draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid-00.txt   draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid-01.txt 
PCE Working Group S. Sivabalan PCE Working Group S. Sivabalan
Internet-Draft C. Filsfils Internet-Draft C. Filsfils
Intended status: Standards Track Cisco Systems, Inc. Intended status: Standards Track Cisco Systems, Inc.
Expires: March 9, 2020 J. Tantsura Expires: May 6, 2020 J. Tantsura
Apstra, Inc. Apstra, Inc.
J. Hardwick J. Hardwick
Metaswitch Networks Metaswitch Networks
S. Previdi S. Previdi
C. Li C. Li
Huawei Technologies Huawei Technologies
September 6, 2019 November 3, 2019
Carrying Binding Label/Segment-ID in PCE-based Networks. Carrying Binding Label/Segment-ID in PCE-based Networks.
draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid-00 draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid-01
Abstract Abstract
In order to provide greater scalability, network opacity, and service In order to provide greater scalability, network opacity, and service
independence, SR utilizes a Binding Segment Identifier (BSID). It is independence, Segment Routing (SR) utilizes a Binding Segment
possible to associate a BSID to RSVP-TE signaled Traffic Engineering Identifier (BSID). It is possible to associate a BSID to RSVP-TE
Label Switching Path or binding Segment-ID (SID) to Segment Routed signaled Traffic Engineering Label Switching Path or binding Segment-
(SR) Traffic Engineering path. Such a binding label/SID can be used ID (SID) to SR Traffic Engineering path. Such a binding label/SID
by an upstream node for steering traffic into the appropriate TE path can be used by an upstream node for steering traffic into the
to enforce SR policies. This document proposes an approach for appropriate TE path to enforce SR policies. This document proposes
reporting binding label/SID to Path Computation Element (PCE) for an approach for reporting binding label/SID to Path Computation
supporting PCE-based Traffic Engineering policies. Element (PCE) for supporting PCE-based Traffic Engineering policies.
Requirements Language Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here. capitals, as shown here.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
skipping to change at page 2, line 7 skipping to change at page 2, line 7
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 https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at https://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 March 9, 2020. This Internet-Draft will expire on May 6, 2020.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2019 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 32 skipping to change at page 2, line 32
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Path Binding TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3. Path Binding TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4. Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. Binding SID in SR-ERO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5. Binding SID in SR-ERO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. Binding SID in SRv6-ERO/ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6. Binding SID in SRv6-ERO/ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 7. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7.1. Huawei . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 7.1. Huawei . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
9. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 9. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9.1. Control of Function and Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 9.1. Control of Function and Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9.2. Information and Data Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 9.2. Information and Data Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 9.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9.4. Verify Correct Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 9.4. Verify Correct Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9.5. Requirements On Other Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 9.5. Requirements On Other Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9.6. Impact On Network Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 9.6. Impact On Network Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
10.1. PCEP TLV Type Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 10.1. PCEP TLV Type Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
10.1.1. TE-PATH-BINDING TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 10.1.1. TE-PATH-BINDING TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
10.2. PCEP Error Type and Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 10.2. PCEP Error Type and Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
11. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 11. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Appendix A. Contributor Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Appendix A. Contributor Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
A PCE can compute Traffic Engineering paths (TE paths) through a A PCE can compute Traffic Engineering paths (TE paths) through a
network that are subject to various constraints. Currently, TE paths network that are subject to various constraints. Currently, TE paths
skipping to change at page 3, line 25 skipping to change at page 3, line 25
Segment Routing Policy (SR Policy). Further, as per Segment Routing Policy (SR Policy). Further, as per
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy], an SR Policy is a framework [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy], an SR Policy is a framework
that enables instantiation of an ordered list of segments on a node that enables instantiation of an ordered list of segments on a node
for implementing a source routing policy with a specific intent for for implementing a source routing policy with a specific intent for
traffic steering from that node. traffic steering from that node.
As described in [RFC8402], Binding Segment Identifier (BSID) is bound As described in [RFC8402], Binding Segment Identifier (BSID) is bound
to an Segment Routed (SR) Policy, instantiation of which may involve to an Segment Routed (SR) Policy, instantiation of which may involve
a list of SIDs. Any packets received with an active segment equal to a list of SIDs. Any packets received with an active segment equal to
BSID are steered onto the bound SR Policy. A BSID may be either a BSID are steered onto the bound SR Policy. A BSID may be either a
local (SRLB) or a global (SRGB) SID. As per Section 6.4 of local (SR Local Block (SRLB)) or a global (SR Global Block (SRGB))
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy] a BSID can also be SID. As per Section 6.4 of [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy]
associated with any type of interfaces or tunnel to enable the use of a BSID can also be associated with any type of interfaces or tunnel
a non-SR interface or tunnels as segments in a SID-list. to enable the use of a non-SR interface or tunnels as segments in a
SID-list.
