idnits 2.17.1 draft-dhody-pce-stateful-pce-vendor-03.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (September 18, 2017) is 2413 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Outdated reference: A later version (-11) exists of draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp-10 Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 1 comment (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 PCE Working Group D. Dhody 3 Internet-Draft Huawei Technologies 4 Intended status: Standards Track September 18, 2017 5 Expires: March 22, 2018 7 Conveying Vendor-Specific Information in the Path Computation Element 8 (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP) extensions for stateful PCE. 9 draft-dhody-pce-stateful-pce-vendor-03 11 Abstract 13 A Stateful Path Computation Element (PCE) maintains information on 14 the current network state, including: computed Label Switched Path 15 (LSPs), reserved resources within the network, and pending path 16 computation requests. This information may then be considered when 17 computing new traffic engineered LSPs, and for associated and 18 dependent LSPs, received from Path Computation Clients (PCCs). 20 RFC 7470 defines a facility to carry vendor-specific information in 21 PCEP. 23 This document extends this capability for stateful PCE. 25 Status of This Memo 27 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 28 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 30 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 31 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 32 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 33 Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 35 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 36 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 37 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 38 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 40 This Internet-Draft will expire on March 22, 2018. 42 Copyright Notice 44 Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 45 document authors. All rights reserved. 47 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 48 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 49 (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 50 publication of this document. Please review these documents 51 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 52 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 53 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 54 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 55 described in the Simplified BSD License. 57 Table of Contents 59 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 60 1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 61 2. Procedures for the Vendor Information Object . . . . . . . . 3 62 3. Procedures for the Vendor Information TLV . . . . . . . . . . 5 63 4. Vendor Information Object and TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 64 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 65 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 66 7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 67 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 68 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 69 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 70 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 72 1. Introduction 74 The Path Computation Element communication Protocol (PCEP) [RFC5440] 75 provides mechanisms for Path Computation Elements (PCEs) to perform 76 path computations in response to Path Computation Clients' (PCCs) 77 requests. 79 A stateful PCE is capable of considering, for the purposes of path 80 computation, not only the network state in terms of links and nodes 81 (referred to as the Traffic Engineering Database or TED) but also the 82 status of active services (previously computed paths, and currently 83 reserved resources, stored in the Label Switched Paths Database 84 (LSPDB). [RFC8051] describes general considerations for a stateful 85 PCE deployment and examines its applicability and benefits, as well 86 as its challenges and limitations through a number of use cases. 88 [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] describes a set of extensions to PCEP to 89 provide stateful control. A stateful PCE has access to not only the 90 information carried by the network's Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP), 91 but also the set of active paths and their reserved resources for its 92 computations. The additional state allows the PCE to compute 93 constrained paths while considering individual LSPs and their 94 interactions. [I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp] describes the setup, 95 maintenance and teardown of PCE-initiated LSPs under the stateful PCE 96 model. These extensions added new messages in PCEP. 98 [RFC7470] defined Vendor Information object that can be used to carry 99 arbitrary, proprietary information such as vendor-specific 100 constraints. It also defined VENDOR-INFORMATION-TLV that can be used 101 to carry arbitrary information within any existing or future PCEP 102 object that supports TLVs. 104 This document extend the usage of Vendor Information Object and 105 VENDOR-INFORMATION-TLV to stateful PCE. The VENDOR-INFORMATION-TLV 106 can be carried inside any of the new objects added in PCEP for 107 stateful PCE as per [RFC7470], this document extend the PCEP messages 108 to also include the Vendor Information Object too. 110 1.1. Requirements Language 112 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 113 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and 114 "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 115 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all 116 capitals, as shown here. 118 2. Procedures for the Vendor Information Object 120 A Path Computation LSP State Report message 121 [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] (also referred to as PCRpt message) is a 122 PCEP message sent by a PCC to a PCE to report the current state of an 123 LSP. A PCC that wants to convey proprietary or vendor-specific 124 information or metrics to a PCE does so by including a Vendor 125 Information object in the PCRpt message. The contents and format of 126 the object are described in Section 4 of [RFC7470]. The PCE 127 determines how to interpret the information in the Vendor Information 128 object by examining the Enterprise Number it contains. 