Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-pce-enhanced-errors
draft-ietf-pce-enhanced-errors
PCE Working Group H.P. Pouyllau
Internet-Draft Alcatel-Lucent
Updates: 5440 (if approved) R.T. Theillaud
Intended status: Standards Track Marben Products
Expires: 10 September 2023 J.M. Meuric
Orange
H. Zheng (Editor)
X. Zhang
Huawei Technologies
9 March 2023
Extensions to the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol for
Enhanced Errors and Notifications
draft-ietf-pce-enhanced-errors-13
Abstract
This document defines new error and notification TLVs for the PCE
Communication Protocol (PCEP) specified in RFC5440, and will update
it. It identifies the possible PCEP behaviors in case of error or
notification. Thus, this draft defines types of errors and how they
are disclosed to other PCEs in order to support predefined PCEP
behaviors.
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 10 September 2023.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2023 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Pouyllau, et al. Expires 10 September 2023 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Extensions to PCEP for Enhanced errors March 2023
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. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1.1. Error use-case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1.2. Notification use-case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. PCEP Behaviors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.1. PCEP Behaviors in Case of Error . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2. PCEP Behaviors in Case of Notification . . . . . . . . . 6
4.3. PCE Peer Identification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. PCEP Extensions for Error and Notification Handling . . . . . 7
5.1. Propagation TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.2. Error-criticality TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.3. Behaviors and TLV combinations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.4. Propagation Restrictions TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.4.1. Time-To-Live (TTL) TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.4.2. DIFFUSION-LIST TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.4.3. Rules Applied to Existing Errors and Notifications . 11
6. Error Handling Guidelines for Future PCEP Extension . . . . . 15
7. Backward Compatibility Consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
8. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
10.1. PCEP TLV Type Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
10.2. New DIFFUSION-LIST TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
11.2. Informational References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Appendix A. Error and Notification Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . 20
A.1. Error Behavior Type 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
A.2. Error Behavior Type 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
A.3. Error Behavior Type 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
A.4. Error Behavior Type 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Pouyllau, et al. Expires 10 September 2023 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Extensions to PCEP for Enhanced errors March 2023
1. Terminology
PCE terminology is defined in [RFC4655].
PCEP Peer: An element involved in a PCEP session (i.e. a PCC or a
PCE).
Source PCC: the PCC, for a given path computation query, initiating
the first PCEP request, which may then trigger a chain of successive
requests.
Target PCE: the PCE that can compute a path to the destination
without having to query any other PCE.
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].
3. Introduction
The PCE Communication Protocol [RFC5440] is designed to be flexible
and extensible in order to allow future evolutions or specific
constraint support such as proposed in [RFC7470]. Crossing different
PCE implementations (e.g. from different providers or due to
different releases), a PCEP request may encounter unknown errors or
notification messages. In such a case, the PCEP RFC [RFC5440]
specifies to send a specific error code to the PCEP peer. This
document updates [RFC5440] by introducing mechanism to propagate the
error message, with specifying error and notification TLVs.
In the context of path computation crossing different routing domains
or autonomous systems, the number of different PCE system
specificities is potentially high, thus possibly leading to divergent
and unstable situations. Such phenomenon can also occur in
homogeneous cases since PCE systems have their own policies that can
introduce differences in requests treatment even for requests having
the same destination. In order to generalize PCEP behaviors in the
case of heterogeneous PCE systems, new objects have to be defined.
Dealing with heterogeneity is a major challenge considering PCE
applicability, particularly in multi-layer, multi-domain and H-PCE
contexts [RFC8751]. Thus, extending such error codes and PCEP
behaviors accordingly would improve interoperability among different
PCEP implementations and would solve some of these issues. However,
some of them would still remain (e.g. the divergences in request
treatment introduced by different policies).
Pouyllau, et al. Expires 10 September 2023 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Extensions to PCEP for Enhanced errors March 2023
The purpose of this draft is to identify and specify new optional
TLVs and objects in order to generalize PCEP behaviors.
3.1. Examples
The two following scenarios underline the need for a normalization of
the PCEP behaviors according to existing error or notification types.
3.1.1. Error use-case
PCE(i-1) has sent a request to PCE(i) which has also sent a request
to PCE(i+1). PCE(i-1) and PCE(i+1) have the same error semantic but
not PCE(i). If PCE(i+1) throws an error type and value unknown by
PCE(i). PCE(i) could then adopt any other behaviors and sends back
to PCE(i-1) an error of type 2 (Capability not supported), 3 (Unknown
Object) or 4 (Not supported Object) for instance. As a consequence,
the path request would be cancelled but the error has no meaning for
PCE(i-1) whereas if PCE(i) had simply forwarded the error sent by
PCE(i+1), it would have been understood by PCE(i-1).