[RFC5440] describes the Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) for [RFC5440] describes the Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) for
communication between a Path Computation Client (PCC) and a PCE or communication between a Path Computation Client (PCC) and a PCE or
between a pair of PCEs as per [RFC4655]. [RFC8231] specifies between a pair of PCEs as per [RFC4655]. [RFC8231] specifies
extension to PCEP that allows a PCC to delegate its LSPs to a extension to PCEP that allows a PCC to delegate its LSPs to a
stateful PCE. A stateful PCE can then update the state of LSPs stateful PCE. A stateful PCE can then update the state of LSPs
delegated to it. [RFC8281] specifies a mechanism allowing a PCE to delegated to it. [RFC8281] specifies a mechanism allowing a PCE to
dynamically instantiate an LSP on a PCC by sending the path and dynamically instantiate an LSP on a PCC by sending the path and
characteristics. The PCEP extension to setup and maintain SR-TE characteristics. The PCEP extension to setup and maintain SR-TE
paths is specified in [I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing]. paths is specified in [I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing].
skipping to change at page 6, line 7 skipping to change at page 6, line 7
SR: Segment Routing. SR: Segment Routing.
SRGB: Segment Routing Global Block. SRGB: Segment Routing Global Block.
SRLB: Segment Routing Local Block. SRLB: Segment Routing Local Block.
TLV: Type, Length, and Value. TLV: Type, Length, and Value.
3. Path Binding TLV 3. Path Binding TLV
The new optional TLV is called "TE-PATH-BINDING TLV" whose format is The new optional TLV is called "TE-PATH-BINDING TLV" (whose format is
shown in the diagram below is defined to carry binding label or SID shown in the figure below) is defined to carry binding label or SID
for a TE path. This TLV is associated with the LSP object specified for a TE path. This TLV is associated with the LSP object specified
in ([RFC8231]). The type of this TLV is to be allocated by IANA. in ([RFC8231]). The type of this TLV is to be allocated by IANA.
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length | | Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| BT | Reserved | | BT | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ Binding Value (variable length) ~ ~ Binding Value (variable length) ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: TE-PATH-BINDING TLV Figure 2: TE-PATH-BINDING TLV
TE-PATH-BINDING TLV is a generic TLV such that it is able to carry TE-PATH-BINDING TLV is a generic TLV such that it is able to carry
MPLS label binding as well as SRV6 Binding SID. It is formatted MPLS label binding as well as SRv6 Binding SID. It is formatted
according to the rules specified in [RFC5440]. according to the rules specified in [RFC5440].
Binding Type (BT): A one byte field identifies the type of binding Binding Type (BT): A one byte field identifies the type of binding
included in the TLV. This document specifies the following BT included in the TLV. This document specifies the following BT
values: values:
o BT = 0: The binding value is an MPLS label carried in the format o BT = 0: The binding value is an MPLS label carried in the format
specified in [RFC5462] where only the label value is valid, and specified in [RFC5462] where only the label value is valid, and
other fields (TC, S, and TTL) fields MUST be considered invalid. other fields (TC, S, and TTL) fields MUST be considered invalid.
The Length MUST be set to 6. The Length MUST be set to 6.
skipping to change at page 7, line 9 skipping to change at page 7, line 9
Binding Value: A variable length field, padded with trailing zeros to Binding Value: A variable length field, padded with trailing zeros to
a 4-byte boundary. For the BT as 0, the 20 bits represents the MPLS a 4-byte boundary. For the BT as 0, the 20 bits represents the MPLS
label. For the BT as 1, the 32-bits represents the label stack entry label. For the BT as 1, the 32-bits represents the label stack entry
as per [RFC5462]. For the BT as 2, the 128-bits represent the SRv6 as per [RFC5462]. For the BT as 2, the 128-bits represent the SRv6
SID. SID.
