PCEP Extension for Native IP Network
draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip-25
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft whose latest revision state is "Active".
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Aijun Wang , Boris Khasanov , Sheng Fang , Ren Tan , Chun Zhu | ||
| Last updated | 2023-08-31 (Latest revision 2023-08-21) | ||
| Replaces | draft-wang-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Reviews |
RTGDIR Early review
(of
-23)
by Ines Robles
Has issues
|
||
| Additional resources | Mailing list discussion | ||
| Stream | WG state | WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up | |
| Associated WG milestone |
|
||
| Document shepherd | Dhruv Dhody | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Yes | ||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | dd@dhruvdhody.com |
draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip-25
PCE Working Group A. Wang
Internet-Draft China Telecom
Intended status: Standards Track B. Khasanov
Expires: 23 February 2024 Yandex LLC
S. Fang
R. Tan
Huawei Technologies
C. Zhu
ZTE Corporation
22 August 2023
PCEP Extension for Native IP Network
draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip-25
Abstract
This document defines the Path Computation Element Communication
Protocol (PCEP) extension for Central Control Dynamic Routing (CCDR)
based application in Native IP network. It describes the key
information that is transferred between Path Computation Element
(PCE) and Path Computation Clients (PCC) to accomplish the End to End
(E2E) traffic assurance in Native IP network under central control
mode.
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 23 February 2024.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2023 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Wang, et al. Expires 23 February 2024 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extension for Native IP Network August 2023
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 carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components
extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Capability Advertisement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4.1. Open message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. PCEP messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5.1. The PCInitiate message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5.2. The PCRpt message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. PCECC Native IP TE Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6.1. BGP Session Establishment Procedures . . . . . . . . . . 7
6.2. Explicit Route Establish Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.3. BGP Prefix Advertisement Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7. New PCEP Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7.1. CCI Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7.2. BGP Peer Info Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7.3. Explicit Peer Route Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
7.4. Peer Prefix Advertisement Object . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
8. New Error-Types and Error-Values Defined . . . . . . . . . . 21
9. BGP Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
10. Deployment Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
11. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
11.1. Proof of Concept based on ODL . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
11.2. ZTE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
12. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
13. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
13.1. Path Setup Type Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
13.2. PCECC-CAPABILITY sub-TLV's Flag field . . . . . . . . . 24
13.3. PCEP Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
13.4. PCEP-Error Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
14. Contributor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
15. Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
16. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
16.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
16.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Wang, et al. Expires 23 February 2024 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extension for Native IP Network August 2023
1. Introduction
Generally, Multiprotocol Label Switching Traffic Engineering (MPLS-
TE) requires the corresponding network devices support Multiprotocol
Label Switching (MPLS) or Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP)/Label
Distribution Protocol (LDP) technologies to assure the End-to-End
(E2E) traffic performance. But in native IP network scenarios
described in [RFC8735] , there will be no such signaling protocol to
synchronize the action among different network devices. It is
necessary to use the central control mode that described in [RFC8283]
to correlate the forwarding behavior among different network devices.
[RFC8821] describes the architecture and solution philosophy for the
E2E traffic assurance in Native IP network via multi Border Gateway
Protocol (BGP) session based solution. This document describes the
corresponding Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)
extensions to transfer the key information about BGP peer info, peer
prefix advertisement and the explicit peer route on on-path routers.
2. Conventions used in this document
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
3. Terminology
This document uses the following terms defined in [RFC5440]: PCE,
PCEP
The following terminology is used in this document:
* CCDR: Central Control Dynamic Routing
* E2E: End to End
* BPI: BGP Peer Info
* EPR: Explicit Peer Route
* PPA: Peer Prefix Advertisement
4. Capability Advertisement
Wang, et al. Expires 23 February 2024 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extension for Native IP Network August 2023
4.1. Open message
During the PCEP Initialization Phase, PCEP Speakers (PCE or PCC)
advertise their support of Native IP extensions.
This document defines a new Path Setup Type (PST) [RFC8408] for
Native-IP, as follows:
* PST = 4: Path is a Native IP TE path as per [RFC8821].
A PCEP speaker MUST indicate its support of the function described in
this document by sending a PATH-SETUP-TYPE-CAPABILITY TLV in the OPEN
object with this new PST included in the PST list.
[RFC9050] defined the PCECC-CAPABILITY sub-TLV to exchange
information about their PCECC capability. A new flag is defined in
PCECC-CAPABILITY sub-TLV for Native IP:
N (NATIVE-IP-TE-CAPABILITY - 1 bit - 30): If set to 1 by a PCEP
speaker, it indicates that the PCEP speaker is capable for TE in
Native IP network as specified in this document. The flag MUST be
set by both the PCC and PCE in order to support this extension.
If a PCEP speaker receives the PATH-SETUP-TYPE-CAPABILITY TLV with
the newly defined path setup type, but without the N bit set in
PCECC-CAPABILITY sub-TLV, it MUST:
* Send a PCErr message with Error-Type=10(Reception of an invalid
object) and Error-Value=39(PCECC NATIVE-IP-TE-CAPABILITY bit is
not set).
* Terminate the PCEP session
5. PCEP messages
PCECC Native IP TE solution utilizing the existing PCE LSP Initiate
Request message(PCInitiate)[RFC8281], and PCE Report message(PCRpt)
[RFC8281] to accomplish the multi BGP sessions establishment, E2E TE
path deployment, and route prefixes advertisement among different BGP
sessions. A new PST for Native-IP is used to indicate the path setup
based on TE in Native IP networks.
