< draft-chen-pce-pcep-ifit-02.txt		draft-chen-pce-pcep-ifit-03.txt >
	PCE H. Chen		PCE H. Chen
	Internet-Draft China Telecom		Internet-Draft China Telecom
	Intended status: Standards Track H. Yuan		Intended status: Standards Track H. Yuan
	Expires: August 13, 2021 UnionPay		Expires: January 10, 2022 UnionPay
	T. Zhou		T. Zhou
	W. Li		W. Li
	G. Fioccola		G. Fioccola
	Y. Wang		Y. Wang
	Huawei		Huawei
	February 9, 2021		July 9, 2021
	Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions to		Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions to
	Enable IFIT		Enable IFIT
	draft-chen-pce-pcep-ifit-02		draft-chen-pce-pcep-ifit-03
	Abstract		Abstract
	This document defines PCEP extensions to distribute In-situ Flow		This document defines PCEP extensions to distribute In-situ Flow
	Information Telemetry (IFIT) information. So that IFIT behavior can		Information Telemetry (IFIT) information. So that IFIT behavior can
	be enabled automatically when the path is instantiated. In-situ Flow		be enabled automatically when the path is instantiated. In-situ Flow
	Information Telemetry (IFIT) refers to network OAM data plane on-path		Information Telemetry (IFIT) refers to network OAM data plane on-path
	telemetry techniques, in particular the most popular are In-situ OAM		telemetry techniques, in particular the most popular are In-situ OAM
	(IOAM) and Alternate Marking. The IFIT attributes here described can		(IOAM) and Alternate Marking. The IFIT attributes here described can
	be generalized for all path types but the application to Segment		be generalized for all path types but the application to Segment
	skipping to change at page 2, line 7 ¶		skipping to change at page 2, line 7 ¶
	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 August 13, 2021.		This Internet-Draft will expire on January 10, 2022.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the		Copyright (c) 2021 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		Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
	(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of		(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
	publication of this document. Please review these documents		publication of this document. Please review these documents
	carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect		carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
	to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must		to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
	include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of		include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
	the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as		the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
	described in the Simplified BSD License.		described in the Simplified BSD License.
	Table of Contents		Table of Contents
	1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	2. PCEP Extensions for IFIT Attributes . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		2. PCEP Extensions for IFIT Attributes . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	2.1. IFIT for SR Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		2.1. IFIT for SR Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	3. IFIT capability advertisement TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		3. IFIT capability advertisement TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	4. IFIT Attributes TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		4. IFIT Attributes TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	4.1. IOAM Sub-TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8		4.1. IOAM Sub-TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	4.1.1. IOAM Pre-allocated Trace Option Sub-TLV . . . . . . . 8		4.1.1. IOAM Pre-allocated Trace Option Sub-TLV . . . . . . . 9
	4.1.2. IOAM Incremental Trace Option Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . 9		4.1.2. IOAM Incremental Trace Option Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . 10
	4.1.3. IOAM Directly Export Option Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . 10		4.1.3. IOAM Directly Export Option Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . 10
	4.1.4. IOAM Edge-to-Edge Option Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . 11		4.1.4. IOAM Edge-to-Edge Option Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . 11
	4.2. Enhanced Alternate Marking Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . 12		4.2. Enhanced Alternate Marking Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . 12
	5. PCEP Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		5. PCEP Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
	5.1. The PCInitiate Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		5.1. The PCInitiate Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
	5.2. The PCUpd Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		5.2. The PCUpd Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
	5.3. The PCRpt Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		5.3. The PCRpt Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
	6. Example of application to SR Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14		6. Example of application to SR Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
	7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15		7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
	8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16		8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
	9. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17		9. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
	10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17		10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
	11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17		11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
	11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17		11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
	11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19		11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
	Appendix A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20		Appendix A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
	Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20		Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
	1. Introduction		1. Introduction
	In-situ Flow Information Telemetry (IFIT) refers to network OAM		In-situ Flow Information Telemetry (IFIT) refers to network OAM
	(Operations, Administration, and Maintenance) data plane on-path		(Operations, Administration, and Maintenance) data plane on-path
	telemetry techniques, including In-situ OAM (IOAM)		telemetry techniques, including In-situ OAM (IOAM)
	[I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data] and Alternate Marking [RFC8321]. It can		[I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data] and Alternate Marking [RFC8321]. It can
	provide flow information on the entire forwarding path on a per-		provide flow information on the entire forwarding path on a per-
	packet basis in real time.		packet basis in real time.