4. Operation 4. Operation
The binding value is allocated by the PCC and reported to a PCE via The binding value is allocated by the PCC and reported to a PCE via
PCRpt message. If a PCE does not recognize the TE-PATH-BINDING TLV, PCRpt message. If a PCE does not recognize the TE-PATH-BINDING TLV,
it MUST ignore the TLV in accordance with ([RFC5440]). If a PCE it would ignore the TLV in accordance with ([RFC5440]). If a PCE
recognizes the TLV but does not support the TLV, it MUST send PCErr recognizes the TLV but does not support the TLV, it MUST send PCErr
with Error-Type = 2 (Capability not supported). with Error-Type = 2 (Capability not supported).
If a TE-PATH-BINDING TLV is absent in PCRpt message, PCE MUST assume If a TE-PATH-BINDING TLV is absent in PCRpt message, PCE MUST assume
that the corresponding LSP does not have any binding. If there are that the corresponding LSP does not have any binding. If there are
more than one TE-PATH-BINDING TLVs, only the first TLV MUST be more than one TE-PATH-BINDING TLVs, only the first TLV MUST be
processed and the rest MUST be silently ignored. If a PCE recognizes processed and the rest MUST be silently ignored. If a PCE recognizes
an invalid binding value (e.g., label value from the reserved label an invalid binding value (e.g., label value from the reserved label
space when MPLS label binding is used), it MUST send the PCErr space when MPLS label binding is used), it MUST send the PCErr
message with Error-Type = 10 ("Reception of an invalid object") and message with Error-Type = 10 ("Reception of an invalid object") and
Error Value = TBD ("Bad label value") as specified in Error Value = 2 ("Bad label value") as specified in
[I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing]. [I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing].
If a PCE requires a PCC to allocate a specific binding value, it may If a PCE requires a PCC to allocate a specific binding value, it may
do so by sending a PCUpd or PCInitiate message containing a TE-PATH- do so by sending a PCUpd or PCInitiate message containing a TE-PATH-
BINDING TLV. If the value can be successfully allocated, the PCC BINDING TLV. If the value can be successfully allocated, the PCC
reports the binding value to the PCE. If the PCC considers the reports the binding value to the PCE. If the PCC considers the
binding value specified by the PCE invalid, it MUST send a PCErr binding value specified by the PCE invalid, it MUST send a PCErr
message with Error-Type = TBD ("Binding label/SID failure") and Error message with Error-Type = TBD2 ("Binding label/SID failure") and
Value = TBD ("Invalid SID"). If the binding value is valid, but the Error Value = TBD3 ("Invalid SID"). If the binding value is valid,
PCC is unable to allocate the binding value, it MUST send a PCErr but the PCC is unable to allocate the binding value, it MUST send a
message with Error-Type = TBD ("Binding label/SID failure") and Error PCErr message with Error-Type = TBD2 ("Binding label/SID failure")
Value = TBD ("Unable to allocate the specified label/SID"). and Error Value = TBD4 ("Unable to allocate the specified label/
SID").
If a PCC receives TE-PATH-BINDING TLV in any message other than PCUpd If a PCC receives TE-PATH-BINDING TLV in any message other than PCUpd
or PCInitiate, it MUST close the corresponding PCEP session with the or PCInitiate, it MUST close the corresponding PCEP session with the
reason "Reception of a malformed PCEP message" (according to reason "Reception of a malformed PCEP message" (according to
[RFC5440]). Similarly, if a PCE receives a TE-PATH-BINDING TLV in [RFC5440]). Similarly, if a PCE receives a TE-PATH-BINDING TLV in
any message other than a PCRpt or if the TE-PATH-BINDING TLV is any message other than a PCRpt or if the TE-PATH-BINDING TLV is
associated with any object other than LSP object, the PCE MUST close associated with any object other than LSP object, the PCE MUST close
the corresponding PCEP session with the reason "Reception of a the corresponding PCEP session with the reason "Reception of a
malformed PCEP message" (according to [RFC5440]). malformed PCEP message" (according to [RFC5440]).
skipping to change at page 8, line 9 skipping to change at page 8, line 11
If a PCE wishes to modify a previously requested binding value, it If a PCE wishes to modify a previously requested binding value, it
MUST send a PCUpd message with TE-PATH-BINDING TLV containing the new MUST send a PCUpd message with TE-PATH-BINDING TLV containing the new
binding value. Absence of TE-PATH-BINDING TLV in PCUpd message means binding value. Absence of TE-PATH-BINDING TLV in PCUpd message means
that the PCE does not specify a binding value in which case the that the PCE does not specify a binding value in which case the
binding value allocation is governed by the PCC's local policy. binding value allocation is governed by the PCC's local policy.
