< draft-ietf-pce-association-policy-05.txt   draft-ietf-pce-association-policy-06.txt >
PCE Working Group S. Litkowski PCE Working Group S. Litkowski
Internet-Draft Orange Internet-Draft Orange
Intended status: Standards Track S. Sivabalan Intended status: Standards Track S. Sivabalan
Expires: August 7, 2019 Cisco Systems, Inc. Expires: February 7, 2020 Cisco Systems, Inc.
J. Tantsura J. Tantsura
Apstra, Inc. Apstra, Inc.
J. Hardwick J. Hardwick
Metaswitch Networks Metaswitch Networks
M. Negi M. Negi
Huawei Technologies Huawei Technologies
February 3, 2019 August 6, 2019
Path Computation Element communication Protocol extension for Path Computation Element communication Protocol (PCEP) extension for
associating Policies and LSPs associating Policies and Label Switched Paths (LSPs)
draft-ietf-pce-association-policy-05 draft-ietf-pce-association-policy-06
Abstract Abstract
This document introduces a simple mechanism to associate policies to This document introduces a simple mechanism to associate policies to
a group of Label Switched Paths (LSPs) via an extension to the Path a group of Label Switched Paths (LSPs) via an extension to the Path
Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP). Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP).
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
skipping to change at page 1, line 40 skipping to change at page 1, line 40
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 7, 2019. This Internet-Draft will expire on February 7, 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 21 skipping to change at page 2, line 21
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Policy based Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.1. Policy based Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Policy Association Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5. Policy Association Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.1. Policy Parameters TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5.1. Policy Parameters TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7.1. Association object Type Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . 9 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7.2. PCEP TLV Type Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 8.1. Association object Type Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 8.2. PCEP TLV Type Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8.1. Control of Function and Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 9. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8.2. Information and Data Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 9.1. Control of Function and Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 9.2. Information and Data Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8.4. Verify Correct Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 9.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8.5. Requirements On Other Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 9.4. Verify Correct Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8.6. Impact On Network Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 9.5. Requirements on Other Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 9.6. Impact on Network Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 10. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Appendix A. Contributor Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Appendix A. Contributor Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
[RFC5440] describes the Path Computation Element communication [RFC5440] describes the Path Computation Element communication
Protocol (PCEP) which enables the communication between a Path Protocol (PCEP) which enables the communication between a Path
Computation Client (PCC) and a Path Control Element (PCE), or between Computation Client (PCC) and a Path Control Element (PCE), or between
two PCEs based on the PCE architecture [RFC4655]. [RFC5394] provides two PCEs based on the PCE architecture [RFC4655]. [RFC5394] provides
additional details on policy within the PCE architecture and also additional details on policy within the PCE architecture and also
provides context for the support of PCE Policy. provides context for the support of PCE Policy.
PCEP Extensions for Stateful PCE Model [RFC8231] describes a set of PCEP Extensions for Stateful PCE Model [RFC8231] describes a set of
extensions to PCEP to enable active control of Multiprotocol Label extensions to PCEP to enable active control of Multiprotocol Label
Switching Traffic Engineering (MPLS-TE) and Generalzied MPLS (GMPLS) Switching Traffic Engineering (MPLS-TE) and Generalzied MPLS (GMPLS)
tunnels. [RFC8281] describes the setup and teardown of PCE-initiated tunnels. [RFC8281] describes the set-up and teardown of PCE-
LSPs under the active stateful PCE model, without the need for local initiated LSPs under the active stateful PCE model, without the need
configuration on the PCC, thus allowing for a dynamic network. for local configuration on the PCC, thus allowing for a dynamic
Currently, the LSPs can either be signaled via Resource Reservation network. Currently, the LSPs can either be signalled via Resource
Protocol Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) or can be segment routed as Reservation Protocol Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) or can be segment
specified in [I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing]. routed as specified in [I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing].
[I-D.ietf-pce-association-group] introduces a generic mechanism to [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group] introduces a generic mechanism to
create a grouping of LSPs which can then be used to define create a grouping of LSPs which can then be used to define
associations between a set of LSPs and a set of attributes (such as associations between a set of LSPs and a set of attributes (such as
configuration parameters or behaviors) and is equally applicable to configuration parameters or behaviours) and is equally applicable to
stateful PCE (active and passive modes) and stateless PCE. stateful PCE (active and passive modes) and stateless PCE.
