idnits 2.17.1 draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag-01.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 (December 4, 2019) is 1603 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) No issues found here. Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 1 comment (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 PCE Q. Xiong 3 Internet-Draft ZTE Corporation 4 Intended status: Standards Track December 4, 2019 5 Expires: June 6, 2020 7 LSP Object Flag Extension of Stateful PCE 8 draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag-01 10 Abstract 12 RFC8231 describes a set of extensions to PCEP to enable stateful 13 control of MPLS-TE and GMPLS Label Switched Paths(LSPs) via PCEP. 14 One of the extensions is the LSP object which includes a Flag field 15 and the length is 12 bits. However, 11 bits of the Flag field has 16 been assigned in RFC8231, RFC8281 and RFC8623 respectively. 18 This document proposes to define a new LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV for LSP 19 object to extend the length of the flags. 21 Status of This Memo 23 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 24 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 26 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 27 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 28 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 29 Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 31 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 32 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 33 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 34 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 36 This Internet-Draft will expire on June 6, 2020. 38 Copyright Notice 40 Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 41 document authors. All rights reserved. 43 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 44 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 45 (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 46 publication of this document. Please review these documents 47 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 48 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 49 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 50 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 51 described in the Simplified BSD License. 53 Table of Contents 55 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 56 2. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 57 2.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 58 2.2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 59 3. PCEP Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 60 3.1. The LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 61 3.2. Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 62 4. Backward Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 63 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 64 5.1. LSP Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 65 5.1.1. LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 66 5.1.2. LSP Extended Flags Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 67 5.2. PCEP-Error Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 68 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 69 7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 70 8. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 71 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 73 1. Introduction 75 [RFC5440] describes the Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) 76 which is used between a Path Computation Element (PCE) and a Path 77 Computation Client (PCC) (or other PCE) to enable computation of 78 Multi-protocol Label Switching (MPLS) for Traffic Engineering Label 79 Switched Path (TE LSP). 81 PCEP Extensions for the Stateful PCE Model [RFC8231] describes a set 82 of extensions to PCEP to enable active control of MPLS-TE and 83 Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) tunnels. One of the extensions is the LSP 84 object which contains a flag field indicating to a PCE that the LSP 85 State Synchronization is in progress. 87 As defined in [RFC8231], the length of the flag field is 12 bits and 88 the value from bit 5 to bit 11 is used for operational, 89 administrative, remove, synchronize and delegate respectively. The 90 bit value 4 is assigned in [RFC8281] for create. The bits from 1 to 91 3 is assigned in [RFC8623] for ERO-compression, fragmentation and 92 P2MP respectively. Almost all bits of the Flag field has been 93 assigned in RFC8231, RFC8281 and RFC8623 respectively. It is 94 required to extend the length of the flag field for other cases. 96 This document proposes to define a new LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV for LSP 97 object to extend the length of the flag. 99 2. Conventions used in this document 101 2.1. Terminology 103 The terminology is defined as [RFC5440] and [RFC8231]. 105 2.2. 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 3. PCEP Extension 115 The LSP Object is defined in Section 7.3 of [RFC8231]. This document 116 proposes to define a new LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV for LSP Object to 117 extend the length of the flag. 119 3.1. The LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV 121 The format of the LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV is as the Figure 1 shows. 123 0 1 2 3 124 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 1 125 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 126 | Type=TBD | Length | 127 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 128 | | 129 // LSP Extended Flags // 130 | | 131 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 133 Figure 1: LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV Format 135 Type(16bits): the value is TBD. 137 Length(16bits): multiple of 4 octets. 