	skipping to change at page 3, line 47 ¶		skipping to change at page 3, line 47 ¶
	makes sense for that same protocol to be used to also carry the IFIT		makes sense for that same protocol to be used to also carry the IFIT
	attributes that describe the IOAM or Alternate Marking procedure that		attributes that describe the IOAM or Alternate Marking procedure that
	needs to be applied to the data that flow those paths.		needs to be applied to the data that flow those paths.
	The PCEP extension defined in this document allows to signal the IFIT		The PCEP extension defined in this document allows to signal the IFIT
	capabilities. In this way IFIT methods are automatically activated		capabilities. In this way IFIT methods are automatically activated
	and running. The flexibility and dynamicity of the IFIT applications		and running. The flexibility and dynamicity of the IFIT applications
	are given by the use of additional functions on the controller and on		are given by the use of additional functions on the controller and on
	the network nodes, but this is out of scope here.		the network nodes, but this is out of scope here.
	The Use Case of Segment Routing (SR) is discussed considering that		IFIT is a solution focusing on network domains according to [RFC8799]
	IFIT methods are becoming mature for Segment Routing over the MPLS		that introduces the concept of specific domain solutions. A network
	data plane (SR-MPLS) and Segment Routing over IPv6 data plane (SRv6).		domain consists of a set of network devices or entities within a
	In this way SR policy native IFIT can facilitate the closed loop		single administration. As mentioned in [RFC8799], for a number of
	control and enable the automation of SR service.		reasons, such as policies, options supported, style of network
			management and security requirements, it is suggested to limit
			applications including the emerging IFIT techniques to a controlled
			domain. Hence, the IFIT methods MUST be typically deployed in such
			controlled domains.
	Segment Routing (SR) policy [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy]		The Use Case of Segment Routing (SR) is also discussed considering
	is a set of candidate SR paths consisting of one or more segment		that IFIT methods are becoming mature for Segment Routing over the
	lists and necessary path attributes. It enables instantiation of an		MPLS data plane (SR-MPLS) and Segment Routing over IPv6 data plane
	ordered list of segments with a specific intent for traffic steering.		(SRv6). SR policy [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy] is a set
			of candidate SR paths consisting of one or more segment lists and
			necessary path attributes. It enables instantiation of an ordered
			list of segments with a specific intent for traffic steering. The
			PCEP extension defined in this document also enables SR policy with
			native IFIT, that can facilitate the closed loop control and enable
			the automation of SR service.
	It is to be noted the companion document [I-D.qin-idr-sr-policy-ifit]		It is to be noted the companion document [I-D.qin-idr-sr-policy-ifit]
	that proposes the BGP extension to enable IFIT methods for SR policy.		that proposes the BGP extension to enable IFIT methods for SR policy.
	2. PCEP Extensions for IFIT Attributes		2. PCEP Extensions for IFIT Attributes
	This document is to add IFIT attribute TLVs as PCEP Extensions. The		This document is to add IFIT attribute TLVs as PCEP Extensions. The
	following sections will describe the requirement and usage of		following sections will describe the requirement and usage of
	different IFIT modes, and define the corresponding TLV encoding in		different IFIT modes, and define the corresponding TLV encoding in
	PCEP.		PCEP.
	skipping to change at page 17, line 18 ¶		skipping to change at page 18, line 7 ¶
	practices in BCP 195 RFC 7525 [RFC7525] (unless explicitly set aside		practices in BCP 195 RFC 7525 [RFC7525] (unless explicitly set aside
	in RFC 8253 [RFC8253]).		in RFC 8253 [RFC8253]).
	Implementation of IFIT methods (IOAM and Alternate Marking) are		Implementation of IFIT methods (IOAM and Alternate Marking) are
	mindful of security and privacy concerns, as explained in		mindful of security and privacy concerns, as explained in
	[I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data] and RFC 8321 [RFC8321]. Anyway incorrect		[I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data] and RFC 8321 [RFC8321]. Anyway incorrect
	IFIT parameters in the IFIT-ATTRIBUTES sub-TLVs SHOULD not have an		IFIT parameters in the IFIT-ATTRIBUTES sub-TLVs SHOULD not have an
	adverse effect on the LSP as well as on the network, since it affects		adverse effect on the LSP as well as on the network, since it affects
	only the operation of the telemetry methodology.		only the operation of the telemetry methodology.
