draft-ietf-pce-association-bidir-03.txt   draft-ietf-pce-association-bidir-04.txt 
PCE Working Group R. Gandhi, Ed. PCE Working Group R. Gandhi, Ed.
Internet-Draft Cisco Systems, Inc. Internet-Draft Cisco Systems, Inc.
Intended status: Standards Track C. Barth Intended status: Standards Track C. Barth
Expires: September 12, 2019 Juniper Networks Expires: March 14, 2020 Juniper Networks
B. Wen B. Wen
Comcast Comcast
March 11, 2019 September 11, 2019
PCEP Extensions for PCEP Extensions for
Associated Bidirectional Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Associated Bidirectional Label Switched Paths (LSPs)
draft-ietf-pce-association-bidir-03 draft-ietf-pce-association-bidir-04
Abstract Abstract
The Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) provides The Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) provides
mechanisms for Path Computation Elements (PCEs) to perform path mechanisms for Path Computation Elements (PCEs) to perform path
computations in response to Path Computation Clients (PCCs) requests. computations in response to Path Computation Clients (PCCs) requests.
The Stateful PCE extensions allow stateful control of Multiprotocol The Stateful PCE extensions allow stateful control of Multiprotocol
Label Switching (MPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE) Label Switched Paths Label Switching (MPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE) Label Switched Paths
(LSPs) using PCEP. (LSPs) using PCEP.
skipping to change at page 2, line 37 skipping to change at page 2, line 37
4.1. Association Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4.1. Association Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.2. Bidirectional LSP Association Group TLV . . . . . . . . . 9 4.2. Bidirectional LSP Association Group TLV . . . . . . . . . 9
5. PCEP Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5. PCEP Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.1. PCE Initiated LSPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5.1. PCE Initiated LSPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.2. PCC Initiated LSPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5.2. PCC Initiated LSPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.3. Stateless PCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 5.3. Stateless PCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.4. Bidirectional (B) Flag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 5.4. Bidirectional (B) Flag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.5. PLSP-ID Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 5.5. PLSP-ID Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.6. State Synchronization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 5.6. State Synchronization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.7. Error Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 5.7. Error Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 6. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 6.1. Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7.1. Control of Function and Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7.2. Information and Data Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 8. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 8.1. Control of Function and Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7.4. Verify Correct Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 8.2. Information and Data Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7.5. Requirements On Other Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 8.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7.6. Impact On Network Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 8.4. Verify Correct Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 8.5. Requirements On Other Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8.1. Association Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 8.6. Impact On Network Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8.2. Bidirectional LSP Association Group TLV . . . . . . . . . 14 9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8.2.1. Flag Fields in Bidirectional LSP Association Group 9.1. Association Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 9.2. Bidirectional LSP Association Group TLV . . . . . . . . . 15
8.3. PCEP Errors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 9.2.1. Flag Fields in Bidirectional LSP Association Group
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 9.3. PCEP Errors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
[RFC5440] describes the Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) as a [RFC5440] describes the Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) as a
communication mechanism between a Path Computation Client (PCC) and a communication mechanism between a Path Computation Client (PCC) and a
Path Control Element (PCE), or between PCE and PCC, that enables Path Control Element (PCE), or between PCE and PCC, that enables
computation of Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Traffic computation of Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Traffic
Engineering (TE) Label Switched Paths (LSPs). Engineering (TE) Label Switched Paths (LSPs).
[RFC8231] specifies extensions to PCEP to enable stateful control of [RFC8231] specifies extensions to PCEP to enable stateful control of
skipping to change at page 13, line 9 skipping to change at page 13, line 9
document. In case a PCEP speaker receives a different PST value for document. In case a PCEP speaker receives a different PST value for
this association group, it MUST return a PCErr message with Error- this association group, it MUST return a PCErr message with Error-
Type = 29 (Early allocation by IANA) (Association Error) and Error- Type = 29 (Early allocation by IANA) (Association Error) and Error-
Value = TBD6 (Bidirectional LSP Association - Path Setup Type Value = TBD6 (Bidirectional LSP Association - Path Setup Type
Mismatch). Mismatch).
The processing rules as specified in Section 5.4 of The processing rules as specified in Section 5.4 of
[I-D.ietf-pce-association] continue to apply for the Association [I-D.ietf-pce-association] continue to apply for the Association
Types defined in this document. Types defined in this document.
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 catalog 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".
6.1. Implementation
The PCEP extensions defined in this document has been implemented by
a vendor on their product. No further information is available at
this time.
7. Security Considerations
The security considerations described in [RFC5440], [RFC8231], and The security considerations described in [RFC5440], [RFC8231], and
[RFC8281] apply to the extensions defined in this document as well. [RFC8281] apply to the extensions defined in this document as well.
