idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-pce-iro-update-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 : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- The draft header indicates that this document updates RFC5440, but the abstract doesn't seem to directly say this. It does mention RFC5440 though, so this could be OK. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year == The document doesn't use any RFC 2119 keywords, yet seems to have RFC 2119 boilerplate text. (Using the creation date from RFC5440, updated by this document, for RFC5378 checks: 2005-11-29) -- The document seems to contain a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, and may have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008. The disclaimer is necessary when there are original authors that you have been unable to contact, or if some do not wish to grant the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust. If you are able to get all authors (current and original) to grant those rights, you can and should remove the disclaimer; otherwise, the disclaimer is needed and you can ignore this comment. (See the Legal Provisions document at https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.) -- The document date (December 15, 2015) is 3055 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(See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Outdated reference: A later version (-18) exists of draft-ietf-pce-pceps-06 Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 3 warnings (==), 3 comments (--).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 Updates: 5440 (if approved) December 15, 2015 5 Intended status: Standards Track 6 Expires: June 17, 2016 8 Update to Include Route Object (IRO) specification in Path Computation 9 Element communication Protocol (PCEP) 10 draft-ietf-pce-iro-update-04 12 Abstract 14 During discussions of a document to provide a standard representation 15 and encoding of Domain-Sequence within the Path Computation Element 16 (PCE) communication Protocol (PCEP) for communications between a Path 17 Computation Client (PCC) and a PCE, or between two PCEs, it was 18 determined that there was a need for clarification with respect to 19 the ordered nature of the Include Route Object (IRO). 21 An informal survey was conducted to determine the state of current 22 and planned implementation with respect to IRO ordering and handling 23 of Loose bit (L bit). 25 This document updates the IRO specification of RFC 5440 based on the 26 survey conclusion and recommendation. 28 Status of This Memo 30 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 31 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 33 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 34 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 35 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 36 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 38 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 39 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 40 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 41 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 43 This Internet-Draft will expire on June 17, 2016. 45 Copyright Notice 47 Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 48 document authors. All rights reserved. 50 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 51 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 52 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 53 publication of this document. Please review these documents 54 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 55 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 56 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 57 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 58 described in the Simplified BSD License. 60 This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF 61 Contributions published or made publicly available before November 62 10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this 63 material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow 64 modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process. 65 Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling 66 the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified 67 outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may 68 not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format 69 it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other 70 than English. 72 Table of Contents 74 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 75 1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 76 2. Update in IRO specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 77 2.1. Update to RFC 5440 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 78 3. Other Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 79 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 80 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 81 6. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 82 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 83 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 84 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 85 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 87 1. Introduction 89 The Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) provides 90 mechanisms for Path Computation Elements (PCEs) to perform path 91 computations in response to Path Computation Clients (PCCs) requests. 93 [RFC5440] defines the Include Route Object (IRO) to specify network 94 elements to be traversed in the computed path. The specification did 95 not mention if IRO is an ordered or un-ordered list of sub-objects. 96 It mentioned that the Loose bit (L bit) has no meaning within an IRO. 98 [RFC5441] suggested the use of IRO to indicate the sequence of 99 domains to be traversed during inter-domain path computation. 101 In order to discover the current state of affairs amongst 102 implementations a survey of the existing and planned implementations 103 was conducted. This survey [I-D.dhody-pce-iro-survey] was informal 104 and conducted via email. Responses were collected and anonymized by 105 the PCE working group chair. 