draft-sidor-pce-circuit-style-pcep-extensions-05.txt   draft-sidor-pce-circuit-style-pcep-extensions-06.txt 
PCE Working Group S. Sidor PCE Working Group S. Sidor
Internet-Draft Cisco Systems, Inc. Internet-Draft Cisco Systems, Inc.
Intended status: Standards Track P. Maheshwari Intended status: Standards Track P. Maheshwari
Expires: 3 June 2024 Airtel India Expires: 16 June 2024 Airtel India
A. Stone A. Stone
Nokia Nokia
L. Jalil L. Jalil
Verizon Verizon
S. Peng S. Peng
Huawei Technologies Huawei Technologies
1 December 2023 14 December 2023
PCEP extensions for Circuit Style Policies PCEP extensions for Circuit Style Policies
draft-sidor-pce-circuit-style-pcep-extensions-05 draft-sidor-pce-circuit-style-pcep-extensions-06
Abstract Abstract
This document proposes a set of extensions for Path Computation This document proposes a set of extensions for Path Computation
Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) for Circuit Style Policies - Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) for Circuit Style Policies -
Segment-Routing Policy designed to satisfy requirements for Segment-Routing Policy designed to satisfy requirements for
connection-oriented transport services. New TLV is introduced to connection-oriented transport services. New TLV is introduced to
control path recomputation and new flag to add ability to request control path recomputation and new flag to add ability to request
path with strict hops only. path with strict hops only.
skipping to change at page 2, line 4 skipping to change at page 2, line 4
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 https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at https://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 3 June 2024. This Internet-Draft will expire on 16 June 2024.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2023 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2023 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 (https://trustee.ietf.org/ Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components
extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License. provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Overview of Extensions to PCEP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. Overview of Extensions to PCEP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.1. New flag in the LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. PATH-RECOMPUTATION TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.2. PATH-RECOMPUTATION TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4. Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1. Strict path enforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4.1. Strict path enforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2. Path recomputation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4.2. Path recomputation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.1. Control of Function and Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5.1. Control of Function and Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.2. Information and Data Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5.2. Information and Data Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.4. Verify Correct Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5.4. Verify Correct Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.5. Requirements On Other Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5.5. Requirements On Other Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.6. Impact On Network Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5.6. Impact On Network Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6.1. Cisco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6.1. Cisco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8.1. LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 8.1. LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8.2. PATH-RECOMPUTATION TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 8.2. PATH-RECOMPUTATION TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
Usage of Segment-routing and PCEP in connection-oriented transport Usage of Segment-routing and PCEP in connection-oriented transport
services require path persistancy and hop-by-hop behavior for PCE services require path persistancy and hop-by-hop behavior for PCE
computed paths. computed paths.
Circuit-Style Policy introduced in [I-D.ietf-spring-cs-sr-policy] Circuit-Style Policy introduced in [I-D.ietf-spring-cs-sr-policy]
requires PCEP extensions, which are covered in this document. requires PCEP extensions, which are covered in this document.
skipping to change at page 4, line 12 skipping to change at page 4, line 12
SID: Segment Identifier SID: Segment Identifier
SONET: Synchronous Optical Network SONET: Synchronous Optical Network
SR: Segment Routing. SR: Segment Routing.
SR-TE: Segment Routing Traffic Engineering. SR-TE: Segment Routing Traffic Engineering.
3. Overview of Extensions to PCEP 3. Overview of Extensions to PCEP
3.1. LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV 3.1. New flag in the LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV
O-flag is proposed in the LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV, which was introduced O-flag is proposed in the LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV, which was introduced
in 3.1 of [RFC9357] and extended with E-flag in in 3.1 of [RFC9357]. TLV format will be added after assigning O-flag
[I-D.peng-pce-entropy-label-position]. TLV format will be added bit position by IANA.
after assigning O flag bit position by IANA.
Type (16 bits): the value is TBD1 by IANA.
Length (16 bits): multiple of 4 octets.
O (Strict-Path): If set to 1, this indicates to the PCE that a path O (Strict-Path): If set to 1, this indicates to the PCE that a path
exclusively made of strict hops is required. Strict hop definition exclusively made of strict hops is required. Strict hop definition
is described in Section 4.1 is described in Section 4.1
3.2. PATH-RECOMPUTATION TLV 3.2. PATH-RECOMPUTATION TLV
This document defines new TLV for the LSPA Object for encoding This document defines new TLV for the LSPA Object for encoding
information whether path recomputation is allowed for delegated LSP. information whether path recomputation is allowed for delegated LSP.
The TLV is optional. If the TLV is included in LSPA object, the PCE The TLV is optional. If the TLV is included in LSPA object, the PCE
skipping to change at page 9, line 17 skipping to change at page 9, line 17
+==========+========================+===============+ +==========+========================+===============+
| TBD2 | PATH-RECOMPUTATION TLV | This document | | TBD2 | PATH-RECOMPUTATION TLV | This document |
+----------+------------------------+---------------+ +----------+------------------------+---------------+
Table 2 Table 2
9. References 9. References
9.1. Normative References 9.1. Normative References
[I-D.peng-pce-entropy-label-position]
Xiong, Q., Peng, S., and F. Qin, "PCEP Extension for SR-
MPLS Entropy Label Position", Work in Progress, Internet-
Draft, draft-peng-pce-entropy-label-position-10, 5 March
2023, <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-peng-pce-
entropy-label-position-09.txt>.
[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, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation [RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation
Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440, Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5440, March 2009, DOI 10.17487/RFC5440, March 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5440>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5440>.
 End of changes. 9 change blocks. 
21 lines changed or deleted 9 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.45. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/