Transcript IPv6 Site Renumbering Gap Analysis

PCEP Extension for Native IP
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wang-teas-pce-native-ip/
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wang-pce-extension-native-ip/
Aijun Wang (Speaker) (China Telecom)
Boris Khasanov(Huawei)
Sudhir Cheruathur(Juniper)
IETF 97@Seoul, Nov. 14-18 2016
1
Traffic Engineering Current Status
Distributed
(MPLS-TE)
MPLS
Central Control
(PCE/PCECC/SR)
Distributed
(DiffServ)
TE(IP Network)
Native IPv6
Central Control
(SR/DNRS)
Central Control
(DNRS)
Native IPv4
Distributed
(DiffServ)
Covered by current drafts
2
The key idea of PCE in Native IP is based on
Dual/Multi-BGP session strategy and
PCE-based central control architecture
PCE
R3
Prefix11
Prefix12
Prefix13
Prefix14
……
……
Prefix1N
R5
R6
R1
R7
R2
R4
Prefix21
Prefix22
Prefix23
Prefix24
……
……
Prefix2N
Dual/Multi BGP Peers between R1/R7
with different loopback addresses
BGP Peer 1
advertised prefixes
BGP Peer 2
advertised prefixes
Explicit Route to Peer 1
Explicit Route to Peer 2
……
BGP Peer N
advertised prefixes
Explicit Route to Peer N
3
PCEP Extension
Peer Address List(PAL) Object
• Begin with the common object header defined in RFC5440
• Used to indicate the receiving router of the peering address list
• Receiving router should build BGP relationship with the peer,
using the corresponding local/peer IP address pair.
• Included in PCE initiate Message
4
PCEP Extension
Peer Prefix Association(PPA) Object
• Begin with the common object header defined in RFC5440
• Used to indicate the association between the peer relationship
and the advertised prefixes.
• Receiving router should advertised the prefixes via the
corresponding BGP peer.
• Included in PCE initiate Message
5
PCEP Extension
Explicit Peer Route(EPR) Object
•
•
•
•
Begin with the common object header defined in RFC5440
Used to indicate the explicit route to the peer.
Receiving router should establish the explicit route automatically.
Included in PCE initiate Message
6
Discussion: New Capability Negotiation or
Reuse the “I” Flags?
•
Reuse the “I” Flags
–
–
–
–
•
Define New Flag “N”
–
–
–
•
Both Initiated from the PCE
Similar Procedure for PCE/PCC
Newly defined Objects are
piggybacked within PCE
initiate message.
Implementation consider
mainly the newly defined
Objects.
Distinguished from the LSP
initiated message.
Should define new message
for PCE initiated native IP Path
Concept and implementation
are more clear.
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp-07#section-4.1
Which is better?
7
Discussion: QoS parameter transfer?
• Do we need to define some new objects to transfer the QoS
requirement on each link?
• Can reduce the congestion possibility for the assured traffic.
• Maximize the link utilization ratio within the network.
• Can be deployed easily on necessary.
8
Further Action
• Adopt as one WG draft?
• Solution for Pure IGP network?
• Comments?
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
IETF97@Seoul
9