This document specifies a PCEP extension to associate one or more This document specifies a PCEP extension to associate one or more
LSPs with policies using the generic association mechanism. LSPs with policies using the generic association mechanism.
A PCEP speaker may want to influence the PCEP peer with respect to A PCEP speaker may want to influence the PCEP peer with respect to
path selection and other policies. This document describes a PCEP path selection and other policies. This document describes a PCEP
extension to associate policies by creating Policy Association Group extension to associate policies by creating Policy Association Group
(PAG) and encoding this association in PCEP messages. The (PAG) and encoding this association in PCEP messages. The
specification is applicable to both stateful and stateless PCEP specification is applicable to both stateful and stateless PCEP
skipping to change at page 3, line 44 skipping to change at page 3, line 45
2. Terminology 2. Terminology
The following terminology is used in this document. The following terminology is used in this document.
Association parameters: As described in Association parameters: As described in
[I-D.ietf-pce-association-group], the combination of the mandatory [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group], the combination of the mandatory
fields Association type, Association ID and Association Source in fields Association type, Association ID and Association Source in
the ASSOCIATION object uniquely identify the association group. the ASSOCIATION object uniquely identify the association group.
If the optional TLVs - Global Association Source or Extended If the optional TLVs - Global Association Source or Extended
Association ID are included, then they are included in combination Association ID are included, then they are included in combination
with mandatory fields to uniquely identifying the association with mandatory fields to uniquely identify the association group.
group.
Association information: As described in Association information: As described in
[I-D.ietf-pce-association-group], the ASSOCIATION object could [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group], the ASSOCIATION object could
include other optional TLVs based on the association types, that include other optional TLVs based on the association types, that
provides 'information' related to the association. provides 'information' related to the association.
LSR: Label Switch Router. LSR: Label Switch Router.
LSR: Label Switch Router.
MPLS: Multiprotocol Label Switching. MPLS: Multiprotocol Label Switching.
PAG: Policy Association Group. PAG: Policy Association Group.
PCC: Path Computation Client. Any client application requesting a PCC: Path Computation Client. Any client application requesting a
path computation to be performed by a Path Computation Element. path computation to be performed by a Path Computation Element.
PCE: Path Computation Element. An entity (component, application, PCE: Path Computation Element. An entity (component, application,
or network node) that is capable of computing a network path or or network node) that is capable of computing a network path or
route based on a network graph and applying computational route based on a network graph and applying computational
constraints. constraints.
PCEP: Path Computation Element Communication Protocol. PCEP: Path Computation Element Communication Protocol.
3. Motivation 3. Motivation
Paths computed using PCE can be subjected to various policies on both Paths computed using PCE can be subjected to various policies on both
PCE and PCC. For example, in a centralized traffic engineering PCE and PCC. For example, in a centralized traffic engineering
scenario, network operators may instantiate LSPs and specifies scenario, network operators may instantiate LSPs and specifies
policies for traffic steering, path monitoring, etc., for some LSPs policies for traffic steering, path monitoring, etc., for some LSPs
via the stateful PCE. Similarly, a PCC could request a user- or via the Stateful PCE. Similarly, a PCC could request a user- or
service-specific policy to be applied at the PCE, such as constraints service-specific policy to be applied at the PCE, such as constraints
relaxation to meet optimal QoS and resiliency. relaxation to meet optimal QoS and resiliency.
PCEP speaker can use the generic mechanism as per PCEP speaker can use the generic mechanism as per
[I-D.ietf-pce-association-group] to associate a set of LSPs with a [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group] to associate a set of LSPs with a
policy, without the need to know the details of such a policy, which policy, without the need to know the details of such a policy, which
simplifies network operations, avoids frequent software upgrades, as simplifies network operations, avoids frequent software upgrades, as
well provides an ability to introduce new policy faster. well as provides an ability to introduce new policy faster.
PAG Y PAG Y
{Service-Specific Policy {Service-Specific Policy
for constraint for constraint
Initiate & Monitor LSP relaxation} Initiate & Monitor LSP relaxation}
| | | |
| PAG X PCReq | | PAG X PCReq |
V {Monitor LSP} {PAG Y} V V {Monitor LSP} {PAG Y} V
+-----+ ----------------> +-----+ +-----+ ----------------> +-----+
_ _ _ _ _ _| PCE | | | PCE | _ _ _ _ _ _| PCE | | | PCE |
| +-----+ | ----------> +-----+ | +-----+ | ----------> +-----+
| PCEInitiate | | PCReq | PCInitiate | | PCReq
|{PAG X} | | {PAG Y} |{PAG X} | | {PAG Y}
| | | | | |
| .-----. | | .-----. | .-----. | | .-----.
| ( ) | +----+ ( ) | ( ) | +----+ ( )
| .--( )--. | |PCC1|--.--( )--. | .--( )--. | |PCC1|--.--( )--.
