[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits] [IPR]

Versions: (draft-bradford-pce-path-key) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 RFC 5520

   Networking Working Group                        Rich Bradford (Ed)
   Internet-Draft                                         JP Vasseur
                                                  Cisco Systems, Inc.
                                                        Adrian Farrel
                                                   Old Dog Consulting



   Intended Status: Standards Track
   Expires: March 12, 2008
                                                  September 12, 2007




                draft-ietf-pce-path-key-01.txt


        Preserving Topology Confidentiality in Inter-Domain Path
                 Computation Using a Key-Based Mechanism

   Status of this Memo
   By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
   applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
   have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
   aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
   Drafts.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

   This Internet-Draft will expire on March 12, 2008.







Bradford, Vasseur and Farrel                                         1


Draft-ietf-pce-path-key-01.txt                 September 2007

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).  All rights reserved.

   Abstract

   Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS)
   Traffic Engineering (TE) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) may be
   computed by Path Computation Elements (PCEs). Where the TE LSP
   crosses multiple domains, such as Autonomous Systems (ASes), the
   path may be computed by multiple PCEs that cooperate, with each
   responsible for computing a segment of the path. However, in some
   cases (e.g. when ASes are administered by separate Service
   Providers), it would break confidentiality rules for a PCE to
   supply a path segment to a PCE in another domain, thus disclosing
   internal topology information. This issue may be circumvented by
   returning a loose hop and by invoking a new path computation from
   the domain boundary LSR during TE LSP setup as the signaling
   message enters the second domain, but this technique has several
   issues including the problem of maintaining path diversity.

   This document defines a mechanism to hide the contents of a
   segment of a path, called the Confidential Path Segment (CPS). The
   CPS may be replaced by a path-key that can be conveyed in the PCE
   Communication Protocol (PCEP) and signaled within in a Resource
   Reservation Protocol TE (RSVP-TE) explicit route object.



   Table of contents
   1.  Terminology..................................................3
   2.  Introduction.................................................4
   3.  Path-Key Solution............................................5
   3.1. Mode of Operation...........................................6
   4.  PCEP Protocol Extensions.....................................7
   4.1. PATH-KEY Object.............................................7
   4.2. PKS subobject...............................................7
   4.3. Path Key Bit...............................................10
   5.  PCEP Mode of Operation......................................10
   6.  Security Considerations.....................................11
   7.  Manageability Considerations................................12
   7.1. Control of Function Through Configuration and Policy.......12
   7.2. Information and Data Models................................13
   7.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring..........................13
   7.4. Verifying Correct Operation................................14
   7.5. Requirements on Other Protocols and Functional Components..14
   7.6. Impact on Network Operation................................14


Bradford, Vasseur, and Farrel                                        2


Draft-ietf-pce-path-key-01.txt                 September 2007

   8.  IANA Considerations.........................................15
   8.1. New Subobjects for the ERO Object..........................15
   8.2. New PCEP Object............................................15
   8.3. New RP Object Bit Flag.....................................16
   9.  Intellectual Property Considerations........................16
   10.  References.................................................17
   10.1.  Normative References.....................................17
   10.2.  Informational References.................................17
   11.  Authors' Addresses:........................................18




   Conventions used in this document

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL
   NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED",  "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
   RFC-2119 [RFC2119].




1.      Terminology

   AS: Autonomous System.

   ASBR: Autonomous System Border Routers used to connect to another
   AS of a different or the same Service Provider via one or more
   links inter-connecting between ASes.

   CPS: Confidential Path Segment. A segment of a path that contains
   nodes and links that the AS policy requires to not be disclosed
   outside the AS.

   Inter-AS TE LSP: A TE LSP that crosses an AS boundary.

   LSR: Label Switching Router.

   LSP: Label Switched Path.

   PCC: Path Computation Client: Any client application requesting a
   path computation to be performed by a Path Computation Element.

   PCE: Path Computation Element: An entity (component, application
   or network node) that is capable of computing a network path or


Bradford, Vasseur, and Farrel                                        3


Draft-ietf-pce-path-key-01.txt                 September 2007

   route based on a network graph and applying computational
   constraints.

   TE LSP: Traffic Engineering Label Switched Path

2.      Introduction

   Path computation techniques using the Path Computation Element
   (PCE) are described in [RFC4655] and allow for path computation of
   inter-domain Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Traffic
   Engineering (TE) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Label Switched Paths
   (LSPs).

