draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-14.txt   draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-15.txt 
PCE Working Group E. Crabbe PCE Working Group E. Crabbe
Internet-Draft Individual Contributor Internet-Draft Individual Contributor
Intended status: Standards Track I. Minei Intended status: Standards Track I. Minei
Expires: September 21, 2016 Google, Inc. Expires: January 19, 2017 Google, Inc.
J. Medved J. Medved
Cisco Systems, Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc.
R. Varga R. Varga
Pantheon Technologies SRO Pantheon Technologies SRO
March 20, 2016 July 18, 2016
PCEP Extensions for Stateful PCE PCEP Extensions for Stateful PCE
draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-14 draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-15
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.
Although PCEP explicitly makes no assumptions regarding the Although PCEP explicitly makes no assumptions regarding the
information available to the PCE, it also makes no provisions for PCE information available to the PCE, it also makes no provisions for PCE
control of timing and sequence of path computations within and across control of timing and sequence of path computations within and across
skipping to change at page 1, line 43 skipping to change at page 1, line 43
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 September 21, 2016. This Internet-Draft will expire on January 19, 2017.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 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
skipping to change at page 3, line 37 skipping to change at page 3, line 37
9.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 9.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
9.4. Verifying Correct Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 9.4. Verifying Correct Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
9.5. Requirements on Other Protocols and Functional Components 45 9.5. Requirements on Other Protocols and Functional Components 45
9.6. Impact on Network Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 9.6. Impact on Network Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
10.1. Vulnerability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 10.1. Vulnerability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
10.2. LSP State Snooping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 10.2. LSP State Snooping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
10.3. Malicious PCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 10.3. Malicious PCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
10.4. Malicious PCC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 10.4. Malicious PCC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
11. Contributing Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 11. Contributing Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
12. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 12. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
13. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 13. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
13.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 13.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
13.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 13.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
[RFC5440] describes the Path Computation Element Communication [RFC5440] describes the Path Computation Element Communication
Protocol (PCEP). PCEP defines the communication between a Path Protocol (PCEP). PCEP defines the communication between a Path
Computation Client (PCC) and a Path Computation Element (PCE), or Computation Client (PCC) and a Path Computation Element (PCE), or
skipping to change at page 39, line 41 skipping to change at page 39, line 41
header. header.
8. IANA Considerations 8. IANA Considerations
This document requests IANA actions to allocate code points for the This document requests IANA actions to allocate code points for the
protocol elements defined in this document. Values shown here are protocol elements defined in this document. Values shown here are
suggested for use by IANA. suggested for use by IANA.
8.1. PCE Capabilities in IGP Advertisements 8.1. PCE Capabilities in IGP Advertisements
IANA is requested to allocate new bits in "PCE Capability Flags" IANA is requested to allocate new bits in the OSPF Parameters "PCE
registry for stateful PCE capability as follows: Capability Flags" registry, as follows:
Bit Meaning Reference Bit Meaning Reference
11 Active Stateful PCE This document 11 Active Stateful PCE This document
capability capability
12 Passive Stateful PCE This document 12 Passive Stateful PCE This document
capability capability
8.2. PCEP Messages 8.2. PCEP Messages
This document defines the following new PCEP messages: IANA is requested to allocate new message types within the "PCEP
Messages" sub-registry of the PCEP Numbers registry, as follows:
Value Meaning Reference Value Meaning Reference
10 Report This document 10 Report This document
11 Update This document 11 Update This document
8.3. PCEP Objects 8.3. PCEP Objects
This document defines the following new PCEP Object-classes and IANA is requested to allocate new object-class values and object
Object-values: types within the "PCEP Objects" sub-registry of the PCEP Numbers
registry, as follows.
Object-Class Value Name Reference Object-Class Value Name Reference
32 LSP This document 32 LSP This document
Object-Type Object-Type
1 1
33 SRP This document 33 SRP This document
Object-Type Object-Type
1 1
skipping to change at page 41, line 7 skipping to change at page 41, line 7
0-4 Reserved This document 0-4 Reserved This document
5-7 Operational (3 bits) This document 5-7 Operational (3 bits) This document
8 Administrative This document 8 Administrative This document
9 Remove This document 9 Remove This document
10 SYNC This document 10 SYNC This document
11 Delegate This document 11 Delegate This document
8.5. PCEP-Error Object 8.5. PCEP-Error Object
This document defines new Error-Type and Error-Value for the IANA is requested to allocate new Error Types and Error Values within
following new error conditions: the " PCEP-ERROR Object Error Types and Values" sub-registry of the
PCEP Numbers registry, as follows:
Error-Type Meaning Error-Type Meaning
6 Mandatory Object missing 6 Mandatory Object missing
Error-value=8: LSP Object missing Error-value=8: LSP Object missing
Error-value=9: ERO Object missing Error-value=9: ERO Object missing
Error-value=10: SRP Object missing Error-value=10: SRP Object missing
Error-value=11: LSP-IDENTIFIERS TLV missing Error-value=11: LSP-IDENTIFIERS TLV missing
19 Invalid Operation 19 Invalid Operation
skipping to change at page 41, line 44 skipping to change at page 41, line 45
not process (an otherwise valid) LSP not process (an otherwise valid) LSP
State Report. The PCEP-ERROR Object is State Report. The PCEP-ERROR Object is
followed by the LSP Object that followed by the LSP Object that
identifies the LSP. identifies the LSP.
