draft-ietf-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints-05.txt   rfc8356.txt 
PCE Working Group D. Dhody Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) D. Dhody
Internet-Draft Huawei Technologies Request for Comments: 8356 Huawei Technologies
Updates: 5440 (if approved) D. King Updates: 5440 D. King
Intended status: Standards Track Lancaster University Category: Standards Track Lancaster University
Expires: July 14, 2018 A. Farrel ISSN: 2070-1721 A. Farrel
Juniper Networks Juniper Networks
January 10, 2018 March 2018
Experimental Codepoint Allocation for the Path Computation Element Experimental Codepoint Allocation for
communication Protocol (PCEP) the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)
draft-ietf-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints-05
Abstract Abstract
IANA assigns values to the Path Computation Element (PCE) IANA assigns values to the Path Computation Element Communication
communication Protocol (PCEP) parameters (messages, objects, TLVs). Protocol (PCEP) parameters (messages, objects, TLVs). IANA
IANA established a top-level registry to contain all PCEP codepoints established a top-level registry to contain all PCEP codepoints and
and sub-registries. This top-level registry contains sub-registries sub-registries. This top-level registry contains sub-registries for
for PCEP message, object and TLV types. The allocation policy for PCEP message, object, and TLV types. The allocation policy for each
each of these sub-registries is IETF Review. of these sub-registries is IETF Review.
This document updates RFC 5440 by changing the allocation policies This document updates RFC 5440 by changing the allocation policies
for these three registries to mark some of the code points as for these three registries to mark some of the codepoints as assigned
assigned for Experimental Use. for Experimental Use.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This is an Internet Standards Track document.
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference received public review and has been approved for publication by the
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.
This Internet-Draft will expire on July 14, 2018. Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8356.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2018 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 29 skipping to change at page 2, line 34
modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process. modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. PCEP Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Experimental PCEP Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. PCEP Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Experimental PCEP Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. PCEP TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. Experimental PCEP TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. Handling of Unknown Experimentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5. Handling of Unknown Experimentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6.1. New PCEP Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 6.1. PCEP Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6.2. New PCEP Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 6.2. PCEP Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6.3. New PCEP TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6.3. PCEP TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
8. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Appendix A. Other PCEP Registries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Appendix A. Other PCEP Registries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
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 Client (PCC)
requests. requests.
Further, in order to support use cases described in [RFC8051], Further, in order to support use cases described in [RFC8051],
[RFC8231] specifies a set of extensions to PCEP to enable stateful [RFC8231] specifies a set of extensions to PCEP to enable stateful
control of MPLS-TE and GMPLS LSPs via PCEP. [RFC8281] describes the control of MPLS-TE and GMPLS LSPs via PCEP. [RFC8281] describes the
setup, maintenance and teardown of PCE-initiated LSPs under the setup, maintenance, and teardown of PCE-initiated LSPs under the
stateful PCE model. stateful PCE model.
In section 9 of [RFC5440], IANA assigns values to the PCEP protocol In Section 9 of [RFC5440], IANA assigns values to the PCEP protocol
parameters (messages, objects, TLVs). IANA established a top- level parameters (messages, objects, TLVs). IANA established a top-level
registry to contain all PCEP codepoints and sub-registries. This registry to contain all PCEP codepoints and sub-registries. This
top-level registry contains sub-registries for PCEP message, object top-level registry contains sub-registries for PCEP message, object
and TLV types. The allocation policy for each of these sub- and TLV types. The allocation policy for each of these sub-
registries is IETF Review [RFC8126]. Also, early allocation registries is IETF Review [RFC8126]. Also, early allocation
[RFC7120] provides some latitude for allocation of these code points, [RFC7120] provides some latitude for allocation of these codepoints
but is reserved for features that are considered appropriately but is reserved for features that are considered appropriately
stable. stable.
Recently, there have been rapid advancements in PCE technology, which Recently, there have been rapid advancements in PCE technology, which
has created an enhanced need to experiment with PCEP. It is often has created an enhanced need to experiment with PCEP. It is often
necessary to use some sort of number or constant in order to actually necessary to use some sort of number or constant in order to actually
test or experiment with the new function, even when testing in a test or experiment with the new function, even when testing in a
closed environment. In order to run experiments, it is important closed environment. In order to run experiments, it is important
that the value won't collide not only with existing codepoints but that the value not collide with existing codepoints or any future
any future allocation. allocations.
