draft-ietf-pce-lsp-control-request-03.txt   draft-ietf-pce-lsp-control-request-04.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: August 9, 2019 AT&T Expires: December 6, 2019 AT&T
J. Karthik J. Karthik
S. Sivabalan S. Sivabalan
J. Parker J. Parker
Cisco Systems, Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc.
M. Negi M. Negi
Huawei Technologies Huawei Technologies
February 5, 2019 June 4, 2019
Ability for a stateful Path Computation Element (PCE) to request and Ability for a stateful Path Computation Element (PCE) to request and
obtain control of a LSP obtain control of a LSP
draft-ietf-pce-lsp-control-request-03 draft-ietf-pce-lsp-control-request-04
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 10 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 August 9, 2019. This Internet-Draft will expire on December 6, 2019.
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 33 skipping to change at page 2, line 33
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 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. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5.1. Huawei's Proof of Concept based on ONOS . . . . . . . . . 6
6.1. SRP Object Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7.1. Control of Function and Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 7.1. SRP Object Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7.2. Information and Data Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 8. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 8.1. Control of Function and Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7.4. Verify Correct Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 8.2. Information and Data Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7.5. Requirements On Other Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 8.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7.6. Impact On Network Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 8.4. Verify Correct Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 8.5. Requirements On Other Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 8.6. Impact On Network Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Appendix A. Contributor Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Appendix A. Contributor Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
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
stateful PCEP defines the following two useful network operations: stateful PCEP defines the following two useful network operations:
skipping to change at page 5, line 41 skipping to change at page 5, line 41
would trigger the error condition as specified in [RFC8231] (a PCErr would trigger the error condition as specified in [RFC8231] (a PCErr
with Error-type=19 (Invalid Operation) and error-value 1 (Attempted with Error-type=19 (Invalid Operation) and error-value 1 (Attempted
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. Implementation Status
[Note to the RFC Editor - remove this section before publication, as
well as remove the reference to RFC 7942.]
This section records the status of known implementations of the
protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of this
Internet-Draft, and is based on a proposal described in RFC 7942
[RFC7942]. The description of implementations in this section is
intended to assist the IETF in its decision processes in progressing
drafts to RFCs. Please note that the listing of any individual
implementation here does not imply endorsement by the IETF.
Furthermore, no effort has been spent to verify the information
presented here that was supplied by IETF contributors. This is not
intended as, and must not be construed to be, a catalog of available
implementations or their features. Readers are advised to note that
other implementations may exist.
According to RFC 7942, "this will allow reviewers and working groups
to assign due consideration to documents that have the benefit of
running code, which may serve as evidence of valuable experimentation
and feedback that have made the implemented protocols more mature.
It is up to the individual working groups to use this information as
they see fit".
5.1. Huawei's Proof of Concept based on ONOS
The PCE function was developed in the ONOS open source platform.
This extension was implemented on a private version as a proof of
concept to enable multi-instance support.
o Organization: Huawei
o Implementation: Huawei's PoC based on ONOS
o Description: PCEP as a southbound plugin was added to ONOS. To
support multi-instance ONOS deployment in a cluster, this
extension in PCEP is used. Refer
https://wiki.onosproject.org/display/ONOS/PCEP+Protocol
o Maturity Level: Prototype
o Coverage: Full
o Contact: satishk@huawei.com
6. Security Considerations
The security considerations listed in [RFC8231] and [RFC8281] apply The security considerations listed in [RFC8231] and [RFC8281] apply
to this document as well. However, this document also introduces a to this document as well. However, this document also introduces a
new 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 7. 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.
6.1. SRP Object Flags 7.1. SRP Object Flags
The SRP object is defined in [RFC8231] and the registry to manage the The SRP object is defined in [RFC8231] and the registry to manage the
Flag field of the SRP object is requested in [RFC8281]. IANA is Flag field of the SRP object is requested in [RFC8281]. IANA is
requested to make the following allocation in the aforementioned requested to make the following allocation in the aforementioned
registry. registry.
Bit Description Reference Bit Description Reference
TBD LSP Control Request Flag (c-bit) This document TBD LSP Control Request Flag (c-bit) This document
7. Manageability Considerations 8. Manageability Considerations
All manageability requirements and considerations listed in [RFC5440] All manageability requirements and considerations listed in [RFC5440]
and [RFC8231] apply to PCEP protocol extensions defined in this and [RFC8231] apply to PCEP protocol extensions defined in this
document. In addition, requirements and considerations listed in document. In addition, requirements and considerations listed in
this section apply. this section apply.
7.1. Control of Function and Policy 8.1. Control of Function and Policy
A PCE or PCC implementation SHOULD allow the operator to configure A PCE or PCC implementation SHOULD allow the operator to configure
the policy based on which it honor the request to control the LSPs. the policy based on which it honor the request to control the LSPs.
Further, the operator MAY be to be allowed to trigger the LSP control Further, the operator MAY be to be allowed to trigger the LSP control
request at the PCE. request at the PCE.
7.2. Information and Data Models 8.2. Information and Data Models
The PCEP YANG module [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang] could be extended to The PCEP YANG module [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang] could be extended to
include mechanism to trigger the LSP control request. include mechanism to trigger the LSP control request.
7.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring 8.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring
Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new liveness Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new liveness
detection and monitoring requirements in addition to those already detection and monitoring requirements in addition to those already
listed in [RFC5440]. listed in [RFC5440].
7.4. Verify Correct Operations 8.4. Verify Correct Operations
Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new operation Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new operation
verification requirements in addition to those already listed in verification requirements in addition to those already listed in
[RFC5440] and [RFC8231]. [RFC5440] and [RFC8231].
7.5. Requirements On Other Protocols 8.5. Requirements On Other Protocols
Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new requirements Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new requirements
on other protocols. on other protocols.
7.6. Impact On Network Operations 8.6. Impact On Network Operations
Mechanisms defined in [RFC5440] and [RFC8231] also apply to PCEP Mechanisms defined in [RFC5440] and [RFC8231] also apply to PCEP
extensions defined in this document. Further, the mechanism extensions defined in this document. Further, the mechanism
described in this document can help the operator to request control described in this document can help the operator to request control
of the LSPs at a particular PCE. of the LSPs at a particular PCE.
8. Acknowledgements 9. Acknowledgements
Thanks to Jonathan Hardwick to remind the authors to not use Thanks to Jonathan Hardwick to remind the authors to not use
suggested values in IANA section. suggested values in IANA section.
9. References 10. References
9.1. Normative References 10.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[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 8, line 5 skipping to change at page 9, line 5
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 10.2. Informative References
[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>.
[RFC7942] Sheffer, Y. and A. Farrel, "Improving Awareness of Running
Code: The Implementation Status Section", BCP 205,
RFC 7942, DOI 10.17487/RFC7942, July 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7942>.
[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>.
[RFC8253] Lopez, D., Gonzalez de Dios, O., Wu, Q., and D. Dhody, [RFC8253] Lopez, D., Gonzalez de Dios, O., Wu, Q., and D. Dhody,
"PCEPS: Usage of TLS to Provide a Secure Transport for the "PCEPS: Usage of TLS to Provide a Secure Transport for the
Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)", Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)",
RFC 8253, DOI 10.17487/RFC8253, October 2017, RFC 8253, DOI 10.17487/RFC8253, October 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8253>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8253>.
[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-09 (work in progress), October 2018. yang-11 (work in progress), March 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. 21 change blocks. 
35 lines changed or deleted 89 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/