< draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid-03.txt   draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid-04.txt >
PCE Working Group C. Filsfils PCE Working Group S. Sivabalan
Internet-Draft Cisco Systems, Inc. Internet-Draft Ciena Corporation
Intended status: Standards Track S. Sivabalan Intended status: Standards Track C. Filsfils
Expires: December 24, 2020 Ciena Corporation Expires: May 4, 2021 Cisco Systems, Inc.
J. Tantsura J. Tantsura
Apstra, Inc. Apstra, Inc.
J. Hardwick J. Hardwick
Metaswitch Networks Metaswitch Networks
S. Previdi S. Previdi
C. Li C. Li
Huawei Technologies Huawei Technologies
June 22, 2020 October 31, 2020
Carrying Binding Label/Segment-ID in PCE-based Networks. Carrying Binding Label/Segment-ID in PCE-based Networks.
draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid-03 draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid-04
Abstract Abstract
In order to provide greater scalability, network opacity, and service In order to provide greater scalability, network opacity, and service
independence, Segment Routing (SR) utilizes a Binding Segment independence, Segment Routing (SR) utilizes a Binding Segment
Identifier (BSID). It is possible to associate a BSID to RSVP-TE Identifier (BSID). It is possible to associate a BSID to RSVP-TE
signaled Traffic Engineering Label Switching Path or binding Segment- signaled Traffic Engineering Label Switching Path or binding Segment-
ID (SID) to SR Traffic Engineering path. Such a binding label/SID ID (SID) to SR Traffic Engineering path. Such a binding label/SID
can be used by an upstream node for steering traffic into the can be used by an upstream node for steering traffic into the
appropriate TE path to enforce SR policies. This document proposes appropriate TE path to enforce SR policies. This document proposes
skipping to change at page 2, line 10 skipping to change at page 2, line 10
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 24, 2020. This Internet-Draft will expire on May 4, 2021.
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 2, line 32 skipping to change at page 2, line 32
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. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Path Binding TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3. Path Binding TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4. SRv6 Endpoint Behavior and SID Structure . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. Binding SID in SR-ERO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5. Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. Binding SID in SRv6-ERO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6. Binding SID in SR-ERO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 7. Binding SID in SRv6-ERO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7.1. Huawei . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 8. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 8.1. Huawei . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9.1. Control of Function and Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 10. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9.2. Information and Data Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 10.1. Control of Function and Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 10.2. Information and Data Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9.4. Verify Correct Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 10.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9.5. Requirements On Other Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 10.4. Verify Correct Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9.6. Impact On Network Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 10.5. Requirements On Other Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 10.6. Impact On Network Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
10.1. PCEP TLV Type Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 11. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
10.1.1. TE-PATH-BINDING TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 11.1. PCEP TLV Type Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
10.2. PCEP Error Type and Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 11.1.1. TE-PATH-BINDING TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
11. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 11.1.2. Binding SID Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 11.2. PCEP Error Type and Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 12. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 13. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
13.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Appendix A. Contributor Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 13.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Appendix A. Contributor Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
A PCE can compute Traffic Engineering paths (TE paths) through a A PCE can compute Traffic Engineering paths (TE paths) through a
network that are subject to various constraints. Currently, TE paths network that are subject to various constraints. Currently, TE paths
are either set up using the RSVP-TE signaling protocol or Segment are either set up using the RSVP-TE signaling protocol or Segment
Routing (SR). We refer to such paths as RSVP-TE paths and SR-TE Routing (SR). We refer to such paths as RSVP-TE paths and SR-TE
paths respectively in this document. paths respectively in this document.
As per [RFC8402] SR allows a headend node to steer a packet flow As per [RFC8402] SR allows a headend node to steer a packet flow
skipping to change at page 6, line 17 skipping to change at page 6, line 19
The new optional TLV is called "TE-PATH-BINDING TLV" (whose format is The new optional TLV is called "TE-PATH-BINDING TLV" (whose format is
shown in the figure below) is defined to carry binding label or SID shown in the figure below) is defined to carry binding label or SID
for a TE path. This TLV is associated with the LSP object specified for a TE path. This TLV is associated with the LSP object specified
in ([RFC8231]). The type of this TLV is to be allocated by IANA. in ([RFC8231]). The type of this TLV is to be allocated by IANA.
