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.

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
• 1.1. Requirements Language
• 2. Update in IRO specification
• 2.1. Update to RFC 5440
• 3. Other Considerations
• 4. Security Considerations
• 5. IANA Considerations
• 6. Acknowledgments
• 7. References
• 7.1. Normative References
• 7.2. Informative References
• Author's Address

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.

[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 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 -

• 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).
• 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 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

7.2. Informative References

Author's Address