< draft-dhody-pce-stateful-pce-vendor-06.txt   draft-dhody-pce-stateful-pce-vendor-07.txt >
PCE Working Group C. Li PCE Working Group C. Li
Internet-Draft H. Zheng Internet-Draft H. Zheng
Intended status: Standards Track Huawei Technologies Intended status: Standards Track Huawei Technologies
Expires: August 23, 2019 February 19, 2019 Expires: January 9, 2020 S. Sivabalan
Cisco Systems, Inc.
July 8, 2019
Conveying Vendor-Specific Information in the Path Computation Element Conveying Vendor-Specific Information in the Path Computation Element
(PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP) extensions for stateful PCE. (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP) extensions for stateful PCE.
draft-dhody-pce-stateful-pce-vendor-06 draft-dhody-pce-stateful-pce-vendor-07
Abstract Abstract
A Stateful Path Computation Element (PCE) maintains information on A Stateful Path Computation Element (PCE) maintains information on
the current network state, including: computed Label Switched Path the current network state, including: computed Label Switched Path
(LSPs), reserved resources within the network, and pending path (LSPs), reserved resources within the network, and pending path
computation requests. This information may then be considered when computation requests. This information may then be considered when
computing new traffic engineered LSPs, and for associated and computing new traffic engineered LSPs, and for associated and
dependent LSPs, received from Path Computation Clients (PCCs). dependent LSPs, received from Path Computation Clients (PCCs).
RFC 7470 defines a facility to carry vendor-specific information in RFC 7470 defines a facility to carry vendor-specific information in
PCEP. PCEP.
This document extends this capability for the stateful PCE model. This document extends this capability for the stateful PCE messages.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on August 23, 2019. This Internet-Draft will expire on January 9, 2020.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 2, line 18 skipping to change at page 2, line 21
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Procedures for the Vendor Information Object . . . . . . . . 3 2. Procedures for the Vendor Information Object . . . . . . . . 3
3. Procedures for the Vendor Information TLV . . . . . . . . . . 5 3. Procedures for the Vendor Information TLV . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Vendor Information Object and TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4. Vendor Information Object and TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5.1. Control of Function and Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5.2. Information and Data Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5.4. Verify Correct Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5.5. Requirements On Other Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Appendix A. Contributor Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5.6. Impact On Network Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Appendix A. Contributor Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
The Path Computation Element communication Protocol (PCEP) [RFC5440] The Path Computation Element communication Protocol (PCEP) [RFC5440]
provides mechanisms for Path Computation Elements (PCEs) to perform provides mechanisms for Path Computation Elements (PCEs) to perform
path computations in response to Path Computation Clients' (PCCs) path computations in response to Path Computation Clients' (PCCs)
requests. requests.
A stateful PCE is capable of considering, for the purposes of path A stateful PCE is capable of considering, for the purposes of path
computation, not only the network state in terms of links and nodes computation, not only the network state in terms of links and nodes
(referred to as the Traffic Engineering Database or TED) but also the (referred to as the Traffic Engineering Database or TED) but also the
status of active services (previously computed paths, and currently status of active services (previously computed paths, and currently
reserved resources, stored in the Label Switched Paths Database reserved resources, stored in the Label Switched Paths Database (LSP-
(LSPDB). [RFC8051] describes general considerations for a stateful DB). [RFC8051] describes general considerations for a stateful PCE
PCE deployment and examines its applicability and benefits, as well deployment and examines its applicability and benefits, as well as
as its challenges and limitations through a number of use cases. its challenges and limitations through a number of use cases.
[RFC8231] describes a set of extensions to PCEP to provide stateful [RFC8231] describes a set of extensions to PCEP to provide stateful
control. A stateful PCE has access to not only the information control. A stateful PCE has access to not only the information
carried by the network's Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP), but also carried by the network's Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP), but also
the set of active paths and their reserved resources for its the set of active paths and their reserved resources for its
computations. The additional state allows the PCE to compute computations. The additional state allows the PCE to compute
constrained paths while considering individual LSPs and their constrained paths while considering individual LSPs and their
interactions. [RFC8281] describes the setup, maintenance and interactions. [RFC8281] describes the set-up, maintenance and
teardown of PCE-initiated LSPs under the stateful PCE model. These teardown of PCE-initiated LSPs under the stateful PCE model. These
extensions added new messages in PCEP. extensions added new messages in PCEP for stateful PCE.
