draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis-01.txt   draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis-02.txt 
PCE Working Group Q. Zhao PCE Working Group Q. Zhao
Internet-Draft D. Dhody, Ed. Internet-Draft D. Dhody, Ed.
Intended status: Standards Track R. Palleti Intended status: Standards Track R. Palleti
Obsoletes: 6006 (if approved) Huawei Technology Obsoletes: 6006 (if approved) Huawei Technology
Expires: September 29, 2017 D. King Expires: October 12, 2017 D. King
Old Dog Consulting Old Dog Consulting
F. Verhaeghe April 10, 2017
Thales Communication France
T. Takeda
NTT Corporation
Z. Ali
Cisco Systems, Inc.
J. Meuric
Orange
March 28, 2017
Extensions to Extensions to
the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)
for Point-to-Multipoint Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths for Point-to-Multipoint Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths
draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis-01 draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis-02
Abstract Abstract
Point-to-point Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized Point-to-point Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized
MPLS (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths (TE LSPs) may MPLS (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths (TE LSPs) may
be established using signaling techniques, but their paths may first be established using signaling techniques, but their paths may first
need to be determined. The Path Computation Element (PCE) has been need to be determined. The Path Computation Element (PCE) has been
identified as an appropriate technology for the determination of the identified as an appropriate technology for the determination of the
paths of point-to-multipoint (P2MP) TE LSPs. paths of point-to-multipoint (P2MP) TE LSPs.
skipping to change at page 29, line 40 skipping to change at page 28, line 40
4.2. Information and Data Models 4.2. Information and Data Models
A number of MIB objects have been defined for general PCEP control A number of MIB objects have been defined for general PCEP control
and monitoring of P2P computations in [RFC7420]. [RFC5862] specifies and monitoring of P2P computations in [RFC7420]. [RFC5862] specifies
that MIB objects will be required to support the control and that MIB objects will be required to support the control and
monitoring of the protocol extensions defined in this document. A new monitoring of the protocol extensions defined in this document. A new
document will be required to define MIB objects for PCEP control and document will be required to define MIB objects for PCEP control and
monitoring of P2MP computations. monitoring of P2MP computations.
The PCEP YANG module [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang] can be extended to also
include the P2MP related parameters.
4.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring 4.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring
There are no additional considerations beyond those expressed in There are no additional considerations beyond those expressed in
[RFC5440], since [RFC5862] does not address any additional [RFC5440], since [RFC5862] does not address any additional
requirements. requirements.
4.4. Verifying Correct Operation 4.4. Verifying Correct Operation
There are no additional requirements beyond those expressed in There are no additional requirements beyond those expressed in
[RFC4657] for verifying the correct operation of the PCEP sessions. [RFC4657] for verifying the correct operation of the PCEP sessions.
skipping to change at page 31, line 6 skipping to change at page 31, line 6
o Providing policy control by explicitly defining which PCCs, via IP o Providing policy control by explicitly defining which PCCs, via IP
access-lists, are allowed to send P2MP path requests to the PCE access-lists, are allowed to send P2MP path requests to the PCE
(Section 10.6 of [RFC5440]). (Section 10.6 of [RFC5440]).
PCEP operates over TCP, so it is also important to secure the PCE and PCEP operates over TCP, so it is also important to secure the PCE and
PCC against TCP denial of service attacks. Section 10.7.1 of PCC against TCP denial of service attacks. Section 10.7.1 of
[RFC5440] outlines a number of mechanisms for minimizing the risk of [RFC5440] outlines a number of mechanisms for minimizing the risk of
TCP based denial of service attacks against PCEs and PCCs. TCP based denial of service attacks against PCEs and PCCs.
PCEP implementations SHOULD consider the additional security provided PCEP implementations SHOULD consider the additional security provided
by the TCP Authentication Option (TCP-AO) [RFC5925]. by Transport Layer Security (TLS) [I-D.ietf-pce-pceps].
6. IANA Considerations 6. IANA Considerations
IANA maintains a registry of PCEP parameters. A number of IANA IANA maintains a registry of PCEP parameters. A number of IANA
considerations have been highlighted in previous sections of this considerations have been highlighted in previous sections of this
document. IANA made the allocations as per [RFC6006]. document. IANA made the allocations as per [RFC6006].
6.1. PCEP TLV Type Indicators 6.1. PCEP TLV Type Indicators
As described in Section 3.1.2., the P2MP capability TLV allows the As described in Section 3.1.2., the P2MP capability TLV allows the
skipping to change at page 37, line 28 skipping to change at page 37, line 28
[RFC5671] Yasukawa, S. and A. Farrel, Ed., "Applicability of the [RFC5671] Yasukawa, S. and A. Farrel, Ed., "Applicability of the
Path Computation Element (PCE) to Point-to-Multipoint Path Computation Element (PCE) to Point-to-Multipoint
(P2MP) MPLS and GMPLS Traffic Engineering (TE)", (P2MP) MPLS and GMPLS Traffic Engineering (TE)",
RFC 5671, October 2009. RFC 5671, October 2009.
[RFC5862] Yasukawa, S. and A. Farrel, "Path Computation Clients [RFC5862] Yasukawa, S. and A. Farrel, "Path Computation Clients
(PCC) - Path Computation Element (PCE) Requirements for (PCC) - Path Computation Element (PCE) Requirements for
Point-to-Multipoint MPLS-TE", RFC 5862, June 2010. Point-to-Multipoint MPLS-TE", RFC 5862, June 2010.