Two new Association Types for the Association Object, Single-sided Two new Association Types for the Association Object, Single-sided
Bidirectional LSP Association Group and Double-sided Associated Bidirectional LSP Association Group and Double-sided Associated
Bidirectional LSP Group are introduced in this document. Additional Bidirectional LSP Group are introduced in this document. Additional
security considerations related to LSP associations due to a security considerations related to LSP associations due to a
malicious PCEP speaker is described in [I-D.ietf-pce-association] and malicious PCEP speaker is described in [I-D.ietf-pce-association] and
apply to these Association Types. Hence, securing the PCEP session apply to these Association Types. Hence, securing the PCEP session
using Transport Layer Security (TLS) [RFC8253] is recommended. using Transport Layer Security (TLS) [RFC8253] is recommended.
7. Manageability Considerations 8. Manageability Considerations
7.1. Control of Function and Policy 8.1. Control of Function and Policy
The mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any control or The mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any control or
policy requirements in addition to those already listed in [RFC5440], policy requirements in addition to those already listed in [RFC5440],
[RFC8231], and [RFC8281]. [RFC8231], and [RFC8281].
7.2. Information and Data Models 8.2. Information and Data Models
[RFC7420] describes the PCEP MIB, there are no new MIB Objects [RFC7420] describes the PCEP MIB, there are no new MIB Objects
defined for LSP associations. defined for LSP associations.
The PCEP YANG module [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang] defines data model for The PCEP YANG module [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang] defines data model for
LSP associations. LSP associations.
7.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring 8.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring
The mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new liveness The 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], [RFC8231], and [RFC8281]. listed in [RFC5440], [RFC8231], and [RFC8281].
7.4. Verify Correct Operations 8.4. Verify Correct Operations
The mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new The mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new
operation verification requirements in addition to those already operation verification requirements in addition to those already
listed in [RFC5440], [RFC8231], and [RFC8281]. listed in [RFC5440], [RFC8231], and [RFC8281].
7.5. Requirements On Other Protocols 8.5. Requirements On Other Protocols
The mechanisms defined in this document do not add any new The mechanisms defined in this document do not add any new
requirements on other protocols. requirements on other protocols.
7.6. Impact On Network Operations 8.6. Impact On Network Operations
The mechanisms defined in this document do not have any impact on The mechanisms defined in this document do not have any impact on
network operations in addition to those already listed in [RFC5440], network operations in addition to those already listed in [RFC5440],
[RFC8231], and [RFC8281]. [RFC8231], and [RFC8281].
8. IANA Considerations 9. IANA Considerations
8.1. Association Types 9.1. Association Types
This document adds new Association Types for the Association Object This document adds new Association Types for the Association Object
defined [I-D.ietf-pce-association]. IANA is requested to make the defined [I-D.ietf-pce-association]. IANA is requested to make the
assignment of values for the sub-registry "ASSOCIATION Type Field" assignment of values for the sub-registry "ASSOCIATION Type Field"
(to be created in [I-D.ietf-pce-association]), as follows: (to be created in [I-D.ietf-pce-association]), as follows:
Value Name Reference Value Name Reference
--------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
TBD1 Single-sided Bidirectional LSP Association Group [This document] TBD1 Single-sided Bidirectional LSP Association Group [This document]
TBD2 Double-sided Bidirectional LSP Association Group [This document] TBD2 Double-sided Bidirectional LSP Association Group [This document]
8.2. Bidirectional LSP Association Group TLV 9.2. Bidirectional LSP Association Group TLV
This document defines a new TLV for carrying additional information This document defines a new TLV for carrying additional information
of LSPs within a Bidirectional LSP Association Group. IANA is of LSPs within a Bidirectional LSP Association Group. IANA is
requested to add the assignment of a new value in the existing "PCEP requested to add the assignment of a new value in the existing "PCEP
TLV Type Indicators" registry as follows: TLV Type Indicators" registry as follows:
TLV-Type Name Reference TLV-Type Name Reference
------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------
TBD3 Bidirectional LSP Association Group TLV [This document] TBD3 Bidirectional LSP Association Group TLV [This document]
8.2.1. Flag Fields in Bidirectional LSP Association Group TLV 9.2.1. Flag Fields in Bidirectional LSP Association Group TLV
This document requests that a new sub-registry, named "Bidirectional This document requests that a new sub-registry, named "Bidirectional
LSP Association Group TLV Flag Field", is created within the "Path LSP Association Group TLV Flag Field", is created within the "Path
Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry to manage the Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry to manage the
Flag field in the Bidirectional LSP Association Group TLV. New Flag field in the Bidirectional LSP Association Group TLV. New
values are to be assigned by Standards Action [RFC8126]. Each bit values are to be assigned by Standards Action [RFC8126]. Each bit
should be tracked with the following qualities: should be tracked with the following qualities:
o Bit number (count from 0 as the most significant bit) o Bit number (count from 0 as the most significant bit)
skipping to change at page 15, line 14 skipping to change at page 15, line 47
o Reference o Reference
The following values are defined in this document for the Flag field. The following values are defined in this document for the Flag field.
