idnits 2.17.1 draft-wu-pce-discovery-pceps-support-07.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 28, 2017) is 2548 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 5246 (Obsoleted by RFC 8446) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 6006 (Obsoleted by RFC 8306) Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 3 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 PCE working group D. Lopez 2 Internet-Draft Telefonica I+D 3 Intended status: Standards Track Q. Wu 4 Expires: September 29, 2017 D. Dhody 5 Z. Wang 6 Huawei 7 D. King 8 Old Dog Consulting 10 March 28, 2017 12 IGP extension for PCEP security capability support in the PCE discovery 13 draft-wu-pce-discovery-pceps-support-07 15 Abstract 17 When a Path Computation Element (PCE) is a Label Switching Router 18 (LSR) participating in the Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP), or even a 19 server participating in IGP, its presence and path computation 20 capabilities can be advertised using IGP flooding. The IGP 21 extensions for PCE discovery (RFC 5088 and RFC 5089) define a method 22 to advertise path computation capabilities using IGP flooding for 23 OSPF and IS-IS respectively. However these specifications lack a 24 method to advertise PCEP security (e.g., Transport Layer 25 Security(TLS),TCP Authentication Option (TCP-AO)) support capability. 27 This document proposes new capability flag bits for PCE-CAP-FLAGS 28 sub- TLV that can be announced as attribute in the IGP advertisement 29 to distribute PCEP security support information. 31 Status of This Memo 33 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 34 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 36 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 37 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 38 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 39 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 41 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 42 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 43 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 44 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 46 This Internet-Draft will expire on September 29, 2017 48 Copyright Notice 50 Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 51 document authors. All rights reserved. 53 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 54 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 55 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 56 publication of this document. Please review these documents 57 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 58 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 59 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 60 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 61 described in the Simplified BSD License. 63 Table of Contents 65 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 66 2. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 67 3. IGP extension for PCEP security capability support . . . . . 3 68 3.1. Use of PCEP security capability support for PCE discovery 4 69 4. Backward Compatibility Consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 70 5. Management Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 71 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 72 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 73 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 74 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 75 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 76 Appendix A. Appendix A: No MD5 Capability Support . . . . . . . 5 77 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 79 1. Introduction 81 As described in [RFC5440], PCEP communication privacy is one 82 importance issue, as an attacker that intercepts a Path Computation 83 Element (PCE) message could obtain sensitive information related to 84 computed paths and resources. 86 Among the possible solutions mentioned in these documents, Transport 87 Layer Security (TLS) [RFC5246] provides support for peer 88 authentication, and message encryption and integrity while TCP 89 Authentication Option (TCP-AO) offer significantly improved security 90 for applications using TCP. In order for a Path Computation 91 Client(PCC) to begin a connection with a PCE server using TLS or TCP- 92 AO, PCC SHOULD know whether PCE server supports TLS or TCP-AO as a 93 secure transport. 95 [RFC5088] and [RFC5089] define a method to advertise path computation 96 capabilities using IGP flooding for OSPF and IS-IS respectively. 97 However [RFC5088] and [RFC5089] lacks a method to advertise PCEP 98 security (e.g., TLS) support capability. 100 This document proposes new capability flag bits for PCE-CAP-FLAGS 101 sub- TLV that can be announced as attributes in the IGP advertisement 102 (defined in [RFC5088] and [RFC5089]) to distribute PCEP security 103 support information. 105 2. Conventions used in this document 107 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 108 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 109 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC2119 [RFC2119]. 111 3. IGP extension for PCEP security capability support 113 The PCE-CAP-FLAGS sub-TLV is defined in section 4.5 of [RFC5088] and 114 [RFC5089] as an optional sub-TLV used to advertise PCE capabilities. 