If a PCC receives a valid binding value from a PCE which is different If a PCC receives a valid binding value from a PCE which is different
than the current binding value, it MUST try to allocate the new than the current binding value, it MUST try to allocate the new
value. If the new binding value is successfully allocated, the PCC value. If the new binding value is successfully allocated, the PCC
MUST report the new value to the PCE. Otherwise, it MUST send a MUST report the new value to the PCE. Otherwise, it MUST send a
PCErr message with Error-Type = TBD ("Binding label/SID failure") and PCErr message with Error-Type = TBD2 ("Binding label/SID failure")
Error Value = TBD ("Unable to allocate the specified label/SID"). and Error Value = TBD4 ("Unable to allocate the specified label/
SID").
In some cases, a stateful PCE can request the PCC to allocate a In some cases, a stateful PCE can request the PCC to allocate a
binding value. It may do so by sending a PCUpd message containing an binding value. It may do so by sending a PCUpd message containing an
empty TE-PATH-BINDING TLV, i.e., no binding value is specified empty TE-PATH-BINDING TLV, i.e., no binding value is specified
(making the length field of the TLV as 2). A PCE can also make the (making the length field of the TLV as 2). A PCE can also make the
request PCC to allocate a binding at the time of initiation by request PCC to allocate a binding at the time of initiation by
sending a PCInitiate message with an empty TE-PATH-BINDING TLV. sending a PCInitiate message with an empty TE-PATH-BINDING TLV.
5. Binding SID in SR-ERO 5. Binding SID in SR-ERO
In PCEP messages, LSP route information is carried in the Explicit In PCEP messages, LSP route information is carried in the Explicit
Route Object (ERO), which consists of a sequence of subobjects. Route Object (ERO), which consists of a sequence of subobjects.
[I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing] defines a new ERO subobject "SR-ERO [I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing] defines a new ERO subobject "SR-ERO
subobject" capable of carrying a SID as well as the identity of the subobject" capable of carrying a SID as well as the identity of the
node/adjacency (NAI) represented by the SID. The NAI Type (NT) field node/adjacency (NAI) represented by the SID. The NAI Type (NT) field
indicates the type and format of the NAI contained in the SR-ERO. In indicates the type and format of the NAI contained in the SR-ERO. In
case of binding SID, the NAI MUST NOT be included and NT MUST be set case of binding SID, the NAI MUST NOT be included and NT MUST be set
to zero. So as per Section 5.2.1 of [I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing], to zero. So as per Section 5.2.1 of [I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing],
for NT=0, the F bit MUST be 1, the S bit needs to be zero and the for NT=0, the F bit is set to 1, the S bit needs to be zero and the
Length MUST be 8. Further the M bit MUST be set. If these Length is 8. Further the M bit is set. If these conditions are not
conditions are not met, the entire ERO MUST be considered invalid and met, the entire ERO MUST be considered invalid and a PCErr message is
a PCErr message is sent with Error-Type = 10 ("Reception of an sent with Error-Type = 10 ("Reception of an invalid object") and
invalid object") and Error-Value = 11 ("Malformed object"). Error-Value = 11 ("Malformed object").
6. Binding SID in SRv6-ERO/ 6. Binding SID in SRv6-ERO/
[I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing] defines a new ERO subobject "SRv6-ERO [I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing] defines a new ERO subobject "SRv6-ERO
subobject" for SRv6 SID. The NAI MUST NOT be included and NT MUST be subobject" for SRv6 SID. The NAI MUST NOT be included and NT MUST be
set to zero. So as per Section 5.2.1 of set to zero. So as per Section 5.2.1 of
[I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing], for NT=0, the F bit MUST be 1, the S [I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing], for NT=0, the F bit is set to 1, the
bit needs to be zero and the Length MUST be 24. If these conditions S bit needs to be zero and the Length is 24. If these conditions are
are not met, the entire ERO is considered invalid and a PCErr message not met, the entire ERO is considered invalid and a PCErr message is
is sent with Error-Type = 10 ("Reception of an invalid object") and sent with Error-Type = 10 ("Reception of an invalid object") and
Error-Value = 11 ("Malformed object") (as per Error-Value = 11 ("Malformed object") (as per
[I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing]). [I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing]).