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length | | Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| BT | Reserved | | BT | Flags | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ Binding Value (variable length) ~ ~ Binding Value (variable length) ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: TE-PATH-BINDING TLV Figure 2: TE-PATH-BINDING TLV
TE-PATH-BINDING TLV is a generic TLV such that it is able to carry TE-PATH-BINDING TLV is a generic TLV such that it is able to carry
MPLS label binding as well as SRv6 Binding SID. It is formatted MPLS label binding as well as SRv6 Binding SID. It is formatted
according to the rules specified in [RFC5440]. according to the rules specified in [RFC5440].
skipping to change at page 6, line 42 skipping to change at page 6, line 44
o BT = 0: The binding value is an MPLS label carried in the format o BT = 0: The binding value is an MPLS label carried in the format
specified in [RFC5462] where only the label value is valid, and specified in [RFC5462] where only the label value is valid, and
other fields fields MUST be considered invalid. The Length MUST other fields fields MUST be considered invalid. The Length MUST
be set to 7. be set to 7.
o BT = 1: Similar to the case where BT is 0 except that all the o BT = 1: Similar to the case where BT is 0 except that all the
fields on the MPLS label entry are set on transmission. However, fields on the MPLS label entry are set on transmission. However,
the receiver MAY choose to override TC, S, and TTL values the receiver MAY choose to override TC, S, and TTL values
according its local policy. The Length MUST be set to 8. according its local policy. The Length MUST be set to 8.
o BT = 2: The binding value is a SRv6 SID with a format of an 16 o BT = 2: The binding value is an SRv6 SID with a format of a 16
byte IPv6 address, representing the binding SID for SRv6. The byte IPv6 address, representing the binding SID for SRv6. The
Length MUST be set to 20. Length MUST be set to 20.
o BT = 3: The binding value is a 24 octet field, defined in
Section 4, that contains the SRv6 SID as well as its Behavior and
Structure. The Length MUST be set to 28.
Flags: 1 octet of flags. Following flags are defined in the new
registry "SR Policy Binding SID Flags" as described in
Section 11.1.2:
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|S|I| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
where:
o S-Flag: This flag encodes the "Specified-BSID-only" behavior. It
is used as described in Section 6.2.3 of
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy].
o I-Flag: This flag encodes the "Drop Upon Invalid" behavior. It is
used by described in Section 8.2 of
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy].
Reserved: MUST be set to 0 while sending and ignored on receipt. Reserved: MUST be set to 0 while sending and ignored on receipt.
Binding Value: A variable length field, padded with trailing zeros to Binding Value: A variable length field, padded with trailing zeros to
a 4-byte boundary. For the BT as 0, the 20 bits represents the MPLS a 4-byte boundary. For the BT as 0, the 20 bits represent the MPLS
label. For the BT as 1, the 32-bits represents the label stack entry label. For the BT as 1, the 32-bits represent the label stack entry
as per [RFC5462]. For the BT as 2, the 128-bits represent the SRv6 as per [RFC5462]. For the BT as 2, the 128-bits represent the SRv6
SID. SID. For the BT as 3, the Binding Value contains SRv6 Endpoint
Behavior and SID Structure, defined in Section 4.
4. Operation 4. SRv6 Endpoint Behavior and SID Structure
Carried as the Binding Value in the TE-PATH-BINDING TLV when the BT
is set to 3. Applicable for SRv6 Binding SIDs
[I-D.ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming].
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| SRv6 Binding SID (16 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Endpoint Behavior | LB Length | LN Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Fun. Length | Arg. Length | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 4: SRv6 Endpoint Behavior and SID Structure
Endpoint Behavior: 2 octets. The Endpoint Behavior code point for
this SRv6 SID as defined in section 9.2 of
[I-D.ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming]. When set with the value
0, the choice of behavior is considered unset.
LB Length: 1 octet. SRv6 SID Locator Block length in bits.
LN Length: 1 octet. SRv6 SID Locator Node length in bits.
Function Length: 1 octet. SRv6 SID Function length in bits.
Argument Length: 1 octet. SRv6 SID Arguments length in bits.
5. Operation
The binding value is allocated by the PCC and reported to a PCE via The binding value is allocated by the PCC and reported to a PCE via
PCRpt message. If a PCE does not recognize the TE-PATH-BINDING TLV, PCRpt message. If a PCE does not recognize the TE-PATH-BINDING TLV,
it would ignore the TLV in accordance with ([RFC5440]). If a PCE it would ignore the TLV in accordance with ([RFC5440]). If a PCE
recognizes the TLV but does not support the TLV, it MUST send PCErr recognizes the TLV but does not support the TLV, it MUST send PCErr
with Error-Type = 2 (Capability not supported). with Error-Type = 2 (Capability not supported).