The extended PCInitiate message described in [RFC9050] is used to
download or cleanup central controller's instructions (CCIs).
[RFC9050] specifies an object called CCI for the encoding of central
controller's instructions. This document specifies a new CCI object-
type for Native IP. The PCEP messages are extended in this document
to handle the PCECC operations for Native IP. Three new PCEP Objects
Wang, et al. Expires 23 February 2024 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extension for Native IP Network August 2023
(BGP Peer Info (BPI) Object, Explicit Peer Route (EPR) Object and
Peer Prefix Advertisement (PPA) Object) are defined in this document.
Refer toSection 7 for detail object definitions.
5.1. The PCInitiate message
The PCInitiate Message defined in [RFC8281] and extended in [RFC9050]
is further extended to support Native-IP CCI.
The format of the extended PCInitiate message is as follows:
<PCInitiate Message> ::= <Common Header>
<PCE-initiated-lsp-list>
Where:
<Common Header> is defined in [RFC5440]
<PCE-initiated-lsp-list> ::= <PCE-initiated-lsp-request>
[<PCE-initiated-lsp-list>]
<PCE-initiated-lsp-request> ::=
(<PCE-initiated-lsp-instantiation>|
<PCE-initiated-lsp-deletion>|
<PCE-initiated-lsp-central-control>)
<PCE-initiated-lsp-central-control> ::= <SRP>
<LSP>
(<cci-list>|
(<BPI>|<EPR>|<PPA>))
<cci-list> ::= <CCI>
[<cci-list>]
Where:
<cci-list> is as per [RFC9050]
<PCE-initiated-lsp-instantiation> and <PCE-initiated-lsp-deletion> are as per [RFC8281].
The LSP and SRP objects are defined in [RFC8231].
When PCInitiate message is used to create Native IP instructions, the
SRP, LSP and CCI objects MUST be present. The error handling for
missing SRP, LSP or CCI object is as per [RFC9050]. Further only one
BPI, EPR, or PPA object MUST be present. The PLSP-ID within the LSP
object should be set by PCC uniquely according to the Symbolic Path
Name TLV that included in the CCI object. The Symbolic Path Name is
used by the PCE/PCC to identify uniquely the E2E native IP TE path.
If none of them are present, the receiving PCC MUST send a PCErr
message with Error-type=6 (Mandatory Object missing) and Error-
value=19 (Native IP object missing). If there are more than one of
Wang, et al. Expires 23 February 2024 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extension for Native IP Network August 2023
BPI, EPR or PPA object are presented, the receiving PCC MUST send a
PCErr message with Error-type=19(Invalid Operation) and Error-
value=22(Only one BPI, EPR or PPA object can be included in this
message).
To cleanup the existing Native IP instructions, the SRP object must
set the R (remove) bit.
5.2. The PCRpt message
The PCRpt message is used to acknowledge the Native-IP instructions
received from the central controller (PCE).
The format of the PCRpt message is as follows:
<PCRpt Message> ::= <Common Header>
<state-report-list>
Where:
<state-report-list> ::= <state-report>[<state-report-list>]
<state-report> ::= (<lsp-state-report>|
<central-control-report>)
<lsp-state-report> ::= [<SRP>]
<LSP>
<path>
<central-control-report> ::= [<SRP>]
<LSP>
(<cci-list>|
(<BPI>|<EPR>|<PPA>))
Where:
<path> is as per [RFC8231] and the LSP and SRP object are also defined in [RFC8231].
The error handling for missing CCI object is as per [RFC9050].
Further only one BPI, EPR, or PPA object MUST be present.
If none of them are present, the receiving PCE MUST send a PCErr
message with Error-type=6 (Mandatory Object missing) and Error-
value=19 (Native IP object missing). If there are more than one of
BPI, EPR or PPA object are presented, the receiving PCE MUST send a
PCErr message with Error-type=19(Invalid Operation) and Error-
value=22(Only one BPI, EPR or PPA object can be included in this
message).
Wang, et al. Expires 23 February 2024 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extension for Native IP Network August 2023
6. PCECC Native IP TE Procedures
The detail procedures for the TE in native IP environment are
described in the following sections.
6.1. BGP Session Establishment Procedures
The PCInitiate and PCRpt message pair is used to configure the
parameters for a BGP peer session. This pair of PCEP messages is
exchanged between a PCE and each BGP peer which needs to be
configured. After the BGP peer session has been configured via this
pair of PCEP messages, the BGP session establishes and operates in a
normal fashion. The BGP peers can be configured for EBGP peers or
IBGP peers. For IBGP connection topologies, the Route Reflector(RR)
is required.
The PCInitiate message should be sent to PCC which acts as BGP router
and/or RR.
The RR topology for a single AS is shown in Figure 1. The BGP
routers R1, R3, and R7 are within a single AS. R1 and R7 are BGP RR
clients, and R3 is a RR. The PCInitiate message should be sent only
the BGP routers that need to be newly configured R1 (via M1 message),
R3 (via M2 & M3 message), and R7 (via M4 message).
PCInitiate message creates an auto-configuration function for these
BGP peers by providing the indicated Peer AS and the Local/Peer IP
Address.