107 During discussion of [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-domain-sequence] it was 108 proposed to have a new IRO type with ordered nature, as well as 109 handling of Loose bit (L bit); however, with the update to [RFC5440] 110 described in this document, no new IRO type is needed. 112 This document updates the IRO specifications in section 7.12 of 113 [RFC5440] as per the conclusion and action points presented in 114 [I-D.dhody-pce-iro-survey]. 116 1.1. Requirements Language 118 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 119 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 120 document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. 122 2. Update in IRO specification 124 Section 7.12 of [RFC5440] describes IRO as an optional object used to 125 specify a set of network elements to be traversed in the computed 126 path. It also states that the Loose bit (L bit) in sub-object has no 127 meaning within an IRO. It did not mention if IRO is an ordered or 128 un-ordered list of sub-objects. 130 A survey of the existing and planned implementations was conducted in 131 order to discover the current state of affairs amongst 132 implementations. [I-D.dhody-pce-iro-survey] describe the 133 questionnaire, results and presents some conclusions and proposed 134 action items. 136 The survey suggest that most implementations construct or interpret 137 IRO in an ordered fashion and consider it to be an ordered list. 138 More than half of implementation under survey consider the IRO sub- 139 objects as strict hops, others consider loose or support both. The 140 results shown in this survey seems to suggest that most 141 implementations would be fine with updating [RFC5440] to specify IRO 142 as an ordered list as well as to enable support for Loose bit (L bit) 143 such that both strict and loose hops could be supported in the IRO. 145 2.1. Update to RFC 5440 147 Section 7.12 of [RFC5440] regarding the IRO specification is updated 148 to remove the last line in the section 7.12 of [RFC5440], that states 150 - "The L bit of such sub-object has no meaning within an IRO." 152 Further, the Section 7.12 of [RFC5440] is updated to add following 153 two statements - 155 - The content of IRO is an ordered list of sub-objects representing a 156 series of abstract nodes. An abstract node could just be a simple 157 abstract node comprising one node or a group of nodes for example an 158 AS (comprising of multiple hops within the AS) (refer section 4.3.2 159 of [RFC3209]). 161 - The L Bit of IRO sub-object is set based on the loose or strict 162 property of the sub-object, which is set if the sub-object represents 163 a loose hop. If the bit is not set, the sub-object represents a 164 strict hop. The interpretation of Loose bit (L bit) is as per 165 section 4.3.3.1 of [RFC3209]. 167 3. Other Considerations 169 Based on the survey, it should be noted that most implementation 170 already support the update in the IRO specification as per this 171 document. The other implementation are expected to make an update to 172 the IRO procedures. 174 4. Security Considerations 176 This update in IRO specification does not introduce any new security 177 considerations, apart from those mentioned in [RFC5440]. 178 Clarification in the supported IRO ordering or Loose bit handling 179 will not have any negative security impact. 181 It is worth noting that PCEP operates over TCP. An analysis of the 182 security issues for routing protocols that use TCP (including PCEP) 183 is provided in [RFC6952], while [I-D.ietf-pce-pceps] discusses an 184 experimental approach to provide secure transport for PCEP. 186 5. IANA Considerations 188 This document makes no requests to IANA for action. 190 6. Acknowledgments 192 A special thanks to PCE chairs for guidance regarding this work. 194 Thanks to Francesco Fondelli for his suggestions in clarifying the L 195 bit usage. 197 Thanks to Adrian Farrel for his review and comments. 199 Thanks to Deborah Brungard for her comments and being the responsible 200 AD. 202 7. References 204 7.1. Normative References 206 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 207 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 208 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 209 . 211 [RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V., 212 and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP 213 Tunnels", RFC 3209, DOI 10.17487/RFC3209, December 2001, 214 . 216 [RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation 217 Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440, 218 DOI 10.17487/RFC5440, March 2009, 219 . 221 7.2. Informative References 223 [RFC5441] Vasseur, JP., Ed., Zhang, R., Bitar, N., and JL. Le Roux, 224 "A Backward-Recursive PCE-Based Computation (BRPC) 225 Procedure to Compute Shortest Constrained Inter-Domain 226 Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths", RFC 5441, 227 DOI 10.17487/RFC5441, April 2009, 228 . 230 [RFC6952] Jethanandani, M., Patel, K., and L. Zheng, "Analysis of 231 BGP, LDP, PCEP, and MSDP Issues According to the Keying 232 and Authentication for Routing Protocols (KARP) Design 233 Guide", RFC 6952, DOI 10.17487/RFC6952, May 2013, 234 . 236 [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-domain-sequence] 237 Dhody, D., Palle, U., and R. Casellas, "Domain Subobjects 238 for Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol 239 (PCEP).", draft-ietf-pce-pcep-domain-sequence-12 (work in 240 progress), December 2015. 242 [I-D.ietf-pce-pceps] 243 Lopez, D., Dios, O., Wu, W., and D. Dhody, "Secure 244 Transport for PCEP", draft-ietf-pce-pceps-06 (work in 245 progress), November 2015. 247 [I-D.dhody-pce-iro-survey] 248 Dhody, D., "Informal Survey into Include Route Object 249 (IRO) Implementations in Path Computation Element 250 communication Protocol (PCEP)", draft-dhody-pce-iro- 251 survey-02 (work in progress), December 2014. 253 Author's Address 255 Dhruv Dhody 256 Huawei Technologies 257 Divyashree Techno Park, Whitefield 258 Bangalore, Karnataka 560037 259 India 261 EMail: dhruv.ietf@gmail.com