			IFIT data MUST be propagated in a limited domain in order to avoid
			malicious attacks and solutions to ensure this requirement are
			respectively discussed in [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data] and
			[I-D.ietf-6man-ipv6-alt-mark].
			IFIT methods (IOAM and Alternate Marking) are applied within a
			controlled domain where the network nodes are locally administered.
			A limited administrative domain provides the network administrator
			with the means to select, monitor and control the access to the
			network, making it a trusted domain also for the PCEP extensions
			defined in this document.
	9. Contributors		9. Contributors
	The following people provided relevant contributions to this		The following people provided relevant contributions to this
	document:		document:
	Dhruv Doody, Huawei Technologies, dhruv.ietf@gmail.com		Dhruv Doody, Huawei Technologies, dhruv.ietf@gmail.com
	10. Acknowledgements		10. Acknowledgements
	The authors of this document would like to thank Huaimo Chen for the		The authors of this document would like to thank Huaimo Chen for the
	comments and review of this document.		comments and review of this document.
	11. References		11. References
	11.1. Normative References		11.1. Normative References
	[I-D.ietf-6man-ipv6-alt-mark]		[I-D.ietf-6man-ipv6-alt-mark]
	Fioccola, G., Zhou, T., Cociglio, M., Qin, F., and R.		Fioccola, G., Zhou, T., Cociglio, M., Qin, F., and R.
	Pang, "IPv6 Application of the Alternate Marking Method",		Pang, "IPv6 Application of the Alternate Marking Method",
	draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-alt-mark-02 (work in progress),		draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-alt-mark-04 (work in progress), March
	October 2020.		2021.
	[I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data]		[I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data]
	Brockners, F., Bhandari, S., and T. Mizrahi, "Data Fields		Brockners, F., Bhandari, S., and T. Mizrahi, "Data Fields
	for In-situ OAM", draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data-11 (work in		for In-situ OAM", draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data-12 (work in
	progress), November 2020.		progress), February 2021.
	[I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-direct-export]		[I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-direct-export]
	Song, H., Gafni, B., Zhou, T., Li, Z., Brockners, F.,		Song, H., Gafni, B., Zhou, T., Li, Z., Brockners, F.,
	Bhandari, S., Sivakolundu, R., and T. Mizrahi, "In-situ		Bhandari, S., Sivakolundu, R., and T. Mizrahi, "In-situ
	OAM Direct Exporting", draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-direct-		OAM Direct Exporting", draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-direct-
	export-02 (work in progress), November 2020.		export-03 (work in progress), February 2021.
	[I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-flags]		[I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-flags]
	Mizrahi, T., Brockners, F., Bhandari, S., Sivakolundu, R.,		Mizrahi, T., Brockners, F., Bhandari, S., Sivakolundu, R.,
	Pignataro, C., Kfir, A., Gafni, B., Spiegel, M., and J.		Pignataro, C., Kfir, A., Gafni, B., Spiegel, M., and J.
	Lemon, "In-situ OAM Flags", draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-flags-03		Lemon, "In-situ OAM Flags", draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-flags-04
	(work in progress), October 2020.		(work in progress), February 2021.
	[I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-ipv6-options]		[I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-ipv6-options]
	Bhandari, S., Brockners, F., Pignataro, C., Gredler, H.,		Bhandari, S., Brockners, F., Pignataro, C., Gredler, H.,
	Leddy, J., Youell, S., Mizrahi, T., Kfir, A., Gafni, B.,		Leddy, J., Youell, S., Mizrahi, T., Kfir, A., Gafni, B.,
	Lapukhov, P., Spiegel, M., Krishnan, S., Asati, R., and M.		Lapukhov, P., Spiegel, M., Krishnan, S., Asati, R., and M.