3.1.2. Notification use-case
PCE(i-1) has sent a request to PCE(i) which has also sent a request
to PCE(i+1) but PCE(i+1) is overloaded. Without extensions, PCE(i+1)
should send a notification of type 2 and a value flag giving its
estimated congestion duration. PCE(i) can choose to stop the path
computation and send a NO_PATH reply to PCE(i-1). Hence, PCE(i-1)
ignores the congestion duration on PCE(i+1) and could seek it for
further requests.
4. PCEP Behaviors
One of the purposes of the PCE architecture is to compute paths
across networks, but an added value is to compute such paths in
inter-area/layer/domain environments. The PCE Communication Protocol
[RFC5440] is based on the Transport Communication Protocol (TCP).
Thus, to compute a path within the PCE architecture, several TCP/PCEP
sessions have to be set up, in a peer-to-peer manner, along a set of
identified PCEs.
When the PCEP session is up for two PCEP peers, the PCC of the first
PCE System (the source PCC) sends a PCReq message. If the PCC does
not receive any reply before the dead timer is out, then it goes back
to the idle state. A PCC can expect two kinds of replies: a PCRep
message containing one or more valid paths (EROs) or a negative PCRep
message containing a NO-PATH object.
Pouyllau, et al. Expires 10 September 2023 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Extensions to PCEP for Enhanced errors March 2023
Beside PCReq and PCRep messages, notification and error messages,
named respectively PCNtf and PCErr, can be sent. There are two types
of notification messages: type 1 is for cancelling pending requests
and type 2 for signaling a congestion of the PCE. Several error
values are described in [RFC5440]. The error types concerning the
session phase begin at 2, error type 1 values are dedicated to the
initialization phase.
As the PCE Communication Protocol is built to work in a peer-to-peer
manner (i.e. supported by a TCP Connection), it supposes that the
"deadtimer" of the source PCC is long enough to support the end-to-
end distributed path computation process.
The exchange of messages in the PCE Communication Protocol is
described in details when PCEP is in states OpenWait and KeepWait in
[RFC5440]. When the session is up, message exchange is defined in
[RFC5440]. [RFC5441] describes the Backward Recursive Path
Computation (BRPC) procedure, and, because it considers an inter-
domain path computation, gives a bigger picture of the possible
behaviors when the session is up. Detailed behavior is mostly let
free to any specific implementation. The following sections
identifies the PCEP behaviors in case of error or notification and
also introduce the requirement of PCEP peer identification in both
cases.
4.1. PCEP Behaviors in Case of Error
[RFC5440] specifies that "a PCEP Error message is sent in several
situations: when a protocol error condition is met or the request is
not compliant with the PCEP specification". On this basis, and
according to the other RFCs, the identified PCEP behaviors are the
followings:
* "Propagation": the received message requires to be propagated
forwardly or backwardly (depending on which PCEP peer has sent the
message) to a set of PCEP peers;
* "Criticality level": in different RFCs, error-types affects the
state of the PCEP request or session in different manners; hence,
different level of criticality can be observed:
- Low-level of criticality: the received message does not affect
the PCEP connection and further answer can still be expected;
- Medium-level of criticality: the received message does not
affect the PCEP connection but the request(s) is(are)
cancelled;
Pouyllau, et al. Expires 10 September 2023 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Extensions to PCEP for Enhanced errors March 2023
- High-level of criticality: the received message indicates that
the PCEP peer will close the session with its peer (and so
pending requests associated by the error, if any, are
cancelled.)
The high-level of criticality has been extracted from [RFC5440] which
associates such a behavior to error-type of 1 (errors raised during
the PCEP session establishment). Hence, such errors are quite
specific. For the sake of completeness, they have been included in
this document.
4.2. PCEP Behaviors in Case of Notification
Notification messages can be employed in two different manners:
during the treatment of a PCEP request, or independently from it to
advertise information (in [RFC5440], the request ID list within a
PCNtf message is optional). Hence, three different types of
behaviors can be identified:
* "Local": the notification does not imply any forward or backward
propagation of the message;
* "Request-specific propagation": the received message requires to
be propagated forwardly or backwardly (depending on which peer has
sent the message) to the PCEP peers;
* "Non request-specific propagation": the received message must be
propagated to any known peers (e.g. if PCE discovery is activated)
or to a list of identified peers.
4.3. PCE Peer Identification
The propagation of errors and notifications affects the state of the
PCEP peers along the chain. In some cases, for instance a
notification that a PCE is overloaded, the identification of the PCEP
peer - or that the sender PCE is not the direct neighbor - might be
an important information for the PCEP peers receiving the message.
The ID of sender PCE is not carried in the error TLVs, but can be
achieved via the speaker entity ID TLV during state synchronization.
An example can be found in [RFC8232].
Pouyllau, et al. Expires 10 September 2023 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Extensions to PCEP for Enhanced errors March 2023
5. PCEP Extensions for Error and Notification Handling
This section describes extensions to support error and notification
with respect to the PCEP behavior description defined in Section 4.
