< draft-ietf-pce-association-policy-00.txt   draft-ietf-pce-association-policy-01.txt >
PCE Working Group D. Dhody, Ed. PCE Working Group D. Dhody, Ed.
Internet-Draft Huawei Technologies Internet-Draft Huawei Technologies
Intended status: Standards Track S. Sivabalan, Ed. Intended status: Standards Track S. Sivabalan
Expires: June 18, 2017 Cisco Systems, Inc. Expires: December 31, 2017 Cisco Systems, Inc.
S. Litkowski S. Litkowski
Orange Orange
J. Tantsura J. Tantsura
Individual Individual
J. Hardwick J. Hardwick
Metaswitch Networks Metaswitch Networks
December 15, 2016 June 29, 2017
Path Computation Element communication Protocol extension for Path Computation Element communication Protocol extension for
associating Policies and LSPs associating Policies and LSPs
draft-ietf-pce-association-policy-00 draft-ietf-pce-association-policy-01
Abstract Abstract
This document introduces a simple mechanism to associate policies to This document introduces a simple mechanism to associate policies to
a group of Label Switched Paths (LSPs) via an extension to the Path a group of Label Switched Paths (LSPs) via an extension to the Path
Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP). Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP).
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
skipping to change at page 1, line 40 skipping to change at page 1, line 40
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 http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://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 June 18, 2017. This Internet-Draft will expire on December 31, 2017.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2017 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
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1. Policy based Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.1. Policy based Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Policy Association Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5. Policy Association Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7.1. Association object Type Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . 6 7.1. Association object Type Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 8. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8.1. Control of Function and Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 8.1. Control of Function and Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8.2. Information and Data Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 8.2. Information and Data Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 8.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8.4. Verify Correct Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 8.4. Verify Correct Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8.5. Requirements On Other Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 8.5. Requirements On Other Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8.6. Impact On Network Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 8.6. Impact On Network Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
9. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 9. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Appendix A. Contributor Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Appendix A. Contributor Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
[RFC5440] describes the Path Computation Element communication [RFC5440] describes the Path Computation Element communication
Protocol (PCEP) which enables the communication between a Path Protocol (PCEP) which enables the communication between a Path
Computation Client (PCC) and a Path Control Element (PCE), or between Computation Client (PCC) and a Path Control Element (PCE), or between
two PCEs based on the PCE architecture [RFC4655]. two PCEs based on the PCE architecture [RFC4655].
PCEP Extensions for Stateful PCE Model [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] PCEP Extensions for Stateful PCE Model [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce]
describes a set of extensions to PCEP to enable active control of describes a set of extensions to PCEP to enable active control of
skipping to change at page 3, line 9 skipping to change at page 3, line 9
describes the setup and teardown of PCE-initiated LSPs under the describes the setup and teardown of PCE-initiated LSPs under the
active stateful PCE model, without the need for local configuration active stateful PCE model, without the need for local configuration
on the PCC, thus allowing for a dynamic network. Currently, the LSPs on the PCC, thus allowing for a dynamic network. Currently, the LSPs
can either be signaled via RSVP-TE or can be segment routed as can either be signaled via RSVP-TE or can be segment routed as
specified in [I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing]. specified in [I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing].
[I-D.ietf-pce-association-group] introduces a generic mechanism to [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group] introduces a generic mechanism to
create a grouping of LSPs which can then be used to define create a grouping of LSPs which can then be used to define
associations between a set of LSPs and a set of attributes (such as associations between a set of LSPs and a set of attributes (such as
configuration parameters or behaviors) and is equally applicable to configuration parameters or behaviors) and is equally applicable to
the active and passive modes of a stateful PCE or a stateless PCE. stateful PCE (active and passive modes) and stateless PCE.
This document specifies a PCEP extension to associate one or more This document specifies a PCEP extension to associate one or more
LSPs with policies using the generic association mechanism. LSPs with policies using the generic association mechanism.