V ( ) | +----+ ( ) V ( ) | +----+ ( )
+---+ ( ) | ( ) +---+ ( ) | ( )
|PCC|----( (G)MPLS network ) +----+ ( (G)MPLS network ) |PCC|----( (G)MPLS network ) +----+ ( (G)MPLS network )
+---+ ( ) |PCC2|------( ) +---+ ( ) |PCC2|------( )
PAG X ( ) +----+ ( ) PAG X ( ) +----+ ( )
skipping to change at page 5, line 41 skipping to change at page 5, line 41
and enforced by PCC PCC and enforced by and enforced by PCC PCC and enforced by
PCE PCE
Figure 1: Sample use-cases for carrying policies over PCEP session Figure 1: Sample use-cases for carrying policies over PCEP session
3.1. Policy based Constraints 3.1. Policy based Constraints
In the context of policy-enabled path computation [RFC5394], path In the context of policy-enabled path computation [RFC5394], path
computation policies may be applied at both a PCC and a PCE. computation policies may be applied at both a PCC and a PCE.
Consider an Label Switch Router (LSR) with a policy enabled PCC, it Consider an Label Switch Router (LSR) with a policy enabled PCC, it
receives a service request via signaling, including over a Network- receives a service request via signalling, including over a Network-
Network Interface (NNI) or User Network Interface (UNI) reference Network Interface (NNI) or User Network Interface (UNI) reference
point, or receives a configuration request over a management point, or receives a configuration request over a management
interface to establish a service. The PCC may also apply user- or interface to establish a service. The PCC may also apply user- or
service-specific policies to decide how the path selection process service-specific policies to decide how the path selection process
should be constrained, that is, which constraints, diversities, should be constrained, that is, which constraints, diversities,
optimization criterion, and constraint relaxation strategies should optimization criterion, and constraint relaxation strategies should
be applied in order for the service LSP(s) to have a likelihood to be be applied in order for the service LSP(s) to have a likelihood to be
successfully established and provide necessary QoS and resilience successfully established and provide necessary QoS and resilience
against network failures. The user- or service-specific policies against network failures. The user- or service-specific policies
applied to PCC and are then passed to the PCE along with the Path applied to PCC and are then passed to the PCE along with the Path
skipping to change at page 6, line 18 skipping to change at page 6, line 18
[I-D.ietf-pce-association-group] to associate a set of LSPs with [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group] to associate a set of LSPs with
policy and its resulting path computation constraints. This would policy and its resulting path computation constraints. This would
simplify the path computation message exchanges in PCEP. simplify the path computation message exchanges in PCEP.
4. Overview 4. Overview
As per [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group], LSPs are associated with As per [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group], LSPs are associated with
other LSPs with which they interact by adding them to a common other LSPs with which they interact by adding them to a common
association group. Grouping can also be used to define association association group. Grouping can also be used to define association
between LSPs and policies associated to them. One new Association between LSPs and policies associated to them. One new Association
Type is defined in this document, based on the generic Association type is defined in this document, based on the generic Association
object - object -
o Association type = TBD1 ("Policy Association Type") for Policy o Association type = TBD1 ("Policy Association Type") for Policy
Association Group (PAG). Association Group (PAG).
[I-D.ietf-pce-association-group] specify the mechanism for the [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group] specify the mechanism for the
capability advertisement of the association types supported by a PCEP capability advertisement of the Association types supported by a PCEP
speaker by defining a ASSOC-Type-List TLV to be carried within an speaker by defining a ASSOC-Type-List TLV to be carried within an
OPEN object. This capability exchange for the association type OPEN object. This capability exchange for the association type
described in this document (i.e. Policy Association Type) MUST be described in this document (i.e. Policy Association Type) MUST be
done before using the policy association. Thus the PCEP speaker MUST done before using the policy association. Thus the PCEP speaker MUST
include the Policy Association Type (TBD1) in the ASSOC-Type-List TLV include the Policy Association type (TBD1) in the ASSOC-Type-List TLV
before using the PAG in the PCEP messages. before using the PAG in the PCEP messages.