7. Implementation Status 7. Implementation Status
[Note to the RFC Editor - remove this section before publication, as [Note to the RFC Editor - remove this section before publication, as
well as remove the reference to RFC 7942.] well as remove the reference to RFC 7942.]
This section records the status of known implementations of the This section records the status of known implementations of the
protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of this protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of this
Internet-Draft, and is based on a proposal described in [RFC7942]. Internet-Draft, and is based on a proposal described in [RFC7942].
The description of implementations in this section is intended to The description of implementations in this section is intended to
assist the IETF in its decision processes in progressing drafts to assist the IETF in its decision processes in progressing drafts to
RFCs. Please note that the listing of any individual implementation RFCs. Please note that the listing of any individual implementation
here does not imply endorsement by the IETF. Furthermore, no effort here does not imply endorsement by the IETF. Furthermore, no effort
has been spent to verify the information presented here that was has been spent to verify the information presented here that was
supplied by IETF contributors. This is not intended as, and must not supplied by IETF contributors. This is not intended as, and must not
be construed to be, a catalog of available implementations or their be construed to be, a catalog of available implementations or their
skipping to change at page 9, line 37 skipping to change at page 9, line 43
o Implementation: Huawei's Router and Controller o Implementation: Huawei's Router and Controller
o Description: An experimental code-point is used and plan to o Description: An experimental code-point is used and plan to
request early code-point allocation from IANA after WG adoption. request early code-point allocation from IANA after WG adoption.
o Maturity Level: Production o Maturity Level: Production
o Coverage: Full o Coverage: Full
o Contact: mahendrasingh@huawei.com o Contact: chengli13@huawei.com
8. Security Considerations 8. Security Considerations
The security considerations described in [RFC5440], [RFC8231], The security considerations described in [RFC5440], [RFC8231],
[RFC8281] and [I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing] are applicable to this [RFC8281] and [I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing] are applicable to this
specification. No additional security measure is required. specification. No additional security measure is required.
As described [I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing], SR allows a network As described [I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing], SR allows a network
controller to instantiate and control paths in the network. A rouge controller to instantiate and control paths in the network. A rouge
PCE can manipulate binding SID allocations to move traffic around for PCE can manipulate binding SID allocations to move traffic around for
some other LSPs that uses BSID in its SR-ERO. some other LSPs that uses BSID in its SR-ERO.
Thus, as per [RFC8231], it is RECOMMENDED that these PCEP extensions Thus, as per [RFC8231], it is RECOMMENDED that these PCEP extensions
only be activated on authenticated and encrypted sessions across PCEs only be activated on authenticated and encrypted sessions across PCEs
and PCCs belonging to the same administrative authority, using and PCCs belonging to the same administrative authority, using
Transport Layer Security (TLS) [RFC8253], as per the recommendations Transport Layer Security (TLS) [RFC8253], as per the recommendations
and best current practices in [RFC7525] (unless explicitly set aside and best current practices in BCP195 [RFC7525] (unless explicitly set
in [RFC8253]). aside in [RFC8253]).
9. Manageability Considerations 9. Manageability Considerations
All manageability requirements and considerations listed in All manageability requirements and considerations listed in
[RFC5440], [RFC8231], and [I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing] apply to [RFC5440], [RFC8231], and [I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing] apply to
PCEP protocol extensions defined in this document. In addition, PCEP protocol extensions defined in this document. In addition,
requirements and considerations listed in this section apply. requirements and considerations listed in this section apply.
9.1. Control of Function and Policy 9.1. Control of Function and Policy
skipping to change at page 11, line 15 skipping to change at page 11, line 23
10. IANA Considerations 10. IANA Considerations
10.1. PCEP TLV Type Indicators 10.1. PCEP TLV Type Indicators
This document defines a new PCEP TLV; IANA is requested to make the This document defines a new PCEP TLV; IANA is requested to make the
following allocations from the "PCEP TLV Type Indicators" sub- following allocations from the "PCEP TLV Type Indicators" sub-
registry of the PCEP Numbers registry, as follows: registry of the PCEP Numbers registry, as follows:
Value Name Reference Value Name Reference
TBD TE-PATH-BINDING This document TBD1 TE-PATH-BINDING This document
10.1.1. TE-PATH-BINDING TLV 10.1.1. TE-PATH-BINDING TLV
IANA is requested to create a sub-registry to manage the value of the IANA is requested to create a sub-registry to manage the value of the
Binding Type field in the TE-PATH-BINDING TLV. Binding Type field in the TE-PATH-BINDING TLV.
