Conveying Vendor-Specific Information in the Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP) extensions for stateful PCE.
draft-dhody-pce-stateful-pce-vendor-07

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Last updated 2019-07-08
Stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text xml pdf html bibtex
Stream Stream state (No stream defined)
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
RFC Editor Note (None)
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
PCE Working Group                                                  C. Li
Internet-Draft                                                  H. Zheng
Intended status: Standards Track                     Huawei Technologies
Expires: January 9, 2020                                    S. Sivabalan
                                                     Cisco Systems, Inc.
                                                            July 8, 2019

 Conveying Vendor-Specific Information in the Path Computation Element
    (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP) extensions for stateful PCE.
                 draft-dhody-pce-stateful-pce-vendor-07

Abstract

   A Stateful Path Computation Element (PCE) maintains information on
   the current network state, including: computed Label Switched Path
   (LSPs), reserved resources within the network, and pending path
   computation requests.  This information may then be considered when
   computing new traffic engineered LSPs, and for associated and
   dependent LSPs, received from Path Computation Clients (PCCs).

   RFC 7470 defines a facility to carry vendor-specific information in
   PCEP.

   This document extends this capability for the stateful PCE messages.

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 https://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 9, 2020.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

Li, et al.               Expires January 9, 2020                [Page 1]
Internet-Draft               VENDOR-STATEFUL                   July 2019

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   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
     1.1.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Procedures for the Vendor Information Object  . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Procedures for the Vendor Information TLV . . . . . . . . . .   5
   4.  Vendor Information Object and TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   5.  Manageability Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     5.1.  Control of Function and Policy  . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     5.2.  Information and Data Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     5.3.  Liveness Detection and Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     5.4.  Verify Correct Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     5.5.  Requirements On Other Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     5.6.  Impact On Network Operations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   7.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   8.  Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   9.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     9.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     9.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   Appendix A.  Contributor Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9

1.  Introduction

   The Path Computation Element communication Protocol (PCEP) [RFC5440]
   provides mechanisms for Path Computation Elements (PCEs) to perform
   path computations in response to Path Computation Clients' (PCCs)
   requests.

   A stateful PCE is capable of considering, for the purposes of path
   computation, not only the network state in terms of links and nodes
   (referred to as the Traffic Engineering Database or TED) but also the
   status of active services (previously computed paths, and currently
   reserved resources, stored in the Label Switched Paths Database (LSP-
   DB).  [RFC8051] describes general considerations for a stateful PCE
   deployment and examines its applicability and benefits, as well as
   its challenges and limitations through a number of use cases.

Li, et al.               Expires January 9, 2020                [Page 2]
Internet-Draft               VENDOR-STATEFUL                   July 2019

   [RFC8231] describes a set of extensions to PCEP to provide stateful
   control.  A stateful PCE has access to not only the information
   carried by the network's Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP), but also
   the set of active paths and their reserved resources for its
   computations.  The additional state allows the PCE to compute
   constrained paths while considering individual LSPs and their
   interactions.  [RFC8281] describes the set-up, maintenance and
   teardown of PCE-initiated LSPs under the stateful PCE model.  These
   extensions added new messages in PCEP for stateful PCE.

   [RFC7470] defined Vendor Information object that can be used to carry
   arbitrary, proprietary information such as vendor-specific
   constraints.  It also defined VENDOR-INFORMATION-TLV that can be used
   to carry arbitrary information within any existing or future PCEP
   object that supports TLVs.

   This document extend the usage of Vendor Information Object and
   VENDOR-INFORMATION-TLV to stateful PCE.  The VENDOR-INFORMATION-TLV
   can be carried inside any of the new objects added in PCEP for
   stateful PCE as per [RFC7470], this document extend the PCEP messages
   to also include the Vendor Information Object as well.

1.1.  Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
   14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

2.  Procedures for the Vendor Information Object

   A Path Computation LSP State Report message [RFC8231] (also referred
   to as PCRpt message) is a PCEP message sent by a PCC to a PCE to
   report the current state of an LSP.  A PCC that wants to convey
   proprietary or vendor-specific information or metrics to a PCE does
   so by including a Vendor Information object in the PCRpt message.
   The contents and format of the object are described in Section 4 of
   [RFC7470].  The PCE determines how to interpret the information in
   the Vendor Information object by examining the Enterprise Number it
   contains.

   The Vendor Information object is OPTIONAL in a PCRpt message.
   Multiple instances of the object MAY be used on a single PCRpt
   message.  Different instances of the object can have different
   Enterprise Numbers.