This document updates [RFC5440] by changing the allocation policies This document updates [RFC5440] by changing the allocation policies
for these three registries to mark some of the code points as for these three registries to mark some of the codepoints as assigned
assigned for Experimental Use. As stated in [RFC3692], experiments for Experimental Use. As stated in [RFC3692], experiments using
using these code points are not intended to be used in general these codepoints are not intended to be used in general deployments,
deployments and due care must be taken to ensure that two experiments and due care must be taken to ensure that two experiments using the
with the same code points are not run in the same environment. See same codepoints are not run in the same environment. See [RFC3692]
[RFC3692] for further discussion of the use of experimental for further discussion of the use of experimental codepoints (also
codepoints. referred to as "experimental and testing numbers").
2. PCEP Messages 2. Experimental PCEP Messages
PCEP message types are in the range 0 to 255. This document sets PCEP message types are in the range 0 to 255. This document sets
aside message types 252-255 for experimentation as described in aside message types 252-255 for experimentation as described in
Section 6.1. Section 6.1.
3. PCEP Objects 3. Experimental PCEP Objects
PCEP objects are identified by values in the range 0 to 255. This PCEP objects are identified by values in the range 0 to 255. This
document sets aside object identifiers 248-255 for experimentation as document sets aside object identifiers 248-255 for experimentation as
described in Section 6.2. described in Section 6.2.
4. PCEP TLVs 4. Experimental PCEP TLVs
PCEP TLV type codes are in the range 0 to 65535. This document sets PCEP TLV type codes are in the range 0 to 65535. This document sets
aside object identifiers 65504-65535 for experimentation as described aside object identifiers 65504-65535 for experimentation as described
in Section 6.2. in Section 6.2.
5. Handling of Unknown Experimentation 5. Handling of Unknown Experimentation
A PCEP implementation that receives an experimental PCEP message, A PCEP implementation that receives an experimental PCEP message that
that it does not recognize, would react as per section 6.9 of it does not recognize reacts by sending a PCErr message with
[RFC5440] by sending a PCErr message with Error-value=2 (capability Error-Type=2 (capability not supported) per Section 6.9 of [RFC5440].
not supported).
If a PCEP speaker does not understand or support an experimental If a PCEP speaker does not understand or support an experimental
object then the way it handles this situation depends on the message object, then the way it handles this situation depends on the message
type. For example, a PCE handles an unknown object in the Path type. For example, a PCE handles an unknown object in the Path
Computation Request (PCReq) message according to the rules of Computation Request (PCReq) message according to the rules of
[RFC5440]. Message-specific behavior may be specified (e.g., [RFC5440]. Message-specific behavior may be specified (e.g.,
[RFC8231] defines rules for a PCC to handle an unknown object in a [RFC8231] defines rules for a PCC to handle an unknown object in a
Path Computation LSP Update (PCUpd) Request message). Path Computation LSP Update Request (PCUpd) message).
As per section 7.1 of [RFC5440], unknown experimental PCEP TLV would As per Section 7.1 of [RFC5440], an unknown experimental PCEP TLV
be ignored. would be ignored.
6. IANA Considerations 6. IANA Considerations
IANA maintains the "Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" IANA maintains the "Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers"
at <http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep>. registry at <http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep>.
6.1. New PCEP Messages 6.1. PCEP Messages
Within this registry IANA maintains a sub-registry for PCEP Messages Within the PCEP Numbers registry, IANA maintains the "PCEP Messages"
(see PCEP Messages at <http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep>). sub-registry.
IANA is requested to change the registration procedure for this IANA has changed the registration procedure for this registry to read
registry to read as follows: as follows:
0-251 IETF Review 0-251 IETF Review
252-255 Experimental Use 252-255 Experimental Use
IANA is also requested to mark the values 252-255 in the registry IANA has also marked the values 252-255 in the registry accordingly.
accordingly.
6.2. New PCEP Objects 6.2. PCEP Objects
Within this registry IANA maintains a sub-registry for PCEP Objects Within the PCEP Numbers registry, IANA maintains the "PCEP Objects"
(see PCEP Objects at <http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep>). sub-registry.
IANA is requested to change the registration procedure for this IANA has changed the registration procedure for this registry to read
registry to read as follows: as follows:
0-247 IETF Review 0-247 IETF Review
248-255 Experimental Use 248-255 Experimental Use
IANA is also requested to mark the values 248-255 in the registry IANA has also marked the values 248-255 in the registry accordingly,
accordingly. and Object-Types 0-15 have been marked for Experimental Use.
6.3. New PCEP TLVs 6.3. PCEP TLVs
Within this registry IANA maintains a sub-registry for PCEP TLVs (see Within the PCEP Numbers registry, IANA maintains the "PCEP TLV Type
PCEP TLV Type Indicators at <http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep>). Indicators" sub-registry.