A PCEP speaker may want to influence the PCEP peer with respect to A PCEP speaker may want to influence the PCEP peer with respect to
path selection and other policies. This document describes a PCEP path selection and other policies. This document describes a PCEP
extension to associate policies by creating Policy Association Group extension to associate policies by creating Policy Association Group
(PAG) and encoding this association in PCEP messages. The (PAG) and encoding this association in PCEP messages. The
specification is applicable to both stateful and stateless PCEP specification is applicable to both stateful and stateless PCEP
sessions. sessions.
skipping to change at page 4, line 14 skipping to change at page 4, line 14
via the stateful PCE. Similarly, a PCC may request a user- or via the stateful PCE. Similarly, a PCC may request a user- or
service-specific policy to be applied at the PCE, such as constraints service-specific policy to be applied at the PCE, such as constraints
relaxation to meet optimal QoS and resiliency. relaxation to meet optimal QoS and resiliency.
PCEP speaker can use the generic mechanism as per PCEP speaker can use the generic mechanism as per
[I-D.ietf-pce-association-group] to associate a set of LSPs with [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group] to associate a set of LSPs with
policy, without the need to know the details of such policies, which policy, without the need to know the details of such policies, which
simplifies network operations, avoids frequent software upgrades, as simplifies network operations, avoids frequent software upgrades, as
well provides an ability to introduce new policy faster. well provides an ability to introduce new policy faster.
Policy-ID Y PAG Y
{Service-Specific Policy {Service-Specific Policy
for cosntraint for constraint
Initiate & Monitor LSP relaxation} Initiate & Monitor LSP relaxation}
| | | |
| PCReq | | PAG X PCReq |
V {policy-ID Y} V V {Monitor LSP} {PAG Y} V
+-----+ ----------------> +-----+ +-----+ ----------------> +-----+
_ _ _ _ _ _| PCE | | | PCE | _ _ _ _ _ _| PCE | | | PCE |
| +-----+ | ----------> +-----+ | +-----+ | ----------> +-----+
| PCEInitiate | | PCReq | PCEInitiate | | PCReq
|{policy-ID X} | | {policy-ID Y} |{PAG X} | | {PAG Y}
| | | | | |
| .-----. | | .-----. | .-----. | | .-----.
| ( ) | +----+ ( ) | ( ) | +----+ ( )
| .--( )--. | |PCC1|--.--( )--. | .--( )--. | |PCC1|--.--( )--.
V ( ) | +----+ ( ) V ( ) | +----+ ( )
+---+ ( ) | ( ) +---+ ( ) | ( )
|PCC|----( (G)MPLS network ) +----+ ( (G)MPLS network ) |PCC|----( (G)MPLS network ) +----+ ( (G)MPLS network )
+---+ ( ) |PCC2|------( ) +---+ ( ) |PCC2|------( )
Policy ID X ( ) +----+ ( ) PAG X ( ) +----+ ( )
{Monitor LSP} '--( )--' '--( )--' {Monitor LSP} '--( )--' '--( )--'
( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
'-----' '-----' '-----' '-----'
Case 1: Policy initiated by PCE Case 2: Policy initiated by Case 1: Policy requested by PCE Case 2: Policy requested by
and enforced by PCC PCC and enforced by and enforced by PCC PCC and enforced by
PCE PCE
Sample use-cases for carrying policies over PCEP session Sample use-cases for carrying policies over PCEP session
3.1. Policy based Constraints 3.1. Policy based Constraints
In the context of policy-enabled path computation [RFC5394], path In the context of policy-enabled path computation [RFC5394], path
computation policies may be applied at both a PCC and a PCE. computation policies may be applied at both a PCC and a PCE.
Consider an Label Switch Router (LSR) with a policy enabled PCC, it Consider an Label Switch Router (LSR) with a policy enabled PCC, it
skipping to change at page 5, line 40 skipping to change at page 5, line 40
As per [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group], LSPs are associated with As per [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group], LSPs are associated with
other LSPs with which they interact by adding them to a common other LSPs with which they interact by adding them to a common
association group. Grouping can also be used to define association association group. Grouping can also be used to define association
between LSPs and policies associated to them. One new Association between LSPs and policies associated to them. One new Association
Type is defined in this document, based on the generic Association Type is defined in this document, based on the generic Association
object - object -
o Association type = TBD1 ("Policy Association Type") for Policy o Association type = TBD1 ("Policy Association Type") for Policy
Association Group (PAG) Association Group (PAG)
This Association-Type is operator-configured association in nature
and created by the operator manually on the PCEP peers. The LSP
belonging to this associations is conveyed via PCEP messages to the
PCEP peer. Operator-configured Association Range SHOULD NOT be set
for this association-type, and MUST be ignored, so that the full
range of association identifier can be utilized.