This document does not intend to modify errors and notification types
previously defined in existing documents (e.g. [RFC5440], [RFC5441],
etc.). Error related TLVs have been specified in this section, while
the notification functionality can be achieved via using PCNtf
message with RP object with no need to extend further notification
type.
5.1. Propagation TLV
To support the propagation behavior mentioned in Section 4.1 and
Section 4.2, a new optional TLV is defined, which can be carried in
PCEP-ERROR and NOTIFICATION objects, to indicate whether a message
has to be propagateed or not. The allocation from the "PCEP TLV Type
Indicators" sub-registry will be assigned by IANA and the request is
documented in Section 10.
The description is "Propagation", the length value is 2 bytes and the
value field is 1 byte. The value field is set to 0 meaning that the
message MUST NOT be propagated. If the value field is set to 1, the
message MUST be propagated. Section 5.4 specifies the destination
and to limit the number of messages.
5.2. Error-criticality TLV
To support the shutdown behavior mentioned in Section 4.1, we extend
the PCEP-ERROR object by creating a new optional TLV to indicate
whether an error is recoverable or not. The allocation from the
"PCEP TLV Type Indicators" sub-registry will be assigned by IANA and
the request is documented in Section 10.
The description is "Error-criticality", the length value is 2 bytes
and the value field is 1 byte. The value field is set to 0 meaning
that the error has a low-level of criticality (so further messages
can be expected for this request). If the value field is set to 1,
the error has a medium-level of criticality and requests whose
identifiers appear in the same message MUST be cancelled (so no
further messages can be expected for these requests). If the value
field is set to 2, the error has a high-level of criticality, the
connection for this PCEP session is closed by the sender PCE peer.
Pouyllau, et al. Expires 10 September 2023 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Extensions to PCEP for Enhanced errors March 2023
5.3. Behaviors and TLV combinations
The propagation behavior MAY be combined with all criticality levels,
thus leading to 6 different behaviors. In the case of a criticality
level of 2, the session is closed by the PCE peer which sends the
message. Hence, the criticality level is purely informative for the
PCE peer which receives the message. If it is combined with a
propagation behavior, then the PCE propagating the message MUST
indicate the same level of criticality if it closes the session.
Otherwise, it MUST use a criticality level of 1 if it does not close
the session.
For a PCErr message, all the possible behaviors described in
Section 4.1 can be covered with TLVs included in a PCEP-ERROR object.
The following table captures all combinations of error behaviors:
| Error \Propogation| 0 | 1 |
| criticallity\ Value | ( No |(Propogation |
| value \ | Propagation) | Required) |
|------------------------------------------------------|
| 0 (low) | Type 1 | Type 4 |
| 1 (medium) | Type 2 | Type 5 |
| 2 (high) | Type 3 | Type 6 |
|------------------------------------------------------|
* "Error Behavior Type 1" : Local Error with a low level of
criticality;
* "Error Behavior Type 2": Local Error with a medium level of
criticality;
* "Error Behavior Type 3": Local Error with a high level of
criticality;
* "Error Behavior Type 4": Propagated Error with a low level of
criticality;
* "Error Behavior Type 5": Propagated Error with a medium level of
criticality;
* "Error Behavior Type 6": Propagated Error with a high level of
criticality;
Pouyllau, et al. Expires 10 September 2023 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Extensions to PCEP for Enhanced errors March 2023
5.4. Propagation Restrictions TLVs
In order to limit the propagation of errors and notifications, the
following mechanisms SHOULD be used:
A Time-To-Live(TTL) RLV: to limit the number of PCEP peers that
will recursively receive the message;
A DIFFUSION-LIST TLV: to specify the PCEP peer addresses or
domains of PCEP peers the message must be propagate to;
History mechanism: if a PCEP peer keeps track of the messages it
has relayed, it could avoid propagating an error or notification
it has already received.
Such mechanisms SHOULD be used jointly or independently depending the
error or notification behaviors they are associated to. The
conditions of use for the TTL and DIFFUSION-LIST TLVs are described
in sections below.
5.4.1. Time-To-Live (TTL) TLV
The TTL value is set to any integer value to indicate the number of
PCEP peers that will recursively receive the message. The TTL TLV
SHOULD be used with propagated errors or notifications ("Propagation"
TLV with value 1 in PCEP-ERROR or NOTIFICATION objects). Each PCEP
peer MUST decrement the TTL value before propagating the message.
When the TTL value becomes 0, the message is no more propagated.
If the message to be propagated is request-specific and there is no
TTL or DIFFUSION-LIST TLVs included, the message MUST reach the
source PCC (or alternatively the target PCE).
5.4.2. DIFFUSION-LIST TLV
The DIFFUSION-LIST TLV can be carried within either the error object
of a PCErr message, or the notification object of a PCNtf message.
