PCEP Extensions for Signaling Multipath Information
draft-koldychev-pce-multipath-01

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Last updated 2020-02-21
Stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text pdf htmlized (tools) htmlized bibtex
Stream Stream state (No stream defined)
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
RFC Editor Note (None)
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
Network Working Group                                       M. Koldychev
Internet-Draft                                              S. Sivabalan
Intended status: Standards Track                     Cisco Systems, Inc.
Expires: August 24, 2020                                         T. Saad
                                                               V. Beeram
                                                  Juniper Networks, Inc.
                                                              H. Bidgoli
                                                                   Nokia
                                                                B. Yadav
                                                                   Ciena
                                                       February 21, 2020

          PCEP Extensions for Signaling Multipath Information
                    draft-koldychev-pce-multipath-01

Abstract

   Current PCEP standards allow only one intended and/or actual path to
   be present in a PCEP report or update.  Applications that require
   multipath support such as SR Policy require an extension to allow
   signaling multiple intended and/or actual paths within a single PCEP
   message.  This document introduces such an extension.  Encoding of
   multiple intended and/or actual paths is done by encoding multiple
   Explicit Route Objects (EROs) and/or multiple Record Route Objects
   (RROs).  A special separator object is defined in this document, to
   facilitate this.  This mechanism is applicable to SR-TE and RSVP-TE
   and is dataplane agnostic.

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 August 24, 2020.

Koldychev, et al.        Expires August 24, 2020                [Page 1]
Internet-Draft        PCEP Extensions for Multipath        February 2020

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2020 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
   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  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.1.  Terms and Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Motivation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.1.  Signaling Multiple Segment-Lists of an SR Candidate-Path    4
     3.2.  Splitting of Requested Bandwidth  . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.3.  Providing Backup path for Protection  . . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  Protocol Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     4.1.  Multipath Capability TLV  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     4.2.  Path Attributes Object  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     4.3.  Multipath Weight TLV  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     4.4.  Multipath Backup TLV  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   5.  Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     5.1.  Signaling Multiple Paths for Loadbalancing  . . . . . . .   8
     5.2.  Signaling Multiple Paths for Protection . . . . . . . . .   9
   6.  PCEP Message Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   7.  Examples  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     7.1.  SR Policy Candidate-Path with Multiple Segment-Lists  . .  10
   8.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   9.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   10. Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   11. Contributors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   12. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     12.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
Show full document text