When PCC receives the BPI and CCI object (with the R bit set to 0 in
SRP object) in PCInitiate message, the PCC should try to establish
the BGP session with the indicated Peer AS and Local/Peer IP address.
When PCC creates successfully the BGP session that is indicated by
the associated information, it should report the result via the PCRpt
messages, with BPI object and the corresponding SRP and CCI object
included.
When PCC receives this message with the R bit set to 1 in SRP object
in PCInitiate message, the PCC should clear the BGP session that
indicated by the BPI object.
When PCC clears successfully the specified BGP session, it should
report the result via the PCRpt message, with the BPI object
included, and the corresponding SRP and CCI object.
Wang, et al. Expires 23 February 2024 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extension for Native IP Network August 2023
+------------------+
+-----------> PCE <----------+
| +--------^---------+ |
| | |
M2/M2-R & M3/M3-R
| | |
| +----v--+ |
+---------------+ R3(RR)+-----------------+
| +-------+ |
M1/M1-R M4/M4-R
| |
+v-+ +--+ +--+ +-v+
|R1+----------+R5+----------+R6+---------+R7|
++-+ +--+ +--+ +-++
| |
| +--+ +--+ |
+------------+R2+----------+R4+-----------+
+--+ +--+
Figure 1: BGP Session Establishment Procedures(R3 act as RR)
The message number, message peers, message type and message key
parameters in the above figures are shown in below table:
Table 1: Message Information
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| No.| Peers| Type | Message Key Parameters |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
|M1 |PCE/R1|PCInitiate|CC-ID=X1(Symbolic Path Name=Class A) |
|M1-R| |PCRpt |BPI Object(Peer AS,
| Local_IP=R1_A,Peer_IP=R3_A)|
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
|M2 |PCE/R3|PCInitiate|CC-ID=X2(Symbolic Path Name=Class A) |
|M2-R| |PCRpt |BPI Object(Peer AS,
| Local_IP=R3_A,Peer_IP=R1_A)|
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
|M3 |PCE/R3|PCInitiate|CC-ID=X3(Symbolic Path Name=Class A) |
|M3-R| |PCRpt |BPI Object(Peer AS,
| Local_IP=R3_A,Peer_IP=R7_A)|
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
|M4 |PCE/R7|PCInitiate|CC-ID=X4(Symbolic Path Name=Class A) |
|M4-R| |PCRpt |BPI Object(Peer AS,
| Local_IP=R7_A,Peer_IP=R3_A)|
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
If the PCC cannot establish the BGP session that required by this
message, it should report the error values via PCErr message with the
newly defined error type:
Wang, et al. Expires 23 February 2024 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extension for Native IP Network August 2023
1) Error-type=33 and Error-value=1, Peer AS not match when the
received Peer AS is not the same the local AS, or
2) Error-type=33 and Error-Value=2, Peer IP can't be reached when
there is no route to the Peer IP address, which is indicated in the
BPI Object.
If the Local IP Address or Peer IP Address within BPI object is used
in other existing BGP sessions, the PCC should report such error
situation via PCErr message with:
3) Err-type=33 and Error-value=3, Local IP is in use, or
4) Err-type=33 and Error-value=4, Remote IP is in use.
The detail Error-Types and Error-Values are defined in Section 8
If the established BGP session is broken after some time, the PCC
should report such error via PCErr message with:
5) Err-type=33 and Error-value=5, Existing BGP session is broken.
6.2. Explicit Route Establish Procedures
The explicit route establishment procedures can be used to install a
route via PCE on the PCC, using PCInitiate and PCRpt message pair.
Such explicit routes operate the same as static routes installed by
network management protocols(NETCONF/YANG). The procedures of such
explicit route addition and remove must be controlled by the PCE in
an specific order so that the pathways are established without loops.
The PCInitiate message should be sent to the on-path routers
respectively. In the example, for explicit route from R1 to R7, the
PCInitiate message should be sent to R1(via M1 message), R2(via M2
message) and R4(via M3 message), as shown in Figure 2. For explicit
route from R7 to R1, the PCInitiate message should be sent to R7(via
M1 message), R4(via M2 message) and R2(via M3 message), as shown in
Figure 3.
When PCC receives the EPR and the CCI object (with the R bit set to 0
in SRP object) in PCInitiate message, the PCC should install the
explicit route to the peer.
When PCC install successfully the explicit route to the peer, it
should report the result via the PCRpt messages, with EPR object and
the corresponding SRP and CCI object included.
Wang, et al. Expires 23 February 2024 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extension for Native IP Network August 2023
When PCC receives the EPR and the CCI object with the R bit set to 1
in SRP object in PCInitiate message, the PCC should clear the
explicit route to the peer that indicated by the EPR object.
When PCC clear successfully the explicit route that indicated by this
object, it should report the result via the PCRpt message, with the
EPR object included, and the corresponding SRP and CCI object.