[RFC7470] defined Vendor Information object that can be used to carry [RFC7470] defined Vendor Information object that can be used to carry
arbitrary, proprietary information such as vendor-specific arbitrary, proprietary information such as vendor-specific
constraints. It also defined VENDOR-INFORMATION-TLV that can be used constraints. It also defined VENDOR-INFORMATION-TLV that can be used
to carry arbitrary information within any existing or future PCEP to carry arbitrary information within any existing or future PCEP
object that supports TLVs. object that supports TLVs.
This document extend the usage of Vendor Information Object and This document extend the usage of Vendor Information Object and
VENDOR-INFORMATION-TLV to stateful PCE. The VENDOR-INFORMATION-TLV VENDOR-INFORMATION-TLV to stateful PCE. The VENDOR-INFORMATION-TLV
can be carried inside any of the new objects added in PCEP for can be carried inside any of the new objects added in PCEP for
stateful PCE as per [RFC7470], this document extend the PCEP messages stateful PCE as per [RFC7470], this document extend the PCEP messages
to also include the Vendor Information Object too. to also include the Vendor Information Object as well.
1.1. Requirements Language 1.1. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here. capitals, as shown here.
2. Procedures for the Vendor Information Object 2. Procedures for the Vendor Information Object
skipping to change at page 3, line 45 skipping to change at page 4, line 6
[RFC7470]. The PCE determines how to interpret the information in [RFC7470]. The PCE determines how to interpret the information in
the Vendor Information object by examining the Enterprise Number it the Vendor Information object by examining the Enterprise Number it
contains. contains.
The Vendor Information object is OPTIONAL in a PCRpt message. The Vendor Information object is OPTIONAL in a PCRpt message.
Multiple instances of the object MAY be used on a single PCRpt Multiple instances of the object MAY be used on a single PCRpt
message. Different instances of the object can have different message. Different instances of the object can have different
Enterprise Numbers. Enterprise Numbers.
The format of the PCRpt message (with [RFC8231] as base) is updated The format of the PCRpt message (with [RFC8231] as base) is updated
as follows as follows:
<PCRpt Message> ::= <Common Header> <PCRpt Message> ::= <Common Header>
<state-report-list> <state-report-list>
Where: Where:
<state-report-list> ::= <state-report>[<state-report-list>] <state-report-list> ::= <state-report>[<state-report-list>]
<state-report> ::= [<SRP>] <state-report> ::= [<SRP>]
<LSP> <LSP>
<path> <path>
[<vendor-info-list>] [<vendor-info-list>]
skipping to change at page 4, line 27 skipping to change at page 4, line 31
<path> is defined in [RFC8231]. <path> is defined in [RFC8231].
A Path Computation LSP Update Request message (also referred to as A Path Computation LSP Update Request message (also referred to as
PCUpd message) is a PCEP message sent by a PCE to a PCC to update PCUpd message) is a PCEP message sent by a PCE to a PCC to update
attributes of an LSP. The Vendor Information object can be included attributes of an LSP. The Vendor Information object can be included
in a PCUpd message to convey proprietary or vendor-specific in a PCUpd message to convey proprietary or vendor-specific
information. information.
The format of the PCUpd message (with [RFC8231] as base) is updated The format of the PCUpd message (with [RFC8231] as base) is updated
as follows as follows:
<PCUpd Message> ::= <Common Header> <PCUpd Message> ::= <Common Header>
<update-request-list> <update-request-list>
Where: Where:
<update-request-list> ::= <update-request> <update-request-list> ::= <update-request>
[<update-request-list>] [<update-request-list>]
<update-request> ::= <SRP> <update-request> ::= <SRP>
<LSP> <LSP>
skipping to change at page 5, line 5 skipping to change at page 5, line 7
[<vendor-info-list>] [<vendor-info-list>]
<path> is defined in [RFC8231]. <path> is defined in [RFC8231].