This Association-Type is operator-configured association in nature This Association type is operator-configured association in nature
and created by the operator manually on the PCEP peers. The LSP and created by the operator manually on the PCEP peers. An LSP
belonging to this associations is conveyed via PCEP messages to the belonging to this association is conveyed via PCEP messages to the
PCEP peer. Operator-configured Association Range SHOULD NOT be set PCEP peer. Operator-configured Association Range need not be set for
for this association-type, and MUST be ignored, so that the full this association-type, and MUST be ignored, so that the full range of
range of association identifier can be utilized. association identifier can be utilized.
A PAG can have one or more LSPs and its associated policy. The A PAG can have one or more LSPs and its associated policy. The
association parameters including association identifier, type association parameters including association identifier, Association
(Policy), as well as the association source IP address is manually type (Policy), as well as the association source IP address is
configured by the operator and is used to identify the PAG as manually configured by the operator and is used to identify the PAG
described in [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group]. The Global as described in [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group]. The Global
Association Source and Extended Association ID MAY also be included. Association Source and Extended Association ID MAY also be included.
As per the processing rules specified in section 5.4 of As per the processing rules specified in section 6.4 of
[I-D.ietf-pce-association-group], if a PCEP speaker does not support [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group], if a PCEP speaker does not support
this Policy association-type, it would return a PCErr message with this Policy Association type, it would return a PCErr message with
Error-Type 26 (Early allocation by IANA) "Association Error" and Error-Type 26 "Association Error" and Error-Value 1 "Association type
Error-Value 1 "Association-type is not supported". Since the PAG is is not supported". Since the PAG is opaque in nature, the PAG and
opaque in nature, the PAG and the policy MUST be configured on the the policy MUST be configured on the PCEP peers as per the operator-
PCEP peers as per the operator-configured association procedures. configured association procedures. All further processing is as per
All processing is as per section 5.4 of section 6.4 of [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group]. If a PCE speaker
[I-D.ietf-pce-association-group]. If a PCE speaker receives PAG in a receives PAG in a PCEP message, and the policy association
PCEP message, and the policy association information is not information is not configured, it MUST return a PCErr message with
configured, it MUST return a PCErr message with Error-Type TBD Error-Type 26 "Association Error" and Error- Value 4 "Association
"Association Error" and Error- Value 4 "Association unknown". If unknown". If some of the association information
some of the association information [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group] [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group] (the TLVs defined in this document)
(the TLVs defined in this document) received from the peer does not received from the peer does not match the local configured values,
match the local configured values, the PCEP speaker MUST reject the the PCEP speaker MUST reject the PCEP message and send a PCErr
PCEP message and send a PCErr message with Error-Type 26 (Early message with Error-Type 26 "Association Error" and Error-Value 5
allocation by IANA) "Association Error" and Error-Value 5 "Operator- "Operator-configured association information mismatch".
configured association information mismatch".
Associating a particular LSP to multiple policy groups is authorized
from a protocol perspective, however there is no assurance that the
PCE will be able to apply multiple policies.
5. Policy Association Group 5. Policy Association Group
Association groups and their memberships are defined using the Association groups and their memberships are defined using the
ASSOCIATION object defined in [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group]. Two ASSOCIATION object defined in [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group]. Two
object types for IPv4 and IPv6 are defined. The ASSOCIATION object object types for IPv4 and IPv6 are defined. The ASSOCIATION object
includes "Association type" indicating the type of the association includes "Association type" indicating the type of the association
group. This document add a new Association type - group. This document add a new Association type -
Association type = TBD1 ("Policy Association Type") for PAG. Association type = TBD1 ("Policy Association type") for PAG.
PAG may carry optional TLVs including but not limited to - PAG may carry optional TLVs including but not limited to -
o POLICY-PARAMETERS-TLV: Used to communicate opaque information o POLICY-PARAMETERS-TLV: Used to communicate opaque information
useful to apply the policy, described in Section 5.1. useful to apply the policy, described in Section 5.1.
o VENDOR-INFORMATION-TLV: Used to communicate arbitrary vendor o VENDOR-INFORMATION-TLV: Used to communicate arbitrary vendor
specific behavioral information, described in [RFC7470]. specific behavioural information, described in [RFC7470].