+------------------+
+----------> PCE +
| +----^-----------^-+
| | |
| | |
| | +------+ |
+-----------------+R3(RR)+--|-------------+
M1/M1-R | +------+ | |
| | | |
+v-+ +--+ | | +--+ +--+
|R1+------+R5+---+-----------|---+R6+----+R7|
++-+ +--+ | | +--+ +-++
| M2/M2-R M3/M3-R |
| | | |
| +--v--+ +--v-+ |
+------------+- R2 +-----+ R4 +-----------+
+--+--+ +--+-+
Figure 2: Explicit Route Establish Procedures(From R1 to R7)
The message number, message peers, message type and message key
parameters in the above figures are shown in below table:
Table 2: Message Information
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
| No.|Peers | Type | Message Key Parameters |
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
|M1 |PCE/R1|PCInitiate|CC-ID=X1(Symbolic Path Name=Class A) |
|M1-R| |PCRpt |EPR Object(Peer Address=R7_A,Next Hop=R2_A)|
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
|M2 |PCE/R2|PCInitiate|CC-ID=X2(Symbolic Path Name=Class A) |
|M2-R| |PCRpt |EPR Object(Peer Address=R7_A,Next Hop=R4_A)|
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
|M3 |PCE/R4|PCInitiate|CC-ID=X3(Symbolic Path Name=Class A) |
|M3-R| |PCRpt |EPR Object(Peer Address=R7_A,Next Hop=R7_A)|
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
Wang, et al. Expires 23 February 2024 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extension for Native IP Network August 2023
+------------------+
+ PCE <-----------+
+----^-----------^-+ |
| | |
| | |
| +------+ | |
+-----------------+R3(RR)+--|-------------+
| | +------+ | M1/M1-R
| | | |
+--+ +--+ | | +--+ +-v+
|R1+------+R5+---+-----------|---+R6+----+R7|
++-+ +--+ | | +--+ +-++
| M3/M3-R M2/M2-R |
| | | |
| +--v--+ +--v-+ |
+------------+- R2 +-----+ R4 +-----------+
+--+--+ +--+-+
Figure 3: Explicit Route Establish Procedures(From R7 to R1)
The message number, message peers, message type and message key
parameters in the above figures are shown in below table:
Table 3: Message Information
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
|No. |Peers | Type | Message Key Parameters |
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
|M1 |PCE/R7|PCInitiate|CC-ID=X1(Symbolic Path Name=Class A) |
|M1-R| |PCRpt |EPR Object(Peer Address=R1_A,Next Hop=R4_A)|
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
|M2 |PCE/R4|PCInitiate|CC-ID=X2(Symbolic Path Name=Class A) |
|M2-R| |PCRpt |EPR Object(Peer Address=R1_A,Next Hop=R2_A)|
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
|M3 |PCE/R2|PCInitiate|CC-ID=X3(Symbolic Path Name=Class A) |
|M3-R| |PCRpt |EPR Object(Peer Address=R1_A,Next Hop=R1_A)|
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
In order to avoid the transient loop during the deploy of explicit
peer route, the EPR object should be sent to the PCCs in the reverse
order of the E2E path. To remove the explicit peer route, the EPR
object should be sent to the PCCs in the same order of E2E path.
To accomplish ECMP effects, the PCE can send multiple EPR objects to
the same node, with the same route priority and peer address value
but different next hop addresses.
Wang, et al. Expires 23 February 2024 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extension for Native IP Network August 2023
The PCC should verify that the next hop address is reachable. Upon
the error occurs, the PCC SHOULD send the corresponding error via
PCErr message, with an error information:
1) Error-type=33, Error-value=6, Explicit Peer Route Error.
When the peer info is not the same as the peer info that indicated in
BPI object in PCC for the same path that is identified by Symbolic
Path Name TLV, an PCErr message should be reported, with an error
information:
2) Error-type=33, Error-value=7, EPR/BPI Peer Info Mismatch.
When PCE receives the PCError message that indicates the BGP session
to the peer address is broken(Err-type=33 and Error-value=5, Existing
BGP session is broken), the PCE should clear the explicit peer route
to the peer address.
6.3. BGP Prefix Advertisement Procedures
The detail procedures for BGP prefix advertisement are shown below,
using PCInitiate and PCRpt message pair.
The PCInitiate message should be sent to PCC that acts as BGP peer
edge router only. In the example, it should be sent to R1(M1) or
R7(M2) respectively.
When PCC receives the PPA and the CCI object (with the R bit set to 0
in SRP object) in PCInitiate message, the PCC should send the
prefixes indicated in this object to the appointed BGP peer.
When PCC sends successfully the prefixes to the appointed BGP peer,
it should report the result via the PCRpt messages, with PPA object
and the corresponding SRP and CCI object included.
When PCC receives the PPA and the CCI object with the R bit set to 1
in SRP object in PCInitiate message, the PCC should withdraw the
prefixes advertisement to the peer that indicated by this object.
When PCC withdraws successfully the prefixes that indicated by this
object, it should report the result via the PCRpt message, with the
PPA object included, and the corresponding SRP and CCI object.
Wang, et al. Expires 23 February 2024 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extension for Native IP Network August 2023
+------------------+
+----------> PCE <-----------+
| +------------------+ |
| +--+ |
+------------------+R3+-------------------+
M1&M1-R +--+ M2&M2-R
| |
+v-+ +--+ +--+ +-v+
|R1+----------+R5+----------+R6+---------+R7|
++-+ +--+ +--+ +-++
(BGP Router) (BGP Router)
| |
| |
| +--+ +--+ |
+------------+R2+----------+R4+-----------+
Figure 4: BGP Prefix Advertisement Procedures
Table 4: Message Information
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
|No. | Peers| Type | Message Key Parameters |
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
|M1 |PCE/R1|PCInitiate|CC-ID=X1(Symbolic Path Name=Class A)|
|M1-R| |PCRpt |PPA Object(Peer IP=R7_A,Prefix=1_A) |
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
|M2 |PCE/R7|PCInitiate|CC-ID=X2(Symbolic Path Name=Class A)|
|M2-R| |PCRpt |PPA Object(Peer IP=R1_A,Prefix=7_A) |
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
The allowed AFI/SAFI for the IPv4 BGP session should be 1/1(IPv4
prefix) and the allowed AFI/SAFI for the IPv6 BGP session should be
2/1(IPv6 prefix). If mismatch occur, an error:
1) Error-type=33, Error-value=8, BPI/PPA address family mismatch
should be reported via PCErr message.