[RFC5925] Touch, J., Mankin, A., and R. Bonica, "The TCP
Authentication Option", RFC 5925, June 2010.
[RFC6006] Zhao, Q., Ed., King, D., Ed., Verhaeghe, F., Takeda, T., [RFC6006] Zhao, Q., Ed., King, D., Ed., Verhaeghe, F., Takeda, T.,
Ali, Z., and J. Meuric, "Extensions to the Path Ali, Z., and J. Meuric, "Extensions to the Path
Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) for Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) for
Point-to-Multipoint Traffic Engineering Label Switched Point-to-Multipoint Traffic Engineering Label Switched
Paths", RFC 6006, September 2010. Paths", RFC 6006, September 2010.
[RFC7420] Koushik, K., Stephan, E., Zhao, Q., King D., and J. [RFC7420] Koushik, K., Stephan, E., Zhao, Q., King D., and J.
Hardwick "PCE communication protocol (PCEP) Management Hardwick "PCE communication protocol (PCEP) Management
Information Base (MIB) Module", RFC 7420, December 2014. Information Base (MIB) Module", RFC 7420, December 2014.
[I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang]
Dhody, D., Hardwick, J., Beeram, V., and J. Tantsura, "A
YANG Data Model for Path Computation Element
Communications Protocol (PCEP)", draft-ietf-pce-pcep-yang
(work in progress), March 2017.
[I-D.ietf-pce-pceps]
Lopez, D., Dios, O., Wu, W., and D. Dhody, "Secure
Transport for PCEP", draft-ietf-pce-pceps (work in
progress), January 2017.
Appendix A. Summary of the RBNF Changes from RFC 6006 Appendix A. Summary of the RBNF Changes from RFC 6006
o Update to RBNF for Request message format: o Update to RBNF for Request message format:
* Update to the request message to allow for the bundling of * Update to the request message to allow for the bundling of
multiple path computation requests within a single Path multiple path computation requests within a single Path
Computation Request (PCReq) message. Computation Request (PCReq) message.
* Addition of <svec-list> in PCReq message. This object was missed * Addition of <svec-list> in PCReq message. This object was missed
in [RFC6006]. in [RFC6006].
skipping to change at page 38, line 43 skipping to change at page 38, line 43
* Update to the reply message to allow for bundling of multiple * Update to the reply message to allow for bundling of multiple
path computation requests within a single Path Computation Reply path computation requests within a single Path Computation Reply
(PCRep) message. (PCRep) message.
* Addition of the UNREACH-DESTINATION in PCRep message. This * Addition of the UNREACH-DESTINATION in PCRep message. This
object was missed in [RFC6006]. object was missed in [RFC6006].
Contributors Contributors
Fabien Verhaeghe
Thales Communication France
160 Bd Valmy 92700 Colombes
France
EMail: fabien.verhaeghe@gmail.com
Tomonori Takeda
NTT Corporation
3-9-11, Midori-Cho
Musashino-Shi, Tokyo 180-8585
Japan
EMail: tomonori.takeda@ntt.com
Zafar Ali
Cisco Systems, Inc.
2000 Innovation Drive
Kanata, Ontario K2K 3E8
Canada
EMail: zali@cisco.com
Julien Meuric
Orange
2, Avenue Pierre-Marzin
22307 Lannion Cedex
France
EMail: julien.meuric@orange.com
Jean-Louis Le Roux Jean-Louis Le Roux
Orange Orange
2, Avenue Pierre-Marzin 2, Avenue Pierre-Marzin
22307 Lannion Cedex 22307 Lannion Cedex
France France
EMail: jeanlouis.leroux@orange.com EMail: jeanlouis.leroux@orange.com
Mohamad Chaitou Mohamad Chaitou
France France
EMail: mohamad.chaitou@gmail.com EMail: mohamad.chaitou@gmail.com
skipping to change at page 40, line 31 skipping to change at line 1646
Huawei Technology Huawei Technology
Divyashree Techno Park, Whitefield Divyashree Techno Park, Whitefield
Bangalore, Karnataka 560066 Bangalore, Karnataka 560066
India India
EMail: ramanjaneya.palleti@huawei.com EMail: ramanjaneya.palleti@huawei.com
Daniel King Daniel King
Old Dog Consulting Old Dog Consulting
UK UK
EMail: daniel@olddog.co.uk EMail: daniel@olddog.co.uk
Fabien Verhaeghe
Thales Communication France
160 Bd Valmy 92700 Colombes
France
EMail: fabien.verhaeghe@gmail.com
Tomonori Takeda
NTT Corporation
3-9-11, Midori-Cho
Musashino-Shi, Tokyo 180-8585
Japan
EMail: takeda.tomonori@lab.ntt.co.jp
Zafar Ali
Cisco Systems, Inc.
2000 Innovation Drive
Kanata, Ontario K2K 3E8
Canada
EMail: zali@cisco.com
Julien Meuric
Orange
2, Avenue Pierre-Marzin
22307 Lannion Cedex
France
EMail: julien.meuric@orange.com
 End of changes. 10 change blocks. 
16 lines changed or deleted 46 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.45. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/