< draft-ietf-pce-association-policy-10.txt   draft-ietf-pce-association-policy-11.txt >
PCE Working Group S. Litkowski PCE Working Group S. Litkowski
Internet-Draft S. Sivabalan Internet-Draft Cisco Systems, Inc.
Intended status: Standards Track Cisco Systems, Inc. Intended status: Standards Track S. Sivabalan
Expires: December 23, 2020 J. Tantsura Expires: December 24, 2020 Ciena
J. Tantsura
Apstra, Inc. Apstra, Inc.
J. Hardwick J. Hardwick
Metaswitch Networks Metaswitch Networks
M. Negi M. Negi
RtBrick India RtBrick India
C. Li C. Li
Huawei Technologies Huawei Technologies
June 21, 2020 June 22, 2020
Path Computation Element communication Protocol (PCEP) extension for Path Computation Element (PCE) communication Protocol (PCEP) extension
associating Policies and Label Switched Paths (LSPs) for associating Policies and Label Switched Paths (LSPs)
draft-ietf-pce-association-policy-10 draft-ietf-pce-association-policy-11
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 41 skipping to change at page 1, line 42
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 December 23, 2020. This Internet-Draft will expire on December 24, 2020.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2020 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
skipping to change at page 3, line 7 skipping to change at page 3, line 7
[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]. [RFC5394] provides two PCEs based on the PCE architecture [RFC4655]. [RFC5394] provides
additional details on policy within the PCE architecture and also additional details on policy within the PCE architecture and also
provides context for the support of PCE Policy. provides context for the support of PCE Policy.
PCEP Extensions for Stateful PCE Model [RFC8231] describes a set of PCEP Extensions for Stateful PCE Model [RFC8231] describes a set of
extensions to PCEP to enable active control of Multiprotocol Label extensions to PCEP to enable active control of Multiprotocol Label
Switching Traffic Engineering (MPLS-TE) and Generalzied MPLS (GMPLS) Switching Traffic Engineering (MPLS-TE) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS)
tunnels. [RFC8281] describes the set-up and teardown of PCE- tunnels. [RFC8281] describes the set-up and teardown of PCE-
initiated LSPs under the active stateful PCE model, without the need initiated LSPs under the active stateful PCE model, without the need
for local configuration on the PCC, thus allowing for a dynamic for local configuration on the PCC, thus allowing for a dynamic
network. Currently, the LSPs can either be signalled via Resource network. Currently, the LSPs can either be signaled via Resource
Reservation Protocol Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) or can be segment Reservation Protocol Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) or can be segment
routed as specified in [RFC8664]. routed as specified in [RFC8664].
[RFC8697] introduces a generic mechanism to create a grouping of LSPs [RFC8697] introduces a generic mechanism to create a grouping of LSPs
which can then be used to define associations between a set of LSPs which can then be used to define associations between a set of LSPs
and a set of attributes (such as configuration parameters or and a set of attributes (such as configuration parameters or
behaviours) and is equally applicable to stateful PCE (active and behaviors) and is equally applicable to stateful PCE (active and
passive modes) and stateless PCE. 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
skipping to change at page 5, line 41 skipping to change at page 5, line 41
and enforced by PCC PCC and enforced by and enforced by PCC PCC and enforced by
PCE PCE
Figure 1: Sample use-cases for carrying policies over PCEP session Figure 1: 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
receives a service request via signalling, including over a Network- receives a service request via signaling, including over a Network-
Network Interface (NNI) or User Network Interface (UNI) reference Network Interface (NNI) or User Network Interface (UNI) reference
point, or receives a configuration request over a management point, or receives a configuration request over a management
interface to establish a service. The PCC may also apply user- or interface to establish a service. The PCC may also apply user- or
service-specific policies to decide how the path selection process service-specific policies to decide how the path selection process
should be constrained, that is, which constraints, diversities, should be constrained, that is, which constraints, diversities,
optimization criterion, and constraint relaxation strategies should optimization criterion, and constraint relaxation strategies should
be applied in order for the service LSP(s) to have a likelihood to be be applied in order for the service LSP(s) to have a likelihood to be
successfully established and provide necessary QoS and resilience successfully established and provide necessary QoS and resilience
against network failures. The user- or service-specific policies against network failures. The user- or service-specific policies
applied to PCC and are then passed to the PCE along with the Path applied to PCC and are then passed to the PCE along with the Path
skipping to change at page 8, line 36 skipping to change at page 8, line 36
If the PCEP peer is unaware of the policy parameters associated with If the PCEP peer is unaware of the policy parameters associated with
the policy and it receives the POLICY-PARAMETERS-TLV, it MUST ignore the policy and it receives the POLICY-PARAMETERS-TLV, it MUST ignore
the TLV and SHOULD log this event. Further, if one or more the TLV and SHOULD log this event. Further, if one or more
parameters received in the POLICY-PARAMETERS-TLV received by the PCEP parameters received in the POLICY-PARAMETERS-TLV received by the PCEP
speaker are considered as unacceptable in the context of the speaker are considered as unacceptable in the context of the
associated policy (e.g. out of range value, badly encoded value...), associated policy (e.g. out of range value, badly encoded value...),
the PCEP speaker MUST NOT apply the received policy and SHOULD log the PCEP speaker MUST NOT apply the received policy and SHOULD log
this event. this event.
Note that, the vendor specific behavioural information is encoded in Note that, the vendor specific behavioral information is encoded in
VENDOR-INFORMATION-TLV which can be used along with this TLV. VENDOR-INFORMATION-TLV which can be used along with this TLV.
