Skip to main content

IGP extension for PCEP security capability support in the PCE discovery
draft-wu-pce-discovery-pceps-support-00

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 "Expired".
Authors Diego R. Lopez , Qin Wu , Dhruv Dhody , Daniel King
Last updated 2014-02-10
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-wu-pce-discovery-pceps-support-00
PCE working group                                               D. Lopez
Internet-Draft                                            Telefonica I+D
Intended status: Standards Track                                   Q. Wu
Expires: August 14, 2014                                        D. Dhody
                                                                  Huawei
                                                                 D. King
                                                      Old Dog Consulting
                                                       February 10, 2014

IGP extension for PCEP security capability support in the PCE discovery
                draft-wu-pce-discovery-pceps-support-00

Abstract

   When a Path Computation Element(PCE) is a Label Switching Router
   (LSR) participating in the Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP), or even a
   server participating in IGP, its presence and path computation
   capabilities can be advertised using IGP flooding.  [RFC5088] and
   [RFC5089] define a method to advertise path computation capabilities
   using IGP flooding for OSPF and ISIS respectively.  However [RFC5088]
   and [RFC5089] lacks a method to advertise PCEP security (e.g.,
   Transport Layer Security(TLS)) support capability.

   This document proposes new capability flag bit for PCE-CAP-FLAGS sub-
   TLV that can be announced as attribute in the IGP advertisement
   (defined in [RFC5088] and [RFC5089]) to distribute PCEP security
   support information.

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 August 14, 2014.

Copyright Notice

Lopez, et al.            Expires August 14, 2014                [Page 1]
Internet-Draft       IGP discovery for PCEP Security       February 2014

   Copyright (c) 2014 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
   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.  Conventions used in this document  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   3.  IGP extension for PCEP security capability support . . . . . .  5
     3.1.  Use of PCEP transport capability support for PCE
           discovery  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   4.  Backward Compatibility Consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   5.  Management Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   6.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   7.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   8.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     8.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     8.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Lopez, et al.            Expires August 14, 2014                [Page 2]
Internet-Draft       IGP discovery for PCEP Security       February 2014

1.  Introduction

   As described in [RFC5440], PCEP communication privacy is one
   importance issue, as an attacker that intercepts a Path Computation
   Element (PCE) message could obtain sensitive information related to
   computed paths and resources.

   Among the possible solutions mentioned in these documents, Transport
   Layer Security (TLS) [RFC5246] provides support for peer
   authentication, and message encryption and integrity.  In order for a
   Path Computation Client(PCC) to begin a connection with a PCE server
   using TLS, PCC SHOULD know whether PCE server supports TLS as a
   secure transport.

   [RFC5088] and [RFC5089] define a method to advertise path computation
   capabilities using IGP flooding for OSPF and ISIS respectively.
   However [RFC5088] and [RFC5089] lacks a method to advertise PCEP
   security (ex.  TLS) support capability.

   This document proposes new capability flag bit for PCE-CAP-FLAGS sub-
   TLV that can be announced as attribute in the IGP advertisement
   (defined in [RFC5088] and [RFC5089]) to distribute pcep security
   support information.

Lopez, et al.            Expires August 14, 2014                [Page 3]
Internet-Draft       IGP discovery for PCEP Security       February 2014

2.  Conventions used in this document

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC2119 [RFC2119].

Lopez, et al.            Expires August 14, 2014                [Page 4]
Internet-Draft       IGP discovery for PCEP Security       February 2014

3.  IGP extension for PCEP security capability support

   The PCE-CAP-FLAGS sub-TLV is defined in section 4.5 of [RFC5088] and
   [RFC5089] as an optional sub-TLV used to advertise PCE capabilities.
   In this section, we extend the PCE-CAP-FLAGS sub-TLV to include the
   capability and indications that are described for PCEP security (ex.
   TLS) support in the present document.

   In the PCE-CAP-FLAGS sub-TLV defined in [RFC5088] and [RFC5089], nine
   capability flags defined in [RFC4657] and two capability flags
   defined [RFC5557], [RFC6006] are included and follows the following
   format: The PCE-CAP-FLAGS sub-TLV has the following format:

   o  TYPE: 5
   o  LENGTH: Multiple of 4
   o  VALUE: This contains an array of units of 32 bit flags with the
      most significant bit as 0.  Each bit represents one PCE capability

   and the processing rule of these flag bits are defined in [RFC5088][
   and RFC5089].  In this document, we define three new capability flag
   bits that indicate TCP MD5 support, TCP Authentication Option
   (TCP-AO) support, PCEP over TLS support respectively as follows:

        Bit         Capability Description
        xx            TCP MD5 support
        xx            TCP AO Support
        xx            PCEP over TLS support

3.1.  Use of PCEP transport capability support for PCE discovery

   TCP MD5, TCP-AO, PCEP over TLS support flag bits are advertised using
   IGP flooding.  If the PCE server supports only TCP MD5, IGP
   advertisement SHOULD include TCP MD5 support flag bit.  If the PCE
   server supports both TCP MD5 and TCP-AO, IGP advertisement SHOULD
   only include TCP-AO support flag bit in the PCE-CAP-FLAGS sub-TLV.
   If the PCE server supports both TCP MD5 and PCEP over TLS, IGP
   advertisement SHOULD include both TCP MD5 support flag bit and PCEP
   over TLS support flag bit in the PCE-CAP-FLAGS sub-TLV.  If the PCE
   server supports both TCP-AO and PCEP over TLS, IGP advertisement
   SHOULD include both TCP-AO support flag bit and PCEP over TLS flag
   bit in the PCE-CAP-FLAGS sub-TLV.  If the PCE server only supports
   TLS over TCP , IGP advertisement MUST include PCEP over TLS support
   flag bit in the PCE-CAP-FLAGS sub-TLV.

   If the client is looking for connecting with PCE server with TCP-AO
   support, the client MUST check if TCP-AO support flag bit in the PCE-
   CAP-FLAGS sub-TLV is set.  If not, the client SHOULD not consider
   this PCE.  If the client is looking for connecting with PCE server

Lopez, et al.            Expires August 14, 2014                [Page 5]
Internet-Draft       IGP discovery for PCEP Security       February 2014

   using TLS, the client MUST check if PCEP over TLS support flag bit in
   the PCE-CAP-FLAGS sub-TLV is set.  If not, the client SHOULD not
   consider this PCE.

Lopez, et al.            Expires August 14, 2014                [Page 6]
Internet-Draft       IGP discovery for PCEP Security       February 2014

4.  Backward Compatibility Consideration

   An LSR that does not support the new IGP PCE capability bits
   specified in this document silently ignores those bits.

   IGP extensions defined in this document do not introduce any new
   interoperability issues.

Lopez, et al.            Expires August 14, 2014                [Page 7]
Internet-Draft       IGP discovery for PCEP Security       February 2014

5.  Management Considerations

   A configuration option may be provided for advertising and
   withdrawing PCE security capability via IGP.

Lopez, et al.            Expires August 14, 2014                [Page 8]
Internet-Draft       IGP discovery for PCEP Security       February 2014

6.  Security Considerations

   This document raises no new security issues beyond those described in
   [RFC5088] and [RFC5089].

Lopez, et al.            Expires August 14, 2014                [Page 9]
Internet-Draft       IGP discovery for PCEP Security       February 2014

7.  IANA Considerations

   IANA is requested to allocate a new bit in "PCE Security Capability
   Flags" registry for PCEP Security support capability.

        Bit           Meaning                 Reference
        xx            TCP MD5 support         [This.I.D]
        xx            TCP-AO Support          [This.I.D]
        xx            PCEP over TLS support   [This.I.D]

Lopez, et al.            Expires August 14, 2014               [Page 10]
Internet-Draft       IGP discovery for PCEP Security       February 2014

8.  References

8.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", March 1997.

   [RFC5088]  Le Roux, JL., "OSPF Protocol Extensions for Path
              Computation Element (PCE) Discovery", RFC 5088,
              January 2008.

   [RFC5089]  Le Roux, JL., "IS-IS Protocol Extensions for Path
              Computation Element (PCE) Discovery", RFC 5089,
              January 2008.

8.2.  Informative References

   [RFC5246]  Dierks, T., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol
              Version 1.2", RFC 5440, August 2008.

   [RFC5440]  Le Roux, JL., "Path Computation Element (PCE)
              Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440, March 2009.

Lopez, et al.            Expires August 14, 2014               [Page 11]
Internet-Draft       IGP discovery for PCEP Security       February 2014

Authors' Addresses

   Diego R. Lopez
   Telefonica I+D

   Email: diego@tid.es

   Qin Wu
   Huawei
   101 Software Avenue, Yuhua District
   Nanjing, Jiangsu  210012
   China

   Email: bill.wu@huawei.com

   Dhruv Dhody
   Huawei
   Leela Palace
   Bangalore, Karnataka  560008
   INDIA

   Email: dhruv.ietf@gmail.com

   Daniel King
   Old Dog Consulting
   UK

   Email: daniel@olddog.co.uk

Lopez, et al.            Expires August 14, 2014               [Page 12]