   An important element of inter-domain TE is that TE information is
   not shared between domains for scalability and confidentiality
   reasons ([RFC4105] and [RFC4216]). Therefore, a single PCE is
   unlikely to be able to compute a full inter-domain path.

   Two path computation scenarios can be used for inter-domain TE
   LSPs: one using per-domain path computation (defined in [PD-PATH-
   COMP]), and the other using a PCE-based path computation technique
   with cooperation between PCEs (as described in [RFC4655]). In this
   second case, paths for inter-domain LSPs can be computed by
   cooperation between PCEs each of which computes a segment of the
   path across one domain. Such a path computation procedure is
   described in [BRPC].

   If confidentiality is required between domains (such as would very
   likely be the case between ASes belonging to different Service
   Providers) then cooperating PCEs cannot exchange path segments or
   else the receiving PCE and the Path Computation Client (PCC) will
   be able to see the individual hops through another domain thus
   breaking the confidentiality requirement stated in [RFC4105] and
   [RFC4216]. We define the part of the path which we wish to keep
   confidential as the Confidential Path Segment (CPS).

   One mechanism for preserving the confidentiality of the CPS is for
   the PCE to return a path containing a loose hop in place of the
   segment that must be kept confidential. The concept of loose and
   strict hops for the route of a TE LSP is described in [RFC3209].
   The Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) defined
   in [PCEP] supports the use of paths with loose hops, and it is a
   local policy decision at a PCE whether it returns a full explicit
   path with strict hops or uses loose hops. Note that a Path
   computation Request may request an explicit path with strict hops
   or may allow loose hops as detailed in [PCEP].


Bradford, Vasseur, and Farrel                                        4


Draft-ietf-pce-path-key-01.txt                 September 2007

   The option of returning a loose hop in place of the CPS can be
   achieved without further extensions to PCEP or the signaling
   protocol. If loose hops are used, the TE LSPs are signaled as
   normal ([RFC3209]), and when a loose hop is encountered in the
   explicit route it is resolved by performing a secondary path
   computation to reach the resource or set of resources identified
   by the loose hop. Given the nature of the cooperation between PCEs
   in computing the original path, this secondary computation occurs
   at or on behalf of a Label Switching Router (LSR) at a domain
   boundary (i.e., an ABR or ASBR) and the path is expanded as
   described in [PD-PATH-COMP].

   The PCE-based computation model is particularly useful for
   determining mutually disjoint inter-domain paths such as might be
   required for service protection [INTER-DOM-REC]. A single path
   computation request is used. However, if loose hops are returned,
   the path of each TE LSP must be recomputed at the domain
   boundaries as the TE LSPs are signaled, and since the TE LSP
   signaling proceeds independently for each TE LSP, disjoint paths
   cannot be guaranteed since the LSRs in charge of expanding the
   EROs are not synchronized. Therefore, if the loose hop technique
   is used without further extensions, path segment confidentiality
   and path diversity are mutually incompatible requirements.

   This document defines the notion of a Path Key that is a token
   that replaces a path segment in an explicit route. The Path Key is
   encoded as a Path Key Subobject (PKS) returned in the PCEP Path
   Computation Reply message (PCRep) ([PCEP]). Upon receiving the
   computed path, the PKS will be carried in an RSVP-TE Path message
   (RSVP-TE [RFC3209] and [RSVP-PKS]) during signaling.



3.      Path-Key Solution

   The Path-Key solution may be applied in the PCE-based path
   computation context as follows. A PCE computes a path segment
   related to a particular domain and replaces any CPS in the path
   reported to the requesting PCC (or another PCE) by one or more
   subobjects referred to as PKSes. The entry boundary LSR of each
   CPS SHOULD be specified as a hop in the returned path immediately
   preceding the CPS, but where two PKSes are supplied in sequence
   with no intervening nodes, the entry node to the second CPS MAY be
   part of the first CPS and does not need to be explicitly present
   in the returned path. The exit node of a CPS MAY be present as a
   strict hop immediately following the PKS.