6. Implementation Status 6. Implementation Status
[Note to the RFC Editor - remove this section before publication, as [Note to the RFC Editor - remove this section before publication, as
well as remove the reference to RFC 7942.] well as remove the reference to RFC 7942.]
This section records the status of known implementations of the This section records the status of known implementations of the
protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of this protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of this
Internet-Draft, and is based on a proposal described in [RFC7942]. Internet-Draft, and is based on a proposal described in [RFC7942].
skipping to change at page 9, line 30 skipping to change at page 9, line 30
o Implementation: IOS-XR PCE and PCC. o Implementation: IOS-XR PCE and PCC.
o Description: The PCEP extension specified in this document is used o Description: The PCEP extension specified in this document is used
to convey traffic steering policies. to convey traffic steering policies.
o Maturity Level: In shipping product. o Maturity Level: In shipping product.
o Coverage: Partial. o Coverage: Partial.
o Contact: msiva@cisco.com. o Contact: mkoldych@cisco.com
7. Security Considerations 7. 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],
[RFC8231] and [RFC8697] in itself. [RFC8231] and [RFC8697] in itself.
Extra care needs to be taken by the implementation with respect to Extra care needs to be taken by the implementation with respect to
POLICY-PARAMETERS-TLV while decoding, verifying and applying these POLICY-PARAMETERS-TLV while decoding, verifying and applying these
policy variables. This TLV parsing could be exploited by an policy variables. This TLV parsing could be exploited by an
skipping to change at page 10, line 12 skipping to change at page 10, line 12
Layer Security (TLS) [RFC8253], as per the recommendations and best Layer Security (TLS) [RFC8253], as per the recommendations and best
current practices in BCP 195 [RFC7525], is RECOMMENDED. current practices in BCP 195 [RFC7525], is RECOMMENDED.
8. IANA Considerations 8. IANA Considerations
8.1. Association object Type Indicators 8.1. Association object Type Indicators
This document defines a new Association type. The sub-registry This document defines a new Association type. The sub-registry
"ASSOCIATION Type Field" of the "Path Computation Element Protocol "ASSOCIATION Type Field" of the "Path Computation Element Protocol
(PCEP) Numbers" registry was originally defined in [RFC8697]. IANA (PCEP) Numbers" registry was originally defined in [RFC8697]. IANA
is requested to make the following allocation. is requested to confirm the early-allocated codepoints.
Value Name Reference Value Name Reference
TBD1 Policy Association [This.I-D] 3 Policy Association [This.I-D]
8.2. PCEP TLV Type Indicators 8.2. PCEP TLV Type Indicators
The following TLV Type Indicator value is requested within the "PCEP The following TLV Type Indicator value is requested within the "PCEP
TLV Type Indicators" subregistry of the "Path Computation Element TLV Type Indicators" subregistry of the "Path Computation Element
Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry. IANA is requested to make the Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry. IANA is requested to confirm the
following allocation. early-allocated codepoints.
Value Description Reference Value Description Reference
TBD2 POLICY-PARAMETERS-TLV [This.I-D] 48 POLICY-PARAMETERS-TLV [This.I-D]
9. Manageability Considerations 9. Manageability Considerations
9.1. Control of Function and Policy 9.1. Control of Function and Policy
An operator MUST be allowed to configure the policy associations at An operator MUST be allowed to configure the policy associations at
PCEP peers and associate it with the LSPs. They MAY also allow PCEP peers and associate it with the LSPs. They MAY also allow
configuration to related policy parameters, in which case the an configuration to related policy parameters, in which case the an
operator MUST also be allowed to set the encoding format and order to operator MUST also be allowed to set the encoding format and order to
parse the associated policy parameters TLV. parse the associated policy parameters TLV.
skipping to change at page 14, line 35 skipping to change at page 14, line 35
Bantian, Longgang District Bantian, Longgang District
Shenzhen 518129 Shenzhen 518129
P.R.China P.R.China
EMail: zhang.xian@huawei.com EMail: zhang.xian@huawei.com
Udayasree Palle Udayasree Palle
EMail: udayasreereddy@gmail.com EMail: udayasreereddy@gmail.com
Mike Koldychev
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Canada
EMail: mkoldych@cisco.com
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Stephane Litkowski Stephane Litkowski
Cisco Systems, Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc.
11 Rue Camille Desmoulins 11 Rue Camille Desmoulins
Issy-les-Moulineaux 92130 Issy-les-Moulineaux 92130
France France
EMail: slitkows@cisco.com EMail: slitkows@cisco.com
Siva Sivabalan Siva Sivabalan
Cisco Systems, Inc. Ciena
2000 Innovation Drive 385 Terry Fox Drive
Kanata, Ontario K2K 3E8 Kanata, Ontario K2K 0L1
Canada Canada
EMail: msiva@cisco.com EMail: msiva282@gmail.com
Jeff Tantsura Jeff Tantsura
Apstra, Inc. Apstra, Inc.
EMail: jefftant.ietf@gmail.com EMail: jefftant.ietf@gmail.com
Jonathan Hardwick Jonathan Hardwick
Metaswitch Networks Metaswitch Networks
100 Church Street 100 Church Street
Enfield, Middlesex Enfield, Middlesex
skipping to change at page 15, line 39 skipping to change at page 15, line 39
India India
EMail: mahend.ietf@gmail.com EMail: mahend.ietf@gmail.com
Cheng Li Cheng Li
Huawei Technologies Huawei Technologies
Huawei Campus, No. 156 Beiqing Rd. Huawei Campus, No. 156 Beiqing Rd.
Beijing 100095 Beijing 100095
China China
EMail: chengli13@huawei.com EMail: c.l@huawei.com
 End of changes. 18 change blocks. 
23 lines changed or deleted 30 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/