If a TE-PATH-BINDING TLV is absent in PCRpt message, PCE MUST assume If a TE-PATH-BINDING TLV is absent in PCRpt message, PCE MUST assume
that the corresponding LSP does not have any binding. If there are that the corresponding LSP does not have any binding. If a PCE
more than one TE-PATH-BINDING TLVs, only the first TLV MUST be recognizes an invalid binding value (e.g., label value from the
processed and the rest MUST be silently ignored. If a PCE recognizes reserved label space when MPLS label binding is used), it MUST send
an invalid binding value (e.g., label value from the reserved label the PCErr message with Error-Type = 10 ("Reception of an invalid
space when MPLS label binding is used), it MUST send the PCErr object") and Error Value = 2 ("Bad label value") as specified in
message with Error-Type = 10 ("Reception of an invalid object") and [RFC8664].
Error Value = 2 ("Bad label value") as specified in [RFC8664].
Multiple TE-PATH-BINDING TLVs are allowed to be present in the same
LSP object. This signifies the presence of multiple binding SIDs for
the given LSP. Either due to multiple SRv6 binding SIDs with
different behaviors or due to SRv6 and MPLS binding SIDs being
present together.
For SRv6 BSIDs, it is RECOMMENDED to always explicitly specify the
SRv6 Endpoint Behavior and SID Structure in the TE-PATH-BINDING TLV
by setting the BT (Binding Type) to 3, instead of 2. The choice of
interpreting SRv6 Endpoint Behavior and SID Structure when none is
explicitly specified is left up to the implementation.
If a PCE requires a PCC to allocate a specific binding value, it may If a PCE requires a PCC to allocate a specific binding value, it may
do so by sending a PCUpd or PCInitiate message containing a TE-PATH- do so by sending a PCUpd or PCInitiate message containing a TE-PATH-
BINDING TLV. If the value can be successfully allocated, the PCC BINDING TLV. If the value can be successfully allocated, the PCC
reports the binding value to the PCE. If the PCC considers the reports the binding value to the PCE. If the PCC considers the
binding value specified by the PCE invalid, it MUST send a PCErr binding value specified by the PCE invalid, it MUST send a PCErr
message with Error-Type = TBD2 ("Binding label/SID failure") and message with Error-Type = TBD2 ("Binding label/SID failure") and
Error Value = TBD3 ("Invalid SID"). If the binding value is valid, Error Value = TBD3 ("Invalid SID"). If the binding value is valid,
but the PCC is unable to allocate the binding value, it MUST send a but the PCC is unable to allocate the binding value, it MUST send a
PCErr message with Error-Type = TBD2 ("Binding label/SID failure") PCErr message with Error-Type = TBD2 ("Binding label/SID failure")
skipping to change at page 8, line 23 skipping to change at page 9, line 44
and Error Value = TBD4 ("Unable to allocate the specified label/ and Error Value = TBD4 ("Unable to allocate the specified label/
SID"). SID").
In some cases, a stateful PCE can request the PCC to allocate a In some cases, a stateful PCE can request the PCC to allocate a
binding value. It may do so by sending a PCUpd message containing an binding value. It may do so by sending a PCUpd message containing an
empty TE-PATH-BINDING TLV, i.e., no binding value is specified empty TE-PATH-BINDING TLV, i.e., no binding value is specified
(making the length field of the TLV as 4). A PCE can also make the (making the length field of the TLV as 4). A PCE can also make the
request PCC to allocate a binding at the time of initiation by request PCC to allocate a binding at the time of initiation by
sending a PCInitiate message with an empty TE-PATH-BINDING TLV. sending a PCInitiate message with an empty TE-PATH-BINDING TLV.
5. Binding SID in SR-ERO 6. Binding SID in SR-ERO
In PCEP messages, LSP route information is carried in the Explicit In PCEP messages, LSP route information is carried in the Explicit
Route Object (ERO), which consists of a sequence of subobjects. Route Object (ERO), which consists of a sequence of subobjects.