Bradford, Vasseur, and Farrel                                        5


Draft-ietf-pce-path-key-01.txt                 September 2007

3.1.   Mode of Operation

   During path computation, when local policy dictates that
   confidentiality must be preserved for all or part of the path
   segment being computed or if explicitly requested by the Path
   Computation Request, the PCE associates a path-key with the
   computed path for the CPS, places its own identifier (its PCE ID
   as defined in section 4.2. ) along with the path-key in a PKS, and
   inserts the PKS object in the path returned to the requesting PCC
   or PCE immediately after the IPv4 subobject defined in [RFC3209]
   subobject that identifies the LSR that will expand the PKS into a
   explicit path hops. This will usually be the LSR that is the start
   point of the CPS. The PCE that generates a PKS SHOULD store the
   computed path segment and the path-key for later retrieval. A
   local policy SHOULD be used to determine for how long to retain
   such stored information, and whether to discard the information
   after it has been queried using the procedures described below. It
   is RECOMMENDED for a PCE to store the PKS for a period of 10
   minutes.

   A path-key value is scoped to the PCE that computed it as
   identified by the PCE-ID carried in the PKS. A PCE MUST NOT re-use
   a path-key value to represent a new CPS for at least 30 minutes
   after discarding the previous use of the same path-key. A PCE that
   is unable to retain information about previously used path-key
   values over a restart SHOULD use some other mechanism to guarantee
   uniqueness of path-key values such as embedding a timestamp or
   version number in the path-key.

   A head-end LSR that is a PCC converts the path returned by a PCE
   into an explicit route object (ERO) that it includes in the
   Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) Path message. If the path
   returned by the PCE contains a PKS, this is included in the ERO.
   Like any other subobjects, the PKS is passed transparently from
   hop to hop, until it becomes the first subobject in the ERO. This
   will occur at the start of the CPS which will usually be the
   domain boundary. The PKS MUST be preceded by an ERO subobject that
   identifies the LSR that must expand the PKS, so the PKS will not
   be encountered in ERO processing until the LSR that can process
   it.

   An LSR that encounters a PKS when trying to identify the next-hop
   retrieves the PCE-ID from the PKS and sends a Path Computation
   Request (PCReq) message as defined in [PCEP] to the PCE identified
   by the PCE-ID that contains the path-key object .



Bradford, Vasseur, and Farrel                                        6


Draft-ietf-pce-path-key-01.txt                 September 2007

   Upon receiving the PCReq message, the PCE identifies the computed
   path segment using the supplied path-key, and returns the
   previously computed path segment in the form of explicit hops
   using an ERO object contained in the Path Computation Reply
   (PCReqp) to the requesting node as defined in [PCEP]. The
   requesting node inserts the explicit hops into the ERO and
   continues to process the TE LSP setup as per [RFC3209].




4.      PCEP Protocol Extensions



4.1.   PATH-KEY Object
   When a PCC needs to expand a path-key in order to expand a CPS it
issues a path computation request (PCReq) to the PCE identified in the
PKS in the RSVP-TE ERO that it is processing. The PCC supplies the PKS
to be expanded in a PATH-KEY Object in the PCReq message.

   The PATH-KEY Object is defined as follows.

   PATH-KEY Object-Class is to be assigned by IANA (recommended
value=16)

   Path Key Object-Type is to be assigned by IANA (recommended value=1)

   The PATH-KEY Object MUST contain at least one Path Key Subobject
(see Section 4.2). The first PKS MUST be processed by the PCE.
Subsequent subobjects SHOULD be ignored.



4.2.   PKS subobject

   The PKS is identical in format to that defined for RSVP-TE
   signaling in [RSVP-PKS], but is redefined in the context of this
   document since a PCEP codepoint is required.

   The PKS is a fixed-length subobject containing a Path-Key and a
   PCE-ID. The Path Key is an identifier, or token used to represent
   the CPS within the context of the PCE identified by the PCE-ID.
   The PCE-ID identifies the PCE that can decode the Path Key using

Bradford, Vasseur, and Farrel                                        7


Draft-ietf-pce-path-key-01.txt                 September 2007

   an identifier that is unique within the domain that the PCE
   serves. The PCE-ID has to be mapped to a reachable IPv4 or IPv6
   address of the PCE by the first node of the CPS (usually a domain
   border router) and a PCE MAY use one of its reachable IP addresses
   as its PCE-ID. Alternatively and to provide greater security (see
   Section 6), according to domain-local policy, the PCE MAY use some
   other identifier that is scoped only within the domain.

