draft-ietf-pce-iro-update-03.txt   draft-ietf-pce-iro-update-04.txt 
PCE Working Group D. Dhody PCE Working Group D. Dhody
Internet-Draft Huawei Technologies Internet-Draft Huawei Technologies
Updates: 5440 (if approved) November 16, 2015 Updates: 5440 (if approved) December 15, 2015
Intended status: Standards Track Intended status: Standards Track
Expires: May 19, 2016 Expires: June 17, 2016
Update to Include Route Object (IRO) specification in Path Computation Update to Include Route Object (IRO) specification in Path Computation
Element communication Protocol (PCEP) Element communication Protocol (PCEP)
draft-ietf-pce-iro-update-03 draft-ietf-pce-iro-update-04
Abstract Abstract
During discussions of a document to provide a standard representation During discussions of a document to provide a standard representation
and encoding of Domain-Sequence within the Path Computation Element and encoding of Domain-Sequence within the Path Computation Element
(PCE) communication Protocol (PCEP) for communications between a Path (PCE) communication Protocol (PCEP) for communications between a Path
Computation Client (PCC) and a PCE, or between two PCEs, it was Computation Client (PCC) and a PCE, or between two PCEs, it was
determined that there was a need for clarification with respect to determined that there was a need for clarification with respect to
the ordered nature of the Include Route Object (IRO). the ordered nature of the Include Route Object (IRO).
skipping to change at page 1, line 44 skipping to change at page 1, line 44
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 http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://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 May 19, 2016. This Internet-Draft will expire on June 17, 2016.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2015 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
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://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
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
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.
This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
Contributions published or made publicly available before November
10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
than English.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Update in IRO specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Update in IRO specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Update to RFC 5440 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Other Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. Other Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 6. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
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.
[RFC5440] defines the Include Route Object (IRO) to specify network [RFC5440] defines the Include Route Object (IRO) to specify network
skipping to change at page 3, line 43 skipping to change at page 4, line 8
The survey suggest that most implementations construct or interpret The survey suggest that most implementations construct or interpret
IRO in an ordered fashion and consider it to be an ordered list. IRO in an ordered fashion and consider it to be an ordered list.
More than half of implementation under survey consider the IRO sub- More than half of implementation under survey consider the IRO sub-
objects as strict hops, others consider loose or support both. The objects as strict hops, others consider loose or support both. The
results shown in this survey seems to suggest that most results shown in this survey seems to suggest that most
implementations would be fine with updating [RFC5440] to specify IRO implementations would be fine with updating [RFC5440] to specify IRO
as an ordered list as well as to enable support for Loose bit (L bit) as an ordered list as well as to enable support for Loose bit (L bit)
such that both strict and loose hops could be supported in the IRO. such that both strict and loose hops could be supported in the IRO.
This document thus updates [RFC5440] regarding the IRO specification 2.1. Update to RFC 5440
and is intended to replace the last line in section 7.12 of
[RFC5440], that states -
"The L bit of such sub-object has no meaning within an IRO." Section 7.12 of [RFC5440] regarding the IRO specification is updated
to remove the last line in the section 7.12 of [RFC5440], that states
As per the update in this document, the L Bit of IRO sub-object is - "The L bit of such sub-object has no meaning within an IRO."
set based on the loose or strict property of the sub-object, which is
set if the sub-object represents a loose hop. If the bit is not set,
the sub-object represents a strict hop. The interpretation of Loose
bit (L bit) is as per section 4.3.3.1 of [RFC3209].
Also, as per the update in this document, the content of IRO is an Further, the Section 7.12 of [RFC5440] is updated to add following
ordered list of sub-objects representing a series of abstract nodes. two statements -
An abstract node could just be a simple abstract node comprising one
node or a group of nodes for example an AS (comprising of multiple - The content of IRO is an ordered list of sub-objects representing a
hops within the AS) (refer section 4.3.2 of [RFC3209]). series of abstract nodes. An abstract node could just be a simple
abstract node comprising one node or a group of nodes for example an
AS (comprising of multiple hops within the AS) (refer section 4.3.2
of [RFC3209]).
- The L Bit of IRO sub-object is set based on the loose or strict
property of the sub-object, which is set if the sub-object represents
a loose hop. If the bit is not set, the sub-object represents a
strict hop. The interpretation of Loose bit (L bit) is as per
section 4.3.3.1 of [RFC3209].
3. Other Considerations 3. Other Considerations
Based on the survey, it should be noted that most implementation Based on the survey, it should be noted that most implementation
already support the update in the IRO specification as per this already support the update in the IRO specification as per this
document. The other implementation are expected to make an update to document. The other implementation are expected to make an update to
the IRO procedures. the IRO procedures.
4. Security Considerations 4. Security Considerations
skipping to change at page 4, line 45 skipping to change at page 5, line 18
6. Acknowledgments 6. Acknowledgments
A special thanks to PCE chairs for guidance regarding this work. A special thanks to PCE chairs for guidance regarding this work.
Thanks to Francesco Fondelli for his suggestions in clarifying the L Thanks to Francesco Fondelli for his suggestions in clarifying the L
bit usage. bit usage.
Thanks to Adrian Farrel for his review and comments. Thanks to Adrian Farrel for his review and comments.
Thanks to Deborah Brungard for her comments and being the responsible
AD.
7. References 7. References
7.1. Normative References 7.1. 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,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V., [RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.,
skipping to change at page 5, line 36 skipping to change at page 6, line 12
DOI 10.17487/RFC5441, April 2009, DOI 10.17487/RFC5441, April 2009,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5441>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5441>.
[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,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6952>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6952>.
[I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-domain-sequence] [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-domain-sequence]
Dhody, D., Palle, U., and R. Casellas, "Standard Dhody, D., Palle, U., and R. Casellas, "Domain Subobjects
Representation of Domain-Sequence", draft-ietf-pce-pcep- for Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol
domain-sequence-09 (work in progress), September 2015. (PCEP).", draft-ietf-pce-pcep-domain-sequence-12 (work in
progress), December 2015.
[I-D.ietf-pce-pceps] [I-D.ietf-pce-pceps]
Lopez, D., Dios, O., Wu, W., and D. Dhody, "Secure Lopez, D., Dios, O., Wu, W., and D. Dhody, "Secure
Transport for PCEP", draft-ietf-pce-pceps-05 (work in Transport for PCEP", draft-ietf-pce-pceps-06 (work in
progress), November 2015. progress), November 2015.
[I-D.dhody-pce-iro-survey] [I-D.dhody-pce-iro-survey]
Dhody, D., "Informal Survey into Include Route Object Dhody, D., "Informal Survey into Include Route Object
(IRO) Implementations in Path Computation Element (IRO) Implementations in Path Computation Element
communication Protocol (PCEP)", draft-dhody-pce-iro- communication Protocol (PCEP)", draft-dhody-pce-iro-
survey-02 (work in progress), December 2014. survey-02 (work in progress), December 2014.
Author's Address Author's Address
 End of changes. 14 change blocks. 
26 lines changed or deleted 47 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.42. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/