PCE Controlled ID Space
draft-li-pce-controlled-id-space-08
|
| Document |
Type |
|
Active Internet-Draft (individual)
|
|
Authors |
|
Cheng Li
,
Mach Chen
,
Aijun Wang
,
Weiqiang Cheng
,
Chao Zhou
|
|
Last updated |
|
2021-02-22
|
|
Stream |
|
(None)
|
|
Intended RFC status |
|
(None)
|
|
Formats |
|
pdf
htmlized
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)
|
Network Working Group C. Li
Internet-Draft M. Chen
Intended status: Experimental Huawei Technologies
Expires: August 26, 2021 A. Wang
China Telecom
W. Cheng
China Mobile
C. Zhou
HPE
February 22, 2021
PCE Controlled ID Space
draft-li-pce-controlled-id-space-08
Abstract
The Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) provides a
mechanisms for the Path Computation Elements (PCEs) to perform path
computations in response to Path Computation Clients (PCCs) requests.
The Stateful PCE extensions allow stateful control of Multiprotocol
Label Switching (MPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE) Label Switched Paths
(LSPs) using PCEP. Furthermore, PCE can be used for computing paths
in the SR networks.
Stateful PCE provide active control of MPLS-TE LSPs via PCEP, for a
model where the PCC delegates control over one or more locally
configured LSPs to the PCE. Further, stateful PCE could also create
and remove PCE-initiated LSPs by itself. A PCE-based Central
Controller (PCECC) simplify the processing of a distributed control
plane by integrating with elements of Software-Defined Networking
(SDN).
In some use cases, such as PCECC or Binding Segment Identifier (SID)
for Segment Routing (SR), there are requirements for a stateful PCE
to make allocation of labels, SIDs, etc. These use cases require PCE
aware of various identifier spaces from where to make allocations on
behalf of a PCC. This document describes a mechanism for a PCC to
inform the PCE of the identifier space set aside for the PCE control
via PCEP. The identifier could be an MPLS label, a SID or any other
to-be-defined identifier that can be allocated by a PCE.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Li, et al. Expires August 26, 2021 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft PCE Controlled ID Space February 2021
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 August 26, 2021.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2021 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
(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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Use cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. PCE-based Central Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1.1. PCECC for MPLS/SR-MPLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1.2. PCECC for SRv6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. Binding SID Allocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.1. Open Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.1.1. LABEL-CONTROL-SPACE TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.1.2. FUNCT-ID-CONTROL-SPACE TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. Other Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7.1. PCEP TLV Type Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7.2. LABEL-CONTROL-SPACE TLV's Flag field . . . . . . . . . . 12
7.3. FUNCT-ID-CONTROL-SPACE TLV's Flag field . . . . . . . . . 13
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Li, et al. Expires August 26, 2021 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft PCE Controlled ID Space February 2021
9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Appendix A. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
1. Introduction
[RFC5440] defines the stateless Path Computation Element
Communication Protocol (PCEP) for the Path Computation Elements
(PCEs) to perform path computation in response to Path Computation
Clients (PCCs) requests. For supporting stateful operations,
[RFC8231] specifies a set of extensions to PCEP to enable stateful
control of LSPs within and across PCEP sessions in compliance with
[RFC4657]. Furthermore, [RFC8281] describes the setup, maintenance,
and teardown of PCE-initiated LSPs under the stateful PCE model,
without the need for local configuration on the PCC, thus allowing
for a dynamic network that is centrally controlled and deployed.
[RFC8283] introduces the architecture for PCE as a central
controller, it examines the motivations and applicability for PCEP as
a control protocol in this environment, and introduces the
implications for the protocol. Also,
[I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller] specifies the
procedures and PCEP extensions for using the PCE as a Central
Controller (PCECC), where LSPs are calculated/set up/initiated and
label forwarding entries are downloaded through extending PCEP.
However, the document assumes that label range to be used by a PCE is
known and set on both PCEP peers. This extension adds the capability
to advertise the label range via a PCEP extension.