Li, et al.               Expires January 9, 2020                [Page 3]
Internet-Draft               VENDOR-STATEFUL                   July 2019

   The format of the PCRpt message (with [RFC8231] as base) is updated
   as follows:

         <PCRpt Message> ::= <Common Header>
                             <state-report-list>
      Where:

         <state-report-list> ::= <state-report>[<state-report-list>]

         <state-report> ::= [<SRP>]
                            <LSP>
                            <path>
                            [<vendor-info-list>]
       Where:
         <vendor-info-list> ::= <VENDOR-INFORMATION>
                                 [<vendor-info-list>]

         <path> is defined in [RFC8231].

   A Path Computation LSP Update Request message (also referred to as
   PCUpd message) is a PCEP message sent by a PCE to a PCC to update
   attributes of an LSP.  The Vendor Information object can be included
   in a PCUpd message to convey proprietary or vendor-specific
   information.

   The format of the PCUpd message (with [RFC8231] as base) is updated
   as follows:

         <PCUpd Message> ::= <Common Header>
                             <update-request-list>
      Where:

         <update-request-list> ::= <update-request>
                             [<update-request-list>]

         <update-request> ::= <SRP>
                              <LSP>
                              <path>
                              [<vendor-info-list>]
      Where:
         <vendor-info-list> ::= <VENDOR-INFORMATION>
                                 [<vendor-info-list>]

         <path> is defined in [RFC8231].

   A Path Computation LSP Initiate Message (also referred to as
   PCInitiate message) is a PCEP message sent by a PCE to a PCC to
   trigger LSP instantiation or deletion.  The Vendor Information object

Li, et al.               Expires January 9, 2020                [Page 4]
Internet-Draft               VENDOR-STATEFUL                   July 2019

   can be included in a PCInitiate message to convey proprietary or
   vendor-specific information.

   The format of the PCInitiate message (with [RFC8281] as base) is
   updated as follows:

        <PCInitiate Message> ::= <Common Header>
                                 <PCE-initiated-lsp-list>
     Where:

        <PCE-initiated-lsp-list> ::= <PCE-initiated-lsp-request>
                                     [<PCE-initiated-lsp-list>]

        <PCE-initiated-lsp-request> ::=
                             (<PCE-initiated-lsp-instantiation>|
                              <PCE-initiated-lsp-deletion>)

        <PCE-initiated-lsp-instantiation> ::= <SRP>
                                              <LSP>
                                              [<END-POINTS>]
                                              <ERO>
                                              [<attribute-list>]
                                              [<vendor-info-list>]

        Where:

        <vendor-info-list> ::= <VENDOR-INFORMATION>
                               [<vendor-info-list>]

      <PCE-initiated-lsp-deletion> and <attribute-list> is as per
      [RFC8281].

   A legacy implementation that does not recognize the Vendor
   Information object will act according to the procedures set out in
   [RFC8231] and [RFC8281].  An implementation that supports the Vendor
   Information object, but receives one carrying an Enterprise Number
   that it does not support, SHOULD ignore the object in the same way as
   described in [RFC7470].

3.  Procedures for the Vendor Information TLV

   The Vendor Information TLV can be used to carry vendor-specific
   information that applies to a specific PCEP object by including the
   TLV in the object.  This includes objects used in stateful PCE
   extension such as SRP and LSP object.  All the procedures as per
   section 3 of [RFC7470].

Li, et al.               Expires January 9, 2020                [Page 5]
Internet-Draft               VENDOR-STATEFUL                   July 2019

4.  Vendor Information Object and TLV

   [RFC7470] specify the format of VENDOR-INFORMATION Object and VENDOR-
   INFORMATION-TLV.

5.  Manageability Considerations

   All manageability requirements and considerations listed in
   [RFC5440], [RFC7470] and [RFC8231] apply to PCEP protocol extensions
   defined in this document.  In addition, requirements and
   considerations listed in this section apply.

5.1.  Control of Function and Policy

   As stated in [RFC7470], this capability, the associated vendor
   specific information and policy SHOULD made configurable.  This
   information can be used in stateful messages as well.

5.2.  Information and Data Models

   The PCEP YANG module is specified in [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang].  It is
   NOT RECOMMENDED that standard YANG module be augmented with details
   of vendor information.  It MAY be extended to include the use of this
   information and the Enterprise Numbers that the object and TLVs
   contain.

5.3.  Liveness Detection and Monitoring

   Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new liveness
   detection and monitoring requirements in addition to those already
   listed in [RFC5440].

5.4.  Verify Correct Operations

   Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new operation
   verification requirements in addition to those already listed in
   [RFC5440] and [RFC8231].

