Networking Working Group Ran. Chen Internet-Draft Fangwei. Hu Intended status: Standards Track ZTE Corporation Expires: September 10, 2017 March 9, 2017 Path Computation Element communication Protocol extension for Associated ECMP draft-chen-pce-association-ecmp-00 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 http://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 September 10, 2017. 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 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents Chen & Hu Expires September 10, 2017 [Page 1] Internet-Draft PCEP Associated ECMP March 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 September 10, 2017 [Page 2] Internet-Draft PCEP Associated ECMP March 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 September 10, 2017 [Page 3] Internet-Draft PCEP Associated ECMP March 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 September 10, 2017 [Page 4] Internet-Draft PCEP Associated ECMP March 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 September 10, 2017 [Page 5] Internet-Draft PCEP Associated ECMP March 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., Zhang, X., and Y. Tanaka, "PCEP Extensions for Establishing Relationships Between Sets of LSPs", draft- ietf-pce-association-group-02 (work in progress), January 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-18 (work in progress), December 2016. [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, . Chen & Hu Expires September 10, 2017 [Page 6] Internet-Draft PCEP Associated ECMP March 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, . [RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440, DOI 10.17487/RFC5440, March 2009, . 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 September 10, 2017 [Page 7]