idnits 2.17.1 draft-palle-pce-controller-labeldb-sync-02.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 (October 26, 2017) is 2371 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) == Missing Reference: 'TBD3' is mentioned on line 479, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'TBD' is mentioned on line 493, but not defined == Outdated reference: A later version (-08) exists of draft-zhao-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller-05 -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 7525 (Obsoleted by RFC 9325) == Outdated reference: A later version (-09) exists of draft-zhao-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-sr-00 Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 5 warnings (==), 2 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 PCE Working Group U. Palle 3 Internet-Draft D. Dhody 4 Intended status: Standards Track S. Karunanithi 5 Expires: April 29, 2018 Huawei Technologies 6 October 26, 2017 8 LABEL-DB Synchronization Procedures for a PCE as a central 9 controller(PCECC) 10 draft-palle-pce-controller-labeldb-sync-02 12 Abstract 14 PCE as a central controller specifies the procedures and PCEP 15 protocol extensions where LSPs are calculated/setup/initiated and 16 label forwarding entries are downloaded through a centralized PCE 17 server to each network devices along the LSP path while leveraging 18 the existing PCE technologies as much as possible. 20 Labels downloaded to forwarding entries requires a reliable 21 synchronization mechanism between the path computation clients (PCCs) 22 and the PCE. The basic mechanism for label database (LABEL-DB 23 synchronization is part of the PCE as a central controller 24 specification. This document presents motivations for optimizations 25 to the LABEL-DB synchronization and the corresponding PCEP procedures 26 and extensions. 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 https://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 April 29, 2018. 45 Copyright Notice 47 Copyright (c) 2017 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 (https://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 Table of Contents 62 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 63 1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 64 2. LABEL-DB Synchronization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 65 3. Optimizations for LABEL-DB Synchronization . . . . . . . . . 4 66 3.1. LABEL-DB Synchronization Avoidance Procedure . . . . . . 4 67 3.2. Incremental LABEL-DB Synchronization Procedure . . . . . 8 68 4. PCEP Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 69 4.1. Extension of SRP object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 70 4.2. Extension of PCECC Capability TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 71 4.3. New LABEL-DB-VERSION TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 72 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 73 5.1. PCEP TLV Type Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 74 5.2. PCECC-CAPABILITY TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 75 6. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 76 6.1. Control of Function and Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 77 6.2. Information and Data Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 78 6.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 79 6.4. Verify Correct Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 80 6.5. Requirements On Other Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 81 6.6. Impact On Network Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 82 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 83 8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 84 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 85 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 86 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 87 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 89 1. Introduction 91 [I-D.zhao-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller] specify the 92 procedures and PCEP protocol extensions for using the PCE as the 93 central controller [I-D.ietf-teas-pce-central-control] and user cases 94 where LSPs are calculated/setup/initiated/downloaded through 95 extending the existing PCE architectures and PCEP. 97 [I-D.zhao-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller] and 98 [I-D.zhao-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-sr] specifies reliable 99 synchronization mechanism between the path computation clients (PCCs) 100 and the PCECC. 