	Smith, "In-situ OAM IPv6 Options", draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-		Smith, "In-situ OAM IPv6 Options", draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-
	ipv6-options-04 (work in progress), November 2020.		ipv6-options-05 (work in progress), February 2021.
	[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>.
	skipping to change at page 19, line 29 ¶		skipping to change at page 20, line 29 ¶
	"Alternate-Marking Method for Passive and Hybrid		"Alternate-Marking Method for Passive and Hybrid
	Performance Monitoring", RFC 8321, DOI 10.17487/RFC8321,		Performance Monitoring", RFC 8321, DOI 10.17487/RFC8321,
	January 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8321>.		January 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8321>.
	[RFC8664] Sivabalan, S., Filsfils, C., Tantsura, J., Henderickx, W.,		[RFC8664] Sivabalan, S., Filsfils, C., Tantsura, J., Henderickx, W.,
	and J. Hardwick, "Path Computation Element Communication		and J. Hardwick, "Path Computation Element Communication
	Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for Segment Routing", RFC 8664,		Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for Segment Routing", RFC 8664,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC8664, December 2019,		DOI 10.17487/RFC8664, December 2019,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8664>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8664>.
			[RFC8799] Carpenter, B. and B. Liu, "Limited Domains and Internet
			Protocols", RFC 8799, DOI 10.17487/RFC8799, July 2020,
			<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8799>.
	11.2. Informative References		11.2. Informative References
	[I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing-ipv6]		[I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing-ipv6]
	Li, C., Negi, M., Sivabalan, S., Koldychev, M.,		Li, C., Negi, M., Sivabalan, S., Koldychev, M.,
	Kaladharan, P., and Y. Zhu, "PCEP Extensions for Segment		Kaladharan, P., and Y. Zhu, "PCEP Extensions for Segment
	Routing leveraging the IPv6 data plane", draft-ietf-pce-		Routing leveraging the IPv6 data plane", draft-ietf-pce-
	segment-routing-ipv6-08 (work in progress), November 2020.		segment-routing-ipv6-09 (work in progress), May 2021.
	[I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp]		[I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp]
	Koldychev, M., Sivabalan, S., Barth, C., Peng, S., and H.		Koldychev, M., Sivabalan, S., Barth, C., Peng, S., and H.
	Bidgoli, "PCEP extension to support Segment Routing Policy		Bidgoli, "PCEP extension to support Segment Routing Policy
	Candidate Paths", draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-		Candidate Paths", draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-
	cp-02 (work in progress), January 2021.		cp-04 (work in progress), March 2021.
	[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy]		[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy]
	Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Voyer, D., Bogdanov, A., and		Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Voyer, D., Bogdanov, A., and
	P. Mattes, "Segment Routing Policy Architecture", draft-		P. Mattes, "Segment Routing Policy Architecture", draft-
	ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy-09 (work in progress),		ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy-11 (work in progress),
	November 2020.		April 2021.
	[I-D.koldychev-pce-multipath]		[I-D.koldychev-pce-multipath]
	Koldychev, M., Sivabalan, S., Saad, T., Beeram, V.,		Koldychev, M., Sivabalan, S., Saad, T., Beeram, V. P.,
	Bidgoli, H., Yadav, B., and S. Peng, "PCEP Extensions for		Bidgoli, H., Yadav, B., and S. Peng, "PCEP Extensions for
	Signaling Multipath Information", draft-koldychev-pce-		Signaling Multipath Information", draft-koldychev-pce-
	multipath-04 (work in progress), October 2020.		multipath-05 (work in progress), February 2021.
	[I-D.qin-idr-sr-policy-ifit]		[I-D.qin-idr-sr-policy-ifit]
	Qin, F., Yuan, H., Zhou, T., Fioccola, G., and Y. Wang,		Qin, F., Yuan, H., Zhou, T., Fioccola, G., and Y. Wang,
	"BGP SR Policy Extensions to Enable IFIT", draft-qin-idr-		"BGP SR Policy Extensions to Enable IFIT", draft-qin-idr-
	sr-policy-ifit-04 (work in progress), October 2020.		sr-policy-ifit-04 (work in progress), October 2020.
	Appendix A.		Appendix A.
	Authors' Addresses		Authors' Addresses
End of changes. 22 change blocks.
	40 lines changed or deleted		66 lines changed or added
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/