   To allow IPv4 and IPv6 addresses to be carried, two subobjects are
   defined as follows.

   The Path Key Subobject may be present in the PCEP ERO or the PCEP
PATH-KEY object.

   PKS with 32-bit PCE ID



   The PKS with 32-bit PCE ID Type is to be assigned by IANA
   (recommended value 64)

     0                   1                   2                   3
     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
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |L|    Type     |     Length    |           Path Key            |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                         PCE ID (4 bytes)                      |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

         L

           The L bit SHOULD NOT be set, so that the subobject
           represents a strict hop in the explicit route.

         Type

           TBD Path Key with 32-bit PCE ID

         Length

           The Length contains the total length of the subobject in
           bytes, including the Type and Length fields.  The Length
           is always 8.

         PCE ID



Bradford, Vasseur, and Farrel                                        8


Draft-ietf-pce-path-key-01.txt                 September 2007

           A 32-bit identifier of the PCE that can decode this key. The
           identifier MUST be unique within the scope of the domain
           that the CPS crosses, and MUST be understood by the LSR that
           will act as PCC for the expansion of the PKS. The
           interpretation of the PCE-ID is subject to domain-local
           policy. It MAY be an IPv4 address of the PCE that is always
           reachable, and MAY be an address that is restricted to the
           domain in which the LSR that is called upon to expand the
           CPS lies. Other values that have no meaning outside the
           domain (for example, the Router ID) MAY be used to increase
           security (see Section 6).

   PKS with 128-bit PCE ID


   The PKS with 128-bit PCE ID Type is to be assigned by IANA
   (recommended value 65)


     0                   1                   2                   3
     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
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |L|    Type     |     Length    |           Path Key            |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                        PCE ID (16 bytes)                      |
    |                                                               |
    |                                                               |
    |                                                               |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

       L

           As above.

       Type

          TBD Path Key with 128-bit PCE ID

       Length

           The Length contains the total length of the subobject in
           bytes, including the Type and Length fields.  The Length
           is always 20.

       PCE ID


Bradford, Vasseur, and Farrel                                        9


Draft-ietf-pce-path-key-01.txt                 September 2007

           A 128-bit identifier of the PCE that can decode this key.
           The identifier MUST be unique within the scope of the
           domain that the CPS crosses, and MUST be understood by the
           LSR that will act as PCC for the expansion of the PKS. The
           interpretation of the PCE-ID is subject to domain-local
           policy. It MAY be an IPv6 address of the PCE that is
           always reachable, but MAY be an address that is restricted
           to the domain in which the LSR that is called upon to
           expand the CPS lies. Other values that have no meaning
           outside the domain (for example, the IPv6 TE Router ID)
           MAY be used to increase security (see Section 6).


4.3.   Path Key Bit
   [PCEP] defines the Request Parameters (RP) object that is used to
   specify various characteristics of the path computation request.

   In this document we define a new bit named the Path Key bit
   defined as follow:

   Path Key (P-bit - 1 bit - Value=0x80): When set, the requesting
   PCC requires the retrieval of a strict path segment that
   corresponds to a PKS carried in a PATH_KEY object in the path
   computation request. The Path Key bit MUST be cleared when the
   path computation request is not related to a CPS retrieval.



5.      PCEP Mode of Operation

   The retrieval of the explicit path (the CPS) associated with a PKS
   by a PCC is no different than any other path computation request
   with the exception that the PCReq message MUST contain a PATH_KEY
   object and the Path Key bit of the RP object MUST the set.

   If the receiving PCE does not recognize itself as identified by the
   PCE ID carried in the PKS it MAY forward the PCReq message to
   another PCE according to local policy. If the PCE does not forward
   such a PCReq, it MUST respond with a PCRep message containing a NO-
   PATH object.

   If the receiving PCE recognizes itself, but cannot find the
   related CPS, or if the retrieval of the CPS is not allowed by
   policy, the PCE MUST send a PCRep message that contains a NO-PATH
   object.


Bradford, Vasseur, and Farrel                                       10


Draft-ietf-pce-path-key-01.txt                 September 2007

   Upon receipt of a negative reply, the requesting LSR MUST fail the
   LSP setup and SHOULD use the procedures associated with loose hop
   expansion failure [RFC3209].




6.      Security Considerations

   This document describes tunneling confidential path information
   across an untrusted domain (such as an AS). There are many
   security considerations that apply to PCEP and RSVP-TE.