[RFC8664] defines a new ERO subobject "SR-ERO subobject" capable of [RFC8664] defines a new ERO subobject "SR-ERO subobject" capable of
carrying a SID as well as the identity of the node/adjacency (NAI) carrying a SID as well as the identity of the node/adjacency (NAI)
represented by the SID. The NAI Type (NT) field indicates the type represented by the SID. The NAI Type (NT) field indicates the type
and format of the NAI contained in the SR-ERO. In case of binding and format of the NAI contained in the SR-ERO. In case of binding
SID, the NAI MUST NOT be included and NT MUST be set to zero. So as SID, the NAI MUST NOT be included and NT MUST be set to zero. So as
per Section 5.2.1 of [RFC8664], for NT=0, the F bit is set to 1, the per Section 5.2.1 of [RFC8664], for NT=0, the F bit is set to 1, the
S bit needs to be zero and the Length is 8. Further the M bit is S bit needs to be zero and the Length is 8. Further the M bit is
set. If these conditions are not met, the entire ERO MUST be set. If these conditions are not met, the entire ERO MUST be
considered invalid and a PCErr message is sent with Error-Type = 10 considered invalid and a PCErr message is sent with Error-Type = 10
("Reception of an invalid object") and Error-Value = 11 ("Malformed ("Reception of an invalid object") and Error-Value = 11 ("Malformed
object"). object").
6. Binding SID in SRv6-ERO 7. Binding SID in SRv6-ERO
[RFC8664] defines a new ERO subobject "SRv6-ERO subobject" for SRv6 [RFC8664] defines a new ERO subobject "SRv6-ERO subobject" for SRv6
SID. The NAI MUST NOT be included and NT MUST be set to zero. So as SID. The NAI MUST NOT be included and NT MUST be set to zero. So as
per Section 5.2.1 of [RFC8664], for NT=0, the F bit is set to 1, the per Section 5.2.1 of [RFC8664], for NT=0, the F bit is set to 1, the
S bit needs to be zero and the Length is 24. If these conditions are S bit needs to be zero and the Length is 24. If these conditions are
not met, the entire ERO is considered invalid and a PCErr message is not met, the entire ERO is considered invalid and a PCErr message is
sent with Error-Type = 10 ("Reception of an invalid object") and sent with Error-Type = 10 ("Reception of an invalid object") and
Error-Value = 11 ("Malformed object") (as per [RFC8664]). Error-Value = 11 ("Malformed object") (as per [RFC8664]).
7. Implementation Status 8. 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].
The description of implementations in this section is intended to The description of implementations in this section is intended to
assist the IETF in its decision processes in progressing drafts to assist the IETF in its decision processes in progressing drafts to
RFCs. Please note that the listing of any individual implementation RFCs. Please note that the listing of any individual implementation
skipping to change at page 9, line 30 skipping to change at page 10, line 47
features. Readers are advised to note that other implementations may features. Readers are advised to note that other implementations may
exist. exist.
According to [RFC7942], "this will allow reviewers and working groups According to [RFC7942], "this will allow reviewers and working groups
to assign due consideration to documents that have the benefit of to assign due consideration to documents that have the benefit of
running code, which may serve as evidence of valuable experimentation running code, which may serve as evidence of valuable experimentation
and feedback that have made the implemented protocols more mature. and feedback that have made the implemented protocols more mature.
It is up to the individual working groups to use this information as It is up to the individual working groups to use this information as
they see fit". they see fit".
7.1. Huawei 8.1. Huawei
o Organization: Huawei o Organization: Huawei
o Implementation: Huawei's Router and Controller o Implementation: Huawei's Router and Controller
o Description: An experimental code-point is used and plan to o Description: An experimental code-point is used and plan to
request early code-point allocation from IANA after WG adoption. request early code-point allocation from IANA after WG adoption.
o Maturity Level: Production o Maturity Level: Production
o Coverage: Full o Coverage: Full
o Contact: chengli13@huawei.com o Contact: chengli13@huawei.com
8. Security Considerations 9. Security Considerations
The security considerations described in [RFC5440], [RFC8231], The security considerations described in [RFC5440], [RFC8231],
[RFC8281] and [RFC8664] are applicable to this specification. No [RFC8281] and [RFC8664] are applicable to this specification. No
additional security measure is required. additional security measure is required.
As described [RFC8664], SR allows a network controller to instantiate As described [RFC8664], SR allows a network controller to instantiate
and control paths in the network. A rouge PCE can manipulate binding and control paths in the network. A rouge PCE can manipulate binding
SID allocations to move traffic around for some other LSPs that uses SID allocations to move traffic around for some other LSPs that uses
BSID in its SR-ERO. BSID in its SR-ERO.