5.5.  Requirements On Other Protocols

   Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new requirements
   on other protocols.

5.6.  Impact On Network Operations

   Mechanisms defined in [RFC5440] and [RFC8231] also apply to PCEP
   extensions defined in this document.  Further, the mechanism

Li, et al.               Expires January 9, 2020                [Page 6]
Internet-Draft               VENDOR-STATEFUL                   July 2019

   described in this document can help the operator to request control
   of the LSPs at a particular PCE.

6.  IANA Considerations

   There are no IANA consideration in this document.

7.  Security Considerations

   The protocol extensions defined in this document do not change the
   nature of PCEP.  Therefore, the security considerations set out in
   [RFC5440], [RFC7470], [RFC8231] and [RFC8281] apply unchanged.

   As stated in [RFC6952], PCEP implementations SHOULD support the TCP-
   AO [RFC5925] and not use TCP MD5 because of TCP MD5's known
   vulnerabilities and weakness.  PCEP also support Transport Layer
   Security (TLS) [RFC8253] as per the recommendations and best current
   practices in [RFC7525].

8.  Acknowledgments

   Thanks to Avantika, Mahendra Singh Negi, Udayasree Palle and Swapna K
   for their suggestions.

9.  References

9.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC5440]  Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation
              Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5440, March 2009,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5440>.

   [RFC7470]  Zhang, F. and A. Farrel, "Conveying Vendor-Specific
              Constraints in the Path Computation Element Communication
              Protocol", RFC 7470, DOI 10.17487/RFC7470, March 2015,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7470>.

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

Li, et al.               Expires January 9, 2020                [Page 7]
Internet-Draft               VENDOR-STATEFUL                   July 2019

   [RFC8231]  Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Medved, J., and R. Varga, "Path
              Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)
              Extensions for Stateful PCE", RFC 8231,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8231, September 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8231>.

   [RFC8281]  Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Sivabalan, S., and R. Varga, "Path
              Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)
              Extensions for PCE-Initiated LSP Setup in a Stateful PCE
              Model", RFC 8281, DOI 10.17487/RFC8281, December 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8281>.

9.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang]
              Dhody, D., Hardwick, J., Beeram, V., and J. Tantsura, "A
              YANG Data Model for Path Computation Element
              Communications Protocol (PCEP)", draft-ietf-pce-pcep-
              yang-12 (work in progress), July 2019.

   [RFC5925]  Touch, J., Mankin, A., and R. Bonica, "The TCP
              Authentication Option", RFC 5925, DOI 10.17487/RFC5925,
              June 2010, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5925>.

   [RFC6952]  Jethanandani, M., Patel, K., and L. Zheng, "Analysis of
              BGP, LDP, PCEP, and MSDP Issues According to the Keying
              and Authentication for Routing Protocols (KARP) Design
              Guide", RFC 6952, DOI 10.17487/RFC6952, May 2013,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6952>.

   [RFC7525]  Sheffer, Y., Holz, R., and P. Saint-Andre,
              "Recommendations for Secure Use of Transport Layer
              Security (TLS) and Datagram Transport Layer Security
              (DTLS)", BCP 195, RFC 7525, DOI 10.17487/RFC7525, May
              2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7525>.

   [RFC8051]  Zhang, X., Ed. and I. Minei, Ed., "Applicability of a
              Stateful Path Computation Element (PCE)", RFC 8051,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8051, January 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8051>.

   [RFC8253]  Lopez, D., Gonzalez de Dios, O., Wu, Q., and D. Dhody,
              "PCEPS: Usage of TLS to Provide a Secure Transport for the
              Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)",
              RFC 8253, DOI 10.17487/RFC8253, October 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8253>.

Li, et al.               Expires January 9, 2020                [Page 8]
Internet-Draft               VENDOR-STATEFUL                   July 2019

Appendix A.  Contributor Addresses

   Dhruv Dhody
   Huawei Technologies
   Divyashree Techno Park, Whitefield
   Bangalore, Karnataka  560066
   India

Authors' Addresses

   Cheng Li
   Huawei Technologies
   Huawei Campus, No. 156 Beiqing Rd.
   Beijing  100095
   China

   Email: chengli13@huawei.com

   Haomian Zheng
   Huawei Technologies
   F3 RnD Center, Huawei Industrial Base, Bantian, Longgang District
   Shenzhen, Guangdong  518129
   P.R.China

   Email: zhenghaomian@huawei.com

   Siva Sivabalan
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   2000 Innovation Drive
   Kanata, Ontario  K2K 3E8
   Canada

   Email: msiva@cisco.com

Li, et al.               Expires January 9, 2020                [Page 9]