s) and terminate at the same or different tail-end(s).
+-----+
| PCE |
+-----+
|
|
| -------- H --------
|/ \
A --- B ---C ---D --- E
\ |
--------G-----
Figure 1
4. Protocol extension
4.1. Association Object
As per [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group], LSPs are associated by
adding them to a common association group.
Based on the generic Association object, this document defines two
new Association types as follows:
o Association Type = TBD1, Per-packet ECMP Association
o Association Type = TBD2, Per-flow ECMP Association
4.2. Per-packet ECMP Association TLV
The Per-packet ECMP Association TLV is an optional TLV for use with
the Per-packet ECMP Association Type.
The following the Per-packet ECMP Association TLV is defined:
Chen & Hu Expires April 22, 2018 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft PCEP Associated ECMP October 2017
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type = TBD3 | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| FC Per. | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2
Type: TBD3, to be assigned by IANA.
Length: 2 octets.
FC Per.: Percentage of the traffic that carried by the LSP.
The Per-packet ECMP Association TLV MUST NOT be present more than
once. If it appears more than once, first one MUST be used and
subsequent ones MUST be ignored.
4.3. Per-flow ECMP Association TLV
The Per-flow ECMP Association TLV is an optional TLV for use with the
Per-flow ECMP Association Type.
The following the Per-flow ECMP Association TLV is defined:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type=TBD4 | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| SF | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3
Type: TBD4, to be assigned by IANA.
Length: 2 octets.
SF: 2 octets, the route selected factor for load balance. The
following is the route selected factor that recommended.
Chen & Hu Expires April 22, 2018 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft PCEP Associated ECMP October 2017
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 ............in_port
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.............src_mac
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 ............dst_mac
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0.............eth_type
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 ............vlan_id
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0.............label
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 ............ip_dscp
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.............src_ip
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ............dst_ip
0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.............ip_proto
0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.............src_port
0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ............dst_port
5. Security Considerations
This document defines two new Association Types for the Association
Object, which do not introduce no additional security concerns beyond
those discussed in [RFC5440], [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group] and
[I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce].
6. IANA Considerations
6.1. Association Types
This document defines the following Association Types for the
Association Object defined in [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group].
Value Name Reference
TBD1 Per-packet ECMP Association [This I.D.]
TBD2 Per-flow ECMP Association [This I.D.]
6.2. Per-packet ECMP Association TLV
This document defines a new TLV for the Per-packet ECMP Association
Type as follows:
Chen & Hu Expires April 22, 2018 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft PCEP Associated ECMP October 2017
+--------------------+------------------------+-------------+
| TLV Type Value | TLV Name | Reference |
+--------------------+------------------------+-------------+
| TBD3 | Per-packet ECMP | This |
| | Association TLV | document |
+--------------------+------------------------+-------------+
6.3. Per-flow ECMP Association Type
This document defines a new TLV for the Per-flow ECMP Association
Type as follows:
+--------------------+------------------------+-------------+
| TLV Type Value | TLV Name | Reference |
+--------------------+------------------------+-------------+
| TBD4 | Per-flow ECMP | This |
| | Association TLV | document |
+--------------------+------------------------+-------------+
7. Acknowledgements
TBD.
8. Normative references
[I-D.ietf-pce-association-group]
Minei, I., Crabbe, E., Sivabalan, S., Ananthakrishnan, H.,
Dhody, D., and Y. Tanaka, "PCEP Extensions for
Establishing Relationships Between Sets of LSPs", draft-
ietf-pce-association-group-04 (work in progress), August
2017.
[I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce]
Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Medved, J., and R. Varga, "PCEP
Extensions for Stateful PCE", draft-ietf-pce-stateful-
pce-21 (work in progress), June 2017.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
Chen & Hu Expires April 22, 2018 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft PCEP Associated ECMP October 2017
[RFC4665] Augustyn, W., Ed. and Y. Serbest, Ed., "Service
Requirements for Layer 2 Provider-Provisioned Virtual
Private Networks", RFC 4665, DOI 10.17487/RFC4665,
September 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4665>.
[RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation
Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5440, March 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5440>.
Authors' Addresses
Ran Chen
ZTE Corporation
No.50 Software Avenue,Yuhuatai District
Nanjing, Jiangsu Province 210012
China
Phone: +86 025 88014636
Email: chen.ran@zte.com.cn
Fangwei Hu
ZTE Corporation
No.889 Bibo Rd
Shanghai 201203
China
Email: hu.fangwei@zte.com.cn
Chen & Hu Expires April 22, 2018 [Page 7]