Thus, as per [RFC8231], it is RECOMMENDED that these PCEP extensions Thus, as per [RFC8231], it is RECOMMENDED that these PCEP extensions
only be activated on authenticated and encrypted sessions across PCEs only be activated on authenticated and encrypted sessions across PCEs
and PCCs belonging to the same administrative authority, using and PCCs belonging to the same administrative authority, using
Transport Layer Security (TLS) [RFC8253], as per the recommendations Transport Layer Security (TLS) [RFC8253], as per the recommendations
and best current practices in BCP195 [RFC7525] (unless explicitly set and best current practices in BCP195 [RFC7525] (unless explicitly set
aside in [RFC8253]). aside in [RFC8253]).
9. Manageability Considerations 10. Manageability Considerations
All manageability requirements and considerations listed in All manageability requirements and considerations listed in
[RFC5440], [RFC8231], and [RFC8664] apply to PCEP protocol extensions [RFC5440], [RFC8231], and [RFC8664] apply to PCEP protocol extensions
defined in this document. In addition, requirements and defined in this document. In addition, requirements and
considerations listed in this section apply. considerations listed in this section apply.
9.1. Control of Function and Policy 10.1. Control of Function and Policy
A PCC implementation SHOULD allow the operator to configure the A PCC implementation SHOULD allow the operator to configure the
policy based on which PCC needs to allocates the binding label/SID. policy based on which PCC needs to allocates the binding label/SID.
9.2. Information and Data Models 10.2. Information and Data Models
The PCEP YANG module [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang] could be extended to The PCEP YANG module [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang] could be extended to
include policy configuration for binding label/SID allocation. include policy configuration for binding label/SID allocation.
9.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring 10.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring
Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new liveness Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new liveness
detection and monitoring requirements in addition to those already detection and monitoring requirements in addition to those already
listed in [RFC5440]. listed in [RFC5440].
9.4. Verify Correct Operations 10.4. Verify Correct Operations
Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new operation Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new operation
verification requirements in addition to those already listed in verification requirements in addition to those already listed in
[RFC5440], [RFC8231], and [RFC8664]. [RFC5440], [RFC8231], and [RFC8664].
9.5. Requirements On Other Protocols 10.5. Requirements On Other Protocols
Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new requirements Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new requirements
on other protocols. on other protocols.
9.6. Impact On Network Operations 10.6. Impact On Network Operations
Mechanisms defined in [RFC5440], [RFC8231], and [RFC8664] also apply Mechanisms defined in [RFC5440], [RFC8231], and [RFC8664] also apply
to PCEP extensions defined in this document. Further, the mechanism to PCEP extensions defined in this document. Further, the mechanism
described in this document can help the operator to request control described in this document can help the operator to request control
of the LSPs at a particular PCE. of the LSPs at a particular PCE.
10. IANA Considerations 11. IANA Considerations
10.1. PCEP TLV Type Indicators 11.1. PCEP TLV Type Indicators
This document defines a new PCEP TLV; IANA is requested to make the This document defines a new PCEP TLV; IANA is requested to make the
following allocations from the "PCEP TLV Type Indicators" sub- following allocations from the "PCEP TLV Type Indicators" sub-
registry of the PCEP Numbers registry, as follows: registry of the PCEP Numbers registry, as follows:
Value Name Reference Value Name Reference
TBD1 TE-PATH-BINDING This document TBD1 TE-PATH-BINDING This document
10.1.1. TE-PATH-BINDING TLV 11.1.1. TE-PATH-BINDING TLV
IANA is requested to create a sub-registry to manage the value of the IANA is requested to create a sub-registry to manage the value of the
Binding Type field in the TE-PATH-BINDING TLV. Binding Type field in the TE-PATH-BINDING TLV.
Value Description Reference Value Description Reference
0 MPLS Label This document 0 MPLS Label This document
1 MPLS Label Stack This document 1 MPLS Label Stack This document
Entry Entry
2 SRv6 SID This document 2 SRv6 SID This document
10.2. PCEP Error Type and Value 11.1.2. Binding SID Flags
IANA is requested to create a sub-registry to manage the value of the
Binding SID Flags field in the TE-PATH-BINDING-TLV.
Bit Description Reference
0 Specified-BSID-Only This document
Flag (S-Flag)
1 Drop Upon Invalid This document
Flag (I-Flag)
11.2. PCEP Error Type and Value
This document defines a new Error-type and Error-Values for the PCErr This document defines a new Error-type and Error-Values for the PCErr
message. IANA is requested to allocate new error-type and error- message. IANA is requested to allocate new error-type and error-
values within the "PCEP-ERROR Object Error Types and Values" values within the "PCEP-ERROR Object Error Types and Values"
subregistry of the PCEP Numbers registry, as follows: subregistry of the PCEP Numbers registry, as follows:
Error-Type Meaning Error-Type Meaning
---------- ------- ---------- -------
TBD2 Binding label/SID failure: TBD2 Binding label/SID failure:
Error-value = TBD3: Invalid SID Error-value = TBD3: Invalid SID
Error-value = TBD4: Unable to allocate Error-value = TBD4: Unable to allocate
the specified the specified
label/SID label/SID
11. Acknowledgements 12. Acknowledgements
We like to thank Milos Fabian and Mrinmoy Das for thier valuable We like to thank Milos Fabian and Mrinmoy Das for thier valuable
comments. comments.