When the peer info is not the same as the peer info that indicated in
BPI object in PCC for the same path that is identified by Symbolic
Path Name TLV, an error:
2) Error-type=33, Error-value=9, PPA/BPI peer info mismatch should be
reported via the PCErr message.
When PCE receives the PCError message that indicates the BGP session
to the peer address is broken(Err-type=33 and Error-value=5, Existing
BGP session is broken), the PCE should clear the prefixes
advertisement to the peer.
Wang, et al. Expires 23 February 2024 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extension for Native IP Network August 2023
7. New PCEP Objects
One new CCI Object and three new PCEP objects are defined in this
document. All new PCEP objects are as per [RFC5440]
7.1. CCI Object
The Central Control Instructions (CCI) Object is used by the PCE to
specify the forwarding instructions defined in [RFC9050]. This
document defines another object-type for Native-IP.
CCI Object-Type is 2 for Native-IP as below
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| CC-ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved | Flags |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| |
// Optional TLV //
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 5: CCI Object for Native IP
The field CC-ID is as described in [RFC9050]. Following fields are
defined for CCI Object-Type 2
Reserved: is set to zero while sending, ignored on receipt.
Flags: is used to carry any additional information pertaining to the
CCI. Currently no flag bits are defined.
The Symbolic Path Name TLV [RFC8231] MUST be included in the CCI
Object-Type 2 to identify the E2E TE path in Native IP environment
and MUST be unique.
7.2. BGP Peer Info Object
The BGP Peer Info object is used to specify the information about the
peer with which the PCC should establish the BGP relationship. This
object should only be included and sent to the head and end router of
the E2E path in case there is no Route Reflection (RR) involved. If
the RR is used between the head and end routers, then such
information should be sent to head router, RR and end router
respectively.
Wang, et al. Expires 23 February 2024 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extension for Native IP Network August 2023
By default, the Local/Peer IP address SHOULD be dedicated to the
usage of native IP TE solution, and SHOULD NOT be used by other BGP
sessions that established by manual or non PCE initiated
configuration.
BGP Peer Info Object-Class is 46
BGP Peer Info Object-Type is 1 for IPv4 and 2 for IPv6
The format of the BGP Peer Info object body for IPv4(Object-Type=1)
is as follows:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Peer AS Number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ETTL | Reserved |T|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Local IP Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Peer IP Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Tunnel Source IP Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Tunnel Destination IP Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Additional TLVs |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 6: BGP Peer Info Object Body Format for IPv4
The format of the BGP Peer Info object body for IPv6(Object-Type=2)
is as follows:
Wang, et al. Expires 23 February 2024 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extension for Native IP Network August 2023
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Peer AS Number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ETTL | Reserved |T|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ +
| Local IP Address (16 bytes) |
+ +
| |
+ +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ +
| Peer IP Address (16 bytes) |
+ +
| |
+ +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ +
| Tunnel Source IP Address (16 bytes) |
+ +
| |
+ +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ +
| Tunnel Destination IP Address (16 bytes) |
+ +
| |
+ +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Additional TLVs |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 7: BGP Peer Info Object Body Format for IPv6
Peer AS Number: 4 Bytes, to indicate the AS number of Remote Peer.
ETTL: 1 Byte, to indicate the multihop count for EBGP session. It
should be 0 and ignored when Local AS and Peer AS is same.
Wang, et al. Expires 23 February 2024 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extension for Native IP Network August 2023
Reserved: is set to zero while sending, ignored on receipt.
T bit: Indicates whether the traffic that associated with the
prefixes advertised via this BGP session is transported via IPinIP
tunnel (when T bit is set) or not (when T bit is clear).
Local IP Address(4/16 Bytes): IP address of the local router, used to
peer with other end router. When Object-Type is 1, length is 4
bytes; when Object-Type is 2, length is 16 bytes.
Peer IP Address(4/16 Bytes): IP address of the peer router, used to
peer with the local router. When Object-Type is 1, length is 4
bytes; when Object-Type is 2, length is 16 bytes;
Tunnel Source IP Address(4/16 Bytes): IP address of the tunnel
source, should be owned by the local router. When Object-Type is 1,
length is 4 bytes; when Object-Type is 2, length is 16 bytes. It
should be different from the Local IP Address.
Tunnel Destination IP Address(4/16 Bytes): IP address of the tunnel
destination, should be owned by the peer router. When Object-Type is
1, length is 4 bytes; when Object-Type is 2, length is 16 bytes. It
should be different from the Peer IP Address.
Additional TLVs: TLVs that associated with this object, can be used
to convey other necessary information for dynamic BGP session
establishment. Their definitions are out of the current document.