A Path Computation LSP Initiate Message (also referred to as A Path Computation LSP Initiate Message (also referred to as
PCInitiate message) is a PCEP message sent by a PCE to a PCC to PCInitiate message) is a PCEP message sent by a PCE to a PCC to
trigger LSP instantiation or deletion. The Vendor Information object trigger LSP instantiation or deletion. The Vendor Information object
can be included in a PCInitiate message to convey proprietary or can be included in a PCInitiate message to convey proprietary or
vendor-specific information. vendor-specific information.
The format of the PCInitiate message (with The format of the PCInitiate message (with [RFC8281] as base) is
[RFC8281] as base) is updated as follows updated as follows:
<PCInitiate Message> ::= <Common Header> <PCInitiate Message> ::= <Common Header>
<PCE-initiated-lsp-list> <PCE-initiated-lsp-list>
Where: Where:
<PCE-initiated-lsp-list> ::= <PCE-initiated-lsp-request> <PCE-initiated-lsp-list> ::= <PCE-initiated-lsp-request>
[<PCE-initiated-lsp-list>] [<PCE-initiated-lsp-list>]
<PCE-initiated-lsp-request> ::= <PCE-initiated-lsp-request> ::=
(<PCE-initiated-lsp-instantiation>| (<PCE-initiated-lsp-instantiation>|
skipping to change at page 5, line 38 skipping to change at page 5, line 40
<vendor-info-list> ::= <VENDOR-INFORMATION> <vendor-info-list> ::= <VENDOR-INFORMATION>
[<vendor-info-list>] [<vendor-info-list>]
<PCE-initiated-lsp-deletion> and <attribute-list> is as per <PCE-initiated-lsp-deletion> and <attribute-list> is as per
[RFC8281]. [RFC8281].
A legacy implementation that does not recognize the Vendor A legacy implementation that does not recognize the Vendor
Information object will act according to the procedures set out in Information object will act according to the procedures set out in
[RFC8231] and [RFC8281]. An implementation that supports the Vendor [RFC8231] and [RFC8281]. An implementation that supports the Vendor
Information object, but receives one carrying an Enterprise Number Information object, but receives one carrying an Enterprise Number
that it does not support, SHOULD ignore the object as per [RFC7470]. that it does not support, SHOULD ignore the object in the same way as
described in [RFC7470].
3. Procedures for the Vendor Information TLV 3. Procedures for the Vendor Information TLV
The Vendor Information TLV can be used to carry vendor-specific The Vendor Information TLV can be used to carry vendor-specific
information that applies to a specific PCEP object by including the information that applies to a specific PCEP object by including the
TLV in the object. This includes objects used in stateful PCE TLV in the object. This includes objects used in stateful PCE
extension such as SRP and LSP object. All the procedures as per extension such as SRP and LSP object. All the procedures as per
section 3 of [RFC7470]. section 3 of [RFC7470].
4. Vendor Information Object and TLV 4. Vendor Information Object and TLV
[RFC7470] specify the format of VENDOR-INFORMATION Object and VENDOR- [RFC7470] specify the format of VENDOR-INFORMATION Object and VENDOR-
INFORMATION-TLV. INFORMATION-TLV.
5. IANA Considerations 5. Manageability Considerations
All manageability requirements and considerations listed in
[RFC5440], [RFC7470] and [RFC8231] apply to PCEP protocol extensions
defined in this document. In addition, requirements and
considerations listed in this section apply.
5.1. Control of Function and Policy
As stated in [RFC7470], this capability, the associated vendor
specific information and policy SHOULD made configurable. This
information can be used in stateful messages as well.
5.2. Information and Data Models
The PCEP YANG module is specified in [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang]. It is
NOT RECOMMENDED that standard YANG module be augmented with details
of vendor information. It MAY be extended to include the use of this
information and the Enterprise Numbers that the object and TLVs
contain.
5.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring
Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new liveness
detection and monitoring requirements in addition to those already
listed in [RFC5440].
5.4. Verify Correct Operations
Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new operation
verification requirements in addition to those already listed in
[RFC5440] and [RFC8231].
5.5. Requirements On Other Protocols
Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new requirements
on other protocols.
5.6. Impact On Network Operations
Mechanisms defined in [RFC5440] and [RFC8231] also apply to PCEP
extensions defined in this document. Further, the mechanism
described in this document can help the operator to request control
of the LSPs at a particular PCE.
6. IANA Considerations
There are no IANA consideration in this document. There are no IANA consideration in this document.