Similarly, [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-sr] specifies
the procedures and PCEP extensions when a PCE-based controller is
also responsible for configuring the forwarding actions on the
routers (SR SID distribution in this case), in addition to computing
the paths for packet flows in a segment routing network and telling
the edge routers what instructions to attach to packets as they enter
the network. However, the document assumes that label range to be
used by a PCE is known and set on both PCEP peers. This extension
adds the capability to advertise the range (from SRGB or SRLB of the
node) via a PCEP extension.
In addition, [I-D.dhody-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-srv6]
specifies the procedures and PCEP extensions of PCECC for SRv6. An
SRv6 SID is represented as LOC:FUNCT
([I-D.ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming]) where LOC is the L most
significant bits and FUNCT is the 128-L least significant bits. The
Li, et al. Expires August 26, 2021 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft PCE Controlled ID Space February 2021
FUNCT part of the SID is an opaque identification of a local function
bound to the SID. This extension adds the capability to advertise
the range of Function ID (FUNCT part) via a PCEP extension.
Once the PCC/node has given control over an ID space (for example
labels), the PCC/node MUST NOT allocate the ID from this ID space.
For example, a PCC/node MUST NOT use this labels from the PCE
controlled label space to make allocation for VPN Prefix distributed
via BGP or labels used for LDP/RSVP-TE signalling. This is done to
make sure that the PCE control over ID space does not conflict with
the existing node allocation.
The use case are described in Section 3. The ID space range
information can be advertised via the TLVs in the Open message. The
detailed procedures are described in Section 4, and the TLV format is
specified in Section 5.
2. Terminology
This memo makes use of the terms defined in [RFC5440], [RFC8231],
[RFC8283] and [RFC8402].
2.1. 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.
3. Use cases
3.1. PCE-based Central Control
A PCE-based Central Controller (PCECC) can simplify the processing of
a distributed control plane by integrating with elements of SDN.
Thus, the LSP/SR path can be calculated/set up/initiated and the
label/SID forwarding entries can also be downloaded through a
centralized PCE server to each network devices along the path while
leveraging the existing PCE technologies as much as possible.
3.1.1. PCECC for MPLS/SR-MPLS
[I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller] describes a mode
where LSPs are provisioned as explicit label instructions at each hop
on the end-to-end path. Each router along the path must be told what
label forwarding instructions to program and what resources to
reserve. The controller uses PCEP to communicate with each router
Li, et al. Expires August 26, 2021 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft PCE Controlled ID Space February 2021
along the path of the end-to-end LSP. For this to work, the PCE-
based controller will take responsibility for managing some part of
the MPLS label space for each router that it controls as described in
section 3.1.2. of [RFC8283]. A mechanism for a PCC to inform the PCE
of such a label space to control is needed within PCEP.
[RFC8664] specifies extensions to PCEP that allow a stateful PCE to
compute, update or initiate SR-TE paths.
[I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-sr] describes the
mechanism for PCECC to allocate and distribute the node/prefix/
adjacency label (SID) via PCEP. To make such allocation, PCE needs
to be aware of the label space from Segment Routing Global Block
(SRGB) or Segment Routing Local Block (SRLB) [RFC8402] of the node
that it can control. A mechanism for a PCC to inform the PCE of such
label space to control is needed within PCEP. The full SRGB/SRLB of
a node could be learned via existing IGP or BGP-LS mechanism.
3.1.2. PCECC for SRv6
[I-D.dhody-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-srv6] describes the
mechanism for PCECC to allocate and provision the SRv6 SID via PCEP.
An SRv6 SID is represented as LOC:FUNCT
([I-D.ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming]) where LOC is the L most
significant bits and FUNCT is the 128-L least significant bits. The
FUNCT part of the SID is an opaque identification of a local function
bound to the SID. To make such allocation, PCE needs to be aware of
the Function ID space (FUNCT part) of the node that it controls. A
mechanism for a PCC to inform the PCE of such a Function ID space to
control is needed within PCEP.
