PCE Working Group D. Dhody
Internet-Draft Huawei Technologies
Updates: 5440 (if approved) January 27, 2016
Intended status: Standards Track
Expires: July 30, 2016
Update to Include Route Object (IRO) specification in Path Computation
Element communication Protocol (PCEP)
draft-ietf-pce-iro-update-05
Abstract
During discussions of a document to provide a standard representation
and encoding of Domain-Sequence within the Path Computation Element
(PCE) communication Protocol (PCEP) for communications between a Path
Computation Client (PCC) and a PCE, or between two PCEs, it was
determined that there was a need for clarification with respect to
the ordered nature of the Include Route Object (IRO).
An informal survey was conducted to determine the state of current
and planned implementation with respect to IRO ordering and handling
of Loose bit (L bit).
This document updates RFC 5440 regarding the IRO specification, based
on the survey conclusion and recommendation.
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 July 30, 2016.
Dhody Expires July 30, 2016 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft IRO-UPDATE January 2016
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
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.
This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
Contributions published or made publicly available before November
10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
than English.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Update in IRO specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Update to RFC 5440 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Other Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
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.
Dhody Expires July 30, 2016 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft IRO-UPDATE January 2016
[RFC5440] defines the Include Route Object (IRO) to specify network
elements to be traversed in the computed path. The specification did
not mention if IRO is an ordered or un-ordered list of sub-objects.
It mentioned that the Loose bit (L bit) has no meaning within an IRO.
[RFC5441] suggested the use of IRO to indicate the sequence of
domains to be traversed during inter-domain path computation.
In order to discover the current state of affairs amongst
implementations a survey of the existing and planned implementations
was conducted. This survey [I-D.dhody-pce-iro-survey] was informal
and conducted via email. Responses were collected and anonymized by
the PCE working group chair.
During discussion of [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-domain-sequence] it was
proposed to have a new IRO type with ordered nature, as well as
handling of Loose bit (L bit); however, with the update to [RFC5440]
described in this document, no new IRO type is needed.
This document updates the IRO specifications in section 7.12 of
[RFC5440] as per the conclusion and action points presented in
[I-D.dhody-pce-iro-survey].
1.1. Requirements Language
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].
2. Update in IRO specification
Section 7.12 of [RFC5440] describes IRO as an optional object used to
specify a set of network elements to be traversed in the computed
path. It also states that the Loose bit (L bit) in sub-object has no
meaning within an IRO. It did not mention if IRO is an ordered or
un-ordered list of sub-objects.
A survey of the existing and planned implementations was conducted in
order to discover the current state of affairs amongst
implementations. [I-D.dhody-pce-iro-survey] describe the
questionnaire, results and presents some conclusions and proposed
action items.
The survey suggest that most implementations construct or interpret
IRO in an ordered fashion and consider it to be an ordered list.
More than half of implementation under survey consider the IRO sub-
objects as strict hops, others consider loose or support both. The
results shown in this survey seems to suggest that most
Dhody Expires July 30, 2016 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft IRO-UPDATE January 2016
implementations would be fine with updating [RFC5440] to specify IRO
as an ordered list as well as to enable support for Loose bit (L bit)
such that both strict and loose hops could be supported in the IRO.
2.1. Update to RFC 5440
Section 7.12 of [RFC5440] regarding the IRO specification is updated
to remove the last line in the section 7.12 of [RFC5440], that states
- "The L bit of such sub-object has no meaning within an IRO."
Further, the Section 7.12 of [RFC5440] is updated to add following
two statements -
- The content of IRO is an ordered list of sub-objects representing a
series of abstract nodes. An abstract node could just be a simple
abstract node comprising one node or a group of nodes for example an
AS (comprising of multiple hops within the AS) (refer section 4.3.2
of [RFC3209]).
- The L Bit of IRO sub-object is set based on the loose or strict
property of the sub-object, which is set if the sub-object represents
a loose hop. If the bit is not set, the sub-object represents a
strict hop. The interpretation of Loose bit (L bit) is as per
section 4.3.3.1 of [RFC3209].
3. Other Considerations
Based on the survey [I-D.dhody-pce-iro-survey], it should be noted
that most implementation already support the update in the IRO
specification as per this document. The other implementation are
expected to make an update to the IRO procedures based on this
document.
During the survey it was also noted that minority of the
implementations, interpreted the IRO sub-objects as loose, when these
implementation interwork with an implementation conforming to this
document, the following impact might be seen -
o If a non-conforming (to this document) PCC sends an IRO, to a
conforming (to this document) PCE, then the PCE may unexpectedly
fail to find a path (since the PCC may think of IRO sub-objects as
loose hops, but the PCE interprets them as strict hops).
o If a conforming PCC sends an IRO containing strict hops to a non-
conforming PCE, then the PCE may erroneously return a path that
does not comply with the requested strict hops (since PCE
interprets them all as loose hops). The PCC may check the
Dhody Expires July 30, 2016 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft IRO-UPDATE January 2016
returned path and find the issue or it may end up using incorrect
path.
Thus it is RECOMMENDED that network operators ensure that all PCEP
speakers in their network conform to this document with updated IRO
specification if they intend to use IRO.
4. Security Considerations
This update in IRO specification does not introduce any new security
considerations, apart from those mentioned in [RFC5440].
Clarification in the supported IRO ordering or Loose bit handling
will not have any negative security impact.
It is worth noting that PCEP operates over TCP. An analysis of the
security issues for routing protocols that use TCP (including PCEP)
is provided in [RFC6952], while [I-D.ietf-pce-pceps] discusses an
experimental approach to provide secure transport for PCEP.
5. IANA Considerations
This document makes no requests to IANA for action.
6. Acknowledgments
A special thanks to PCE chairs for guidance regarding this work.
Thanks to Francesco Fondelli for his suggestions in clarifying the L
bit usage.
Thanks to Adrian Farrel for his review and comments.
Thanks to Jonathan Hardwick for document shepherding and providing
text in Section 3.
Thanks to Deborah Brungard for her comments and being the responsible
AD.
7. References
7.1. 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,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
Dhody Expires July 30, 2016 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft IRO-UPDATE January 2016
[RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.,
and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
Tunnels", RFC 3209, DOI 10.17487/RFC3209, December 2001,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3209>.
[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>.
7.2. Informative References
[RFC5441] Vasseur, JP., Ed., Zhang, R., Bitar, N., and JL. Le Roux,
"A Backward-Recursive PCE-Based Computation (BRPC)
Procedure to Compute Shortest Constrained Inter-Domain
Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths", RFC 5441,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5441, April 2009,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5441>.
[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,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6952>.
[I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-domain-sequence]
Dhody, D., Palle, U., and R. Casellas, "Domain Subobjects
for Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol
(PCEP).", draft-ietf-pce-pcep-domain-sequence-12 (work in
progress), December 2015.
[I-D.ietf-pce-pceps]
Lopez, D., Dios, O., Wu, W., and D. Dhody, "Secure
Transport for PCEP", draft-ietf-pce-pceps-07 (work in
progress), January 2016.
[I-D.dhody-pce-iro-survey]
Dhody, D., "Informal Survey into Include Route Object
(IRO) Implementations in Path Computation Element
communication Protocol (PCEP)", draft-dhody-pce-iro-
survey-02 (work in progress), December 2014.
Author's Address
Dhody Expires July 30, 2016 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft IRO-UPDATE January 2016
Dhruv Dhody
Huawei Technologies
Divyashree Techno Park, Whitefield
Bangalore, Karnataka 560037
India
EMail: dhruv.ietf@gmail.com
Dhody Expires July 30, 2016 [Page 7]