5.1. Policy Parameters TLV 5.1. Policy Parameters TLV
The POLICY-PARAMETERS-TLV is an optional TLV that can be carried in The POLICY-PARAMETERS-TLV is an optional TLV that can be carried in
ASSOCIATION object (with "Policy Association Type") to carry opaque ASSOCIATION object (with "Policy Association type") to carry opaque
information needed to apply the policy at the PCEP peer. In some information needed to apply the policy at the PCEP peer. In some
cases to apply a PCE policy successfully, it is required to also cases to apply a PCE policy successfully, it is required to also
associate some policy parameters that needs to be evaluated, to associate some policy parameters that needs to be evaluated, to
successfully apply the said policy. This TLV is used to carry those successfully apply the said policy. This TLV is used to carry those
policy parameters. The TLV could include one or more policy related policy parameters. The TLV could include one or more policy related
parameter. The encoding format and the order MUST be known to the parameter. The encoding format and the order MUST be known to the
PCEP peers, this could be done during configuration of policy (and PCEP peers, this could be done during the configuration of the policy
its association parameters) for the PAG. The TLV format is as per (and its association parameters) for the PAG. The TLV format is as
the format of the PCEP TLVs, as defined in [RFC5440], and shown in per the format of the PCEP TLVs, as defined in [RFC5440], and shown
Figure 2. Only one POLICY-PARAMETERS-TLV can be carried and only the in Figure 2. Only one POLICY-PARAMETERS-TLV can be carried and only
first occurrence is processed and any others MUST be ignored. the first occurrence is processed and any others MUST be ignored.
0 1 2 3 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 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type=TBD2 | Length | | Type=TBD2 | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | | |
// Policy Parameters // // Policy Parameters //
| | | |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+ +---------------------------------------------------------------+
skipping to change at page 8, line 36 skipping to change at page 8, line 38
If the PCEP peer is unaware of the policy parameters associated with If the PCEP peer is unaware of the policy parameters associated with
the policy and it receives the POLICY-PARAMETERS-TLV, it MUST ignore the policy and it receives the POLICY-PARAMETERS-TLV, it MUST ignore
the TLV and SHOULD log this event. Further, if one or more the TLV and SHOULD log this event. Further, if one or more
parameters received in the POLICY-PARAMETERS-TLV received by the PCEP parameters received in the POLICY-PARAMETERS-TLV received by the PCEP
speaker are considered as unacceptable in the context of the speaker are considered as unacceptable in the context of the
associated policy (e.g. out of range value, badly encoded value...), associated policy (e.g. out of range value, badly encoded value...),
the PCEP speaker MUST NOT apply the received policy and SHOULD log the PCEP speaker MUST NOT apply the received policy and SHOULD log
this event. this event.
Note that, the vendor specific behavioral information is encoded in Note that, the vendor specific behavioural information is encoded in
VENDOR-INFORMATION-TLV which can be used along with this TLV. VENDOR-INFORMATION-TLV which can be used along with this TLV.
6. Security Considerations 6. Implementation Status
[Note to the RFC Editor - remove this section before publication, as
well as remove the reference to RFC 7942.]
This section records the status of known implementations of the
protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of this
Internet-Draft, and is based on a proposal described in [RFC7942].
The description of implementations in this section is intended to
assist the IETF in its decision processes in progressing drafts to
RFCs. Please note that the listing of any individual implementation
here does not imply endorsement by the IETF. Furthermore, no effort
has been spent to verify the information presented here that was
supplied by IETF contributors. This is not intended as, and must not
be construed to be, a catalogue of available implementations or their
features. Readers are advised to note that other implementations may
exist.
According to [RFC7942], "this will allow reviewers and working groups
to assign due consideration to documents that have the benefit of
running code, which may serve as evidence of valuable experimentation
and feedback that have made the implemented protocols more mature.
It is up to the individual working groups to use this information as
they see fit".
Currently there are no confirmed implementations, though vendors have
shown interest in making this as part of their roadmap. More details
to be added in a later revision.
7. Security Considerations
This document defines one new type for association, which do not add This document defines one new type for association, which do not add
any new security concerns beyond those discussed in [RFC5440], any new security concerns beyond those discussed in [RFC5440],
[RFC8231] and [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group] in itself. [RFC8231] and [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group] in itself.
Extra care needs to be taken by the implementation with respect to
POLICY-PARAMETERS-TLV while decoding, verifying and applying these
policy variables. This TLV parsing could be exploited by an
attacker.
