Experimental Codepoint Allocation for Path Computation Element communication Protocol (PCEP)
draft-dhody-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints-01
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft whose latest revision state is "Replaced".
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Dhruv Dhody , Daniel King | ||
| Last updated | 2016-06-30 | ||
| Replaced by | draft-ietf-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints, draft-ietf-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints, RFC 8356 | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Additional resources | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-dhody-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints-01
PCE Working Group D. Dhody
Internet-Draft Huawei Technologies
Intended status: Standards Track D. King
Expires: January 1, 2017 Lancaster University
June 30, 2016
Experimental Codepoint Allocation for Path Computation Element
communication Protocol (PCEP)
draft-dhody-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints-01
Abstract
IANA assigns values to the Path Computation Element (PCE)
communication Protocol (PCEP) parameters (messages, objects, TLVs).
IANA established a new top-level registry to contain all PCEP
codepoints and sub-registries. The allocation policy for each new
registry is by IETF Consensus.
This document seeks to mark some codepoints for experimental usage of
PCEP.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on January 1, 2017.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
Dhody & King Expires January 1, 2017 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft EXP-CODEPOINT June 2016
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. PCEP Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. PCEP Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. PCEP TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
5.1. New PCEP Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
5.2. New PCEP Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
5.3. New PCEP TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6. Allocation Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
8. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Appendix A. Other Codepoints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1. Introduction
The Path Computation Element communication Protocol (PCEP) provides
mechanisms for Path Computation Elements (PCEs) to perform path
computations in response to Path Computation Clients (PCCs) requests.
In section 9 of [RFC5440], IANA assigns values to the PCEP protocol
parameters (messages, objects, TLVs). IANA established a new top-
level registry to contain all PCEP codepoints and sub-registries.
The allocation policy for each new registry is by IETF Consensus as
described in [RFC5226]. Specifically, new assignments are made via
RFCs approved by the IESG. Typically, the IESG will seek input on
prospective assignments from appropriate persons (e.g., a relevant
Working Group if one exists).
With some recent advancement, there is an enhanced need to experiment
with PCEP. It is often necessary to use some sort of number or
constant in order to actually test or experiment with the new
function, even when testing in a closed environment. In order to run
experiment, it is important that the value won't collide not only
with existing codepoints but any future allocation.
Dhody & King Expires January 1, 2017 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft EXP-CODEPOINT June 2016
This document thus set apart some codepoints in PCEP registry and
subregistries for experimental usage.
2. PCEP Messages
Some codepoints are requested to be set aside for experimentation
with new PCEP messages. The suggested range is 246-255.
3. PCEP Objects
Some codepoints are requested to be set aside for experimentation
with new PCEP objects. The suggested range is 224-255.
4. PCEP TLVs
Some codepoints are requested to be set aside for experimentation
with new PCEP TLVs. The suggested range is 65280-65535.
[Editor's Note - There have been suggestions to increase this range a
little bit more, perhaps to 65024-65535]
5. IANA Considerations
IANA maintains the "Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers"
at <http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep>.
5.1. New PCEP Messages
Within this registry IANA maintains a sub-registry for PCEP Messages
(see PCEP Messages at <http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep>).
Upon approval of this document, IANA is requested to make the
following allocations:
+---------+-------------+-------------------+
| Type | Description | Allocation Policy |
+---------+-------------+-------------------+
| 246-255 | Unassigned | Experimental Use |
+---------+-------------+-------------------+
5.2. New PCEP Objects
Within this registry IANA maintains a sub-registry for PCEP Objects
(see PCEP Objects at <http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep>).
Upon approval of this document, IANA is requested to make the
following allocations:
Dhody & King Expires January 1, 2017 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft EXP-CODEPOINT June 2016
+---------+-------------+-------------------+
| Type | Description | Allocation Policy |
+---------+-------------+-------------------+
| 224-255 | Unassigned | Experimental Use |
+---------+-------------+-------------------+
5.3. New PCEP TLVs
Within this registry IANA maintains a sub-registry for PCEP TLVs (see
PCEP TLV Type Indicators at <http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep>).
Upon approval of this document, IANA is requested to make the
following allocations:
+------------+-------------+-------------------+
| Type | Description | Allocation Policy |
+------------+-------------+-------------------+
|65280-65535 | Unassigned | Experimental Use |
+------------+-------------+-------------------+
6. Allocation Policy
The allocation policy for the IANA request in Section 5 is
"Experimental". As per [RFC5226], IANA does not record specific
assignments for any particular use for this policy. The ongoing
experiment code point can be maintained at the PCE WG wiki at
<https://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/pce/trac/wiki>.
As the experiment/standard progress and an early IANA allocation or
RFC publication happens, the IANA defined codepoints are used and
experimental code points are freed up.