102 This draft specify the optimizations for LABEL-DB synchronization and 103 the corresponding PCEP procedures and extensions. 105 1.1. Requirements Language 107 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 108 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and 109 "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 110 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all 111 capitals, as shown here. 113 2. LABEL-DB Synchronization 115 PCECC MUST maintains the LABEL-DB for each PCEP session separately. 116 The purpose of LABEL-DB synchronization is to make sure that the 117 PCECC's view of LABEL-DB matches with the PCC's LABEL-DB. The LABEL- 118 DB synchronization MUST be performed from PCECC to PCC immediately 119 after the LSP state synchronization. [RFC8231] describes the basic 120 mechanism for LSP state synchronization. [RFC8233] describes the 121 optimizations for LSP state synchronization. 123 Full LABEL-DB synchronization performed from PCECC to PCC on Initial 124 session UP or every session flap is described in 125 [I-D.zhao-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller] and 126 [I-D.zhao-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-sr]. 128 Providing an Optimizations for LABEL-DB synchronization can result in 129 significant savings in both control-plane data exchanges and the time 130 it takes for the PCC to become fully operational. 132 Optimizations for LABEL-DB synchronization describes the need that 133 both PCEP speakers support label database version capability and 134 maintain label database version for each session. See Section 3 for 135 detail procedures. 137 [Editor's Note: [I-D.zhao-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller] 138 defines new messages PCLabelUpd and PCLabelRpt. Questions where 139 raised on the need for the new messages. Further appendix in 140 [I-D.zhao-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller] and 141 [I-D.zhao-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-sr] describes how the 142 existing messages can be extended to add this functionality. WG 143 needs to decide the final direction i.e. new specific messages are 144 needed or existing PCEP messages can be extended. The optimization 145 procedure would need to be modified based on the above decision.] 147 3. Optimizations for LABEL-DB Synchronization 149 This section add some of the optimization mechanisms for LABEL-DB 150 synchronization. By default, the full LABEL-DB synchronization is 151 performed. 153 3.1. LABEL-DB Synchronization Avoidance Procedure 155 The LABEL-DB synchronization MAY be skipped following a PCEP session 156 restart if there is no change in the LABEL-DB of the session at 157 PCECC, during the period prior to session re-initialization. To be 158 able to make this determination, labels must be exchanged and 159 maintained by both PCECC and PCC during normal operation. This is 160 accomplished by keeping track of the changes to the label database, 161 using a version tracking field called the Label Database Version 162 Number. 164 The Label Database Version Number, carried in LABEL-DB-VERSION TLV 165 (see Section 4.3), is owned by a PCECC and it MUST be incremented by 166 1 for each successive change in the PCECC's label database. The 167 Label Database Version Number MUST start at 1 and may wrap around. 168 Values 0 and 0xFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF are reserved. If either of the two 169 values are used during LABEL-DB synchronization, the PCC speaker 170 receiving this node should send back a PCErr with Error-type TBD1 171 Error-value 3 'Received an invalid Label Database Version Number', 172 and close the PCEP session. Operations that trigger a change to the 173 Label database include an addition or deletion of labels that would 174 trigger a label update to the PCC. 176 LABEL-DB synchronization avoidance is advertised on a PCEP session 177 during session startup using the INCLUDE-LABEL-DB-VERSION (I) bit in 178 the PCECC capability TLV (see Section 4.2). The PCEP peer MAY 179 include the SPEAKER-ENTITY-ID TLV described in [RFC8233] in the OPEN 180 message to identify the peer in case of IP address change. 