draft-ietf-pce-stateful-hpce-12.txt   draft-ietf-pce-stateful-hpce-13.txt 
PCE Working Group D. Dhody PCE Working Group D. Dhody
Internet-Draft Huawei Technologies Internet-Draft Huawei Technologies
Intended status: Informational Y. Lee Intended status: Informational Y. Lee
Expires: March 06, 2020 Futurewei Technologies Expires: March 14, 2020 SKKU
D. Ceccarelli D. Ceccarelli
Ericsson Ericsson
J. Shin J. Shin
SK Telecom SK Telecom
D. King D. King
Lancaster University Lancaster University
September 03, 2019 September 11, 2019
Hierarchical Stateful Path Computation Element (PCE). Hierarchical Stateful Path Computation Element (PCE).
draft-ietf-pce-stateful-hpce-12 draft-ietf-pce-stateful-hpce-13
Abstract Abstract
A Stateful Path Computation Element (PCE) maintains information on A Stateful Path Computation Element (PCE) maintains information on
the current network state, including: computed Label Switched Path the current network state, including: computed Label Switched Path
(LSPs), reserved resources within the network, and pending path (LSPs), reserved resources within the network, and pending path
computation requests. This information may then be considered when computation requests. This information may then be considered when
computing new traffic engineered LSPs, and for associated and computing new traffic engineered LSPs, and for associated and
dependent LSPs, received from Path Computation Clients (PCCs). The dependent LSPs, received from Path Computation Clients (PCCs). The
Path computation response from a PCE is helpful for the PCC to Path computation response from a PCE is helpful for the PCC to
skipping to change at page 2, line 46 skipping to change at page 2, line 46
3.1. Passive Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3.1. Passive Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.2. Active Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 3.2. Active Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.3. PCE Initiation of LSPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 3.3. PCE Initiation of LSPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.3.1. Per Domain Stitched LSP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 3.3.1. Per Domain Stitched LSP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 5. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
5.1. Control of Function and Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 5.1. Control of Function and Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
5.2. Information and Data Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 5.2. Information and Data Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
5.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 5.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
5.4. Verify Correct Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 5.4. Verify Correct Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
5.5. Requirements On Other Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 5.5. Requirements On Other Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5.6. Impact On Network Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 5.6. Impact On Network Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5.7. Error Handling between PCEs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 5.7. Error Handling between PCEs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
6. Other Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 6. Other Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
6.1. Applicability to Inter-Layer Traffic Engineering . . . . . 17 6.1. Applicability to Inter-Layer Traffic Engineering . . . . . 17
6.2. Scalability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 6.2. Scalability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
6.3. Confidentiality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 6.3. Confidentiality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
8. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 8. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
1.1. Background 1.1. Background
The Path Computation Element communication Protocol (PCEP) [RFC5440] The Path Computation Element communication Protocol (PCEP) [RFC5440]
provides mechanisms for Path Computation Elements (PCEs) to perform provides mechanisms for Path Computation Elements (PCEs) to perform
path computations in response to Path Computation Clients' (PCCs) path computations in response to Path Computation Clients' (PCCs)
requests. requests.
skipping to change at page 16, line 13 skipping to change at page 16, line 13
also applicable from P-PCE to C-PCE. also applicable from P-PCE to C-PCE.
Further, section 6.3 describes the use of path-key [RFC5520] for Further, section 6.3 describes the use of path-key [RFC5520] for
confidentiality between C-PCE and P-PCE. confidentiality between C-PCE and P-PCE.
Thus it is RECOMMENDED to secure the PCEP session (between the P-PCE Thus it is RECOMMENDED to secure the PCEP session (between the P-PCE
and the C-PCE) using either Transport Layer Security (TLS) [RFC8253] and the C-PCE) using either Transport Layer Security (TLS) [RFC8253]
per the recommendations and best current practices in [RFC7525] or per the recommendations and best current practices in [RFC7525] or
TCP Authentication Option (TCP-AO) [RFC5925]. TCP Authentication Option (TCP-AO) [RFC5925].
In case of TLS, due care needs to be taken while exposing the
parameters of the X.509 certificate, such as subjectAltName:otherName
which is set to Speaker Entity Identifier [RFC8232] as per [RFC8253],
to ensure uniqueness and avoid any mismatch.
5. Manageability Considerations 5. Manageability Considerations
All manageability requirements and considerations listed in All manageability requirements and considerations listed in
[RFC5440], [RFC6805], [RFC8231], and [RFC8281] apply to Stateful H- [RFC5440], [RFC6805], [RFC8231], and [RFC8281] apply to Stateful H-
PCE defined in this document. In addition, requirements and PCE defined in this document. In addition, requirements and
considerations listed in this section apply. considerations listed in this section apply.
5.1. Control of Function and Policy 5.1. Control of Function and Policy
Support of the hierarchical procedure will be controlled by the Support of the hierarchical procedure will be controlled by the
skipping to change at page 22, line 40 skipping to change at page 22, line 45
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
Young Lee Young Lee
Futurewei Technologies SKKU
5340 Legacy Drive, Building 3
Plano, TX 75023
USA
EMail: younglee.tx@gmail.com EMail: younglee.tx@gmail.com
Daniele Ceccarelli Daniele Ceccarelli
Ericsson Ericsson
Torshamnsgatan,48 Torshamnsgatan,48
Stockholm Stockholm
Sweden Sweden
EMail: daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com EMail: daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com
 End of changes. 8 change blocks. 
10 lines changed or deleted 12 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/