When PCC receives BPI object, with Object-Type=1, it should try to
establish BGP session with the peer in AFI/SAFI=1/1;
when PCC receives BPI object with Object-Type=2, it should try to
establish the BGP session with the peer in AFI/SAFI=2/1.
7.3. Explicit Peer Route Object
The Explicit Peer Route object is defined to specify the explicit
peer route to the corresponding peer address on each device that is
on the E2E assurance path. This Object should be sent to all the
devices on the E2E assurance path that calculated by PCE.
The path established by this object should have higher priority than
other path calculated by dynamic IGP protocol, but should have lower
priority than the static route configured by manual or NETCONF or by
other means.
Explicit Peer Route Object-Class is 47.
Wang, et al. Expires 23 February 2024 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extension for Native IP Network August 2023
Explicit Peer Route Object-Type is 1 for IPv4 and 2 for IPv6
The format of Explicit Peer Route object body for IPv4(Object-Type=1)
is as follows:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Route Priority | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Peer/Tunnel Destination Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Next Hop Address to the Peer/Tunnel Destination Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Additional TLVs |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 8: Explicit Peer Route Object Body Format for IPv4
The format of Explicit Peer Route object body for IPv6(Object-Type=2)
is as follows:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Route Priority | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ +
| Peer Address/Tunnel Destination Address |
+ +
| |
+ +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ +
| Next Hop Address to the Peer/Tunnel Destination Address |
+ +
| |
+ +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Additional TLVs |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 9: Explicit Peer Route Object Body Format for IPv6
Wang, et al. Expires 23 February 2024 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extension for Native IP Network August 2023
Route Priority: 2 Bytes, The priority of this explicit route. The
higher priority should be preferred by the device. This field is
used to indicate the backup path at each hop.
Reserved: is set to zero while sending, ignored on receipt.
Peer/Tunnel Destination Address: To indicate the peer address(4/16
Bytes). When T bit is set in the associated BPI object, use the
tunnel destination address in BPI object; when T bit is clear, use
the peer address in BPI object.
Next Hop Address to the Peer/Tunnel Destination Address: To indicate
the next hop address(4/16 Bytes) to the corresponding peer/tunnel
destination address.
Additional TLVs: TLVs that associated with this object, can be used
to convey other necessary information for explicit peer path
establishment. Their definitions are out of the current document.
7.4. Peer Prefix Advertisement Object
The Peer Prefix Advertisement object is defined to specify the IP
prefixes that should be advertised to the corresponding peer. This
object should only be included and sent to the head/end router of the
E2E path.
The prefixes information included in this object MUST only be
advertised to the indicated peer, MUST NOT be advertised to other BGP
peers.
Peer Prefix Advertisement Object-Class is 48
Peer Prefix Advertisement Object-Type is 1 for IPv4 and 2 for IPv6
The format of the Peer Prefix Advertisement object body is as
follows:
Wang, et al. Expires 23 February 2024 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extension for Native IP Network August 2023
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Peer IPv4 Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
// IPv4 Prefix subobjects //
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Additional TLVs |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 10: Peer Prefix Advertisement Object Body Format for IPv4
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Peer IPv6 Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
// IPv6 Prefix subobjects //
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Additional TLVs |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 11: Peer Prefix Advertisement Object Body Format for IPv6
Peer IPv4 Address: 4 Bytes. Identifies the peer IPv4 address that
the associated prefixes will be sent to.
IPv4 Prefix subojects: List of IPv4 Prefix subobjects defined in
[RFC3209], identify the prefixes that will be sent to the peer
identified by Peer IPv4 Address.
Peer IPv6 Address: 16 Bytes. Identifies the peer IPv6 address that
the associated prefixes will be sent to.
IPv6 Prefix subojects: List of IPv6 Prefix subobjects defined in
[RFC3209], identify the prefixes that will be sent to the peer
identified by Peer IPv6 Address.
Additional TLVs: TLVs that associated with this object, can be used
to convey other necessary information for prefixes advertisement.
Their definitions are out of the current document.
Wang, et al. Expires 23 February 2024 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extension for Native IP Network August 2023
8. New Error-Types and Error-Values Defined
A PCEP-ERROR object is used to report a PCEP error and is
characterized by an Error-Type that specifies that type of error and
an Error-value that provides additional information about the error.
An additional Error-Type and several Error-values are defined to
represent the errors related to the newly defined objects that are
related to Native IP TE procedures.
+============+===============+=====================================+
| Error-Type | Meaning | Error-value |
+============+===============+=====================================+
| 33 | Native IP | |
| | TE failure | |
+------------+---------------+-------------------------------------+
| | |0: Unassigned |
+------------+---------------+-------------------------------------+
| | |1: Peer AS not match |
+------------+---------------+-------------------------------------+
| | |2:Peer IP can't be reached |
+------------+---------------+-------------------------------------+
| | |3:Local IP is in use |
+------------+---------------+-------------------------------------+
| | |4:Remote IP is in use |
+------------+---------------+-------------------------------------+
| | |5:Exist BGP session broken |
+------------+---------------+-------------------------------------+
| | |6:Explicit Peer Route Error |
+------------+---------------+-------------------------------------+
| | |7:EPR/BPI Peer Info mismatch |
+------------+---------------+-------------------------------------+
| | |8:BPI/PPA Address Family mismatch |
+------------+---------------+-------------------------------------+
| | |9:PPA/BPI Peer Info mismatch |
+------------+---------------+-------------------------------------+
Figure 12: Newly defined Error-Type and Error-Value
9. BGP Considerations
This document defines the procedures and objects to create the BGP
sessions and advertise the associated prefixes dynamically. Only the
key information, for example peer IP addresses, peer AS number are
exchanged via the PCEP protocol. Other parameters that are needed
for the BGP session setup should be derived from their default
values, as described in Section 7.2.