3.2. Binding SID Allocation
The headend of an SR Policy binds a Binding SID (BSID)
[I-D.ietf-pce-binding-label-sid] to its policy
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy]. The instantiation of which
may involve a list of SIDs. The Binding SID can be allocated by the
node as described in [I-D.ietf-pce-binding-label-sid], but there is
an inherent advantage in the Binding SID to be allocated by a PCE to
allow SR policies to be dynamically created, updated according to the
network status and operations. This is described in
[I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller]. Therefore, a PCE
needs to obtain the authority and control to allocate Binding SID
actively from the PCC's label space as described in above use case.
This is applicable for both SR-MPLS and SRv6 BSID.
Li, et al. Expires August 26, 2021 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft PCE Controlled ID Space February 2021
4. Overview
During PCEP Initialization Phase, Open messages are exchanged between
the PCCs and the PCEs. The OPEN object may also contain a set of
TLVs used to convey the capabilities in the Open message. The term
'ID' in this document, could be a MPLS label, SRv6 Function ID or any
other future ID space for PCE to control and allocate from. A PCC
can include a corresponding ID-CONTROL-SPACE TLVs in the OPEN Object
to inform the corresponding ID space information that it wants the
PCE to control. This TLV MUST NOT be included by the PCE and MUST be
ignored on receipt by a PCC. This is an optional TLV, the PCE could
be aware of the ID space from some other means outside of PCEP.
For delegating multiple types of ID space, multiple TLVs
corresponding to each ID type MUST be included in an Open message.
The ID type can be MPLS label or other type of ID. The following ID-
CONTROL-SPACE TLV is defined in this document -
o LABEL-CONTROL-SPACE TLV - for MPLS Labels (including for SR-MPLS)
o FUNCTION-ID-CONTROL-SPACE TLV - for SRv6 SID Function ID
The procedure of ID space control to PCE is shown below:
+-+-+ +-+-+
|PCC| |PCE|
+-+-+ +-+-+
| |
| Open msg (LABEL-CONTROL-SPACE,etc) |
| |
|-------- |
| \ Open msg |
| \ -----------------------------|
| \/ |
| /\ |
| / ---------------------------->|
| / |
|<------ Keepalive |
| ----------------------------|
|Keepalive / |
|-------- / |
| \/ |
| /\ |
|<------ ------------------------------>|
| |
Figure 1: ID space control to PCE
Li, et al. Expires August 26, 2021 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft PCE Controlled ID Space February 2021
If the ID space control procedure is successful, the PCE will return
a KeepAlive message to the PCC. If there is any error in processing
the corresponding TLV, an Error (PCErr) message will be sent to the
PCC with Error-Type=1 (PCEP session establishment failure) and Error-
value=TBD (ID space control failure).
After this process, a stateful PCE can learn the PCE-controlled ID
spaces of a node (PCC) under its control. A PCE can then allocate
IDs within the controlled-ID space. For example, a PCE can actively
allocate labels and download forwarding instructions for the PCECC
LSP as described in [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller].
A PCE can also allocate labels from the PCE controlled portion of the
SRGB/SRLB for PCECC-SR
[I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-sr]. The full SRGB/SRLB
of a node could be learned via existing IGP or BGP-LS mechanism.
The procedure for handling the FUNCTION-ID-CONTROL-SPACE TLV is same
as above.
5. Objects
5.1. Open Object
For advertising the PCE-controlled ID space to a PCE, this document
defines several TLVs within the OPEN object.
5.1.1. LABEL-CONTROL-SPACE TLV
For a PCC to inform the label space under the PCE control, this
document defines a new LABEL-CONTROL-SPACE TLV.
The LABEL-CONTROL-SPACE TLV is an optional TLV in the OPEN object,
and its format is shown in the following figure:
Li, et al. Expires August 26, 2021 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft PCE Controlled ID Space February 2021
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type=TBD1 | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Block | Flags |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Start (1) | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Range (1) | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Start (n) | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Range (n) | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: LABEL-CONTROL-SPACE TLV
The type (16 bits) of the TLV is TBD1. The length field (16 bits)
and has a variable value.
