One document matched: draft-dong-idr-te-lsp-distribution-01.txt
Differences from draft-dong-idr-te-lsp-distribution-00.txt
Network Working Group J. Dong
Internet-Draft M. Chen
Intended status: Standards Track Huawei Technologies
Expires: August 29, 2013 February 25, 2013
Distribution of MPLS Traffic Engineering (TE) LSP State using BGP
draft-dong-idr-te-lsp-distribution-01
Abstract
This document describes a mechanism to collect the Traffic
Engineering (TE) LSP information using BGP. Such information can be
used by external components for path reoptimization, service
placement and network visualization.
Requirements Language
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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
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 August 29, 2013.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2013 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
Dong & Chen Expires August 29, 2013 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft MPLS TE LSP State Distribution using BGP February 2013
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. Carrying LSP State Information in BGP . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. LSP Identifier Inforation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2. LSP State Attribute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Dong & Chen Expires August 29, 2013 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft MPLS TE LSP State Distribution using BGP February 2013
1. Introduction
In some network environments, the states of established Multi-
Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE) Label
Switched Paths (LSPs) in the network are required by some components
external to the network domain. Usually this information is directly
maintained by the ingress Label Edge Routers (LERs) of the MPLS TE
LSPs.
One example of using the LSP information is stateful Path Computation
Element (PCE) [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce], which could provide
benefits in path reoptimization . While some extensions are proposed
in Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) for the
Path Computation Clients (PCCs) to report the LSP states to the PCE,
this mechanism may not be applicable in a management-based PCE
architecture as specified in section 5.5 of [RFC4655]. As
illustrated in the figure below, the PCC is not an LSR in the routing
domain, thus the head-end nodes of the TE-LSP may not implement the
PCEP protocol. In this case some general mechanism to collect the
TE-LSP states from the ingress LERs is needed. This document
proposes an LSP state collection mechanism complementary to the
mechanism defined in [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce].
-----------
| ----- |
Service | | TED |<-+----------->
Request | ----- | TED synchronization
| | | | mechanism (for example,
v | | | routing protocol)
------------- Request/ | v |
| | Response| ----- |
| NMS |<--------+> | PCE | |
| | | ----- |
------------- -----------
Service |
Request |
v
---------- Signaling ----------
| Head-End | Protocol | Adjacent |
| Node |<---------->| Node |
---------- ----------
Figure 1. Management-Based PCE Usage
In networks with composite PCE nodes as specified in section 5.1 of
[RFC4655], the PCE is implemented on several routers in the network,
and the PCCs in the network can use the mechanism described in
[I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] to report the LSP information to the PCE
Dong & Chen Expires August 29, 2013 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft MPLS TE LSP State Distribution using BGP February 2013
nodes. An external component may further need to collect the LSP
information from all the PCEs in the network to get a global view of
the LSP states in the network.
In some networks, a centralized controller is used for service
placement. Obtaining the TE LSP state information is quite important
for making appropriate service placement decisions with the purpose
of both meeting the application's requirements and utilizing the
network resource efficiently.
The Network Management System (NMS) may need to provide global
visibility of the TE LSPs in the network as part of the network
visualization function.
BGP has been extended to distribute link-state and traffic
engineering information and share with some external components
[I-D.ietf-idr-ls-distribution]. Using the same protocol to collect
other network layer information would be desired by the external
components, which avoids introducing multiple protocols for network
information collection. This document describes a mechanism to
distribute the TE LSP information to external components using BGP.
2. Carrying LSP State Information in BGP
2.1. LSP Identifier Inforation
The TE LSP Identifier information is advertised in BGP UPDATE
messages using the MP_REACH_NLRI and MP_UNREACH_NLRI attributes
[RFC4760]. The "Link State NLRI" defined in
[I-D.ietf-idr-ls-distribution] is extended to carry the TE LSP
information. BGP speakers that wish to exchange TE LSP information
MUST use the BGP Multiprotocol Extensions Capability Code (1) to
advertise the corresponding (AFI, SAFI) pair, as specified in
[RFC4760].