A PAG can have one or more LSPs and its associated policy(s). The A PAG can have one or more LSPs and its associated policy(s). The
Association ID defined in [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group] is used to association identifier, type (Policy), as well as the association
identify the PAG. source IP address is manually configured by the operator and is used
to identify the PAG.
As per the processing rules, as specified in section 5.3 of
[I-D.ietf-pce-association-group], if a PCEP speaker does not support
this Policy association-type, it MUST return a PCErr message with
Error-Type TBD "Association Error" and Error-Value 1 "Association-
type is not supported". Since the PAG is opaque in nature, the PAG
and the policy MUST be set on the PCEP peers. If a PCE speaker
receives PAG in a PCEP message, and the association information is
not configured, it MUST return a PCErr message with Error-Type TBD
"Association Error" and Error- Value 4 "Association unknown". All
other processing is as per section 5.3 of
[I-D.ietf-pce-association-group].
5. Policy Association Group 5. Policy Association Group
Association groups and their memberships are defined using the Association groups and their memberships are defined using the
ASSOCIATION object defined in [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group]. Two ASSOCIATION object defined in [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group]. Two
object types for IPv4 and IPv6 are defined. The ASSOCIATION object object types for IPv4 and IPv6 are defined. The ASSOCIATION object
includes "Association type" indicating the type of the association includes "Association type" indicating the type of the association
group. This document add a new Association type - group. This document add a new Association type -
Association type = TBD1 ("Policy Association Type") for PAG. Association type = TBD1 ("Policy Association Type") for PAG.
skipping to change at page 6, line 19 skipping to change at page 6, line 41
6. Security Considerations 6. Security Considerations
This document defines one new type for association, which do not add This document defines one new type for association, which do not add
any new security concerns beyond those discussed in [RFC5440], any new security concerns beyond those discussed in [RFC5440],
[I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] and [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group] in [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] and [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group] in
itself. itself.
Some deployments may find policy associations and their implications Some deployments may find policy associations and their implications
as extra sensitive and thus should employ suitable PCEP security as extra sensitive and thus should employ suitable PCEP security
mechanisms like TCP-AO or [I-D.ietf-pce-pceps]. mechanisms like [I-D.ietf-pce-pceps].
7. IANA Considerations 7. IANA Considerations
7.1. Association object Type Indicators 7.1. Association object Type Indicators
This document defines the following new association type originally This document defines the following new association type originally
defined in [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group]. defined in [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group].
Value Name Reference Value Name Reference
skipping to change at page 7, line 42 skipping to change at page 8, line 12
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <http://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,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5440>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5440>.
[I-D.ietf-pce-association-group] [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group]
Minei, I., Crabbe, E., Sivabalan, S., Ananthakrishnan, H., Minei, I., Crabbe, E., Sivabalan, S., Ananthakrishnan, H.,
Zhang, X., and Y. Tanaka, "PCEP Extensions for Dhody, D., and Y. Tanaka, "PCEP Extensions for
Establishing Relationships Between Sets of LSPs", draft- Establishing Relationships Between Sets of LSPs", draft-
ietf-pce-association-group-01 (work in progress), July ietf-pce-association-group-03 (work in progress), June
2016. 2017.
[I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce]
Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Medved, J., and R. Varga, "PCEP Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Medved, J., and R. Varga, "PCEP
Extensions for Stateful PCE", draft-ietf-pce-stateful- Extensions for Stateful PCE", draft-ietf-pce-stateful-
pce-18 (work in progress), December 2016. pce-21 (work in progress), June 2017.
10.2. Informative References 10.2. Informative References
[RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J., and J. Ash, "A Path Computation [RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J., and J. Ash, "A Path Computation
Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655, Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4655, August 2006, DOI 10.17487/RFC4655, August 2006,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4655>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4655>.