It can either be used in a message sent by a PCC to a PCE or vice
versa. The DIFFUSION-LIST MAY be used with propagated errors (TLV
"Propagation"at value 1 in PCEP-ERROR object).
The format of the DIFFUSION-LIST object body is as follows:
Pouyllau, et al. Expires 10 September 2023 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Extensions to PCEP for Enhanced errors March 2023
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 | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
// (Sub-objects) //
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type (16 bits): restricts the diffusion to certain peers. The
following values are currently defined:
0: Any PCEP peer indicated in the list must be reached.
1: Only PCEs must be reached (and not PCC).
2: All PCEP peers with which a session is still opened must be
reached.
The value of DIFFUSION-LIST is made of sub-objects similar to the IRO
defined in [RFC5440]. The following sub-object types are supported.
Type Sub-object
1 IPv4 address
2 IPv6 address
4 Unnumbered Interface ID
5 4-byte AS number
6 OSPF area ID
7 IS-IS Area ID
32 Autonomous System number
33 Explicit eXclusion Route Sub-object (EXRS)
If the error or notification codes target specific PCEP peers, a
DIFFUSION-LIST TLV avoids partially flooding all PCEP peers. Any
PCEP peer receiving a PCErr or PCNTf message containing a PCEP-ERROR
or a NOTIFICATION object with a TLV "Propagation" at value 1 and
where a DIFFUSION-LIST appears, MUST remove the addresses of the PCEP
peers from the DIFFUSION-LIST, before sending the message to any
other PCEP peers. This is performed by adding the PCEP peer
addresses to the Explicit eXclusion Route Sub-object of the
DIFFUSION-LIST. If a DIFFUSION-LIST value is empty, the PCEP peer
MUST NOT propagate the message to any peer.
Pouyllau, et al. Expires 10 September 2023 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Extensions to PCEP for Enhanced errors March 2023
Note that, a Diffusion-List could contain strict or loose addresses
to refer to a network domain (e.g. an Autonomous System number, an
OSPF area, an IP address). Hence, the PCEP peers targeted by the
message would be the PCEP peers covering the corresponding domain.
If an address is loose, each time a PCEP peer forwards a message to
another PCEP peer of this address, it MUST add it own address to the
Explicit eXclusion Route Sub-object (EXRS) of the Diffusion-List for
any forwarded messages. Hence, a PCE SHOULD avoid forwarding the
same message repeated to the same set of peers. Finally, when an
address is loose, the forwarding SHOULD be restrained indicating what
type of PCEP peers are targeted (i.e. PCE and/or PCC).
5.4.3. Rules Applied to Existing Errors and Notifications
Many existing normative references states on error definitions (see
for instance [RFC5440], [RFC5441],[RFC5455], [RFC5521], [RFC5557],
[RFC5886], [RFC8231], [RFC8232],[RFC8253], [RFC8281], [RFC8306],
[RFC8408], [RFC8697]). This section provides processing rules for
existing error types handling, as a recommendation. According to the
definitions provided in this document, the follwoing rules are
applicable:
Error-type 1, described in [RFC5440], relates to PCEP session
establishement failures. All errors of this type are local and
not propagated. Hence, if a "Propagation" TLV is added to the
error message it is recommended to be set to value 0. Error-
values 1,2,6,7 have a high level of criticality. Hence, if the
"Error-criticality" TLV is included within a PCErr message of type
1 and value 1,2,6 or 7, it is recommended to have a value of 2.
Error-type 2,3,4, "Capability not supported", "Unknown object" and
"Not supported object" respectively, described in [RFC5440]:
errors of this type MAY be propagated using the TLV "Propagation".
Their level of criticality is defined as leading to cancel the
path computation request [RFC5440]. Hence, if the "Error-
criticality" TLV is included, it usually have a value of 1. The
error-value 4 of error-type 4 ("Unsupported parameter") associated
to the BRPC procedure [RFC5441] is suggested to contain the
"Propagation" TLV with a DIFFUSION-LIST requesting a propagation
to the PCC at the origin of the request.
Error-type 5 refers to "Policy violation", error values for this
type have been defined in [RFC5440], [RFC5541], [RFC5557],
[RFC5886] and [RFC8306]. In [RFC5440], it is specified that the
path computation request MUST be cancelled when an error of type 5
occurs. Hence, if the "Error-criticality" TLV is included, it
usually have a value of 1. As such errors might be conveyed to
several PCEs, the "Propagation" TLV MAY be used.
Pouyllau, et al. Expires 10 September 2023 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Extensions to PCEP for Enhanced errors March 2023
Error-type 6 described as "Mandatory object missing" in [RFC5440],
leads to the cancellation of the path computation request. Hence,
if the "Error-criticality" TLV is included, it usually have a
value of 1. The "Propagation" TLV MAY be used with such errors.
The error-value of 4 for Monitoring object missing defined in
[RFC5886] is no exception to the rule.