The format of the Link State NLRI is shown in the following figure.
Dong & Chen Expires August 29, 2013 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft MPLS TE LSP State Distribution using BGP February 2013
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| NLRI Type | Total NLRI Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Link State NLRI (variable) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2. Link State NLRI Format
Two new "NLRI Type" are defined for TE LSP Identifier Information as
following:
o NLRI Type = 5: IPv4 LSP NLRI
o NLRI-Type = 6: IPv6 LSP NLRI
If the NLRI Type value is set to 5, the Link State NLRI field is the
IPv4-LSP-IDENTIFER structured 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv4 Tunnel Sender Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Tunnel ID | LSP ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv4 Tunnel End-point Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3. IPv4-LSP-IDENTIFIER
If the NLRI Type value is set to 6, the Link State NLRI field is the
IPv6-LSP-IDENTIFIER structured as below:
Dong & Chen Expires August 29, 2013 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft MPLS TE LSP State Distribution using BGP February 2013
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ +
| IPv6 Tunnel Sender Address |
+ (16 octets) +
| |
+ +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Tunnel ID | LSP ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ +
| IPv6 Tunnel End-point Address |
+ (16 octets) +
| |
+ +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 4. IPv6-LSP-IDENTIFIER
The fields in the IPv4-LSP-IDENTIFIER and IPv6-LSP-IDENTIFIER are the
same as specified in [RFC3209].
2.2. LSP State Attribute
The LSP State Attribute is an optional non-transitive BGP attribute
which is used to describe the characteristics of the LSPs. The LSP
State Attribute consists of a set of objects defined in [RFC3209],
[RFC3473] and [RFC5440] . This Attribute SHOULD only be used with
IPv4/IPv6 LSP NLRI.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
~ Objects (variable) ~
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 5. LSP State Attribute
Currently the Objects that can be carried in the LSP State Attribute
include:
Dong & Chen Expires August 29, 2013 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft MPLS TE LSP State Distribution using BGP February 2013
o LSP Attributes (LSPA) Object
o Explicit Route Object (ERO)
o Record Route Object (RRO)
o BANDWIDTH Object
o METRIC Object
o Protection Object
o Admin Status Object
Other objects may also be carried in the LSP State Attribute, which
would be specified in a future version.
3. IANA Considerations
IANA needs to assign an new code point for the LSP State Attribute
from the "BGP Path Attributes" registry.
4. Security Considerations
TBD
5. Acknowledgements
TBD
6. References
6.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-idr-ls-distribution]
Gredler, H., Medved, J., Previdi, S., Farrel, A., and S.
Ray, "North-Bound Distribution of Link-State and TE
Information using BGP", draft-ietf-idr-ls-distribution-01
(work in progress), October 2012.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.,
Dong & Chen Expires August 29, 2013 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft MPLS TE LSP State Distribution using BGP February 2013
and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001.
[RFC3473] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic
Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473, January 2003.
[RFC4760] Bates, T., Chandra, R., Katz, D., and Y. Rekhter,
"Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4", RFC 4760,
January 2007.
[RFC5440] Vasseur, JP. and JL. Le Roux, "Path Computation Element
(PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440,
March 2009.
6.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce]
Crabbe, E., Medved, J., Minei, I., and R. Varga, "PCEP
Extensions for Stateful PCE",
draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-02 (work in progress),
October 2012.
[RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J., and J. Ash, "A Path Computation
Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655, August 2006.
Authors' Addresses
Jie Dong
Huawei Technologies
Huawei Building, No. 156 Beiqing Rd.
Beijing 100095
China
Email: jie.dong@huawei.com
Mach(Guoyi) Chen
Huawei Technologies
Huawei Building, No. 156 Beiqing Rd.
Beijing 100095
China
Email: mach.chen@huawei.com
Dong & Chen Expires August 29, 2013 [Page 8]
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-24 05:49:34 |