draft-ietf-pce-iro-update-04.txt   draft-ietf-pce-iro-update-05.txt 
PCE Working Group D. Dhody PCE Working Group D. Dhody
Internet-Draft Huawei Technologies Internet-Draft Huawei Technologies
Updates: 5440 (if approved) December 15, 2015 Updates: 5440 (if approved) January 27, 2016
Intended status: Standards Track Intended status: Standards Track
Expires: June 17, 2016 Expires: July 30, 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-04 draft-ietf-pce-iro-update-05
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).
An informal survey was conducted to determine the state of current An informal survey was conducted to determine the state of current
and planned implementation with respect to IRO ordering and handling and planned implementation with respect to IRO ordering and handling
of Loose bit (L bit). of Loose bit (L bit).
This document updates the IRO specification of RFC 5440 based on the This document updates RFC 5440 regarding the IRO specification, based
survey conclusion and recommendation. on the survey conclusion and recommendation.
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 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 June 17, 2016. This Internet-Draft will expire on July 30, 2016.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2016 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
skipping to change at page 2, line 39 skipping to change at page 2, line 39
it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
than English. 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 2.1. Update to RFC 5440 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Other Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. Other Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
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
elements to be traversed in the computed path. The specification did elements to be traversed in the computed path. The specification did
skipping to change at page 4, line 32 skipping to change at page 4, line 32
of [RFC3209]). of [RFC3209]).
- The L Bit of IRO sub-object is set based on the loose or strict - 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 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 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 strict hop. The interpretation of Loose bit (L bit) is as per
section 4.3.3.1 of [RFC3209]. 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 [I-D.dhody-pce-iro-survey], it should be noted
already support the update in the IRO specification as per this that most implementation already support the update in the IRO
document. The other implementation are expected to make an update to specification as per this document. The other implementation are
the IRO procedures. expected to make an update to the IRO procedures based on this
document.
During the survey it was also noted that minority of the
implementations, interpreted the IRO sub-objects as loose, when these
implementation interwork with an implementation conforming to this
document, the following impact might be seen -
o If a non-conforming (to this document) PCC sends an IRO, to a
conforming (to this document) PCE, then the PCE may unexpectedly
fail to find a path (since the PCC may think of IRO sub-objects as
loose hops, but the PCE interprets them as strict hops).
o If a conforming PCC sends an IRO containing strict hops to a non-
conforming PCE, then the PCE may erroneously return a path that
does not comply with the requested strict hops (since PCE
interprets them all as loose hops). The PCC may check the
returned path and find the issue or it may end up using incorrect
path.
Thus it is RECOMMENDED that network operators ensure that all PCEP
speakers in their network conform to this document with updated IRO
specification if they intend to use IRO.
4. Security Considerations 4. Security Considerations
This update in IRO specification does not introduce any new security This update in IRO specification does not introduce any new security
considerations, apart from those mentioned in [RFC5440]. considerations, apart from those mentioned in [RFC5440].
Clarification in the supported IRO ordering or Loose bit handling Clarification in the supported IRO ordering or Loose bit handling
will not have any negative security impact. will not have any negative security impact.
It is worth noting that PCEP operates over TCP. An analysis of the It is worth noting that PCEP operates over TCP. An analysis of the
security issues for routing protocols that use TCP (including PCEP) security issues for routing protocols that use TCP (including PCEP)
skipping to change at page 5, line 18 skipping to change at page 5, line 36
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 Jonathan Hardwick for document shepherding and providing
text in Section 3.
Thanks to Deborah Brungard for her comments and being the responsible Thanks to Deborah Brungard for her comments and being the responsible
AD. 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,
skipping to change at page 6, line 19 skipping to change at page 6, line 38
<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, "Domain Subobjects Dhody, D., Palle, U., and R. Casellas, "Domain Subobjects
for Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol for Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol
(PCEP).", draft-ietf-pce-pcep-domain-sequence-12 (work in (PCEP).", draft-ietf-pce-pcep-domain-sequence-12 (work in
progress), December 2015. 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-06 (work in Transport for PCEP", draft-ietf-pce-pceps-07 (work in
progress), November 2015. progress), January 2016.
[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
Dhruv Dhody Dhruv Dhody
Huawei Technologies Huawei Technologies
Divyashree Techno Park, Whitefield Divyashree Techno Park, Whitefield
Bangalore, Karnataka 560037 Bangalore, Karnataka 560037
India India
EMail: dhruv.ietf@gmail.com EMail: dhruv.ietf@gmail.com
 End of changes. 12 change blocks. 
16 lines changed or deleted 40 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/