182 If both PCEP speakers set the I flag in the OPEN object's PCECC 183 Capability TLV to 1, the PCECC MUST include the LABEL-DB-VERSION TLV 184 in each LABEL object of the PCLabelUpd message. If the LABEL-DB- 185 VERSION TLV is missing in a PCLabelUpd message, the PCC will generate 186 an error with Error-Type 6 (mandatory object missing) and Error-Value 187 TBD2 'LABEL-DB-VERSION TLV missing' and close the session. If LABEL- 188 DB synchronization avoidance has not been enabled on a PCEP session, 189 the PCECC SHOULD NOT include the LABEL-DB-VERSION TLV in the LABEL 190 Object and the PCC SHOULD ignore it were it to receive one. 192 If a PCC's label database survived the restart of a PCEP session, the 193 PCC will include the LABEL-DB-VERSION TLV in its OPEN object, and the 194 TLV will contain the last Label Database Version Number received on 195 an Label Update from the PCECC in the previous PCEP session. If a 196 PCECC's Label Database survived the restart of a PCEP session, the 197 PCECC will include the LABEL-DB-VERSION TLV in its OPEN object and 198 the TLV will contain the latest Label Database Version Number. If a 199 PCEP speaker's label database did not survive the restart of a PCEP 200 session, the PCEP speaker MUST NOT include the LABEL-DB-VERSION TLV 201 in the OPEN object. 203 If both PCEP speakers include the LABEL-DB-VERSION TLV in the OPEN 204 Object and the TLV values match, the PCECC MAY skip LABEL-DB 205 synchronization. Otherwise, the PCECC MUST perform full LABEL-DB 206 synchronization ([I-D.zhao-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller] and 207 [I-D.zhao-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-sr]) or incremental 208 LABEL-DB synchronization (see Section 3.2) to the PCC, Incase, the 209 PCECC attempts to skip LABEL-DB synchronization, by setting the SYNC 210 Flag to 0 on the first Label Update from the PCECC, the PCC MUST send 211 back a PCErr with Error-type TBD1 (Label Database Synchronization 212 Error) and Error-value 4(Label Database Version mismatch), and close 213 the PCEP session. 215 If LABEL-DB synchronization is required, then prior to completing the 216 initialization phase, the PCC MUST mark any labels in the label 217 database that were previously updated by the PCECC as stale. When 218 the PCECC updates a label during LABEL-DB synchronization, if the 219 label already exists in the label database, the PCC MUST update the 220 label database and clear the stale marker from the label. When it 221 has finished LABEL-DB synchronization, the PCECC MUST immediately 222 send an end of synchronization marker. The end of synchronization 223 marker is a Path Computation Label Update (PCLabelUpd) message with a 224 SRP object containing the SYNC flag set to 0 (see Section 4.1) and 225 Label as 0 in the LABEL object. The LABEL-DB-VERSION TLV MUST be 226 included in this PCLabelUpd message. On receiving this Label Update, 227 the PCC MUST report all the labels in the label database that are 228 still marked as stale to PCECC. 230 Note that a PCECC/PCC MAY force LABEL-DB synchronization by not 231 including the LABEL-DB-VERSION TLV in its OPEN object. 233 Figure 1 shows an example sequence where the LABEL-DB synchronization 234 is skipped. 236 +-+-+-+ +-+-+ 237 |PCECC| |PCC| 238 +-+-+-+ +-+-+ 239 | ,----Open---| 240 | / DBv=35 | 241 |--Open--, / I=1 | 242 | DBv=35 \ / | 243 | I=1 \ / | 244 | \/ | 245 | /\ | 246 | / `------------->| (OK to skip sync) 247 (Skip sync) |<--------` | 248 | . | 249 | . | 250 | . | 251 | | 252 |--PCLabelUpd,DBv=36,SYNC=0-->| (Regular 253 | | Label Update) 254 |--PCLabelUpd,DBv=37,SYNC=0-->| (Regular 255 | | Label Update) 256 |--PCLabelUpd,DBv=38,SYNC=0-->| 257 | | 259 Figure 1: LABEL-DB synchronization Skipped 261 Figure 2 shows an example sequence where the LABEL-DB synchronization 262 is performed due to label database version mismatch during the PCEP 263 session setup. Note that the same LABEL-DB synchronization sequence 264 would happen if either the PCC or the PCECC would not include the 265 LABEL- DB-VERSION TLV in their respective Open messages. 