--- 1/draft-ietf-teas-native-ip-scenarios-03.txt 2019-06-03 01:13:10.132083452 -0700 +++ 2/draft-ietf-teas-native-ip-scenarios-04.txt 2019-06-03 01:13:10.164084259 -0700 @@ -1,24 +1,24 @@ TEAS Working Group A. Wang Internet-Draft China Telecom -Intended status: Experimental X. Huang -Expires: October 11, 2019 C. Kou +Intended status: Informational X. Huang +Expires: December 5, 2019 C. Kou BUPT Z. Li China Mobile P. Mi Huawei Technologies - April 9, 2019 + June 3, 2019 Scenario, Simulation and Suggestion of PCE in Native IP Network - draft-ietf-teas-native-ip-scenarios-03 + draft-ietf-teas-native-ip-scenarios-04 Abstract This document describes the scenarios, simulation and suggestions for PCE in native IP network, which integrates the merit of distributed protocols (IGP/BGP), and the power of centrally control technologies (PCE/SDN) to provide one feasible traffic engineering solution in various complex scenarios for the service provider. Status of This Memo @@ -29,21 +29,21 @@ 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 October 11, 2019. + This Internet-Draft will expire on December 5, 2019. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2019 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 @@ -91,20 +91,31 @@ dynamic QoS assurance requirements within real time traffic network. SR(Segment Routing) is another solution that integrates some merits of distributed protocol and the advantages of centrally control mode, but it requires the underlying network, especially the provider edge router to do label push and pop action in-depth, and need complex mechanic for coexisting with the Non-SR network. Additionally, it can only maneuver the end-to-end path for MPLS and IPv6 traffic via different mechanisms. + DetNet[RFC8578] describes use cases for diverse industries that have + in common a need for "deterministic flows", which can provide + guaranteed bandwidth, bounded latency, and other properties germane + to the transport of time-sensitive data. The use cases focus mainly + on the industrial critical applications within one centrally + controlled corporate network and are out of scope of this draft. And + as described in [I-D.ietf-detnet-dp-sol-ip], the solution for the + DetNet use cases requires the update of the network data plane, which + is not easy being deployed within the service provider network and is + out of scope that described in [I-D.ietf-teas-pce-native-ip] + This draft describes scenarios that the centrally control dynamic routing (CCDR) framework can easily solve, without adding more extra burden on the router. It also gives the path optimization simulation results to illustrate the applicability of CCDR framework. Finally, it gives some suggestions for the implementation and deployment of CCDR. 2. Conventions used in this document The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", @@ -440,41 +451,56 @@ Lu Huang contributes to the content of this draft. 9. Acknowledgement The author would like to thank Deborah Brungard, Adrian Farrel, Huaimo Chen, Vishnu Beeram and Lou Berger for their supports and comments on this draft. 10. Normative References + [I-D.ietf-detnet-dp-sol-ip] + Korhonen, J. and B. Varga, "DetNet IP Data Plane + Encapsulation", draft-ietf-detnet-dp-sol-ip-02 (work in + progress), March 2019. + + [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip] + Wang, A., Khasanov, B., Cheruathur, S., Zhu, C., and S. + Fang, "PCEP Extension for Native IP Network", draft-ietf- + pce-pcep-extension-native-ip-03 (work in progress), March + 2019. + [I-D.ietf-teas-pce-native-ip] Wang, A., Zhao, Q., Khasanov, B., Chen, H., and R. Mallya, "PCE in Native IP Network", draft-ietf-teas-pce-native- - ip-02 (work in progress), October 2018. + ip-03 (work in progress), April 2019. [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, . [RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440, DOI 10.17487/RFC5440, March 2009, . [RFC8253] Lopez, D., Gonzalez de Dios, O., Wu, Q., and D. Dhody, "PCEPS: Usage of TLS to Provide a Secure Transport for the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 8253, DOI 10.17487/RFC8253, October 2017, . + [RFC8578] Grossman, E., Ed., "Deterministic Networking Use Cases", + RFC 8578, DOI 10.17487/RFC8578, May 2019, + . + Authors' Addresses Aijun Wang China Telecom Beiqijia Town, Changping District Beijing, Beijing 102209 China Email: wangaj.bri@chinatelecom.cn