Value Description Reference Value Description Reference
0 MPLS Label This document 0 MPLS Label This document
1 MPLS Label Stack This document 1 MPLS Label Stack This document
skipping to change at page 11, line 38 skipping to change at page 11, line 46
10.2. PCEP Error Type and Value 10.2. PCEP Error Type and Value
This document defines a new Error-type and Error-Values for the PCErr This document defines a new Error-type and Error-Values for the PCErr
message. IANA is requested to allocate new error-type and error- message. IANA is requested to allocate new error-type and error-
values within the "PCEP-ERROR Object Error Types and Values" values within the "PCEP-ERROR Object Error Types and Values"
subregistry of the PCEP Numbers registry, as follows: subregistry of the PCEP Numbers registry, as follows:
Error-Type Meaning Error-Type Meaning
---------- ------- ---------- -------
TBD Binding label/SID failure: TBD2 Binding label/SID failure:
Error-value = TBD: Invalid SID Error-value = TBD3: Invalid SID
Error-value = TBD: Unable to allocate Error-value = TBD4: Unable to allocate
the specified the specified
label/SID label/SID
11. Acknowledgements 11. Acknowledgements
We like to thank Milos Fabian for his valuable comments. We like to thank Milos Fabian for his valuable comments.
12. References 12. References
12.1. Normative References 12.1. Normative References
skipping to change at page 13, line 36 skipping to change at page 13, line 42
DOI 10.17487/RFC4655, August 2006, DOI 10.17487/RFC4655, August 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4655>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4655>.
[RFC8283] Farrel, A., Ed., Zhao, Q., Ed., Li, Z., and C. Zhou, "An [RFC8283] Farrel, A., Ed., Zhao, Q., Ed., Li, Z., and C. Zhou, "An
Architecture for Use of PCE and the PCE Communication Architecture for Use of PCE and the PCE Communication
Protocol (PCEP) in a Network with Central Control", Protocol (PCEP) in a Network with Central Control",
RFC 8283, DOI 10.17487/RFC8283, December 2017, RFC 8283, DOI 10.17487/RFC8283, December 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8283>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8283>.
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy] [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy]
Filsfils, C., Sivabalan, S., daniel.voyer@bell.ca, d., Filsfils, C., Sivabalan, S., Voyer, D., Bogdanov, A., and
bogdanov@google.com, b., and P. Mattes, "Segment Routing P. Mattes, "Segment Routing Policy Architecture", draft-
Policy Architecture", draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing- ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy-03 (work in progress),
policy-03 (work in progress), May 2019. May 2019.
[I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid] [I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid]
Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Lindem, A., Sreekantiah, A., Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Lindem, A., Sreekantiah, A.,
and H. Gredler, "Segment Routing Prefix SID extensions for and H. Gredler, "Segment Routing Prefix SID extensions for
BGP", draft-ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid-27 (work in progress), BGP", draft-ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid-27 (work in progress),
June 2018. June 2018.
[I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller] [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller]
Zhao, Q., Li, Z., Negi, M., and C. Zhou, "PCEP Procedures Zhao, Q., Li, Z., Negi, M., and C. Zhou, "PCEP Procedures
and Protocol Extensions for Using PCE as a Central and Protocol Extensions for Using PCE as a Central
Controller (PCECC) of LSPs", draft-ietf-pce-pcep- Controller (PCECC) of LSPs", draft-ietf-pce-pcep-
extension-for-pce-controller-02 (work in progress), July extension-for-pce-controller-02 (work in progress), July
2019. 2019.
[I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang] [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang]
Dhody, D., Hardwick, J., Beeram, V., and J. Tantsura, "A Dhody, D., Hardwick, J., Beeram, V., and J. Tantsura, "A
YANG Data Model for Path Computation Element YANG Data Model for Path Computation Element
Communications Protocol (PCEP)", draft-ietf-pce-pcep- Communications Protocol (PCEP)", draft-ietf-pce-pcep-
yang-12 (work in progress), July 2019. yang-13 (work in progress), October 2019.
Appendix A. Contributor Addresses Appendix A. Contributor 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
 End of changes. 25 change blocks. 
52 lines changed or deleted 56 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.47. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/