267 +-+-+-+ +-+-+ 268 |PCECC| |PCC| 269 +-+-+-+ +-+-+ 270 | ,----Open---| 271 | / DBv=35 | 272 |--Open--, / I=1 | 273 | DBv=39 \ / | 274 | I=1 \ / | 275 | \/ | 276 | /\ | 277 | / `------------->| (Expect sync) 278 (Do sync) |<--------` | 279 | | 280 |--PCLabelUpd,DBv=39,SYNC=1-->| (Sync start) 281 | . | 282 | . | 283 | . | 284 |--PCLabelUpd,DBv=39,SYNC=0-->| (Sync done) 285 | . | 286 | . | 287 | . | 288 |--PCLabelUpd,DBv=40,SYNC=0-->| (Regular 289 | | Label Update) 290 |--PCLabelUpd,DBv=41,SYNC=0-->| (Regular 291 | | Label Update) 292 |--PCLabelUpd,DBv=42,SYNC=0-->| 293 | | 295 Figure 2: LABEL-DB synchronization Performed 297 Figure 3 shows an example sequence where the LABEL-DB synchronization 298 is skipped, but because one or both PCEP speakers set the I Flag to 299 0, the PCECC does not send LABEL-DB-VERSION TLVs in subsequent 300 PCLabelUpd messages to the PCC. If the current PCEP session 301 restarts, the PCEP speakers will have to perform full LABEL-DB 302 synchronization, since the PCC does not know the PCECC's latest Label 303 Database Version Number information. 305 +-+-+-+ +-+-+ 306 |PCECC| |PCC| 307 +-+-+-+ +-+-+ 308 | ,----Open---| 309 | / DBv=43 | 310 |--Open--, / I=0 | 311 | DBv=43 \ / | 312 | I=0 \ / | 313 | \/ | 314 | /\ | 315 | / `------------->| (OK to skip sync) 316 (Skip sync) |<--------` | 317 | . | 318 | . | 319 | . | 320 |------PCLabelUpd,SYNC=0----->| (Regular 321 | | Label Update) 322 |------PCLabelUpd,SYNC=0----->| (Regular 323 | | Label Update) 324 |------PCLabelUpd,SYNC=0----->| 325 | | 327 Figure 3: LABEL-DB Synchronization Skipped, no LABEL-DB-VERSION TLVs 328 sent from PCECC 330 3.2. Incremental LABEL-DB Synchronization Procedure 332 If a PCC restarts and its label database survived, PCECC with 333 mismatched Label Database Version Number will send all their Labels 334 information (full LABEL-DB) to the PCC, even if only a small number 335 of changes happened. It can take a long time and consume large 336 communication channel bandwidth. 338 This section extends the idea to only synchronize the delta (changes) 339 in case of Label Database Version Number of both PCEP peers is non- 340 zero and mismatch. 342 If both PCEP speakers include the LABEL-DB-VERSION TLV in the OPEN 343 object and the LABEL-DB-VERSION TLV values match, the PCECC MAY skip 344 LABEL-DB synchronization. Otherwise, the PCECC MUST perform LABEL-DB 345 synchronization. Incremental label database synchronization 346 capability is advertised on a PCEP session during session startup 347 using the DELTA-LABEL-SYNC-CAPABILITY (D) bit in the capabilities TLV 348 (see Section 4.2). Instead of dumping full LABEL-DB to the PCC 349 again, the PCECC synchronizes the delta (changes) as described in 350 Figure 4 when D flag and I flag is set to 1 by both PCC and PCECC. 351 Other combinations of D and I flags setting by PCC and PCECC result 352 in full LABEL-DB synchronization procedure as described in 354 [I-D.zhao-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller] and 355 [I-D.zhao-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-sr]. The PCECC MAY force 356 a full LABEL-DB synchronization by setting the D flag to zero in the 357 OPEN message. 359 +-+-+-+ +-+-+ 360 |PCECC| |PCC| 361 +-+-+-+ +-+-+ 362 | ,----Open---| 363 | / DBv=35 | 364 |--Open--, / I=1 | 365 | DBv=39 \ / D=1 | 366 | I=1 \ / | 367 | \/ | 368 | /\ | 369 | / `------------->| (Expect Delta sync) 370 (Do sync)|<--------` | 371 (Delta) | | 372 | | 373 (Delta |--PCLabelUpd,DBv=39,SYNC=1-->| 374 Sync starts) | . | 375 | . | 376 | . | 377 | . | 378 |--PCLabelUpd,DBv=39,SYNC=0-->| (Sync done) 379 | | 380 | | 381 |--PCLabelUpd,DBv=40,SYNC=0-->| (Regular 382 | | Label Update) 383 |--PCLabelUpd,DBv=41,SYNC=0-->| (Regular 384 | | Label Update) 385 |--PCLabelUpd,DBv=42,SYNC=0-->| 386 | | 388 Figure 4: Incremental Synchronization Procedure 390 As per Section 3.1, the Label Database Version Number is incremented 391 each time a change is made to the PCECC's label database. Each label 392 is associated with the DB version at the time of its addition. This 393 is needed to determine which label and what information needs to be 394 synchronized in incremental LABEL-DB synchronization. 396 It is not necessary for a PCECC to store a complete history of label 397 database change, but rather remember the labels (including label 398 addition and deletion) that happened between the PCEP session(s) 399 restart in order to carry out incremental LABEL-DB synchronization. 