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

Versions: 00 01 02 03 draft-ietf-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints

PCE Working Group                                               D. Dhody
Internet-Draft                                       Huawei Technologies
Intended status: Standards Track                                 D. King
Expires: January 1, 2017                            Lancaster University
                                                           June 30, 2016


     Experimental Codepoint Allocation for Path Computation Element
                     communication Protocol (PCEP)
                 draft-dhody-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints-01

Abstract

   IANA assigns values to the Path Computation Element (PCE)
   communication Protocol (PCEP) parameters (messages, objects, TLVs).
   IANA established a new top-level registry to contain all PCEP
   codepoints and sub-registries.  The allocation policy for each new
   registry is by IETF Consensus.

   This document seeks to mark some codepoints for experimental usage of
   PCEP.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   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."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on January 1, 2017.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents



Dhody & King             Expires January 1, 2017                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft                EXP-CODEPOINT                    June 2016


   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  PCEP Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  PCEP Objects  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   4.  PCEP TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   5.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     5.1.  New PCEP Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     5.2.  New PCEP Objects  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     5.3.  New PCEP TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   6.  Allocation Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   7.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   8.  Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   9.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     9.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     9.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   Appendix A.  Other Codepoints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9

1.  Introduction

   The Path Computation Element communication Protocol (PCEP) provides
   mechanisms for Path Computation Elements (PCEs) to perform path
   computations in response to Path Computation Clients (PCCs) requests.

   In section 9 of [RFC5440], IANA assigns values to the PCEP protocol
   parameters (messages, objects, TLVs).  IANA established a new top-
   level registry to contain all PCEP codepoints and sub-registries.
   The allocation policy for each new registry is by IETF Consensus as
   described in [RFC5226].  Specifically, new assignments are made via
   RFCs approved by the IESG.  Typically, the IESG will seek input on
   prospective assignments from appropriate persons (e.g., a relevant
   Working Group if one exists).

   With some recent advancement, there is an enhanced need to experiment
   with PCEP.  It is often necessary to use some sort of number or
   constant in order to actually test or experiment with the new
   function, even when testing in a closed environment.  In order to run
   experiment, it is important that the value won't collide not only
   with existing codepoints but any future allocation.





Dhody & King             Expires January 1, 2017                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft                EXP-CODEPOINT                    June 2016


   This document thus set apart some codepoints in PCEP registry and
   subregistries for experimental usage.

2.  PCEP Messages

   Some codepoints are requested to be set aside for experimentation
   with new PCEP messages.  The suggested range is 246-255.

3.  PCEP Objects

   Some codepoints are requested to be set aside for experimentation
   with new PCEP objects.  The suggested range is 224-255.

4.  PCEP TLVs

   Some codepoints are requested to be set aside for experimentation
   with new PCEP TLVs.  The suggested range is 65280-65535.

   [Editor's Note - There have been suggestions to increase this range a
   little bit more, perhaps to 65024-65535]

5.  IANA Considerations

   IANA maintains the "Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers"
   at <http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep>.

5.1.  New PCEP Messages

   Within this registry IANA maintains a sub-registry for PCEP Messages
   (see PCEP Messages at <http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep>).

   Upon approval of this document, IANA is requested to make the
   following allocations:

               +---------+-------------+-------------------+
               |   Type  | Description | Allocation Policy |
               +---------+-------------+-------------------+
               | 246-255 | Unassigned  | Experimental Use  |
               +---------+-------------+-------------------+

5.2.  New PCEP Objects

   Within this registry IANA maintains a sub-registry for PCEP Objects
   (see PCEP Objects at <http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep>).

   Upon approval of this document, IANA is requested to make the
   following allocations:




Dhody & King             Expires January 1, 2017                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft                EXP-CODEPOINT                    June 2016


               +---------+-------------+-------------------+
               |   Type  | Description | Allocation Policy |
               +---------+-------------+-------------------+
               | 224-255 | Unassigned  | Experimental Use  |
               +---------+-------------+-------------------+

5.3.  New PCEP TLVs

   Within this registry IANA maintains a sub-registry for PCEP TLVs (see
   PCEP TLV Type Indicators at <http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep>).

   Upon approval of this document, IANA is requested to make the
   following allocations:

             +------------+-------------+-------------------+
             |      Type  | Description | Allocation Policy |
             +------------+-------------+-------------------+
             |65280-65535 | Unassigned  | Experimental Use  |
             +------------+-------------+-------------------+

6.  Allocation Policy

   The allocation policy for the IANA request in Section 5 is
   "Experimental".  As per [RFC5226], IANA does not record specific
   assignments for any particular use for this policy.  The ongoing
   experiment code point can be maintained at the PCE WG wiki at
   <https://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/pce/trac/wiki>.

   As the experiment/standard progress and an early IANA allocation or
   RFC publication happens, the IANA defined codepoints are used and
   experimental code points are freed up.

7.  Security Considerations

   This document does not introduce any new security considerations to
   the existing protocol.  Refer to [RFC5440] for further details of the
   specific security measures.

8.  Acknowledgments

   The authors would like to thank Ramon Casellas, Jeff Tantsura and
   Adrian Farrel, for their feedback and suggestions.

9.  References







Dhody & King             Expires January 1, 2017                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft                EXP-CODEPOINT                    June 2016


9.1.  Normative References

   [RFC5440]  Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation
              Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5440, March 2009,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5440>.

9.2.  Informative References

   [RFC5226]  Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
              IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5226>.






