12. References 13. References
12.1. Normative References 13.1. Normative References
[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 13, line 28 skipping to change at page 15, line 5
Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment
Routing Architecture", RFC 8402, DOI 10.17487/RFC8402, Routing Architecture", RFC 8402, DOI 10.17487/RFC8402,
July 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8402>. July 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8402>.
[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>.
12.2. Informative References [I-D.ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming]
Filsfils, C., Camarillo, P., Leddy, J., Voyer, D.,
Matsushima, S., and Z. Li, "SRv6 Network Programming",
draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-24 (work in
progress), October 2020.
13.2. 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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4655>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4655>.
[RFC8283] Farrel, A., Ed., Zhao, Q., Ed., Li, Z., and C. Zhou, "An [RFC8283] Farrel, A., Ed., Zhao, Q., Ed., Li, Z., and C. Zhou, "An
Architecture for Use of PCE and the PCE Communication Architecture for Use of PCE and the PCE Communication
Protocol (PCEP) in a Network with Central Control", Protocol (PCEP) in a Network with Central Control",
RFC 8283, DOI 10.17487/RFC8283, December 2017, RFC 8283, DOI 10.17487/RFC8283, December 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8283>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8283>.
[RFC8669] Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Lindem, A., Ed., Sreekantiah, [RFC8669] Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Lindem, A., Ed., Sreekantiah,
A., and H. Gredler, "Segment Routing Prefix Segment A., and H. Gredler, "Segment Routing Prefix Segment
Identifier Extensions for BGP", RFC 8669, Identifier Extensions for BGP", RFC 8669,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8669, December 2019, DOI 10.17487/RFC8669, December 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8669>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8669>.
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy] [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy]
Filsfils, C., Sivabalan, S., 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-07 (work in progress), ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy-08 (work in progress),
May 2020. July 2020.
[I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller] [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller]
Zhao, Q., Li, Z., Negi, M., Peng, S., and C. Zhou, "PCEP Li, Z., Peng, S., Negi, M., Zhao, Q., and C. Zhou, "PCEP
Procedures and Protocol Extensions for Using PCE as a Procedures and Protocol Extensions for Using PCE as a
Central Controller (PCECC) of LSPs", draft-ietf-pce-pcep- Central Controller (PCECC) of LSPs", draft-ietf-pce-pcep-
extension-for-pce-controller-04 (work in progress), March extension-for-pce-controller-07 (work in progress),
2020. September 2020.
[I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang] [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang]
Dhody, D., Hardwick, J., Beeram, V., and J. Tantsura, "A Dhody, D., Hardwick, J., Beeram, V., and J. Tantsura, "A
YANG Data Model for Path Computation Element YANG Data Model for Path Computation Element
Communications Protocol (PCEP)", draft-ietf-pce-pcep- Communications Protocol (PCEP)", draft-ietf-pce-pcep-
yang-13 (work in progress), October 2019. yang-14 (work in progress), July 2020.
Appendix A. Contributor Addresses Appendix A. Contributor Addresses
Dhruv Dhody Dhruv Dhody
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
skipping to change at page 15, line 38 skipping to change at page 16, line 38
Email: mkoldych@cisco.com Email: mkoldych@cisco.com
Zafar Ali Zafar Ali
Cisco Systems, Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc.
Email: zali@cisco.com Email: zali@cisco.com
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Siva Sivabalan
Ciena Corporation
EMail: msiva282@gmail.com
Clarence Filsfils Clarence Filsfils
Cisco Systems, Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc.
Pegasus Parc Pegasus Parc
De kleetlaan 6a, DIEGEM BRABANT 1831 De kleetlaan 6a, DIEGEM BRABANT 1831
BELGIUM BELGIUM
EMail: cfilsfil@cisco.com EMail: cfilsfil@cisco.com
Siva Sivabalan
Ciena Corporation
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
UK UK
 End of changes. 40 change blocks. 
77 lines changed or deleted 161 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/