Error-type 7 is described as "synchronized path computation
request missing". In [RFC5440], it is specified that the reffered
synchronized path computation request MUST be cancelled when an
error of type 5 occurs. Hence, if the "Error-criticality" TLV is
included, it usually have a value of 1. The "Propagation" TLV MAY
be used with such errors.
Error-type 8 is raised when a PCE receives a PCRep with an unknown
request reference. If the "Propagation" TLV is used with error-
type 8, it is recommended to be set at a value of 0. The "Error-
criticality" TLV is not particularly relevant for error-type 8.
Hence, it usually have the value of 0 if used.
Error-type 9 is raised when a PCE attempts to establish a second
PCEP session. The existing session must be preserved. Hence, if
the "Error-criticality" TLV is included, it usually have a value
of 0. By definition, such an error message SHOULD NOT be
propagated. Thus, if the "Propagation" TLV is used with error-
type 9, it is usually set to a value of 0.
Error-type 10 which refers to the reception of an invalid object
as described in [RFC5440] no indication is provided on the
cancellation of the path computation request. Hence, if the
"Error-criticality" TLV is included, it usually have a value of 0.
The "Propagation" TLV MAY be used with such errors with any value
depending on the expected behavior.
Error-type 11 relates to "Unrecognized EXRS subobject" and is
described in [RFC5521]. No path computation request cancellation
is required by [RFC5521]. Hence, if the "Error-criticality" TLV
is included, it usually have a value of 0. The "Propagation" TLV
MAY be used with such errors with any value depending on the
expected behavior.
Error-type 12 refers to "Diffserv-aware TE error" and is described
in [RFC5455]. Such errors are raised when the CLASSTYPE object of
a PCReq is recognized but not supported by a PCE. [RFC5455] does
not state about the path computation request when such errors are
met. Hence, both "Propagation" and "Error-criticality" TLVs COULD
be used within such error-types' messages and set to any specified
values.
Pouyllau, et al. Expires 10 September 2023 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Extensions to PCEP for Enhanced errors March 2023
Error-type 13 on "BRPC procedure completion failure" is described
in [RFC5441]. [RFC5441] states that in such cases, the PCErr
message MUST be relayed to the PCC. Hence, such messages SHOULD
contain a "Propagation" TLV and a DIFFUSION-LIST with a Target-
Type of 0 and corresponding addresses or with a Target-Type of 2.
It is not specified in [RFC5441] whether the path computation
request should be canceled or not. If the procedure is not
supported, it does not necessarily imply to cancel the path
computation request if another procedure is able to read and write
VSPT objects. Thus, the "Error-criticality" TLV MAY be used with
any value depending on the expected behavior.
Error-type 15 refers to "Global Concurrent Optimization Error"
defined in [RFC5557]. [RFC5557] states that the corresponding
global concurrent path optimization MUST be cancelled at the PCC.
Hence, if the "Error-criticality" TLV is included, it usually have
a value of 1. The "Propagation" TLV MAY be used with such errors.
Error-type 16 relates to "P2MP Capability Error" defined in
[RFC8306]. Such errors lead to the cancellation of the path
computation request. Hence, if the "Error-criticality" TLV is
included, it usually have a value of 1. The "Propagation" TLV MAY
be used with such errors.
Error-type 17, titled "P2MP END-POINTS Error" is defined
[RFC8306]. Such errors are thrown when a PCE tries to add or
prune nodes to or from a P2MP Tree. [RFC8306] does not specify if
such errors lead to cancel the path computation request. Hence,
the "Error-criticality" and "Propagation" TLVs MAY be used with
this type of error with any value depending on the expected
behavior.
Error-type 18 of "P2MP Fragmentation Error" is described [RFC8306]
which does not specify whether the path computation request should
be cancelled. But, as messages are fragmented, it is natural to
think that the PCE should wait at least a bit for further
messages. The "Error-criticality" TLV MAY be included in such
error messages and is particularly adapted to differ the semantic
of the same error-type message: if it is included with a value of
0 then the PCE will still wait for further fragmented messages,
when this waiting time ends, the TLV can be included with a value
of 1 in order to finally cancel the request. The "Propagation"
TLV MAY also be used with such errors.
Error-type 19 of "Invalid Operation" is described in [RFC8231] and
[RFC8281], which implies a wrong capability description for PCEP
session. In this case, the PCErr message MUST be returned to PCC,
and this message usually contain a "Propagation" TLV and a
Pouyllau, et al. Expires 10 September 2023 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Extensions to PCEP for Enhanced errors March 2023
DIFFUSION-LIST with a Target-Type of 0 or 2. The "Error-
criticality" TLV is recommended be set to 2 in order to guanrantee
the termination of PCEP session.
Error-type 20 of "LSP State Synchronization Error" is described in
[RFC8231] and [RFC8232], which cannot successfully sync up the LSP
states. In this case, the "Error-criticality" TLV should be set
to 2 in order to guanrantee the termination of PCEP session. The
"Propagation" TLV MAY also be used with such errors.