6. Security Considerations 7. Security Considerations
The protocol extensions defined in this document do not change the The protocol extensions defined in this document do not change the
nature of PCEP. Therefore, the security considerations set out in nature of PCEP. Therefore, the security considerations set out in
[RFC5440], [RFC7470], [RFC8231] and [RFC8281] apply unchanged. [RFC5440], [RFC7470], [RFC8231] and [RFC8281] apply unchanged.
As stated in [RFC6952], PCEP implementations SHOULD support the TCP- As stated in [RFC6952], PCEP implementations SHOULD support the TCP-
AO [RFC5925] and not use TCP MD5 because of TCP MD5's known AO [RFC5925] and not use TCP MD5 because of TCP MD5's known
vulnerabilities and weakness. PCEP also support Transport Layer vulnerabilities and weakness. PCEP also support Transport Layer
Security (TLS) [RFC8253] as per the recommendations and best current Security (TLS) [RFC8253] as per the recommendations and best current
practices in [RFC7525]. practices in [RFC7525].
7. Acknowledgments 8. Acknowledgments
Thanks to Avantika, Mahendra Singh Negi, Udayasree Palle and Swapna K Thanks to Avantika, Mahendra Singh Negi, Udayasree Palle and Swapna K
for their suggestions. for their suggestions.
8. References 9. References
8.1. Normative References 9.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation [RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation
Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440, Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5440, March 2009, DOI 10.17487/RFC5440, March 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5440>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5440>.
skipping to change at page 7, line 17 skipping to change at page 8, line 17
Extensions for Stateful PCE", RFC 8231, Extensions for Stateful PCE", RFC 8231,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8231, September 2017, DOI 10.17487/RFC8231, September 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8231>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8231>.
[RFC8281] Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Sivabalan, S., and R. Varga, "Path [RFC8281] Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Sivabalan, S., and R. Varga, "Path
Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)
Extensions for PCE-Initiated LSP Setup in a Stateful PCE Extensions for PCE-Initiated LSP Setup in a Stateful PCE
Model", RFC 8281, DOI 10.17487/RFC8281, December 2017, Model", RFC 8281, DOI 10.17487/RFC8281, December 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8281>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8281>.
8.2. Informative References 9.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang]
Dhody, D., Hardwick, J., Beeram, V., and J. Tantsura, "A
YANG Data Model for Path Computation Element
Communications Protocol (PCEP)", draft-ietf-pce-pcep-
yang-12 (work in progress), July 2019.
[RFC5925] Touch, J., Mankin, A., and R. Bonica, "The TCP [RFC5925] Touch, J., Mankin, A., and R. Bonica, "The TCP
Authentication Option", RFC 5925, DOI 10.17487/RFC5925, Authentication Option", RFC 5925, DOI 10.17487/RFC5925,
June 2010, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5925>. June 2010, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5925>.
[RFC6952] Jethanandani, M., Patel, K., and L. Zheng, "Analysis of [RFC6952] Jethanandani, M., Patel, K., and L. Zheng, "Analysis of
BGP, LDP, PCEP, and MSDP Issues According to the Keying BGP, LDP, PCEP, and MSDP Issues According to the Keying
and Authentication for Routing Protocols (KARP) Design and Authentication for Routing Protocols (KARP) Design
Guide", RFC 6952, DOI 10.17487/RFC6952, May 2013, Guide", RFC 6952, DOI 10.17487/RFC6952, May 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6952>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6952>.
skipping to change at line 344 skipping to change at page 9, line 30
Email: chengli13@huawei.com Email: chengli13@huawei.com
Haomian Zheng Haomian Zheng
Huawei Technologies Huawei Technologies
F3 RnD Center, Huawei Industrial Base, Bantian, Longgang District F3 RnD Center, Huawei Industrial Base, Bantian, Longgang District
Shenzhen, Guangdong 518129 Shenzhen, Guangdong 518129
P.R.China P.R.China
Email: zhenghaomian@huawei.com Email: zhenghaomian@huawei.com
Siva Sivabalan
Cisco Systems, Inc.
2000 Innovation Drive
Kanata, Ontario K2K 3E8
Canada
Email: msiva@cisco.com
 End of changes. 20 change blocks. 
31 lines changed or deleted 93 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.47. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/