Dhody & King             Expires January 1, 2017                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft                EXP-CODEPOINT                    June 2016


Appendix A.  Other Codepoints

   Going through the PCEP IANA registry, following categories exist -

   o  Essentials (already added in the draft)

      *  Messages

      *  Objects

      *  TLV

   o  Good to have / simple to add

      *  NO-PATH Object NI

      *  Metric Type

      *  Notification

      *  Error

      *  Close reason

   o  Cross Registry

      *  IRO Subobjects

      *  XRO Subobjects

      *  PathKey Subobjects

      *  RSVP-TE (where ERO Subobjects is defined)

      *  The code points are kept consistent across these registries

   o  Exist Already

      *  OF - private use for 32768-65535

   o  Not Applicable for Flags

      *  Keeping aside some flags as experimental is not be a good idea

      *  Experiments can always use a new experimental TLV/Object and
         use flags inside of it

   +-----------------------+---------+----------+----------------------+



Dhody & King             Expires January 1, 2017                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft                EXP-CODEPOINT                    June 2016


   | IANA Registry         | Good to |  Simple  | Remarks              |
   |                       |   have  |  to add  |                      |
   +-----------------------+---------+----------+----------------------+
   |                       |         |          |                      |
   | PCEP Messages         |    Y    |    Y     | Essentials (already  |
   |                       |         |          | added in the draft)  |
   |                       |         |          |                      |
   | PCEP Objects          |    Y    |    Y     | Essentials (already  |
   |                       |         |          | added in the draft)  |
   |                       |         |          |                      |
   | PCEP Message Common   |         |          | NA                   |
   | Header Flag Field     |         |          |                      |
   |                       |         |          |                      |
   | Open Object Flag      |         |          | NA                   |
   | Field                 |         |          |                      |
   |                       |         |          |                      |
   | RP Object Flag Field  |         |          | NA                   |
   |                       |         |          |                      |
   | NO-PATH Object NI     |    Y    |    Y     |                      |
   | Field                 |         |          |                      |
   |                       |         |          |                      |
   | NO-PATH Object Flag   |         |          | NA                   |
   | Field                 |         |          |                      |
   |                       |         |          |                      |
   | METRIC Object T Field |    Y    |    Y     |                      |
   |                       |         |          |                      |
   | METRIC Object Flag    |         |          | NA                   |
   | Field                 |         |          |                      |
   |                       |         |          |                      |
   | LSPA Object Flag      |         |          | NA                   |
   | Field                 |         |          |                      |
   |                       |         |          |                      |
   | IRO Subobjects        |    Y    |    N     |                      |
   |                       |         |          |                      |
   | SVEC Object Flag      |         |          | NA                   |
   | Field                 |         |          |                      |
   |                       |         |          |                      |
   | Notification Object   |    Y    |    Y     | Ex. NT: 224-255,     |
   |                       |         |          | NV:1-255 (*)         |
   |                       |         |          |                      |
   | Notification Object   |         |          | NA                   |
   | Flag Field            |         |          |                      |
   |                       |         |          |                      |
   | PCEP-ERROR Object     |    Y    |    Y     | Ex. ET:224-255,      |
   | Error Types and       |         |          | EV:1-255 (*)         |
   | Values                |         |          |                      |
   |                       |         |          |                      |
   | PCEP-ERROR Object     |         |          | NA                   |



Dhody & King             Expires January 1, 2017                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft                EXP-CODEPOINT                    June 2016


   | Flag Field            |         |          |                      |
   |                       |         |          |                      |
   | LOAD-BALANCING Object |         |          | NA                   |
   | Flag Field            |         |          |                      |
   |                       |         |          |                      |
   | CLOSE Object Reason   |    Y    |    Y     |                      |
   | Field                 |         |          |                      |
   |                       |         |          |                      |
   | CLOSE Object Flag     |         |          | NA                   |
   | Field                 |         |          |                      |
   |                       |         |          |                      |
   | PATH-KEY Subobjects   |    N    |    N     |                      |
   |                       |         |          |                      |
   | PATH-KEY Subobjects   |    Y    |    N     |                      |
   |                       |         |          |                      |
   | XRO Flag Field        |         |          | NA                   |
   |                       |         |          |                      |
   | Objective Function    |    Y    |    Y     | Private Use already  |
   |                       |         |          | exist                |
   |                       |         |          |                      |
   | PCEP TLV Type         |    Y    |    Y     | Essentials (already  |
   | Indicators            |         |          | added in the draft)  |
   |                       |         |          |                      |
   | NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV    |         |          | NA                   |
   | Flag Field            |         |          |                      |
   |                       |         |          |                      |
   | MONITORING Object     |         |          | NA                   |
   | Flag Field            |         |          |                      |
   |                       |         |          |                      |
   | PROC-TIME Object Flag |         |          | NA                   |
   | Field                 |         |          |                      |
   |                       |         |          |                      |
   | OVERLOAD Object Flag  |         |          | NA                   |
   | field                 |         |          |                      |
   |                       |         |          |                      |
   +-----------------------+---------+----------+----------------------+

                        Table 1: PCEP IANA registry

   WG need to decide if we need to expand the scope of this document.

   (*) if done in this way - A new experimental Error-value/
   Notification-Value for an existing Error-Type/Notification-Type is
   not allowed, one should add a new Error-type/Notification-Type from
   experimental range and add the value there.  Or we need to set aside
   experimental range for Error-value/Notification-Value for each Error-
   Type/Notification-Type too!




Dhody & King             Expires January 1, 2017                [Page 8]


Internet-Draft                EXP-CODEPOINT                    June 2016


Authors' Addresses

   Dhruv Dhody
   Huawei Technologies
   Divyashree Techno Park, Whitefield
   Bangalore, Karnataka  560066
   India

   EMail: dhruv.ietf@gmail.com


   Daniel King
   Lancaster University
   UK

   EMail: d.king@lancaster.ac.uk



































Dhody & King             Expires January 1, 2017                [Page 9]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.127, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/