Error-value=5: A PCC indicates to a PCE that it can Error-value=5: A PCC indicates to a PCE that it can
not complete the state synchronization, not complete the state synchronization,
8.6. Notification Object 8.6. Notification Object
IANA is requested to allocate new Notification Types and Notification IANA is requested to allocate new Notification Types and Notification
Values in the "PCEP Notification Object" registry as follows: Values within the "Notification Object" sub-registry of the PCEP
Numbers registry, as follows:
Notification-Type Meaning Notification-Type Meaning
4 Stateful PCE resource limit exceeded 4 Stateful PCE resource limit exceeded
Notification-value=1: Entering resource limit Notification-value=1: Entering resource limit
exceeded state exceeded state
Notification-value=2: Exiting resource limit exceeded Notification-value=2: Exiting resource limit exceeded
state state
8.7. PCEP TLV Type Indicators 8.7. PCEP TLV Type Indicators
This document defines the following new PCEP TLVs: IANA is requested to allocate new TLV Type Indicator values within
the " PCEP TLV Type Indicators" sub-registry of the PCEP Numbers
registry, as follows:
Value Meaning Reference Value Meaning Reference
16 STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY This document 16 STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY This document
17 SYMBOLIC-PATH-NAME This document 17 SYMBOLIC-PATH-NAME This document
18 IPV4-LSP-IDENTIFIERS This document 18 IPV4-LSP-IDENTIFIERS This document
19 IPV6-LSP-IDENTIFIERS This document 19 IPV6-LSP-IDENTIFIERS This document
20 LSP-ERROR-CODE This document 20 LSP-ERROR-CODE This document
21 RSVP-ERROR-SPEC This document 21 RSVP-ERROR-SPEC This document
8.8. STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV 8.8. STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV
skipping to change at page 43, line 5 skipping to change at page 43, line 5
31 LSP-UPDATE-CAPABILITY This document 31 LSP-UPDATE-CAPABILITY This document
8.9. LSP-ERROR-CODE TLV 8.9. LSP-ERROR-CODE TLV
This document requests that a new sub-registry, named "LSP-ERROR-CODE This document requests that a new sub-registry, named "LSP-ERROR-CODE
TLV Error Code Field", is created within the "Path Computation TLV Error Code Field", is created within the "Path Computation
Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry to manage the LSP Error Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry to manage the LSP Error
code field of the LSP-ERROR-CODE TLV. This field specifies the code field of the LSP-ERROR-CODE TLV. This field specifies the
reason for failure to update the LSP. reason for failure to update the LSP.
New values are to be assigned by Standards Action [RFC5226]. Each
value should be tracked with the following qualities: value,
description and defining RFC. The following values are defined in
this document:
Value Meaning Value Meaning
1 Unknown reason 1 Unknown reason
2 Limit reached for PCE-controlled LSPs 2 Limit reached for PCE-controlled LSPs
3 Too many pending LSP update requests 3 Too many pending LSP update requests
4 Unacceptable parameters 4 Unacceptable parameters
5 Internal error 5 Internal error
6 LSP administratively brought down 6 LSP administratively brought down
7 LSP preempted 7 LSP preempted
8 RSVP signaling error 8 RSVP signaling error
skipping to change at page 49, line 20 skipping to change at page 49, line 25
13.2. Informative References 13.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions] [I-D.ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions]
Margaria, C., Dios, O., and F. Zhang, "PCEP extensions for Margaria, C., Dios, O., and F. Zhang, "PCEP extensions for
GMPLS", draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions-11 (work in GMPLS", draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions-11 (work in
progress), October 2015. progress), October 2015.
[I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce-app] [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce-app]
Zhang, X. and I. Minei, "Applicability of a Stateful Path Zhang, X. and I. Minei, "Applicability of a Stateful Path
Computation Element (PCE)", draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce- Computation Element (PCE)", draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-
app-05 (work in progress), October 2015. app-06 (work in progress), July 2016.
[I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations] [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations]
Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Medved, J., Varga, R., Zhang, X., Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Medved, J., Varga, R., Zhang, X.,
and D. Dhody, "Optimizations of Label Switched Path State and D. Dhody, "Optimizations of Label Switched Path State
Synchronization Procedures for a Stateful PCE", draft- Synchronization Procedures for a Stateful PCE", draft-
ietf-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations-04 (work in ietf-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations-05 (work in
progress), November 2015. progress), April 2016.
[MPLS-PC] Chaieb, I., Le Roux, JL., and B. Cousin, "Improved MPLS-TE [MPLS-PC] Chaieb, I., Le Roux, JL., and B. Cousin, "Improved MPLS-TE
LSP Path Computation using Preemption", Global LSP Path Computation using Preemption", Global
Information Infrastructure Symposium, July 2007. Information Infrastructure Symposium, July 2007.
[MXMN-TE] Danna, E., Mandal, S., and A. Singh, "Practical linear [MXMN-TE] Danna, E., Mandal, S., and A. Singh, "Practical linear
programming algorithm for balancing the max-min fairness programming algorithm for balancing the max-min fairness
and throughput objectives in traffic engineering", and throughput objectives in traffic engineering",
INFOCOM, 2012 Proceedings IEEE Page(s): 846-854, 2012. INFOCOM, 2012 Proceedings IEEE Page(s): 846-854, 2012.
 End of changes. 16 change blocks. 
19 lines changed or deleted 28 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/