Error-type 21 of "Invalid traffic engineering path setup type" is
described in [RFC8408] . Such errors failed to find a matched path
setup type and the PCEP sessions MUST be closed. In this case,
the "Error-criticality" TLV is usually set to 2 in order to
guanrantee the termination of PCEP session. The "Propagation" TLV
MAY also be used with such errors.
Error-type 23 of "Bad parameter value" is described in [RFC8281] .
Such errors occur when there is a conflict in path name of C flag
not set for PCE initiation. In this case, the "Error-criticality"
TLV may be set to either 0 or 1 to indicate whether the request is
still valid, with the PCEP session open. The "Propagation" TLV
MAY also be used with such errors.
Error-type 24 of "LSP instantiation error" is described in
[RFC8281] . Such errors occur when PCC detects problems when
establishing the path, the message MUST relay to the PCE,
therefore the "Propogation" TLV is usually contained. The "Error-
criticality" TLV may be set to either 0 or 1 to indicate whether
the request is still valid, with the PCEP session open.
Error-type 25 of "PCEP StartTLS failure" is described in
[RFC8253]. Such errors indicate the security issue in transport
layer. In this case, the "Error-criticality" TLV is usually set
to 2 in order to close the PCEP session. The "Propagation" TLV
MAY also be used with such errors, depending on the detailed
security conditions.
Error-type 26 of "Association Error " is described in [RFC8697] .
Such errors occur when there is problem for LSP association. In
this case, the "Error-criticality" TLV should be set to either 0
or 1 to indicate whether the request is still valid, with the PCEP
session open. The "Propagation" TLV MAY also be used with such
errors.
Pouyllau, et al. Expires 10 September 2023 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Extensions to PCEP for Enhanced errors March 2023
6. Error Handling Guidelines for Future PCEP Extension
Error and Notification handling in this document should be considered
in PCE documents that include new errors and notifications. A
requirement for the authors of these drafts is to evaluate the
applicability of the procedure in this document and provide details
about the "Error-criticality" TLV and "Propagation" TLV for errors
and notifications defined in the draft. Example text is provided as
follow.
Error-type XX (fill in value of the Error-type) of " XXXX " (fill in
name of the Error-type) is described in [RFCYYYY] (fill in the
document reference of the Error-type). Such errors occur when ZZZZ
(fill in typical scenario). In this case, the "Error-criticality"
TLV should be set to X (fill in the recommended value) to indicate
whether the request is still valid, with the PCEP session open. The
error messages SHOULD/MAY (select the mandatory level) contain a
"Propagation" TLV and a DIFFUSION-LIST with a Target-Type of A(fill
in the recommended value).
7. Backward Compatibility Consideration
There would be backward compatibility issue if there are multiple
PCEs with different level understanding of error message. In a
scenario that PCE(i) propagate the error message to PCE (i+1), it is
possible that PCE (i+1) is not capable to extract the message
correctly, then such error message would be ignored and not be
further propagated.
There can be potential approach to avoid these problem, such as
recognizing the incapable PCE and avoiding propagation. However,
these approach is not in the scope of this document.
8. Implementation Status
[NOTE TO RFC EDITOR : This whole section and the reference to
[RFC7942] is to be removed before publication as an RFC]
Pouyllau, et al. Expires 10 September 2023 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Extensions to PCEP for Enhanced errors March 2023
This section records the status of known implementations of the
protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of this
Internet-Draft, and is based on a proposal described in [RFC7942].
The description of implementations in this section is intended to
assist the IETF in its decision processes in progressing drafts to
RFCs. Please note that the listing of any individual implementation
here does not imply endorsement by the IETF. Furthermore, no effort
has been spent to verify the information presented here that was
supplied by IETF contributors. This is not intended as, and must not
be construed to be, a catalog of available implementations or their
features. Readers are advised to note that other implementations may
exist.
According to [RFC7942], "this will allow reviewers and working groups
to assign due consideration to documents that have the benefit of
running code, which may serve as evidence of valuable experimentation
and feedback that have made the implemented protocols more mature.
It is up to the individual working groups to use this information as
they see fit".
At the time of posting the -08 version of this document, there are no
known implementations of this mechanism. It is believed that two
vendors are considering prototype implementations, but these plans
are too vague to make any further assertions.
9. Security Considerations
Within the introduced set of TLVs, the "Propagation" TLV affects PCEP
security considerations since it forces propagation behaviors. Thus,
a PCEP implementation SHOULD activate stateful mechanism when
receiving PCEP-ERROR or NOTIFICATION object including this TLV in
order to avoid DoS attacks.
10. IANA Considerations
IANA maintains a registry of PCEP parameters. This includes a sub-
registry for PCEP Objects.
IANA is requested to make an allocation from the sub-registry as
follows. The values here are suggested for use by IANA.