115 In this section, we extend the PCE-CAP-FLAGS sub-TLV to include the 116 capability and indications that are described for PCEP security 117 (e.g., TLS) support in the current document. 119 In the PCE-CAP-FLAGS sub-TLV defined in [RFC5088] and [RFC5089], nine 120 capability flags defined in [RFC5088] (as per [RFC4657]) and two 121 capability flags defined [RFC5557], [RFC6006] are included and 122 follows the following format: 124 o TYPE: 5 125 o LENGTH: Multiple of 4 126 o VALUE: This contains an array of units of 32 bit flags with 127 the most significant bit as 0. Each bit represents one PCE 128 capability. 130 and the processing rule of these flag bits are defined in [RFC5088] 131 and [RFC5089]. In this document, we define two new capability flag 132 bits that indicate TCP Authentication Option (TCP-AO) support, PCEP 133 over TLS support respectively as follows: 135 Bit Capability Description 136 xx TCP AO Support 137 xx PCEP over TLS support 139 3.1. Use of PCEP security capability support for PCE discovery 141 TCP-AO, PCEP over TLS support flag bits are advertised using IGP 142 flooding. 144 o PCE supports TCP-AO: IGP advertisement SHOULD include TCP-AO 145 support flag bit. 147 o PCE supports TLS: IGP advertisement SHOULD include PCEP over TLS 148 support flag bit. 150 If PCE supports multiple security mechanisms, it SHOULD include all 151 corresponding flag bits in IGP advertisement. 153 If the client is looking for connecting with PCE server with TCP-AO 154 support, the client MUST check if TCP-AO support flag bit in the PCE- 155 CAP-FLAGS sub-TLV is set. If not, the client SHOULD NOT consider 156 this PCE. If the client is looking for connecting with PCE server 157 using TLS, the client MUST check if PCEP over TLS support flag bit in 158 the PCE-CAP-FLAGS sub-TLV is set. If not, the client SHOULD NOT 159 consider this PCE. 161 4. Backward Compatibility Consideration 163 An LSR that does not support the new IGP PCE capability bits 164 specified in this document silently ignores those bits. 166 IGP extensions defined in this document do not introduce any new 167 interoperability issues. 169 5. Management Considerations 171 A configuration option may be provided for advertising and 172 withdrawing PCE security capability via IGP. 174 6. Security Considerations 176 This document raises no new security issues beyond those described in 177 [RFC5088] and [RFC5089]. 179 7. IANA Considerations 181 IANA is requested to allocate a new bit in "PCE Security Capability 182 Flags" registry for PCEP Security support capability. 184 Bit Meaning Reference 185 xx TCP-AO Support [This.I.D] 186 xx PCEP over TLS support [This.I.D] 188 8. References 190 8.1. Normative References 192 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 193 Requirement Levels", March 1997. 195 [RFC5088] Le Roux, JL., "OSPF Protocol Extensions for Path 196 Computation Element (PCE) Discovery", RFC 5088, January 197 2008. 199 [RFC5089] Le Roux, JL., "IS-IS Protocol Extensions for Path 200 Computation Element (PCE) Discovery", RFC 5089, January 201 2008. 203 8.2. Informative References 205 [RFC4657] Ash, J. and J. Le Roux, "Path Computation Element (PCE) 206 Communication Protocol Generic Requirements", RFC 4657, 207 September 2006. 209 [RFC5246] Dierks, T., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol 210 Version 1.2", RFC 5246, August 2008. 212 [RFC5440] Le Roux, JL., "Path Computation Element (PCE) 213 Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440, March 2009. 215 [RFC5557] Lee, Y., Le Roux, JL., King, D., and E. Oki, "Path 216 Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) 217 Requirements and Protocol Extensions in Support of Global 218 Concurrent Optimization", RFC 5557, July 2009. 220 [RFC6006] Zhao, Q., King, D., Verhaeghe, F., Takeda, T., Ali, Z., 221 and J. Meuric, "Extensions to the Path Computation Element 222 Communication Protocol (PCEP) for Point-to-Multipoint 223 Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths", RFC 6006, 224 September 2010. 226 Appendix A. Appendix A: No MD5 Capability Support 228 To be compliant with Section 10.2 of RFC5440, this document doesn't 229 consider to add capability for TCP-MD5. Therefore by default, PCEP 230 Speaker in communication supports capability for TCP-MD5 (See section 231 10.2, [RFC5440] ). A method to advertise TCP-MD5 Capability support 232 using IGP flooding is not required. If the client is looking for 233 connecting with PCE server with other Security capability support 234 (e.g., TLS support) than TCP-MD5, the client MUST check if flag bit 235 in the PCE- CAP-FLAGS sub-TLV for specific capability is set (See 236 section 3.1). 238 Authors' Addresses 240 Diego R. Lopez 241 Telefonica I+D 242 Spain 244 Email: diego.r.lopez@telefonica.com 246 Qin Wu 247 Huawei Technologies 248 12 Mozhou East Road, Jiangning District 249 Nanjing, Jiangsu 210012 250 China 252 Email: bill.wu@huawei.com 254 Dhruv Dhody 255 Huawei Technologies 256 Divyashree Techno Park, Whitefield 257 Bangalore, Karnataka 560037 258 India 260 Email: dhruv.ietf@gmail.com 262 Michael Wang 263 Huawei 264 12 Mozhou East Road, Jiangning District 265 Nanjing, Jiangsu 210012 266 China 268 Email: wangzitao@huawei.com 270 Daniel King 271 Old Dog Consulting 272 UK 274 Email: daniel@olddog.co.uk