   Issues include:
  - Confidentiality of the CPS (can other network elements probe for
     expansion of path-keys, possibly at random?).

  - Authenticity of the path-key (resilience to alteration by
     intermediaries, resilience to fake expansion of path-keys).

  - Resilience from DNS attacks (insertion of spurious path-keys;
     flooding of bogus path-key expansion requests).

     Most of the interactions required by this extension are point to
     point, can be authenticated and made secure. These interactions
     include the:
       - PCC->PCE request
       - PCE->PCE request(s)
       - PCE->PCE response(s)
       - PCE->PCC response
       - LSR->LSR request and response (Note that a rogue LSR could
          modify the ERO and insert or modify Path Keys. This would
          result in an LSR (which is downstream in the ERO) sending
          decode requests to a PCE. This is actually a larger problem
          with RSVP.  The rogue LSR is an existing issue with RSVP and
          will not be addressed here.
       - LSR->PCE request. Note that the PCE can check that the LSR
          requesting the decode is the LSR at the head of the Path Key.
          This largely contains the previous problem to DoS rather than
          a security issue. A rogue LSR can issue random decode
          requests, but these will amount only to DoS.
       - PCE->LSR response.



Bradford, Vasseur, and Farrel                                       11


Draft-ietf-pce-path-key-01.txt                 September 2007

     Thus, the major security issues can be dealt with using standard
     techniques for securing and authenticating point-to-point
     communications. In addition, it is recommended that the PCE
     providing a decode response should check that the LSR that issued
     the decode request is the head end of the decoded ERO segment.

   Further protection can be provided by using a PCE ID to identify the
decoding PCE that is only meaningful within the domain that contains
the LSR at the head of the CPS. This may be an IP address that is only
reachable from within the domain, or some not-address value. The former
requires configuration of policy on the PCEs, the latter requires
domain-wide policy.



7.      Manageability Considerations

7.1.   Control of Function Through Configuration and Policy

   The treatment of a path segment as a CPS, and its substitution in
   a PCReq ERO with a PKS, is a function that MUST be under operator
   and policy control where a PCE supports the function. The operator
   MUST be given the ability to specify which path segments are to be
   replaced and under what circumstances. For example, an operator
   might set a policy that states that every path segment for the
   operator's domain will be replaced by a PKS when the PCReq has
   been issued from outside the domain.

   The operation of the PKS extensions require that path-keys are
   retained by the issuing PCE to be available for retrieval by an
   LSR (acting as a PCC) at a later date. But it is possible that the
   retrieval request will never be made, so good housekeeping
   requires that a timer is run to discard unwanted path-keys. A
   default value for this timer is suggested in the body of this
   document. Implementations SHOULD provide the ability for this
   value to be over-ridden through operator configuration or policy.

   After a PKS has been expanded in response to a retrieval request,
   it may be valuable to retain the path-key and CPS for debug
   purposes. Such retention SHOULD NOT be the default behavior of an
   implementation, but MAY be available in response to operator
   request.

   Once a path-key has been discarded, the path-key value SHOULD not
   be immediately available for re-use for a new CPS since this might

Bradford, Vasseur, and Farrel                                       12


Draft-ietf-pce-path-key-01.txt                 September 2007

   lead to accidental misuse. A default timer value is suggested in
   the body of this document. Implementations SHOULD provide the
   ability for this value to be over-ridden through operator
   configuration or policy.

   A PCE must set a PCE-ID value in each PKS it creates so that PCCs
   can correctly identify it and send PCReq messages to expand the
   PKS to a path segment. A PCE implementation SHOULD allow operator
   or policy control of the value to use as the PCE-ID. If the PCE
   allows PCE-ID values that are not routable addresses to be used,
   the PCCs MUST be configurable (by the operator or through policy)
   to allow them to map from the PCE-ID to a routable address of the
   PCE. Such mapping may be algorithmic, procedural (for example,
   mapping a PCE-ID equal to the IGP Router ID into a routable
   address), or configured through a local or remote mapping table.


7.2.   Information and Data Models

   A MIB module for PCEP is already defined in [PCEP-MIB]. The
   configurable items listed in Section 7.1 MUST be added as readable
   objects in the module and SHOULD be added as writable objects.

