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

Versions: 00 01

PCE working group                                                  Q. Wu
Internet-Draft                                                    Huawei
Intended status: Standards Track                        October 21, 2013
Expires: April 24, 2014


IGP extension for PCEP transport capability support in the PCE discovery
             draft-wu-pce-discovery-priority-allocation-01

Abstract

   [RFC5088][RFC5089] define a method to advertise path computation
   capabilities using IGP flooding.  OSPF and ISIS are extended to
   support such capabilities advertisement.  However
   [RFC5088][RFC5089]don't provide a method to advertise PCEP over TLS
   support capability.

   This document proposes new capability flag bit for PCE-CAP-FLAGS sub-
   TLV that can be announced as attribute in the IGP advertisement
   (defined in [RFC5088 ][RFC5089]) to distribute transport support
   information.

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 April 24, 2014.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2013 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



Wu                       Expires April 24, 2014                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft           IGP for PCEP Transport             October 2013


   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.  Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   3.  IGP extension for PCEP transport capability support . . . . .   3
     3.1.  Use of PCEP transport capability support for PCE
           discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   4.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   5.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   6.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     6.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     6.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4

1.  Introduction

   As described in [RFC5440], PCEP communication privacy is one
   importance issue, especially in an inter-AS context, where PCEP
   communication end-points do not reside in the same AS, as an attacker
   that intercepts a PCE message could obtain sensitive information
   related to computed paths and resources.

   Among the possible solutions mentioned in these documents, Transport
   Layer Security (TLS) [RFC5246] provides support for peer
   authentication, and message encryption and integrity.  In order for a
   PCC to begin a connection with a PCE server using TLS, PCC should
   know whether PCE server Support TLS as transport.

   [RFC5088][RFC5089] define a method to advertise path computation
   capabilities using IGP flooding.  OSPF and ISIS are extended to
   support such capabilities advertisement.  However
   [RFC5088][RFC5089]don't provide a method to advertise PCEP over TLS
   support capability.

   This document proposes new capability flag bit for PCE-CAP-FLAGS sub-
   TLV that can be announced as attribute in the IGP advertisement
   (defined in [RFC5088 ][RFC5089]) to distribute transport support
   information.

2.  Conventions used in this document





Wu                       Expires April 24, 2014                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft           IGP for PCEP Transport             October 2013


   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 RFC2119 [RFC2119].

3.  IGP extension for PCEP transport capability support

   The PCE-CAP-FLAGS sub-TLV is defined in section 4.5 of
   [RFC5088][RFC5089] and an optional sub-TLV used to advertise PCE
   capabilities.  In this section, we extend the PCE-CAP-FLAGS sub-TLV
   to include the capability and indications that are described for PCEP
   over TLS support in the present document.

   In the PCE-CAP-FLAGS sub-TLV defined in [RFC5088][RFC5089], nine
   capability flags defined in [RFC4657] and two capability flags
   defined [RFC5557][RFC6006]are included and follows the following
   format: The PCE-CAP-FLAGS sub-TLV has the following format:

      o  TYPE: 5
      o  LENGTH: Multiple of 4

      o  VALUE: This contains an array of units of 32 bit flags with the
         most significant bit as 0.  Each bit represents one PCE capability


   and the processing rule of these flag bits are defined in
   [RFC5088][RFC5089].  In this document, we define one new capability
   flag bit that indicate TCP MD5 support, TCP AO support, PCEP over TLS
   support and PCEP over TLS and TCP AO support respectively as follows:

     Bit         Capability Description
     xx         TCP MD5 support
     xx         TCP AO Support
     xx         PCEP over TLS support
     xx         PCEP over TLS support and TCP AO support


3.1.  Use of PCEP transport capability support for PCE discovery

   TCP MD5, TCP AO, PCEP over TLS support and PCEP over TLS and TCP AO
   support flag bits are advertised using IGP flooding.  If the PCE
   server supports only TCP MD5 as transport, IGP advertisement Should
   not include PCEP over TLS support flag bit or TCP AO support flag
   bit.  If the PCE server supports both TCP MD5 and TCP AO, IGP
   advertisment Should include both TCP AO support flag bit and TCP MD5
   support flag bit in the PCE-CAP-FLAGS sub-TLV.  If the PCE server
   only supports TLS over TCP as transport, IGP advertisement MUST
   include PCEP over TLS support flag bit in the PCE-CAP-FLAGS sub-TLV.




Wu                       Expires April 24, 2014                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft           IGP for PCEP Transport             October 2013


   If the client is looking for connecting with PCE server with TCP AO
   support, the client MUST check if TCP AO support flag bit in the PCE-
   CAP-FLAGS sub-TLV is set before retrieving PCE location information
   from IGP message. if not, the client should discard PCEPD TLV with
   TCP AO support flag bit clear.  If the client is looking for
   connecting with PCE server using TLS, the client MUST check if PCEP
   over TLS support flag bit in the PCE-CAP-FLAGS sub-TLV is set before
   retrieving PCE location information from IGP message.  If not, then
   the client should discard PCED TLV with PCEP over TLS support flag
   bit clear.

4.  Security Considerations

   This document raises no new security issues beyond those described in
   [RFC5088][RFC5089].

5.  IANA Considerations

   IANA is requested to allocate a new bit in "PCE Capability Flags"
   registry for PCEP over TLS support capability.

6.  References

6.1.  Normative References

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

   [RFC5088]  Le Roux, JL., "OSPF Protocol Extensions for Path
              Computation Element (PCE) Discovery", RFC 5088, January
              2008.

   [RFC5089]  Le Roux, JL., "IS-IS Protocol Extensions for Path
              Computation Element (PCE) Discovery", RFC 5089, January
              2008.

6.2.  Informative References

   [RFC5246]  Dierks, T., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol
              Version 1.2", RFC 5440, August 2008.

   [RFC5440]  Le Roux, JL., "Path Computation Element (PCE)
              Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440, March 2009.

Author's Address






Wu                       Expires April 24, 2014                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft           IGP for PCEP Transport             October 2013


   Qin Wu
   Huawei
   101 Software Avenue, Yuhua District
   Nanjing, Jiangsu  210012
   China

   Email: sunseawq@huawei.com












































Wu                       Expires April 24, 2014                 [Page 5]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129c, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/