Block(8 bits): the number of ID blocks. The range of a block is
described by a start field and a range field.
Flags (24 bits): No flag is currently defined. The unassigned bits
of Flags field MUST be set to 0 on transmission and MUST be ignored
on receipt.
Start(i) (24 bits): indicates the beginning of the label block i.
Range(i) (24 bits): indicates the range of the label block i.
Reserved: MUST be set to 0 on transmission and MUST be ignored on
reception.
LABEL-CONTROL-SPACE TLV SHOULD be included only once in a Open
Message. On receipt, only the first instance is processed and others
MUST be ignored.
A stateful PCE can actively allocate labels and download forwarding
instructions for the PCECC LSP as described in
[I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller]. A PCE can also
allocate labels from SRGB/SRLB for PCECC-SR
Li, et al. Expires August 26, 2021 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft PCE Controlled ID Space February 2021
[I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-sr]. The Binding
Segments can also be selected for the PCE controlled space
[I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller].
5.1.2. FUNCT-ID-CONTROL-SPACE TLV
For a PCC to inform the SRv6 SID Function ID space under the PCE
control, this document defines a new FUNCT-ID-CONTROL-SPACE TLV.
The FUNCT-ID-CONTROL-SPACE TLV is an optional TLV for use in the OPEN
object, and its format is shown in the following figure:
Li, et al. Expires August 26, 2021 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft PCE Controlled ID Space February 2021
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type=TBD2 | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Block | Flags |L|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| SID |
| Structure |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| Start (1) |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| Range (1) |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ...... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| Start (n) |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| Range (n) |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Loc Size | Locator (variable)... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3: FUNCT-ID-CONTROL-SPACE TLV
The type (16 bits) of the TLV is TBD2. The length field (16 bits)
and has a variable value.
Block(8 bits): the number of ID blocks. The range of a block is
described by a start field and a range field.
Flags (24 bits): Following flags are currently defined
o L-flag: Locator flag, set when the locator information is included
in this TLV. If L-flag is unset, Loc Size and variable Locator
Li, et al. Expires August 26, 2021 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft PCE Controlled ID Space February 2021
field MUST NOT be included in this TLV, and the ID spaces are
applicable to all Locators.
The unassigned bits of Flags field MUST be set to 0 on transmission
and MUST be ignored on receipt.
SID Structure: 64-bit field formatted as per "SID Structure" in
[I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing-ipv6].
Start(i) (128 bits): indicates the beginning of the Function ID block
i.
Range(i) (128 bits): indicates the range of the Function ID block i.
Loc size(8 bits): indicates the bit length of a Locator. Appears
only when the L-flag is set.
Locator (variable length): the value of a Locator. The Function ID
spaces specified in this TLV are associated with this locator.
As per [RFC5440], the value portion of the PCEP TLV needs to be
4-bytes aligned, so a FUNCT-ID-CONTROL-SPACE TLV is padded with
trailing zeros to a 4-byte boundary.
Multiple FUNCT-ID-CONTROL-SPACE TLVs MAY be included in a OPEN object
to specify Function ID space specefic to each locator.
A stateful PCE can actively allocate SRv6 SID and download SIDs for
the PCECC-SRv6 as described in
[I-D.dhody-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-srv6].
Note that SRv6 SID allocation involves LOC:FUNCT; the LOC is assumed
to be known at PCE and FUNCT is allocated from the PCE controlled
Function ID block.
6. Other Considerations
In case of multiple PCEs, a PCC MAY decide to give control over
different ID space to each instance of the PCE. In case a PCC
includes the same ID space to multiple PCEs, the PCE MUST use
synchronization mechanism (such as [I-D.litkowski-pce-state-sync]) to
avoid allocating the same ID.
The PCE would allocate ID from the PCE controlled ID space. The PCC
would not allocate ID by itself from this space as long as it has an
active PCEP session to a PCE to which it has given control over the
ID space.