   A new MIB module MUST be created to allow inspection of path-keys.
   For a given PCE, this MIB module MUST provide a mapping from path-
   key to path segment (that is, a list of hops), and MUST supply
   other information including:

   - The identity of the PCC that issued the original request that
   led to the creation of the path-key.
   - The request ID of the original PCReq.
   - Whether the path-key has been retrieved yet, and if so, by which
   PCC.
   - How long until the path segment associated with the path-key
   will be discarded.
   - How long until the path-key will be available for re-use.


7.3.   Liveness Detection and Monitoring

   The procedures in this document extend PCEP, but do not introduce
   new interactions between network entities. Thus, no new liveness
   detection or monitoring is required.

   It is possible that a head-end LSR that has be given a path
   including PKSs replacing specific CPSs will want to know whether
   the path-keys are still valid (or have timed out). However, rather

Bradford, Vasseur, and Farrel                                       13


Draft-ietf-pce-path-key-01.txt                 September 2007

   than introduce a mechanism to poll the PCE that is responsible for
   the PKS, it is considered pragmatic to simply signal the
   associated LSP.


7.4.   Verifying Correct Operation

   The procedures in this document extend PCEP, but do not introduce
   new interactions between network entities. Thus, no new tools for
   verifying correct operation are required.

   A PCE SHOULD maintain counters and logs of the following events
   that might indicate incorrect operation (or might indicate
   security issues).

   - Attempts to expand an unknown path-key.
   - Attempts to expand an expired path-key.
   - Duplicate attempts to expand the same path-key.
   - Expiry of path-key without attempt to expand it.


7.5.   Requirements on Other Protocols and Functional Components

   The procedures described in this document require that the LSRs
   signal PKSs as defined in [RSVP-PKS]. Note that the only changes
   to LSRs are at the PCCs. Specifically, changes are only needed at
   the head-end LSRs that build RSVP-TE Path messages containing
   Path-Key Subobjects in their EROs, and the LSRs that discover such
   subobjects as next hops and must expand them. Other LSRs in the
   network, even if they are on the path of the LSP, will not be
   called upon to process the PKS.



7.6.   Impact on Network Operation

   As well as the security and confidentiality aspects addressed by
   the use of the PKS, there may be some scaling benefits associated
   with the procedures described in this document. For example, a
   single PKS in an explicit route may substitute for many subobjects
   and can reduce the overall message size correspondingly. In some
   circumstances, such as when the explicit route contains multiple
   subobjects for each hop (including node IDs, TE link IDs,
   component link IDs for each direction of a bidirectional LSP, and
   label IDs for each direction of a bidirectional LSP) or when the
   LSP is a point-to-multipoint LSP, this scaling improvement may be
   very significant.

Bradford, Vasseur, and Farrel                                       14


Draft-ietf-pce-path-key-01.txt                 September 2007


   Note that a PCE will not supply a PKS unless it is knows that the
   LSR that will receive the PKS through signaling will be able to
   handle it. Furthermore, as noted in Section 7.5, only those LSRs
   specifically called upon to expand the PKS will be required to
   process the subobjects during signaling. Thus, the only backward
   compatibility issues associated with the procedures introduced in
   this document arise when a head-end LSR receives a PCRep with an
   ERO containing a PKS and does not know how to encode this into
   signaling.


   Since the PCE that inserted the PKS requires to keep the CPS
   confidential, the legacy head-end LSR cannot be protected. It must
   either fail the LSP setup, or request a new path computation
   avoiding the domain that has supplied it with unknown subobjects.


8.      IANA Considerations

   IANA assigns value to PCEP parameters in registries defined in
   [PCEP]. IANA is requested to make the following additional
   assignments.


8.1.   New Subobjects for the ERO Object

   IANA has previously assigned an Object-Class and Object-Type to
   the ERO carried in PCEP messages [PCEP]. IANA also maintains a
   list of subobject types valid for inclusion in the ERO.

   IANA is requested to assign two new subobject types for inclusion
   in the ERO as follows:

   7     ERO             1     Explicit route             [PCEP]

   Subobject Type
             64   Path Key with 32-bit PCE ID             [This.I-D]
             65   Path Key with 128-bit PCE ID            [This.I-D]



8.2.   New PCEP Object

   IANA is requested to assign a new object class in the registry of
   PCEP Objects as follows.