10.1. PCEP TLV Type Indicators
As described in Section 5.4 the newly defined TLVs allows a PCE to
enforce specific error and notification behaviors within PCEP-ERROR
and NOTIFICATION objects. IANA is requested to make the following
allocations from the "PCEP TLV Type Indicators" sub-registry.
Pouyllau, et al. Expires 10 September 2023 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Extensions to PCEP for Enhanced errors March 2023
Value Description Reference
TBD Propagation this document
TBD Error-criticality this document
10.2. New DIFFUSION-LIST TLV
Type Value Meaning Reference
0 Any PCEP peers this document
1 PCEs but excludes
PCC-only peers this document
2 PCEs and PCCs this document
with which a session
is still opened
Subobjects Reference
1: IPv4 prefix this document
2: IPv6 prefix this document
4: Unnumbered Interface ID this document
5: 4-byte AS number this document
6 OSPF area ID this document
7 IS-IS Area ID this document
32: Autonomous system number this document
33: Explicit Exclusion Route subobject (EXRS) this document
11. References
11.1. 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>.
Pouyllau, et al. Expires 10 September 2023 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Extensions to PCEP for Enhanced errors March 2023
[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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5441>.
[RFC5455] Sivabalan, S., Ed., Parker, J., Boutros, S., and K.
Kumaki, "Diffserv-Aware Class-Type Object for the Path
Computation Element Communication Protocol", RFC 5455,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5455, March 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5455>.
[RFC5521] Oki, E., Takeda, T., and A. Farrel, "Extensions to the
Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) for
Route Exclusions", RFC 5521, DOI 10.17487/RFC5521, April
2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5521>.
[RFC5541] Le Roux, JL., Vasseur, JP., and Y. Lee, "Encoding of
Objective Functions in the Path Computation Element
Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5541,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5541, June 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5541>.
[RFC5557] Lee, Y., Le Roux, JL., King, D., and E. Oki, "Path
Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)
Requirements and Protocol Extensions in Support of Global
Concurrent Optimization", RFC 5557, DOI 10.17487/RFC5557,
July 2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5557>.
[RFC5886] Vasseur, JP., Ed., Le Roux, JL., and Y. Ikejiri, "A Set of
Monitoring Tools for Path Computation Element (PCE)-Based
Architecture", RFC 5886, DOI 10.17487/RFC5886, June 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5886>.
[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>.
[RFC8232] Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Medved, J., Varga, R., Zhang, X.,
and D. Dhody, "Optimizations of Label Switched Path State
Synchronization Procedures for a Stateful PCE", RFC 8232,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8232, September 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8232>.
Pouyllau, et al. Expires 10 September 2023 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Extensions to PCEP for Enhanced errors March 2023
[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>.
[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>.
[RFC8306] Zhao, Q., Dhody, D., Ed., Palleti, R., and D. King,
"Extensions to the Path Computation Element Communication
Protocol (PCEP) for Point-to-Multipoint Traffic
Engineering Label Switched Paths", RFC 8306,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8306, November 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8306>.
[RFC8408] Sivabalan, S., Tantsura, J., Minei, I., Varga, R., and J.
Hardwick, "Conveying Path Setup Type in PCE Communication
Protocol (PCEP) Messages", RFC 8408, DOI 10.17487/RFC8408,
July 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8408>.
[RFC8697] Minei, I., Crabbe, E., Sivabalan, S., Ananthakrishnan, H.,
Dhody, D., and Y. Tanaka, "Path Computation Element
Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for Establishing
Relationships between Sets of Label Switched Paths
(LSPs)", RFC 8697, DOI 10.17487/RFC8697, January 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8697>.
11.2. Informational References
[RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J.-P., and J. Ash, "A Path
Computation Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4655, August 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4655>.
[RFC7470] Zhang, F. and A. Farrel, "Conveying Vendor-Specific
Constraints in the Path Computation Element Communication
Protocol", RFC 7470, DOI 10.17487/RFC7470, March 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7470>.
[RFC7942] Sheffer, Y. and A. Farrel, "Improving Awareness of Running
Code: The Implementation Status Section", BCP 205,
RFC 7942, DOI 10.17487/RFC7942, July 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7942>.
Pouyllau, et al. Expires 10 September 2023 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Extensions to PCEP for Enhanced errors March 2023
[RFC8751] Dhody, D., Lee, Y., Ceccarelli, D., Shin, J., and D. King,
"Hierarchical Stateful Path Computation Element (PCE)",
RFC 8751, DOI 10.17487/RFC8751, March 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8751>.
Appendix A. Error and Notification Scenarios
This section provides some examples depicting how the error described
above can be used in a PCEP session. The origin of the errors or
notifications is only illustrative and has no normative purpose.
Sometimes the PCE features behind may be implementation-specific
(e.g. detection of flooding). This section does not provide
scenarios for errors with a high-level of critcity (i.e., Error
behaviors 3 and 6) since such errors are very specific and until now
have been normalized only during the session establishment (error-
type of 1).