400 After the synchronization procedure finishes, the PCECC can dump this 401 history information. In the example shown in Figure 4, the PCECC 402 needs to store the label changes that happened between DB Version 35 403 to 39 and synchronizes these changes only when performing incremental 404 label update. So a PCECC needs to remember at least the label 405 changes that happened after an existing PCEP session with a PCC goes 406 down to have any chance of doing incremental synchronization when the 407 session is re-established. 409 If a PCECC finds out it does not have sufficient information to 410 complete incremental synchronization after advertising incremental 411 LABEL-DB synchronization capability, it MUST send a PCErr with Error- 412 Type TBD1 and Error-Value 5 'A PCECC indicates to a PCC that it can 413 not complete the LABEL-DB synchronization' and terminate the session. 414 The PCECC SHOULD re-establish the session with the D bit set to 0 in 415 the OPEN message. 417 The other procedures and error checks remain unchanged from the 418 default LABEL-DB synchronization defined in 419 [I-D.zhao-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller] and 420 [I-D.zhao-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-sr]. 422 4. PCEP Extensions 424 4.1. Extension of SRP object 426 SRP object extension for SYNC flag to specify the LABEL-DB 427 synchronization operation is defined in 428 [I-D.zhao-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller]. 430 4.2. Extension of PCECC Capability TLV 432 PCECC Capability TLV is defined in 433 [I-D.zhao-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller]. This draft defines 434 a new 'INCLUDE-LABEL-DB-VERSION' flag (I bit) to specify the label 435 database version capability and 'DELTA-LABEL-SYNC-CAPABILITY' to 436 specify the incremental label database synchronization capability. 438 The TLV format is as per [RFC5440]. The format of the PCECC 439 Capability TLV is shown Figure 5: 441 0 1 2 3 442 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 1 443 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 444 | Type | Length=4 | 445 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 446 | Flags |D|I|S| 447 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 449 Figure 5: PCECC Capability TLV 451 I (INCLUDE-LABEL-DB-VERSION - 1 bit): if set to 1 by both PCEP 452 Speakers, the PCECC will include the LABEL-DB-VERSION TLV in each 453 LABEL Object. 455 D (DELTA-LABEL-SYNC-CAPABILITY - 1 bit): if set to 1 by a PCEP 456 speaker, it indicates that the PCEP speaker allows incremental 457 (delta) LABEL-DB synchronization. 459 4.3. New LABEL-DB-VERSION TLV 461 The Label Database Version Number (LABEL-DB-VERSION) TLV is an 462 optional TLV that MAY be included in the OPEN object and the LABEL 463 object. 465 The TLV format is as per [RFC5440]. The format of the LABEL-DB- 466 VERSION TLV is shown in the following figure: 468 0 1 2 3 469 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 1 470 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 471 | Type=[TBD3] | Length=8 | 472 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 473 | Label Database Version Number | 474 | | 475 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 477 Figure 6: LABEL-DB-VERSION TLV format 479 The type of the TLV is [TBD3] and it has a fixed length of 8 octets. 480 The value contains a 64-bit unsigned integer, representing the Label 481 Database Version Number. 483 5. IANA Considerations 485 5.1. PCEP TLV Type Indicators 487 IANA is requested to confirm the early allocation of the following 488 TLV Type Indicator values within the "PCEP TLV Type Indicators" sub- 489 registry of the PCEP Numbers registry, and to update the reference in 490 the registry to point to this document, when it is an RFC: 492 Value Meaning Reference 493 [TBD] LABEL-DB-VERSION TLV This document 495 5.2. PCECC-CAPABILITY TLV 497 [I-D.zhao-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller] defines the PCECC- 498 CAPABILITY TLV and [I-D.zhao-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-sr] 499 extends this TLV to add PCECC-SR-CAPABILITY. 