Bradford, Vasseur, and Farrel                                       15


Draft-ietf-pce-path-key-01.txt                 September 2007

   Object  Name          Object  Name                       Reference
   Class                 Type

   16    PATH-KEY        1     Path Key                   [This.I-D]

       Subobjects
          This object may carry the following subobjects as defined
          for the ERO object.

                  64   Path Key with 32-bit PCE ID        [This.I-D]
                  65   Path Key with 128-bit PCE ID       [This.I-D]

8.3.   New RP Object Bit Flag

   IANA maintains a registry of bit flags carried in the PCEP RP
   object as defined in [PCEP]. IANA is requested to define a new bit
   flag as follows:

   Bit      Hex     Name                                 Reference
   Number
   09       0x0080  Path Key (P-bit)                     [This.I-D]


9.      Intellectual Property Considerations

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed
   to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology
   described in this document or the extent to which any license
   under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it
   represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any
   such rights. Information on the procedures with respect to rights
   in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
   assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
   attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use
   of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
   specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository
   at http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention
   any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other
   proprietary rights that may cover technology that may be required
   to implement this standard. Please address the information to the
   IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org.


Bradford, Vasseur, and Farrel                                       16


Draft-ietf-pce-path-key-01.txt                 September 2007

10.     References


10.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
   Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.
   and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels", RFC
   3209, December 2001.

   [PCEP] Vasseur, J.P., Le Roux, J.L., Ayyangar, A., Oki, E.,
   Ikejiri, A., Atlas, A., Dolganow, A., "Path Computation Element
   (PCE) communication Protocol (PCEP)", draft-ietf-pce-pcep,
   work in progress.



10.2.  Informational References
   [RSVP-PKS] Bradford, R., Vasseur, J.P., Farrel, A., "RSVP
   Extensions for Path Key Support", draft-bradford-ccamp-path-key-
   ero, work in progress.

   [RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J.P., Ash, J., "Path Computation
   Element (PCE) Architecture", RFC4655, September 2006.

   [PD-PATH-COMP] Vasseur, J., et al "A Per-domain path computation
   method for establishing Inter-domain Traffic Engineering (TE)
   Label
   Switched Paths (LSPs)", draft-ietf-ccamp-inter-domain-pd-path-
   comp, work in progress.

   [BRPC] Vasseur, J., et al "A Backward Recursive PCE-based
   Computation
   (BRPC) procedure to compute shortest inter-domain Traffic
   Engineering Label Switched Path", draft-ietf-pce-brpc, work in
   progress.

   [RFC4105]    Le Roux, J., Vasseur, JP, Boyle, J., "Requirements
   for Support of Inter-Area and Inter-AS MPLS Traffic Engineering",
   RFC 4105, June 2005.

   [RFC4216]    Zhang, R., Vasseur, JP., et. al., "MPLS Inter-AS
   Traffic Engineering requirements", RFC 4216, November 2005.



Bradford, Vasseur, and Farrel                                       17


Draft-ietf-pce-path-key-01.txt                 September 2007

   [INTER-DOM-REC] Takeda, T., et al, "Analysis of Inter-domain Label
   Switched Path (LSP) Recovery", draft-ietf-ccamp-inter-domain-
   recovery-analysis, work in progress.

   [PCEP-MIB] Kiran Koushik, A., and Stephan, E., "PCE communication
   protocol (PCEP) Management Information Base", draft-kkoushik-pce-
   pcep-mib, work in progress.



11.                              Authors' Addresses:

   Rich Bradford (Editor)
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   1414 Massachusetts Avenue
   Boxborough, MA - 01719
   USA
   EMail: rbradfor@cisco.com

   J.-P Vasseur
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   1414 Massachusetts Avenue
   Boxborough, MA - 01719
   USA
   EMail: jpv@cisco.com

   Adrian Farrel
   Old Dog Consulting
   EMail:  adrian@olddog.co.uk



















Bradford, Vasseur, and Farrel                                       18


Draft-ietf-pce-path-key-01.txt                 September 2007


Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).

   This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
   contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
   retain all their rights.

   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
   OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
   THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
   OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
   THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
   WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.


Intellectual Property

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
   pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
   this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
   might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
   made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information
   on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
   found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
   assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
   attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
   such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
   specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
   http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at
   ietf-ipr@ietf.org.










Bradford, Vasseur, and Farrel                                       19


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.108, available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/