7. Security Considerations
This document does not introduce any new security considerations to
the existing protocol. Refer to [RFC5440] for further details of the
specific security measures.
8. Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Ramon Casellas, Jeff Tantsura and
Adrian Farrel, for their feedback and suggestions.
9. References
Dhody & King Expires January 1, 2017 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft EXP-CODEPOINT June 2016
9.1. Normative References
[RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation
Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5440, March 2009,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5440>.
9.2. Informative References
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5226>.
Dhody & King Expires January 1, 2017 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft EXP-CODEPOINT June 2016
Appendix A. Other Codepoints
Going through the PCEP IANA registry, following categories exist -
o Essentials (already added in the draft)
* Messages
* Objects
* TLV
o Good to have / simple to add
* NO-PATH Object NI
* Metric Type
* Notification
* Error
* Close reason
o Cross Registry
* IRO Subobjects
* XRO Subobjects
* PathKey Subobjects
* RSVP-TE (where ERO Subobjects is defined)
* The code points are kept consistent across these registries
o Exist Already
* OF - private use for 32768-65535
o Not Applicable for Flags
* Keeping aside some flags as experimental is not be a good idea
* Experiments can always use a new experimental TLV/Object and
use flags inside of it
+-----------------------+---------+----------+----------------------+
Dhody & King Expires January 1, 2017 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft EXP-CODEPOINT June 2016
| IANA Registry | Good to | Simple | Remarks |
| | have | to add | |
+-----------------------+---------+----------+----------------------+
| | | | |
| PCEP Messages | Y | Y | Essentials (already |
| | | | added in the draft) |
| | | | |
| PCEP Objects | Y | Y | Essentials (already |
| | | | added in the draft) |
| | | | |
| PCEP Message Common | | | NA |
| Header Flag Field | | | |
| | | | |
| Open Object Flag | | | NA |
| Field | | | |
| | | | |
| RP Object Flag Field | | | NA |
| | | | |
| NO-PATH Object NI | Y | Y | |
| Field | | | |
| | | | |
| NO-PATH Object Flag | | | NA |
| Field | | | |
| | | | |
| METRIC Object T Field | Y | Y | |
| | | | |
| METRIC Object Flag | | | NA |
| Field | | | |
| | | | |
| LSPA Object Flag | | | NA |
| Field | | | |
| | | | |
| IRO Subobjects | Y | N | |
| | | | |
| SVEC Object Flag | | | NA |
| Field | | | |
| | | | |
| Notification Object | Y | Y | Ex. NT: 224-255, |
| | | | NV:1-255 (*) |
| | | | |
| Notification Object | | | NA |
| Flag Field | | | |
| | | | |
| PCEP-ERROR Object | Y | Y | Ex. ET:224-255, |
| Error Types and | | | EV:1-255 (*) |
| Values | | | |
| | | | |
| PCEP-ERROR Object | | | NA |
Dhody & King Expires January 1, 2017 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft EXP-CODEPOINT June 2016
| Flag Field | | | |
| | | | |
| LOAD-BALANCING Object | | | NA |
| Flag Field | | | |
| | | | |
| CLOSE Object Reason | Y | Y | |
| Field | | | |
| | | | |
| CLOSE Object Flag | | | NA |
| Field | | | |
| | | | |
| PATH-KEY Subobjects | N | N | |
| | | | |
| PATH-KEY Subobjects | Y | N | |
| | | | |
| XRO Flag Field | | | NA |
| | | | |
| Objective Function | Y | Y | Private Use already |
| | | | exist |
| | | | |
| PCEP TLV Type | Y | Y | Essentials (already |
| Indicators | | | added in the draft) |
| | | | |
| NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV | | | NA |
| Flag Field | | | |
| | | | |
| MONITORING Object | | | NA |
| Flag Field | | | |
| | | | |
| PROC-TIME Object Flag | | | NA |
| Field | | | |
| | | | |
| OVERLOAD Object Flag | | | NA |
| field | | | |
| | | | |
+-----------------------+---------+----------+----------------------+
Table 1: PCEP IANA registry
WG need to decide if we need to expand the scope of this document.
(*) if done in this way - A new experimental Error-value/
Notification-Value for an existing Error-Type/Notification-Type is
not allowed, one should add a new Error-type/Notification-Type from
experimental range and add the value there. Or we need to set aside
experimental range for Error-value/Notification-Value for each Error-
Type/Notification-Type too!
Dhody & King Expires January 1, 2017 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft EXP-CODEPOINT June 2016
Authors' Addresses
Dhruv Dhody
Huawei Technologies
Divyashree Techno Park, Whitefield
Bangalore, Karnataka 560066
India
EMail: dhruv.ietf@gmail.com
Daniel King
Lancaster University
UK
EMail: d.king@lancaster.ac.uk
Dhody & King Expires January 1, 2017 [Page 9]