139 LSP Extended Flags: this contains an array of units of 32-bit flags 140 numbered from the most significant as bit zero, where each bit 141 represents one LSP capability or state. 143 3.2. Processing 145 The LSP Extended Flags field is an array of units of 32 flags and 146 being used starting from the least significant bit. Any bit being 147 assigned indicates a special LSP capability or state when the bit is 148 set to 0. No bits are defined in this document and the bits of the 149 LSP Extended Flags field MAY be assigned for future uses and IANA 150 will manage the space of the LSP Extended Flags. Unassigned bits are 151 reserved and SHOULD be set to zero on transmission and MUST be 152 ignored on receipt. 154 The LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV MUST be included in the LSP Object when the 155 bits of the extended flag field need to be used. If the TLV is 156 missing, the PCE will generate an error with Error-type=6 (Mandatory 157 Object missing) and error-value TBD (LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV missing) 158 and close the session. 160 4. Backward Compatibility 162 The LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV defined in this document does not introduce 163 any interoperability issues. 165 A router not supporting the LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV will just silently 166 ignore the TLV as specified in section 3.2. 168 The LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV MUST be defined as mandatory when a router 169 supporting the LSP Object and needs to use the extended flag field. 171 5. IANA Considerations 173 5.1. LSP Object 175 5.1.1. LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV 177 IANA has assigned a registry for TLVs carried in the LSP Object 178 defined in [RFC8231]. IANA is requested to make allocations for the 179 LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV carried within LSP Object from the "PCEP TLV 180 Type Indicators" subregistry of the "Path Computation Element 181 Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry, as follows: 183 +---------+------------------------+------------------+ 184 | Value | Description | Reference | 185 +---------+------------------------+------------------+ 186 | TBD | LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV | [This document] | 187 +---------+------------------------+------------------+ 189 Table 1 191 5.1.2. LSP Extended Flags Field 193 IANA is requested to create a new subregistry, named "LSP Extended 194 Flags Field", from the "Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) 195 Numbers" registry to manage the LSP Extended Flags field of the LSP- 196 EXTENDED-FLAG TLV. New values MUST request to be assigned by 197 Standards Action [RFC8126] and IANA will manage the space of the bit 198 flags numbering them in the usual IETF notation starting at zero and 199 continuing at least through 31. Each bit should be tracked with the 200 following qualities: 202 Bit number (counting from bit 0 as the most significant bit) 204 Capability description 206 Defining RFC 208 5.2. PCEP-Error Object 210 IANA is requested to register the following error types and error 211 values within the "PCEP-ERROR Object Error Types and Values" 212 subregistry of the "Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" 213 registry: 215 +--------------+------------------------------------+ 216 | Error-Type | Meaning | 217 +--------------+------------------------------------+ 218 | 6 | Mandatory Object missing | 219 | | Error-value | 220 | | TBD: LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV missing | 221 +--------------+------------------------------------+ 223 Table 2 225 6. Security Considerations 227 For LSP Object procssing security considerations, see [RFC8231]. 229 No additional security issues are raised in this document beyond 230 those that exist in the referenced documents. 232 7. Acknowledgements 234 Authors would like to thank the comments and suggestions from Dhruv 235 Dhody and Farrel Adrian. 237 8. Normative References 239 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 240 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 241 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 242 . 244 [RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation 245 Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440, 246 DOI 10.17487/RFC5440, March 2009, 247 . 249 [RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for 250 Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, 251 RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017, 252 . 254 [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 255 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 256 May 2017, . 258 [RFC8231] Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Medved, J., and R. Varga, "Path 259 Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) 260 Extensions for Stateful PCE", RFC 8231, 261 DOI 10.17487/RFC8231, September 2017, 262 . 264 [RFC8281] Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Sivabalan, S., and R. Varga, "Path 265 Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) 266 Extensions for PCE-Initiated LSP Setup in a Stateful PCE 267 Model", RFC 8281, DOI 10.17487/RFC8281, December 2017, 268 . 270 [RFC8623] Palle, U., Dhody, D., Tanaka, Y., and V. Beeram, "Stateful 271 Path Computation Element (PCE) Protocol Extensions for 272 Usage with Point-to-Multipoint TE Label Switched Paths 273 (LSPs)", RFC 8623, DOI 10.17487/RFC8623, June 2019, 274 . 276 Author's Address 278 Quan Xiong 279 ZTE Corporation 280 No.6 Huashi Park Rd 281 Wuhan, Hubei 430223 282 China 284 Email: xiong.quan@zte.com.cn