idnits 2.17.1 draft-dhody-pce-stateful-pce-vendor-04.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 (March 2, 2018) is 2245 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) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 7525 (Obsoleted by RFC 9325) Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 2 comments (--). 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 March 2, 2018 5 Expires: September 3, 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-04 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 the stateful PCE model. 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 September 3, 2018. 42 Copyright Notice 44 Copyright (c) 2018 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 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 [RFC8231] describes a set of extensions to PCEP to provide stateful 89 control. A stateful PCE has access to not only the information 90 carried by the network's Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP), but also 91 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. [RFC8281] describes the setup, maintenance and 95 teardown of PCE-initiated LSPs under the stateful PCE model. These 96 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 [RFC8231] (also referred 121 to as PCRpt message) is a PCEP message sent by a PCC to a PCE to 122 report the current state of an LSP. A PCC that wants to convey 123 proprietary or vendor-specific information or metrics to a PCE does 124 so by including a Vendor Information object in the PCRpt message. 125 The contents and format of the object are described in Section 4 of 126 [RFC7470]. The PCE determines how to interpret the information in 127 the Vendor Information object by examining the Enterprise Number it 128 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 [RFC8231] as base) is updated 136 as follows 137 ::= 138 139 Where: 141 ::= [] 143 ::= [] 144 145 146 [] 147 Where: 148 ::= 149 [] 151 is defined in [RFC8231]. 153 A Path Computation LSP Update Request message (also referred to as 154 PCUpd message) is a PCEP message sent by a PCE to a PCC to update 155 attributes of an LSP. The Vendor Information object can be included 156 in a PCUpd message to convey proprietary or vendor-specific 157 information. 159 The format of the PCUpd message (with [RFC8231] as base) is updated 160 as follows 162 ::= 163 164 Where: 166 ::= 167 [] 169 ::= 170 171 172 [] 173 Where: 174 ::= 175 [] 177 is defined in [RFC8231]. 179 A Path Computation LSP Initiate Message (also referred to as 180 PCInitiate message) is a PCEP message sent by a PCE to a PCC to 181 trigger LSP instantiation or deletion. The Vendor Information object 182 can be included in a PCInitiate message to convey proprietary or 183 vendor-specific information. 185 The format of the PCInitiate message (with 186 [RFC8281] as base) is updated as follows 188 ::= 189 190 Where: 192 ::= 193 [] 195 ::= 196 (| 197 ) 199 ::= 200 201 [] 202 203 [] 204 [] 206 Where: 208 ::= 209 [] 211 and is as per 212 [RFC8281]. 214 A legacy implementation that does not recognize the Vendor 215 Information object will act according to the procedures set out in 216 [RFC8231] and [RFC8281]. An implementation that supports the Vendor 217 Information object, but receives one carrying an Enterprise Number 218 that it does not support, SHOULD ignore the object as per [RFC7470]. 220 3. Procedures for the Vendor Information TLV 222 The Vendor Information TLV can be used to carry vendor-specific 223 information that applies to a specific PCEP object by including the 224 TLV in the object. This includes objects used in stateful PCE 225 extension such as SRP and LSP object. All the procedures as per 226 section 3 of [RFC7470]. 228 4. Vendor Information Object and TLV 230 [RFC7470] specify the format of VENDOR-INFORMATION Object and VENDOR- 231 INFORMATION-TLV. 233 5. IANA Considerations 235 There are no IANA consideration. 237 6. Security Considerations 239 The protocol extensions defined in this document do not change the 240 nature of PCEP. Therefore, the security considerations set out in 241 [RFC5440], [RFC7470], [RFC8231] and [RFC8281] apply unchanged. 243 As stated in [RFC6952], PCEP implementations SHOULD support the TCP- 244 AO [RFC5925] and not use TCP MD5 because of TCP MD5's known 245 vulnerabilities and weakness. PCEP also support Transport Layer 246 Security (TLS) [RFC8253] as per the recommendations and best current 247 practices in [RFC7525]. 249 7. Acknowledgments 251 Thanks to Avantika, Mahendra Singh Negi, Udayasree Palle and Swapna K 252 for their suggestions. 254 8. References 256 8.1. Normative References 258 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 259 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 260 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 261 . 263 [RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation 264 Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440, 265 DOI 10.17487/RFC5440, March 2009, 266 . 268 [RFC7470] Zhang, F. and A. Farrel, "Conveying Vendor-Specific 269 Constraints in the Path Computation Element Communication 270 Protocol", RFC 7470, DOI 10.17487/RFC7470, March 2015, 271 . 273 [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 274 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 275 May 2017, . 277 [RFC8231] Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Medved, J., and R. Varga, "Path 278 Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) 279 Extensions for Stateful PCE", RFC 8231, 280 DOI 10.17487/RFC8231, September 2017, 281 . 283 [RFC8281] Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Sivabalan, S., and R. Varga, "Path 284 Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) 285 Extensions for PCE-Initiated LSP Setup in a Stateful PCE 286 Model", RFC 8281, DOI 10.17487/RFC8281, December 2017, 287 . 289 8.2. Informative References 291 [RFC5925] Touch, J., Mankin, A., and R. Bonica, "The TCP 292 Authentication Option", RFC 5925, DOI 10.17487/RFC5925, 293 June 2010, . 295 [RFC6952] Jethanandani, M., Patel, K., and L. Zheng, "Analysis of 296 BGP, LDP, PCEP, and MSDP Issues According to the Keying 297 and Authentication for Routing Protocols (KARP) Design 298 Guide", RFC 6952, DOI 10.17487/RFC6952, May 2013, 299 . 301 [RFC7525] Sheffer, Y., Holz, R., and P. Saint-Andre, 302 "Recommendations for Secure Use of Transport Layer 303 Security (TLS) and Datagram Transport Layer Security 304 (DTLS)", BCP 195, RFC 7525, DOI 10.17487/RFC7525, May 305 2015, . 307 [RFC8051] Zhang, X., Ed. and I. Minei, Ed., "Applicability of a 308 Stateful Path Computation Element (PCE)", RFC 8051, 309 DOI 10.17487/RFC8051, January 2017, 310 . 312 [RFC8253] Lopez, D., Gonzalez de Dios, O., Wu, Q., and D. Dhody, 313 "PCEPS: Usage of TLS to Provide a Secure Transport for the 314 Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)", 315 RFC 8253, DOI 10.17487/RFC8253, October 2017, 316 . 318 Author's Address 319 Dhruv Dhody 320 Huawei Technologies 321 Divyashree Techno Park, Whitefield 322 Bangalore, Karnataka 560066 323 India 325 Email: dhruv.ietf@gmail.com