[RFC5394] Bryskin, I., Papadimitriou, D., Berger, L., and J. Ash, [RFC5394] Bryskin, I., Papadimitriou, D., Berger, L., and J. Ash,
"Policy-Enabled Path Computation Framework", RFC 5394, "Policy-Enabled Path Computation Framework", RFC 5394,
skipping to change at page 8, line 29 skipping to change at page 8, line 46
(PCEP) Management Information Base (MIB) Module", (PCEP) Management Information Base (MIB) Module",
RFC 7420, DOI 10.17487/RFC7420, December 2014, RFC 7420, DOI 10.17487/RFC7420, December 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7420>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7420>.
[RFC7470] Zhang, F. and A. Farrel, "Conveying Vendor-Specific [RFC7470] Zhang, F. and A. Farrel, "Conveying Vendor-Specific
Constraints in the Path Computation Element Communication Constraints in the Path Computation Element Communication
Protocol", RFC 7470, DOI 10.17487/RFC7470, March 2015, Protocol", RFC 7470, DOI 10.17487/RFC7470, March 2015,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7470>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7470>.
[I-D.ietf-pce-pceps] [I-D.ietf-pce-pceps]
Lopez, D., Dios, O., Wu, W., and D. Dhody, "Secure Lopez, D., Dios, O., Wu, Q., and D. Dhody, "Secure
Transport for PCEP", draft-ietf-pce-pceps-10 (work in Transport for PCEP", draft-ietf-pce-pceps-14 (work in
progress), July 2016. progress), May 2017.
[I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp] [I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp]
Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Sivabalan, S., and R. Varga, "PCEP Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Sivabalan, S., and R. Varga, "PCEP
Extensions for PCE-initiated LSP Setup in a Stateful PCE Extensions for PCE-initiated LSP Setup in a Stateful PCE
Model", draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp-07 (work in Model", draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp-10 (work in
progress), July 2016. progress), June 2017.
[I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing] [I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing]
Sivabalan, S., Medved, J., Filsfils, C., Crabbe, E., Sivabalan, S., Filsfils, C., Tantsura, J., Henderickx, W.,
Raszuk, R., Lopez, V., Tantsura, J., Henderickx, W., and and J. Hardwick, "PCEP Extensions for Segment Routing",
J. Hardwick, "PCEP Extensions for Segment Routing", draft- draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-09 (work in progress),
ietf-pce-segment-routing-08 (work in progress), October April 2017.
2016.
Appendix A. Contributor Addresses Appendix A. Contributor Addresses
Qin Wu Qin Wu
Huawei Technologies Huawei Technologies
101 Software Avenue, Yuhua District 101 Software Avenue, Yuhua District
Nanjing, Jiangsu 210012 Nanjing, Jiangsu 210012
China China
EMail: sunseawq@huawei.com EMail: sunseawq@huawei.com
skipping to change at page 9, line 37 skipping to change at page 10, line 37
P.R.China P.R.China
EMail: zhang.xian@huawei.com EMail: zhang.xian@huawei.com
Udayasree Palle Udayasree Palle
Huawei Technologies Huawei Technologies
Divyashree Techno Park, Whitefield Divyashree Techno Park, Whitefield
Bangalore, Karnataka 560066 Bangalore, Karnataka 560066
India India
EMail: udayasree.palle@huawei.com EMail: udayasreereddy@gmail.com
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Dhruv Dhody (editor) Dhruv Dhody (editor)
Huawei Technologies Huawei Technologies
Divyashree Techno Park, Whitefield Divyashree Techno Park, Whitefield
Bangalore, Karnataka 560066 Bangalore, Karnataka 560066
India India
EMail: dhruv.ietf@gmail.com EMail: dhruv.ietf@gmail.com
Siva Sivabalan (editor) Siva Sivabalan
Cisco Systems, Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc.
2000 Innovation Drive 2000 Innovation Drive
Kanata, Ontario K2K 3E8 Kanata, Ontario K2K 3E8
Canada Canada
EMail: msiva@cisco.com EMail: msiva@cisco.com
Stephane Litkowski Stephane Litkowski
Orange Orange
 End of changes. 27 change blocks. 
41 lines changed or deleted 60 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/