Li, et al. Expires August 26, 2021 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft PCE Controlled ID Space February 2021
Note that if there is any change in the ID space, the PCC MUST bring
the session down and re-establish the session with new TLVs. During
state synchronization the PCE would need to consider the new ID space
into consideration and SHOULD re-establish the LSP/SR-paths if
needed.
The PCC can regain control of the ID space by closing the PCEP
session and require new session without ID space TLVs specified in
this document.
7. IANA Considerations
IANA maintains the "Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers"
registry. This document requests IANA actions to allocate code
points for the protocol elements defined in this document.
7.1. PCEP TLV Type Indicators
IANA maintains a subregistry called "PCEP TLV Type Indicators". IANA
is requested to make an assignment from this subregistry as follows:
Value | Meaning | Reference
--------+------------------------------+-------------
TBD1 | LABEL-CONTROL-SPACE TLV | [This.I-D]
TBD2 | FUNCT-ID-CONTROL-SPACE TLV | [This.I-D]
7.2. LABEL-CONTROL-SPACE TLV's Flag field
This document defines the LABEL-CONTROL-SPACE TLV and requests that
IANA to create a new sub-registry to manage the value of the LABEL-
CONTROL-SPACE TLV's 24-bits Flag field. New values are to be
assigned by Standards Action [RFC8126]. Each bit should be tracked
with the following qualities:
o Bit number (counting from bit 0 as the most significant bit)
o Capability description
o Defining RFC
Currently, there is no allocation in this registry.
Li, et al. Expires August 26, 2021 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft PCE Controlled ID Space February 2021
Bit | Name | Reference
--------+------------------------------+-------------
0-23 | Unassigned | [This.I-D]
7.3. FUNCT-ID-CONTROL-SPACE TLV's Flag field
This document defines the FUNCT-ID-CONTROL-SPACE TLV and requests
that IANA to create a new sub-registry to manage the value of the
FUNCT-ID-CONTROL-SPACE TLV's 24-bits Flag field. New values are to
be assigned by Standards Action [RFC8126]. Each bit should be
tracked with the following qualities:
o Bit number (counting from bit 0 as the most significant bit)
o Capability description
o Defining RFC
Currently, there is no allocation in this registry.
Bit | Name | Reference
--------+------------------------------+-------------
23 | L-Bit | [This.I-D]
0-22 | Unassigned | [This.I-D]
8. Security Considerations
The security considerations described in
[I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller],
[I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-sr], and
[I-D.dhody-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-srv6] and apply to the
extensions described in this document.
As per [RFC8231], it is RECOMMENDED that these PCEP extensions only
be activated on authenticated and encrypted sessions across PCEs and
PCCs belonging to the same administrative authority, using Transport
Layer Security (TLS) [RFC8253] as per the recommendations and best
current practices in [RFC7525] (unless explicitly set aside in
[RFC8253]).
9. Acknowledgements
TBD.
Li, et al. Expires August 26, 2021 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft PCE Controlled ID Space February 2021
10. References
10.1. 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>.
[RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
[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>.
[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>.
[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>.
[RFC8283] Farrel, A., Ed., Zhao, Q., Ed., Li, Z., and C. Zhou, "An
Architecture for Use of PCE and the PCE Communication
Protocol (PCEP) in a Network with Central Control",
RFC 8283, DOI 10.17487/RFC8283, December 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8283>.
Li, et al. Expires August 26, 2021 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft PCE Controlled ID Space February 2021
[I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing-ipv6]
Li, C., Negi, M., Sivabalan, S., Koldychev, M.,
Kaladharan, P., and Y. Zhu, "PCEP Extensions for Segment
Routing leveraging the IPv6 data plane", draft-ietf-pce-
segment-routing-ipv6-08 (work in progress), November 2020.
10.2. Informative References
[RFC4657] Ash, J., Ed. and J. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation
Element (PCE) Communication Protocol Generic
Requirements", RFC 4657, DOI 10.17487/RFC4657, September
2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4657>.