Wang, et al. Expires 23 February 2024 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extension for Native IP Network August 2023
When the PCE sends out the PCInitiate message with BPI object
embedded to establish the BGP session between the PCC peers, it
should wait enough time to get the BGP session successful
establishment report from the underlay PCCs. if the PCE can't get
such report after the duration, then it should declare the failure of
BGP session setup and try the establishment procedure again, or
report the failure to the operator.
Upon receiving such key information, the BGP module on the PCC should
try to accomplish the task appointed by the PCEP protocol and report
the successful status to the PCEP modules after the session is setup.
There is no influence on current implementation of BGP Finite State
Machine(FSM). The PCEP focuses only on the success and failure
status of BGP session, and acts upon such information accordingly.
The error handling procedures related to incorrect BGP parameters are
specified in Section 6.1, Section 6.2, and Section 6.3.
10. Deployment Considerations
The information transferred in this document is mainly used for the
BGP session setup, explicit route deployment and the prefix
distribution. The planning, allocation and distribution of the peer
addresses within IGP should be accomplished in advanced and they are
out of the scope of this document.
[RFC8232] describes the state synchronization procedure between
stateful PCE and PCC. The communication of PCE and PCC described in
this document should also follow the same procedures, treat the three
newly defined objects(BPI, EPR, PPA) associated with the same
symbolic path name as the attribute of the same path in the LSP-DB.
When PCE detects one or some of the PCCs are out of control, it
should recompute and redeploy the traffic engineering path for native
IP on the active PCCs. The PCE should assure the avoidance of
possible transient loop in such node failure when it deploys the
explicit peer route on the PCCs.
In case of a PCE failure, a new PCE can gain control over the central
controller instructions.
As per the PCEP procedures in [RFC8281], the State Timeout Interval
timer is used to ensure that a PCE failure does not result in
automatic and immediate disruption for the services. Similarly, as
per [RFC9050], the central controller instructions are not removed
immediately upon PCE failure. Instead, they could be re-delegated to
the new PCE before the expiration of this timer, or be cleaned up on
Wang, et al. Expires 23 February 2024 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extension for Native IP Network August 2023
the expiration of this timer. This allows for network clean up
without manual intervention. The PCC MUST support the removal of CCI
as one of the behaviors applied on expiration of the State Timeout
Interval timer.
Manageability considerations that described in [RFC9050] should be
followed.
11. Implementation Status
[Note to the RFC Editor - remove this section before publication, as
well as remove the reference to RFC 7942.]
This section records the status of known implementations of the
protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of this
Internet-Draft, and is based on a proposal described in [RFC7942].
The description of implementations in this section is intended to
assist the IETF in its decision processes in progressing drafts to
RFCs. Please note that the listing of any individual implementation
here does not imply endorsement by the IETF. Furthermore, no effort
has been spent to verify the information presented here that was
supplied by IETF contributors. This is not intended as, and must not
be construed to be, a catalog of available implementations or their
features. Readers are advised to note that other implementations may
exist.
According to [RFC7942], "this will allow reviewers and working groups
to assign due consideration to documents that have the benefit of
running code, which may serve as evidence of valuable experimentation
and feedback that have made the implemented protocols more mature.
It is up to the individual working groups to use this information as
they see fit".
11.1. Proof of Concept based on ODL
At the time of posting the -22 version of this document, there are no
known implementations of this mechanism. A proof of concept for the
overall design has been verified using another SBI protocol on the
Open DayLight (ODL) controller.
11.2. ZTE
ZTE is preparing an implementation of this document as the time of
posting the -22 version of this document.
Wang, et al. Expires 23 February 2024 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extension for Native IP Network August 2023
12. Security Considerations
The setup of BGP sessions, prefix advertisement, and explicit peer
route establishment are all controlled by the PCE. See [RFC4271] and
[RFC4272] for BGP security considerations. Security consideration
part in [RFC5440] and [RFC8231] should be considered. To prevent a
bogus PCE sending harmful messages to the network nodes, the network
devices should authenticate the validity of the PCE and ensure a
secure communication channel between them. Mechanisms described in
[RFC8253] [RFC9050]should be used.
13. IANA Considerations
13.1. Path Setup Type Registry
[RFC8408] created a sub-registry within the "Path Computation Element
Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry called "PCEP Path Setup Types".