130 The Vendor Information object is OPTIONAL in a PCRpt message. 131 Multiple instances of the object MAY be used on a single PCRpt 132 message. Different instances of the object can have different 133 Enterprise Numbers. 135 The format of the PCRpt message (with [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] as 136 base) is updated as follows 137 ::= 138 139 Where: 141 ::= [] 143 ::= [] 144 145 146 [] 147 Where: 148 ::= 149 [] 150 is defined in [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce]. 152 A Path Computation LSP Update Request message (also referred to as 153 PCUpd message) is a PCEP message sent by a PCE to a PCC to update 154 attributes of an LSP. The Vendor Information object can be included 155 in a PCUpd message to convey proprietary or vendor-specific 156 information. 158 The format of the PCUpd message (with [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] as 159 base) is updated as follows 161 ::= 162 163 Where: 165 ::= 166 [] 168 ::= 169 170 171 [] 172 Where: 173 ::= 174 [] 175 is defined in [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce]. 177 A Path Computation LSP Initiate Message (also referred to as 178 PCInitiate message) is a PCEP message sent by a PCE to a PCC to 179 trigger LSP instantiation or deletion. The Vendor Information object 180 can be included in a PCInitiate message to convey proprietary or 181 vendor-specific information. 183 The format of the PCInitiate message (with 184 [I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp] as base) is updated as follows 186 ::= 187 188 Where: 190 ::= 191 [] 193 ::= 194 (| 195 ) 197 ::= 198 199 [] 200 201 [] 202 [] 204 Where: 206 ::= 207 [] 209 and is as per 210 [I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp]. 212 A legacy implementation that does not recognize the Vendor 213 Information object will act according to the procedures set out in 214 [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] and [I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp]. An 215 implementation that supports the Vendor Information object, but 216 receives one carrying an Enterprise Number that it does not support, 217 SHOULD ignore the object as per [RFC7470]. 219 3. Procedures for the Vendor Information TLV 221 The Vendor Information TLV can be used to carry vendor-specific 222 information that applies to a specific PCEP object by including the 223 TLV in the object. This includes objects used in stateful PCE 224 extension such as SRP and LSP object. All the procedures as per 225 section 3 of [RFC7470]. 227 4. Vendor Information Object and TLV 229 [RFC7470] specify the format of VENDOR-INFORMATION Object and VENDOR- 230 INFORMATION-TLV. 232 5. IANA Considerations 234 There are no IANA consideration. 236 6. Security Considerations 238 The protocol extensions defined in this document do not change the 239 nature of PCEP. Therefore, the security considerations set out in 240 [RFC5440], [RFC7470], [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] and 241 [I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp] apply unchanged. Note that further 242 security considerations for the use of PCEP over TCP are presented in 243 [RFC6952]. 245 7. Acknowledgments 247 Thanks to Avantika, Mahendra Singh Negi, Udayasree Palle and Swapna K 248 for their suggestions. 250 8. References 252 8.1. Normative References 254 [I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp] 255 Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Sivabalan, S., and R. Varga, "PCEP 256 Extensions for PCE-initiated LSP Setup in a Stateful PCE 257 Model", draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp-10 (work in 258 progress), June 2017. 260 [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] 261 Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Medved, J., and R. Varga, "PCEP 262 Extensions for Stateful PCE", draft-ietf-pce-stateful- 263 pce-21 (work in progress), June 2017. 265 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 266 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 267 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 268 . 270 [RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation 271 Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440, 272 DOI 10.17487/RFC5440, March 2009, 273 . 275 [RFC7470] Zhang, F. and A. Farrel, "Conveying Vendor-Specific 276 Constraints in the Path Computation Element Communication 277 Protocol", RFC 7470, DOI 10.17487/RFC7470, March 2015, 278 . 280 [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 281 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 282 May 2017, . 284 8.2. Informative References 286 [RFC6952] Jethanandani, M., Patel, K., and L. Zheng, "Analysis of 287 BGP, LDP, PCEP, and MSDP Issues According to the Keying 288 and Authentication for Routing Protocols (KARP) Design 289 Guide", RFC 6952, DOI 10.17487/RFC6952, May 2013, 290 . 292 [RFC8051] Zhang, X., Ed. and I. Minei, Ed., "Applicability of a 293 Stateful Path Computation Element (PCE)", RFC 8051, 294 DOI 10.17487/RFC8051, January 2017, 295 . 297 Author's Address 299 Dhruv Dhody 300 Huawei Technologies 301 Divyashree Techno Park, Whitefield 302 Bangalore, Karnataka 560066 303 India 305 Email: dhruv.ietf@gmail.com