IANA is requested to change the registration procedure for this IANA has changed the registration procedure for this registry to read
registry to read as follows: as follows:
0-65503 IETF Review 0-65503 IETF Review
65504-65535 Experimental Use 65504-65535 Experimental Use
IANA is also requested to mark the values 65504-65535 in the registry IANA has also marked the values 65504-65535 in the registry
accordingly. accordingly.
7. Security Considerations 7. Security Considerations
This document does not introduce any new security considerations to This document does not introduce any new security considerations to
the existing protocol. Refer to [RFC5440] for further details of the the existing protocol. Refer to [RFC5440] for further details of the
specific security measures. specific security measures.
[RFC3692] asserts that the existence of experimental code points [RFC3692] asserts that the existence of experimental codepoints
introduce no new security considerations. However, implementations introduce no new security considerations. However, implementations
accepting experimental codepoints need to take care in how they parse accepting experimental codepoints need to take care in how they parse
and process the messages, objects, and TLVs in case they come, and process the messages, objects, and TLVs in case they come,
accidentally, from another experiment. Further, an implementation accidentally, from another experiment. Further, an implementation
accepting experimental code points needs to consider the security accepting experimental codepoints needs to consider the security
aspects of the experimental extensions. [RFC6709] provide various aspects of the experimental extensions. [RFC6709] provides various
design considerations for protocol extensions (including those design considerations for protocol extensions (including those
designated as experimental). designated as experimental).
8. Acknowledgments 8. References
The authors would like to thank Ramon Casellas, Jeff Tantsura, Julien
Meuric, Lou Berger, Michael Shroff, and Andrew Dolganow for their
feedback and suggestions.
We would like to thank Jonathan Hardwick for shepherding this
document and providing comments with text suggestions.
Thanks Brian Carpenter for the GENART review. Thanks Ben Niven-
Jenkins and Scott Bradner for RTGDIR and OPSDIR reviews respectively.
9. References
9.1. Normative References 8.1. Normative References
[RFC3692] Narten, T., "Assigning Experimental and Testing Numbers [RFC3692] Narten, T., "Assigning Experimental and Testing Numbers
Considered Useful", BCP 82, RFC 3692, Considered Useful", BCP 82, RFC 3692,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3692, January 2004, DOI 10.17487/RFC3692, January 2004,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3692>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3692>.
[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 6, line 39 skipping to change at page 6, line 36
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>.
9.2. Informative References 8.2. Informative References
[RFC6709] Carpenter, B., Aboba, B., Ed., and S. Cheshire, "Design [RFC6709] Carpenter, B., Aboba, B., Ed., and S. Cheshire, "Design
Considerations for Protocol Extensions", RFC 6709, Considerations for Protocol Extensions", RFC 6709,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6709, September 2012, DOI 10.17487/RFC6709, September 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6709>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6709>.
[RFC7120] Cotton, M., "Early IANA Allocation of Standards Track Code [RFC7120] Cotton, M., "Early IANA Allocation of Standards Track Code
Points", BCP 100, RFC 7120, DOI 10.17487/RFC7120, January Points", BCP 100, RFC 7120, DOI 10.17487/RFC7120, January
2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7120>. 2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7120>.
[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,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8051, January 2017, DOI 10.17487/RFC8051, January 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8051>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8051>.
Appendix A. Other PCEP Registries Appendix A. Other PCEP Registries
Based on feedback from the PCE WG, it was decided to allocate an Based on feedback from the PCE WG, it was decided to allocate an
Experimental code point range only in the message, object and TLV Experimental codepoint range only in the message, object, and TLV
sub-registries. The justification for this decision is that, if an sub-registries. The justification for this decision is that, if an
experiment finds that it wants to use a new code point in another experiment finds that it wants to use a new codepoint in another PCEP
PCEP sub-registry, it can implement the same function using a new sub-registry, it can implement the same function using a new
experimental object or TLV instead. experimental object or TLV instead.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Ramon Casellas, Jeff Tantsura, Julien
Meuric, Lou Berger, Michael Shroff, and Andrew Dolganow for their
feedback and suggestions.
We would like to thank Jonathan Hardwick for shepherding this
document and providing comments with text suggestions.
Thanks to Brian Carpenter for the GENART review. Thanks to Ben
Niven-Jenkins and Scott Bradner for RTGDIR and OPSDIR reviews
respectively.
Authors' Addresses Authors' 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
Daniel King Daniel King
Lancaster University Lancaster University
UK United Kingdom
EMail: d.king@lancaster.ac.uk EMail: d.king@lancaster.ac.uk
Adrian Farrel Adrian Farrel
Juniper Networks Juniper Networks
UK United Kingdom
EMail: afarrel@juniper.net EMail: afarrel@juniper.net
 End of changes. 48 change blocks. 
112 lines changed or deleted 107 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.46. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/