Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-pce-iro-update
draft-ietf-pce-iro-update
PCE Working Group D. Dhody
Internet-Draft Huawei Technologies
Updates: 5440 (if approved) April 21, 2016
Intended status: Standards Track
Expires: October 23, 2016
Update to Include Route Object (IRO) specification in Path Computation
Element communication Protocol (PCEP)
draft-ietf-pce-iro-update-07
Abstract
The Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) provides
for communications between a Path Computation Client (PCC) and a PCE,
or between two PCEs. RFC 5440 defines the Include Route Object (IRO)
to specify network elements to be traversed in the computed path.
The specification did not specify if the IRO contains an ordered or
un-ordered list of sub-objects. During recent discussions, it was
determined that there was a need to define a standard representation
to ensure interoperability. It was also noted that there is a
benefit in handling of an attribute of the IRO's sub-object, the
Loose hop bit (L bit).
This document updates RFC 5440 regarding the IRO specification.
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 October 23, 2016.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Dhody Expires October 23, 2016 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft IRO-UPDATE April 2016
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
2. Update in the IRO specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Update to RFC 5440 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Operational Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1. Introduction
The Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) provides
for communications between a Path Computation Client (PCC) and a PCE,
or between two PCEs. [RFC5440] defines the Include Route Object
(IRO) to specify network elements to be traversed in the computed
path. The specification did not define if the IRO is an ordered or
un-ordered list of sub-objects. In addition, it defined the Loose
hop bit (L bit) to have no meaning within an IRO.
[RFC5441] describes the use of an IRO to indicate the sequence of
domains to be traversed during inter-domain path computation.
Dhody Expires October 23, 2016 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft IRO-UPDATE April 2016
During recent discussions, it was determined that there was a need to
define a standard representation to ensure interoperability.
This document updates the IRO specifications in section 7.12 of
[RFC5440].
2. Update in the IRO specification
Section 7.12 of [RFC5440] describes the IRO as an optional object
used to specify a set of network elements to be traversed in the
computed path. It stated that the Loose hop bit (L bit) in the sub-
object has no meaning within an IRO. It did not mention if the IRO
contains an ordered or un-ordered list of sub-objects.
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 the
following two statements at the end of the first paragraph.
- The content of an IRO is an ordered list of sub-objects
representing a series of abstract nodes (refer to section 4.3.2 of
[RFC3209]).
- The L Bit of an IRO sub-object is set based on the loose or strict
hop property of the sub-object; it 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 the Loose bit (L bit)
is as per section 4.3.3.1 of [RFC3209].
3. Operational Considerations
Because of the lack of clarity in [RFC5440], it is possible to
encounter implementations that always interpret the IRO sub-objects
as loose. When these implementations 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 the IRO sub-
objects as loose hops, but the PCE interprets them as strict
hops).
Dhody Expires October 23, 2016 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft IRO-UPDATE April 2016
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 the PCE
interprets them all as loose hops). The PCC may check the
returned path and find the issue or it may end up using an
incorrect path.
4. Security Considerations
This update in the IRO specification does not introduce any new
security considerations, apart from those mentioned in [RFC5440].
Clarification in the supported IRO ordering or Loose hop 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].
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.
Thanks to Peter Yee for Gen-ART review.
Thanks to Alvaro Retana for comments during the IESG review.
7. References
7.1. Normative References
Dhody Expires October 23, 2016 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft IRO-UPDATE April 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>.
Author's Address
Dhruv Dhody
Huawei Technologies
Divyashree Techno Park, Whitefield
Bangalore, Karnataka 560066
India
EMail: dhruv.ietf@gmail.com
Dhody Expires October 23, 2016 [Page 5]