A.1. Error Behavior Type 1
In this example, a PCC attempts to establish a second PCEP session
with the same PCE for another request. Consequently the PCE sends
back an error message with error-type 9. This error stays local and
does not affect the former session. The second session is ignored.
If the "Propagation" TLV and "Error-criticality" TLV are used, they
should be both set to value 0.
+-+-+ +-+-+
|PCC| |PCE|
+-+-+ +-+-+
1) Path computation | |
event | |
2) PCE selection |----- Open Message--->|
|<--- Open message ----|
3) Path computation |---- PCReq message--->|
request X sent to | |4) Path computation
the selected PCE | | request queued
| |
5) Path computation | |
event | |
6) PCE selection | |
|----- Open Message--->|8) Session already
| |opened
|<--- PCErr message----| Error-type=9
| |
Pouyllau, et al. Expires 10 September 2023 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft Extensions to PCEP for Enhanced errors March 2023
A.2. Error Behavior Type 2
In this example, the PCC sends a DiffServ-aware path computation
request. If the PCE receiving the request does not support the
indicated class-type, it thus sends back a PCErr message with error-
type=12 and error-value=1. If the "Propagation" TLV and "Error-
criticality" TLV are present, they should carry value 0 and value 1
respectively. Consequently, the request is cancelled.
+-+-+ +-+-+
|PCC| |PCE|
+-+-+ +-+-+
1) Path computation | |
event | |
2) PCE selection | |
3) Path computation |---- PCReq message--->|
request X sent to | |4) Path computation
the selected PCE | | request queued
| |
| |5) DiffServ class-type
| | not supported
| |6) Path computation
| | request X
| | cancelled
|<--- PCErr message----| Error-type=12
| |
A.3. Error Behavior Type 4
In this example, a PCC sends a path computation requests with no P
flag set (e.g. END-POINT object with P-flag cleared). This is
detected by another PCE in the sequence. The path computation
request can thus be treated but the P-Flag will be ignored. Hence,
this error is not critical but the source PCC should be informed of
this fact. So, a PCErr message with error-type 10 ("Reception of an
invalid object"). The PCEP-ERROR object of the message contains a
"Propagation" TLV at value 1 and a "Error-criticality" TLV at value
0. It is hence propagated backwardly to the source PCC.
Pouyllau, et al. Expires 10 September 2023 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft Extensions to PCEP for Enhanced errors March 2023
+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+ +-+-+
|PCC| |PCE|PCC| |PCE|
+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+ +-+-+
|---- PCReq message-->| |
| | |
| |---- PCReq message--->|
| | |
| | |1) Parameter is
| | | not supported
| | |
| |<--- PCErr message----| Error-type=10
|<--- PCErr message---| |
| | |
A.4. Error Behavior Type 5
In this example, PCEs are using the BRPC procedure to treat a path
computation request [RFC5441]. However, one of the PCEs does not
support a parameter of the request. Hence, a PCErr message with
error-type 4 and error-value 4 is sent by this PCE and has to be
forwarded to the source PCC. The PCEP-ERROR object includes a
"Propagation" TLV at value 1 and "Error-criticality" TLV at value 1
and the message is propagated backwardly to the source PCC.
Consequently, the request is cancelled.
+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+ +-+-+
|PCC| |PCE|PCC| |PCE|
+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+ +-+-+
|---- PCReq message-->| |
| | |
| |---- PCReq message--->|
| | |
| | |1) Unsupported
| | | Parameter BRPC
| | |2) Path
| | | computation
| | | request X
| | | cancelled
| |<--- PCErr message----| Error-type=4
|<--- PCErr message---| |
| | |
Authors' Addresses
Pouyllau, et al. Expires 10 September 2023 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft Extensions to PCEP for Enhanced errors March 2023
Helia Pouyllau
Alcatel-Lucent
Route de Villejust
91620 NOZAY
France
Phone: + 33 (0)1 30 77 63 11
Email: helia.pouyllau@alcatel-lucent.com
Remi Theillaud
Marben Products
176 rue Jean Jaures
92800 Puteaux
France
Phone: + 33 (0)1 79 62 10 22
Email: remi.theillaud@marben-products.com
Julien Meuric
Orange
2, avenue Pierre Marzin
22307 Lannion
France
Email: julien.meuric@orange.com
Haomian Zheng (Editor)
Huawei Technologies
H1, Xiliu Beipo Village, Songshan Lake,
Dongguan
Guangdong, 523808
China
Email: zhenghaomian@huawei.com
Xian Zhang
Huawei Technologies
A10, Huawei Industrial Base, Bantian, Longgang District
Shenzhen
Guangdong, 518129
China
Email: zhang.xian@huawei.com
Pouyllau, et al. Expires 10 September 2023 [Page 23]
