draft-ietf-pce-lsp-control-request-01.txt   draft-ietf-pce-lsp-control-request-02.txt 
PCE Working Group A. Raghuram PCE Working Group A. Raghuram
Internet-Draft A. Goddard Internet-Draft A. Goddard
Intended status: Standards Track C. Yadlapalli Intended status: Standards Track C. Yadlapalli
Expires: December 20, 2018 AT&T Expires: June 21, 2019 AT&T
J. Karthik J. Karthik
S. Sivabalan S. Sivabalan
J. Parker J. Parker
Cisco Systems, Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc.
D. Dhody D. Dhody
Huawei Technologies Huawei Technologies
June 18, 2018 December 18, 2018
Ability for a stateful PCE to request and obtain control of a LSP Ability for a stateful Path Computation Element (PCE) to request and
draft-ietf-pce-lsp-control-request-01 obtain control of a LSP
draft-ietf-pce-lsp-control-request-02
Abstract Abstract
The stateful Path Computation Element (PCE) communication Protocol The stateful Path Computation Element (PCE) communication Protocol
(PCEP) extensions provide stateful control of Multiprotocol Label (PCEP) extensions provide stateful control of Multiprotocol Label
Switching (MPLS) Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths (TE LSP) Switching (MPLS) Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths (TE LSP)
via PCEP, for a model where a Path Computation Client (PCC) delegates via PCEP, for a model where a Path Computation Client (PCC) delegates
control over one or more locally configured LSPs to a stateful PCE. control over one or more locally configured LSPs to a stateful PCE.
There are use-cases in which a stateful PCE may wish to request and There are use-cases in which a stateful PCE may wish to request and
obtain control of one or more LSPs from a PCC. This document obtain control of one or more LSPs from a PCC. This document
skipping to change at page 2, line 7 skipping to change at page 2, line 10
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 December 20, 2018. This Internet-Draft will expire on June 21, 2019.
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
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
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. LSP Control Request Flag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. LSP Control Request Flag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6.1. SRP Object Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6.1. SRP Object Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 7. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7.1. Control of Function and Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 7.1. Control of Function and Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7.2. Information and Data Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 7.2. Information and Data Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 7.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7.4. Verify Correct Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 7.4. Verify Correct Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7.5. Requirements On Other Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 7.5. Requirements On Other Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7.6. Impact On Network Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 7.6. Impact On Network Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
Stateful PCEP extensions [RFC8231] specifies a set of extensions to Stateful PCEP extensions [RFC8231] specifies a set of extensions to
PCEP [RFC5440] to enable stateful control of TE LSPs between and PCEP [RFC5440] to enable stateful control of TE LSPs between and
across PCEP sessions in compliance with [RFC4657]. It includes across PCEP sessions in compliance with [RFC4657]. It includes
mechanisms to effect LSP state synchronization between PCCs and PCEs, mechanisms to effect LSP state synchronization between PCCs and PCEs,
delegation of control of LSPs to PCEs, and PCE control of timing and delegation of control of LSPs to PCEs, and PCE control of timing and
sequence of path computations within and across PCEP sessions. The sequence of path computations within and across PCEP sessions. The
skipping to change at page 5, line 38 skipping to change at page 5, line 43
LSP Update Request for a non-delegated LSP)). LSP Update Request for a non-delegated LSP)).
[RFC8281] describes the setup, maintenance and teardown of PCE- [RFC8281] describes the setup, maintenance and teardown of PCE-
initiated LSPs under the stateful PCE model. It also specify how a initiated LSPs under the stateful PCE model. It also specify how a
PCE MAY obtain control over an orphaned LSP that was PCE-initiated. PCE MAY obtain control over an orphaned LSP that was PCE-initiated.
A PCE implementation can apply the mechanism described in this A PCE implementation can apply the mechanism described in this
document in conjunction with those in [RFC8281]. document in conjunction with those in [RFC8281].
5. Security Considerations 5. Security Considerations
The security considerations listed in [RFC8231] apply to this The security considerations listed in [RFC8231] and [RFC8281] apply
document as well. However, this document also introduces a new to this document as well. However, this document also introduces a
attack vectors. An attacker may flood the PCC with request to new attack vectors. An attacker may flood the PCC with request to
delegate all its LSPs at a rate which exceeds the PCC's ability to delegate all its LSPs at a rate which exceeds the PCC's ability to
process them, either by spoofing messages or by compromising the PCE process them, either by spoofing messages or by compromising the PCE
itself. The PCC can simply ignore these messages with no extra itself. The PCC can simply ignore these messages with no extra
actions. Securing the PCEP session using mechanism like Transport actions. Securing the PCEP session using mechanism like Transport
Layer Security (TLS) [RFC8253] is RECOMMENDED. Layer Security (TLS) [RFC8253] is RECOMMENDED.
6. IANA Considerations 6. 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. protocol elements defined in this document.
skipping to change at page 8, line 9 skipping to change at page 8, line 11
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 9.2. Informative References
[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-07 (work in progress), March 2018. yang-09 (work in progress), October 2018.
[RFC4657] Ash, J., Ed. and J. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation [RFC4657] Ash, J., Ed. and J. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation
Element (PCE) Communication Protocol Generic Element (PCE) Communication Protocol Generic
Requirements", RFC 4657, DOI 10.17487/RFC4657, September Requirements", RFC 4657, DOI 10.17487/RFC4657, September
2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4657>. 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4657>.
[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>.
 End of changes. 10 change blocks. 
13 lines changed or deleted 14 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/