Internet DRAFT - draft-chen-pce-sr-mpls-sid-verification
draft-chen-pce-sr-mpls-sid-verification
PCE R. Chen
Internet-Draft ZTE Corporation
Intended status: Standards Track S. Sidor
Expires: 25 August 2024 Cisco Systems, Inc.
C. Zhu
ZTE Corporation
A. Tokar
M. Koldychev
Cisco Systems, Inc.
22 February 2024
PCEP Extensions for sid verification for SR-MPLS
draft-chen-pce-sr-mpls-sid-verification-08
Abstract
This document defines a new flag for indicating the headend is
explicitly requested to verify SID(s) by the PCE.
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 25 August 2024.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2024 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Chen, et al. Expires 25 August 2024 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft SID Verification for SR-MPLS February 2024
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 Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. SID verification flag(V-Flag) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. V-Flag in SR-ERO Subobject . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. V-Flag in SR-RRO Subobject . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.3. SID verification Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4.1. SR-ERO Subobject . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1. Introduction
[RFC9256] describes the "SID verification" bit usage. SID
verification is performed when the headend is explicitly requested to
verify SID(s) by the controller via the signaling protocol used.
Implementations MAY provide a local configuration option to enable
verification on a global or per policy or per candidate path basis.
[RFC8664] specifies extensions to the Path Computation Element
Communication Protocol (PCEP) that allow a stateful PCE to compute
and initiate Traffic-Engineering (TE) paths, as well as a Path
Computation Client (PCC) to request a path subject to certain
constraints and optimization criteria in SR networks.
This document defines a new flag for indicating the headend is
explicitly requested to verify SID(s) by the PCE.
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.
Chen, et al. Expires 25 August 2024 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft SID Verification for SR-MPLS February 2024
2. SID verification flag(V-Flag)
2.1. V-Flag in SR-ERO Subobject
Section 4.3.1 in Path Computation Element Communication Protocol
(PCEP) Extensions for Segment Routing [RFC8664] describes a new ERO
subobject referred to as the "SR-ERO subobject" to carry a SID and/or
NAI information. A new flag is proposed in this doucument in the SR-
ERO Subobject [RFC8664] for indicating the pcc is explicitly
requested to verify SID(s) by the PCE.
V（1bit。TBD）: When the V-Flag is set then PCC MUST consider the "SID
verification".
2.2. V-Flag in SR-RRO Subobject
The format of the SR-RRO subobject is the same as that of the SR-ERO
subobject, but without the L-Flag, per [RFC8664].
The V flag has no meaning in the SR-RRO and is ignored on receipt at
the PCE.
2.3. SID verification Processing
On receiving an SR-ERO with the V-flag is set, a PCC MUST verify
SID(s) as described in Section 5.1 in [RFC9256].
If a PCC "Verification fails" for a SID, it MUST report this error by
including the LSP-ERROR-CODE TLV with LSP error-value "SID
Verification fails" in the LSP object in the PCRpt message to the
PCE.
3. Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Dhruv Dhody and John Scudder for their useful
comments and suggestions.
4. IANA Considerations
4.1. SR-ERO Subobject
This document defines a new bit value in the sub-registry "SR-ERO
Flag Field" in the "Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers"
registry.
Chen, et al. Expires 25 August 2024 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft SID Verification for SR-MPLS February 2024
Bit Name Reference
--- ----------------------- --------------
TBD SID verification(V) This document
Figure 1
5. Security Considerations
TBD.
6. 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>.
[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>.
[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>.
[RFC9256] Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Ed., Voyer, D., Bogdanov,
A., and P. Mattes, "Segment Routing Policy Architecture",
RFC 9256, DOI 10.17487/RFC9256, July 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9256>.
Authors' Addresses
Ran Chen
ZTE Corporation
Nanjing
China
Email: chen.ran@zte.com.cn
Samuel Sidor
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Email: ssidor@cisco.com
Chen, et al. Expires 25 August 2024 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft SID Verification for SR-MPLS February 2024
Chun Zhu
ZTE Corporation
Nanjing
China
Email: zhu.chun1@zte.com.cn
Alex Tokar
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Email: atokar@cisco.com
Mike Koldychev
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Email: mkoldych@cisco.com
Chen, et al. Expires 25 August 2024 [Page 5]