Bit No. Description Reference Bit No. Description Reference
--------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------
31 F - Forward LSP [This document] 31 F - Forward LSP [This document]
30 R - Reverse LSP [This document] 30 R - Reverse LSP [This document]
29 C - Co-routed LSP [This document] 29 C - Co-routed LSP [This document]
8.3. PCEP Errors 9.3. PCEP Errors
This document defines new Error value for Error Type 29 (Association This document defines new Error value for Error Type 29 (Association
Error). IANA is requested to allocate new Error value within the Error). IANA is requested to allocate new Error value within the
"PCEP-ERROR Object Error Types and Values" sub-registry of the PCEP "PCEP-ERROR Object Error Types and Values" sub-registry of the PCEP
Numbers registry, as follows: Numbers registry, as follows:
Error Type Description Reference Error Type Description Reference
--------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
29 Association Error 29 Association Error
Error value: TBD4 [This document] Error value: TBD4 [This document]
Bidirectional LSP Association - Group Mismatch Bidirectional LSP Association - Group Mismatch
Error value: TBD5 [This document] Error value: TBD5 [This document]
Bidirectional LSP Association - Tunnel Mismatch Bidirectional LSP Association - Tunnel Mismatch
Error value: TBD6 [This document] Error value: TBD6 [This document]
Bidirectional LSP Association - Path Setup Type Mismatch Bidirectional LSP Association - Path Setup Type Mismatch
9. References 10. References
9.1. Normative References 10.1. 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, DOI Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI
10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997. 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997.
[RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V., [RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.,
and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
Tunnels", RFC 3209, DOI 10.17487/RFC3209, December 2001. Tunnels", RFC 3209, DOI 10.17487/RFC3209, December 2001.
[RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation [RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation
skipping to change at page 17, line 5 skipping to change at page 18, line 5
the Fast Reroute Procedures for Co-routed Associated the Fast Reroute Procedures for Co-routed Associated
Bidirectional Label Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 8537, Bidirectional Label Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 8537,
February 2019. February 2019.
[I-D.ietf-pce-association] Minei, I., Crabbe, E., Sivabalan, S., [I-D.ietf-pce-association] Minei, I., Crabbe, E., Sivabalan, S.,
Ananthakrishnan, H., Dhody, D., and Y. Tanaka, "PCEP Ananthakrishnan, H., Dhody, D., and Y. Tanaka, "PCEP
Extensions for Establishing Relationships Between Sets of Extensions for Establishing Relationships Between Sets of
LSPs", draft-ietf-pce-association-group (work in LSPs", draft-ietf-pce-association-group (work in
progress). progress).
9.2. Informative References 10.2. Informative References
[RFC5654] Niven-Jenkins, B., Ed., Brungard, D., Ed., Betts, M., Ed., [RFC5654] Niven-Jenkins, B., Ed., Brungard, D., Ed., Betts, M., Ed.,
Sprecher, N., and S. Ueno, "Requirements of an MPLS Sprecher, N., and S. Ueno, "Requirements of an MPLS
Transport Profile", RFC 5654, September 2009. Transport Profile", RFC 5654, September 2009.
[RFC7420] Koushik, A., Stephan, E., Zhao, Q., King, D., and J. [RFC7420] Koushik, A., Stephan, E., Zhao, Q., King, D., and J.
Hardwick, "Path Computation Element Communication Protocol Hardwick, "Path Computation Element Communication Protocol
(PCEP) Management Information Base (MIB) Module", RFC (PCEP) Management Information Base (MIB) Module", RFC
7420, December 2014. 7420, December 2014.
[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>.
[RFC8051] Zhang, X., Ed. and I. Minei, Ed., "Applicability of a [RFC8051] Zhang, X., Ed. and I. Minei, Ed., "Applicability of a
Stateful Path Computation Element (PCE)", RFC 8051, Stateful Path Computation Element (PCE)", RFC 8051,
January 2017. January 2017.
[RFC8253] Lopez, D., Dios, O., Wu, Q., and D. Dhody, "PCEPS: Usage [RFC8253] Lopez, D., Dios, O., Wu, Q., and D. Dhody, "PCEPS: Usage
of TLS to Provide a Secure Transport for the Path of TLS to Provide a Secure Transport for the Path
Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC
8253, October 2017. 8253, October 2017.
[RFC8408] Sivabalan, S., et al. "Conveying Path Setup Type in PCE [RFC8408] Sivabalan, S., et al. "Conveying Path Setup Type in PCE
 End of changes. 21 change blocks. 
38 lines changed or deleted 77 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/