Some deployments may find policy associations and their implications Some deployments may find policy associations and their implications
as extra sensitive and thus should employ suitable PCEP security as extra sensitive and thus securing the PCEP session using Transport
mechanisms like [RFC8253]. Also extra care needs to be taken by the Layer Security (TLS) [RFC8253], as per the recommendations and best
implementation with respect to POLICY-PARAMETERS-TLV while decoding, current practices in [RFC7525], is RECOMMENDED.
verifying and applying these policy variables.
7. IANA Considerations 8. IANA Considerations
7.1. Association object Type Indicators 8.1. Association object Type Indicators
This document defines the following new association type originally This document defines a new Association type. The sub-registry
defined in [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group]. "ASSOCIATION Type Field" of the "Path Computation Element Protocol
(PCEP) Numbers" registry was originally defined in
[I-D.ietf-pce-association-group]. IANA is requested to make the
following allocation.
Value Name Reference Value Name Reference
TBD1 Policy Association Type [This I.D.] TBD1 Policy Association type [This.I-D]
7.2. PCEP TLV Type Indicators 8.2. PCEP TLV Type Indicators
The following TLV Type Indicator values are requested within the The following TLV Type Indicator value is requested within the "PCEP
"PCEP TLV Type Indicators" subregistry of the "Path Computation TLV Type Indicators" subregistry of the "Path Computation Element
Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry: Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry. IANA is requested to make the
following allocation.
Value Description Reference Value Description Reference
TBD2 POLICY-PARAMETERS-TLV [This I.D.] TBD2 POLICY-PARAMETERS-TLV [This.I-D]
8. Manageability Considerations 9. Manageability Considerations
8.1. Control of Function and Policy 9.1. Control of Function and Policy
An operator MUST be allowed to configure the policy associations at An operator MUST be allowed to configure the policy associations at
PCEP peers and associate it with the LSPs. They MAY also allow PCEP peers and associate it with the LSPs. They MAY also allow
configuration to related policy parameters, in which case the an configuration to related policy parameters, in which case the an
operator MUST also be allowed to set the encoding format and order to operator MUST also be allowed to set the encoding format and order to
parse the associated policy parameters TLV. parse the associated policy parameters TLV.
8.2. Information and Data Models 9.2. Information and Data Models
The PCEP YANG module is defined in [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang]. In
future, this YANG module should be extended or augmented to provide
the following additional information relating to POlicy Association
groups.
An implementation SHOULD allow the operator to view the PAG An implementation SHOULD allow the operator to view the PAG
configured. Further implementation SHOULD allow to view the current configured. Further implementation SHOULD allow to view the current
set of LSPs in the PAG. To serve this purpose, the PCEP YANG module set of LSPs in the PAG.
[I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang] includes association groups and can be used
for PAG.
8.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring 9.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring
Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new liveness Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new liveness
detection and monitoring requirements in addition to those already detection and monitoring requirements in addition to those already
listed in [RFC5440]. listed in [RFC5440].
8.4. Verify Correct Operations 9.4. Verify Correct Operations
Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new operation Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new operation
verification requirements in addition to those already listed in verification requirements in addition to those already listed in
[RFC5440]. [RFC5440].
8.5. Requirements On Other Protocols 9.5. Requirements on Other Protocols
Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new requirements Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new requirements
on other protocols. on other protocols.
8.6. Impact On Network Operations 9.6. Impact on Network Operations
Mechanisms defined in this document do not have any impact on network Mechanisms defined in this document do not have any impact on network
operations in addition to those already listed in [RFC5440]. operations in addition to those already listed in [RFC5440].
9. Acknowledgments 10. Acknowledgments
A special thanks to author of [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group], this A special thanks to author of [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group], this
document borrow some of the text from it. document borrow some of the text from it.
10. References 11. References
10.1. Normative References 11.1. 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 11, line 7 skipping to change at page 11, line 46
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>. May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC8231] Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Medved, J., and R. Varga, "Path [RFC8231] Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Medved, J., and R. Varga, "Path
Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)
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>.
[I-D.ietf-pce-association-group] [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group]
Minei, I., Crabbe, E., Sivabalan, S., Ananthakrishnan, H., Minei, I., Crabbe, E., Sivabalan, S., Ananthakrishnan, H.,
Dhody, D., and Y. Tanaka, "PCEP Extensions for Dhody, D., and Y. Tanaka, "Path Computation Element
Establishing Relationships Between Sets of LSPs", draft- Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for Establishing
ietf-pce-association-group-07 (work in progress), December Relationships Between Sets of Label Switched Paths
2018. (LSPs)", draft-ietf-pce-association-group-10 (work in
progress), August 2019.