IANA is requested to allocate a new code point within this sub-
registry, as follows:
Value Description Reference
4 Native IP TE Path This document
13.2. PCECC-CAPABILITY sub-TLV's Flag field
[RFC9050] created a sub-registry within the "Path Computation Element
Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry to manage the value of the PCECC-
CAPABILITY sub-TLV's 32-bits Flag field. IANA is requested to
allocate a new bit position within this registry, as follows:
Bit Name Reference
30 NATIVE IP This document
13.3. PCEP Object
IANA is requested to allocate new codepoints in the "PCEP Objects"
sub-registry as follows:
Wang, et al. Expires 23 February 2024 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extension for Native IP Network August 2023
Object-Class Value Name Reference
44 CCI Object This document
Object-Type
2: Native IP
46 BGP Peer Info This document
Object-Type
1: IPv4 address
2: IPv6 address
47 Explicit Peer Route This document
Object-Type
1: IPv4 address
2: IPv6 address
48 Peer Prefix Advertisement This document
Object-Type
1: IPv4 address
2: IPv6 address
13.4. PCEP-Error Object
IANA is requested to allocate new error types and error values within
the "PCEP-ERROR Object Error Types and Values" sub-registry of the
PCEP Numbers registry for the following errors:
Error-Type Meaning Error-value Reference
6 Mandatory Object missing
19:Native IP object missing This document
10 Reception of an invalid object
39:PCECC NATIVE-IP-TE-CAPABILITY bit is not set This document
19 Invalid Operation
22:Only one BPI,EPR or PPA object can be included in this message This document
33 Native IP TE failure This document
1:Peer AS not match
2:Peer IP can't be reached
3:Local IP is in use
4:Remote IP is in use
5:Exist BGP session broken
6:Explicit Peer Route Error
7:EPR/BPI Peer Info mismatch
8:BPI/PPA Address Family mismatch
9:PPA/BPI Peer Info mismatch
Wang, et al. Expires 23 February 2024 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extension for Native IP Network August 2023
14. Contributor
Dhruv Dhody has contributed to this document.
15. Acknowledgement
Thanks Mike Koldychev, Susan Hares, Siva Sivabalan, Adam Simpson for
his valuable suggestions and comments.
16. References
16.1. Normative References
[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>.
[RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.,
and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
Tunnels", RFC 3209, DOI 10.17487/RFC3209, December 2001,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3209>.
[RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A
Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4271>.
[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>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC8231] Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Medved, J., and R. Varga, "Path
Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)
Extensions for Stateful PCE", RFC 8231,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8231, September 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8231>.
[RFC8232] Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Medved, J., Varga, R., Zhang, X.,
and D. Dhody, "Optimizations of Label Switched Path State
Synchronization Procedures for a Stateful PCE", RFC 8232,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8232, September 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8232>.
Wang, et al. Expires 23 February 2024 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extension for Native IP Network August 2023
[RFC8253] Lopez, D., Gonzalez de Dios, O., Wu, Q., and D. Dhody,
"PCEPS: Usage of TLS to Provide a Secure Transport for the
Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)",
RFC 8253, DOI 10.17487/RFC8253, October 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8253>.
[RFC8281] Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Sivabalan, S., and R. Varga, "Path
Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)
Extensions for PCE-Initiated LSP Setup in a Stateful PCE
Model", RFC 8281, DOI 10.17487/RFC8281, December 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8281>.
[RFC8408] Sivabalan, S., Tantsura, J., Minei, I., Varga, R., and J.
Hardwick, "Conveying Path Setup Type in PCE Communication
Protocol (PCEP) Messages", RFC 8408, DOI 10.17487/RFC8408,
July 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8408>.
[RFC9050] Li, Z., Peng, S., Negi, M., Zhao, Q., and C. Zhou, "Path
Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)
Procedures and Extensions for Using the PCE as a Central
Controller (PCECC) of LSPs", RFC 9050,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9050, July 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9050>.
16.2. Informative References
[RFC4272] Murphy, S., "BGP Security Vulnerabilities Analysis",
RFC 4272, DOI 10.17487/RFC4272, January 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4272>.
[RFC7942] Sheffer, Y. and A. Farrel, "Improving Awareness of Running
Code: The Implementation Status Section", BCP 205,
RFC 7942, DOI 10.17487/RFC7942, July 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7942>.
[RFC8283] Farrel, A., Ed., Zhao, Q., Ed., Li, Z., and C. Zhou, "An
Architecture for Use of PCE and the PCE Communication
Protocol (PCEP) in a Network with Central Control",
RFC 8283, DOI 10.17487/RFC8283, December 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8283>.
[RFC8735] Wang, A., Huang, X., Kou, C., Li, Z., and P. Mi,
"Scenarios and Simulation Results of PCE in a Native IP
Network", RFC 8735, DOI 10.17487/RFC8735, February 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8735>.
Wang, et al. Expires 23 February 2024 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft PCEP Extension for Native IP Network August 2023
[RFC8821] Wang, A., Khasanov, B., Zhao, Q., and H. Chen, "PCE-Based
Traffic Engineering (TE) in Native IP Networks", RFC 8821,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8821, April 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8821>.
Authors' Addresses
Aijun Wang
China Telecom
Beiqijia Town, Changping District
Beijing
Beijing, 102209
China
Email: wangaijun@tsinghua.org.cn
Boris Khasanov
Yandex LLC
Ulitsa Lva Tolstogo 16
Moscow
Email: bhassanov@yahoo.com
Sheng Fang
Huawei Technologies
Huawei Bld., No.156 Beiqing Rd.
Beijing
China
Email: fsheng@huawei.com
Ren Tan
Huawei Technologies
Huawei Bld., No.156 Beiqing Rd.
Beijing
China
Email: tanren@huawei.com
Chun Zhu
ZTE Corporation
50 Software Avenue, Yuhua District
Nanjing
Jiangsu, 210012
China
Email: zhu.chun1@zte.com.cn
Wang, et al. Expires 23 February 2024 [Page 28]