[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>.
[RFC8402] Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Ginsberg, L.,
Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment
Routing Architecture", RFC 8402, DOI 10.17487/RFC8402,
July 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8402>.
[RFC8664] Sivabalan, S., Filsfils, C., Tantsura, J., Henderickx, W.,
and J. Hardwick, "Path Computation Element Communication
Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for Segment Routing", RFC 8664,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8664, December 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8664>.
[I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller]
Li, Z., Peng, S., Negi, M., Zhao, Q., and C. Zhou, "PCEP
Procedures and Protocol Extensions for Using PCE as a
Central Controller (PCECC) of LSPs", draft-ietf-pce-pcep-
extension-for-pce-controller-10 (work in progress),
January 2021.
[I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-sr]
Li, Z., Peng, S., Negi, M., Zhao, Q., and C. Zhou, "PCEP
Procedures and Protocol Extensions for Using PCE as a
Central Controller (PCECC) for Segment Routing (SR) MPLS
Segment Identifier (SID) Allocation and Distribution.",
draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-sr-00 (work
in progress), December 2020.
Li, et al. Expires August 26, 2021 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft PCE Controlled ID Space February 2021
[I-D.litkowski-pce-state-sync]
Litkowski, S., Sivabalan, S., Li, C., and H. Zheng, "Inter
Stateful Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication
Procedures.", draft-litkowski-pce-state-sync-09 (work in
progress), November 2020.
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy]
Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Voyer, D., Bogdanov, A., and
P. Mattes, "Segment Routing Policy Architecture", draft-
ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy-09 (work in progress),
November 2020.
[I-D.dhody-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-srv6]
Li, Z., Peng, S., Geng, X., and M. Negi, "PCEP Procedures
and Protocol Extensions for Using PCE as a Central
Controller (PCECC) for SRv6", draft-dhody-pce-pcep-
extension-pce-controller-srv6-05 (work in progress),
November 2020.
[I-D.ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming]
Filsfils, C., Camarillo, P., Leddy, J., Voyer, D.,
Matsushima, S., and Z. Li, "SRv6 Network Programming",
draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-28 (work in
progress), December 2020.
[I-D.ietf-pce-binding-label-sid]
Sivabalan, S., Filsfils, C., Tantsura, J., Hardwick, J.,
Previdi, S., and C. Li, "Carrying Binding Label/Segment-ID
in PCE-based Networks.", draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-
sid-05 (work in progress), October 2020.
Li, et al. Expires August 26, 2021 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft PCE Controlled ID Space February 2021
Appendix A. Contributors
Dhruv Dhody
Huawei Technologies
Divyashree Techno Park, Whitefield
Bangalore, Karnataka 560066
India
EMail: dhruv.ietf@gmail.com
Zhenbin Li
Huawei Technologies
Huawei Campus, No. 156 Beiqing Rd.
Beijing 100095
China
EMail: lizhenbin@huawei.com
Jie Dong
Huawei Technologies
Huawei Campus, No. 156 Beiqing Rd.
Beijing 100095
China
EMail: jie.dong@huawei.com
Authors' Addresses
Cheng Li
Huawei Technologies
Huawei Campus, No. 156 Beiqing Rd.
Beijing 100095
China
EMail: c.l@huawei.com
Mach(Guoyi) Chen
Huawei Technologies
Huawei Campus, No. 156 Beiqing Rd.
Beijing 100095
China
EMail: Mach.chen@huawei.com
Li, et al. Expires August 26, 2021 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft PCE Controlled ID Space February 2021
Aijun Wang
China Telecom
Beiqijia Town,
Beijing, Changping District 102209
China
EMail: wangaj3@chinatelecom.cn
Weiqiang Cheng
China Mobile
EMail: chengweiqiang@chinamobile.com
Chao Zhou
HPE
EMail: chaozhou_us@yahoo.com
Li, et al. Expires August 26, 2021 [Page 18]