10.2. Informative References 11.2. Informative References
[RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J., and J. Ash, "A Path Computation [RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J., and J. Ash, "A Path Computation
Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655, Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4655, August 2006, DOI 10.17487/RFC4655, August 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4655>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4655>.
[RFC5394] Bryskin, I., Papadimitriou, D., Berger, L., and J. Ash, [RFC5394] Bryskin, I., Papadimitriou, D., Berger, L., and J. Ash,
"Policy-Enabled Path Computation Framework", RFC 5394, "Policy-Enabled Path Computation Framework", RFC 5394,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5394, December 2008, DOI 10.17487/RFC5394, December 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5394>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5394>.
[RFC7470] Zhang, F. and A. Farrel, "Conveying Vendor-Specific [RFC7470] Zhang, F. and A. Farrel, "Conveying Vendor-Specific
Constraints in the Path Computation Element Communication Constraints in the Path Computation Element Communication
Protocol", RFC 7470, DOI 10.17487/RFC7470, March 2015, Protocol", RFC 7470, DOI 10.17487/RFC7470, March 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7470>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7470>.
[RFC7525] Sheffer, Y., Holz, R., and P. Saint-Andre,
"Recommendations for Secure Use of Transport Layer
Security (TLS) and Datagram Transport Layer Security
(DTLS)", BCP 195, RFC 7525, DOI 10.17487/RFC7525, May
2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7525>.
[RFC7942] Sheffer, Y. and A. Farrel, "Improving Awareness of Running
Code: The Implementation Status Section", BCP 205,
RFC 7942, DOI 10.17487/RFC7942, July 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7942>.
[RFC8253] Lopez, D., Gonzalez de Dios, O., Wu, Q., and D. Dhody, [RFC8253] Lopez, D., Gonzalez de Dios, O., Wu, Q., and D. Dhody,
"PCEPS: Usage of TLS to Provide a Secure Transport for the "PCEPS: Usage of TLS to Provide a Secure Transport for the
Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)", Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)",
RFC 8253, DOI 10.17487/RFC8253, October 2017, RFC 8253, DOI 10.17487/RFC8253, October 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8253>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8253>.
[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>.
[I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing] [I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing]
Sivabalan, S., Filsfils, C., Tantsura, J., Henderickx, W., Sivabalan, S., Filsfils, C., Tantsura, J., Henderickx, W.,
and J. Hardwick, "PCEP Extensions for Segment Routing", and J. Hardwick, "PCEP Extensions for Segment Routing",
draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-14 (work in progress), draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-16 (work in progress),
October 2018. March 2019.
[I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang] [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang]
Dhody, D., Hardwick, J., Beeram, V., and J. Tantsura, "A Dhody, D., Hardwick, J., Beeram, V., and J. Tantsura, "A
YANG Data Model for Path Computation Element YANG Data Model for Path Computation Element
Communications Protocol (PCEP)", draft-ietf-pce-pcep- Communications Protocol (PCEP)", draft-ietf-pce-pcep-
yang-09 (work in progress), October 2018. yang-12 (work in progress), July 2019.
Appendix A. Contributor Addresses Appendix A. Contributor Addresses
Dhruv Dhody Dhruv Dhody
Huawei Technologies Huawei Technologies
Divyashree Techno Park, Whitefield Divyashree Techno Park, Whitefield
Bangalore, Karnataka 560066 Bangalore, Karnataka 560066
India India
EMail: dhruv.ietf@gmail.com EMail: dhruv.ietf@gmail.com
skipping to change at page 13, line 36 skipping to change at page 15, line 36
UK UK
EMail: Jonathan.Hardwick@metaswitch.com EMail: Jonathan.Hardwick@metaswitch.com
Mahendra Singh Negi Mahendra Singh Negi
Huawei Technologies Huawei Technologies
Divyashree Techno Park, Whitefield Divyashree Techno Park, Whitefield
Bangalore, Karnataka 560066 Bangalore, Karnataka 560066
India India
EMail: mahendrasingh@huawei.com EMail: mahend.ietf@gmail.com
 End of changes. 52 change blocks. 
113 lines changed or deleted 166 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/