501 Requests that IANA creates a registry to manage the value of the new 502 PCECC-CAPABILITY TLV's Flag field. IANA is requested to allocate a 503 new bits in the PCECC-CAPABILITY TLV Flag Field registry, as follows: 505 Bit Description Reference 506 30 I (INCLUDE-LABEL-DB-VERSION ) This document 507 29 D (DELTA-LABEL-SYNC-CAPABILITY) This document 509 6. Manageability Considerations 511 All manageability requirements and considerations listed in 512 [RFC5440], [RFC8231] and 513 [I-D.zhao-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller] apply to PCEP 514 protocol extensions defined in this document. In addition, 515 requirements and considerations listed in this section apply. 517 6.1. Control of Function and Policy 519 6.2. Information and Data Models 521 6.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring 523 6.4. Verify Correct Operations 525 6.5. Requirements On Other Protocols 526 6.6. Impact On Network Operations 528 7. Security Considerations 530 The security considerations listed in [RFC8231] and 531 [I-D.zhao-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller] apply to this 532 document as well. Securing the PCEP session using Transport Layer 533 Security (TLS) [RFC8253], as per the recommendations and best current 534 practices in [RFC7525], is RECOMMENDED. 536 8. Acknowledgements 538 This document borrows some of the structure and text from [RFC8253], 539 and would like to thanks the authors and contributors of the 540 document. 542 9. References 544 9.1. Normative References 546 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 547 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 548 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 549 . 551 [RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation 552 Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440, 553 DOI 10.17487/RFC5440, March 2009, 554 . 556 [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 557 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 558 May 2017, . 560 [RFC8231] Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Medved, J., and R. Varga, "Path 561 Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) 562 Extensions for Stateful PCE", RFC 8231, 563 DOI 10.17487/RFC8231, September 2017, 564 . 566 [I-D.zhao-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller] 567 Zhao, Q., Li, Z., Dhody, D., Karunanithi, S., Farrel, A., 568 and C. Zhou, "PCEP Procedures and Protocol Extensions for 569 Using PCE as a Central Controller (PCECC) of LSPs", draft- 570 zhao-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller-05 (work in 571 progress), June 2017. 573 9.2. Informative References 575 [RFC7525] Sheffer, Y., Holz, R., and P. Saint-Andre, 576 "Recommendations for Secure Use of Transport Layer 577 Security (TLS) and Datagram Transport Layer Security 578 (DTLS)", BCP 195, RFC 7525, DOI 10.17487/RFC7525, May 579 2015, . 581 [RFC8233] Dhody, D., Wu, Q., Manral, V., Ali, Z., and K. Kumaki, 582 "Extensions to the Path Computation Element Communication 583 Protocol (PCEP) to Compute Service-Aware Label Switched 584 Paths (LSPs)", RFC 8233, DOI 10.17487/RFC8233, September 585 2017, . 587 [RFC8253] Lopez, D., Gonzalez de Dios, O., Wu, Q., and D. Dhody, 588 "PCEPS: Usage of TLS to Provide a Secure Transport for the 589 Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)", 590 RFC 8253, DOI 10.17487/RFC8253, October 2017, 591 . 593 [I-D.ietf-teas-pce-central-control] 594 Farrel, A., Zhao, Q., Li, Z., and C. Zhou, "An 595 Architecture for Use of PCE and PCEP in a Network with 596 Central Control", draft-ietf-teas-pce-central-control-05 597 (work in progress), September 2017. 599 [I-D.zhao-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-sr] 600 Zhao, Q., Li, Z., Dhody, D., Karunanithi, S., Farrel, A., 601 and C. Zhou, "PCEP Procedures and Protocol Extensions for 602 Using PCE as a Central Controller (PCECC) of SR-LSPs", 603 draft-zhao-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-sr-00 (work 604 in progress), June 2017. 606 Authors' Addresses 608 Udayasree Palle 609 Huawei Technologies 610 Divyashree Techno Park, Whitefield 611 Bangalore, Karnataka 560066 612 India 614 EMail: udayasreereddy@gmail.com 615 Dhruv Dhody 616 Huawei Technologies 617 Divyashree Techno Park, Whitefield 618 Bangalore, Karnataka 560066 619 India 621 EMail: dhruv.ietf@gmail.com 623 Satish Karunanithi 624 Huawei Technologies 625 Divyashree Techno Park, Whitefield 626 Bangalore, Karnataka 560066 627 India 629 EMail: satishk@huawei.com