Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-pce-vendor-constraints
draft-ietf-pce-vendor-constraints
Network Working Group Fatai Zhang
Internet-Draft Huawei
Intended status: Standards Track A. Farrel
Juniper Networks
Expires: April 17, 2014 October 17, 2013
Conveying Vendor-Specific Constraints in the Path
Computation Element communication Protocol
draft-ietf-pce-vendor-constraints-11.txt
Abstract
The Path Computation Element communication Protocol (PCEP) is used to
convey path computation requests and responses between Path
Computation Clients (PCCs) and Path Computation Elements (PCEs), and
also between cooperating PCEs. In PCEP the path computation requests
carry details of the constraints and objective functions that the PCC
wishes the PCE to apply in its computation.
This document defines a facility to carry vendor-specific information
in PCEP using a dedicated object and a new Type-Length-Variable that
can be carried in any existing PCEP object.
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other
groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.
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."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
Farrel & Zhang Expires April 2014 [Page 1]
draft-ietf-pce-vendor-constraints-11.txt October 2014
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2013 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.
Conventions used in this document
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
[RFC2119].
1. Introduction
A Path Computation Element (PCE) is an entity (component, application
or network node) that is capable of computing a network path or route
based on a network graph and applying computational constraints. An
architecture for the use of PCEs is defined in [RFC4655].
The Path Computation Element communication Protocol (PCEP) is defined
in [RFC5440] to exchange path computation requests and responses
between Path Computation Clients (PCCs) and PCEs. It is also used
between cooperating PCEs.
Path computations performed by a PCE depend on a set of constraints
indicated by the PCC. These constraints include the end points of
the path to compute (source and destination), and may include other
simple constraints such as bandwidth requirements and metric maxima
(for example, a maximum threshold for the hop count or the TE metric
of the computed path).
The PCE also needs to use an objective function to qualify the path
it selects as meeting the requirements of the PCC. The PCE may have
a default objective function, but the PCC can also indicate which
objective function it wants applied by placing an Objective Function
object in the path computation request message [RFC5541]. A core set
of objective functions to be supported in PCEP messages is defined in
the base PCEP requirements [RFC4657], and [RFC5541] defines each of
Farrel & Zhang Expires April 2014 [Page 2]
draft-ietf-pce-vendor-constraints-11.txt October 2014
these functions as an abstract formula.
The registry of codepoints used to indicate objective functions is
managed by IANA and new assignments can be made according to "IETF
Review" and "First Come First Served" policies [RFC5226]. PCE
implementations may also choose to offer proprietary, vendor-specific
objective functions, and there is scope for this within the
codepoint registry created by [RFC5541] using the codepoints that are
flagged as "Reserved for Private Use."
Proprietary objective functions may operate on non-standard
constraints or metrics. The PCEP Metric Object defined in [RFC5440]
has scope for the definition of new, standardized metrics, but no
facility for the definition of vendor-specific metrics. At the same
time, there is no mechanism in PCEP for carrying other, more complex,
vendor-specific information.
This document defines a new PCEP object, the Vendor Information
object that can be used to carry arbitrary, proprietary information
such as vendor-specific constraints.
This document also defines a new PCEP TLV, the VENDOR-INFORMATION-TLV
that can be used to carry arbitrary information within any PCEP
object that supports TLVs.
2. Procedures for The Vendor Information Object
A PCC that wants to convey proprietary or vendor-specific constraints
or metrics to a PCE does so by including a Vendor Information object
in the PCReq message. The contents and format of the object are
described in Section 4, but it is important to note that the object
includes an Enterprise Number that is a unique identifier of an
organization responsible for the definition of the content and
meaning of the object.
A PCE that receives a PCReq message containing a Vendor Information
object MUST act according to the P flag in the object header. That
is, if the P flag is set, the object will be treated as mandatory
and the request will either be processed using the contents of the
object, or the request will be rejected as defined in [RFC5440] (see
also Section 2.1). If the P flag is clear then, as defined in
[RFC5440], the object may be used by the PCE or may be ignored. The
PCC sets the P flag according to how it wishes the request to be
processed.
The PCE determines how to interpret the information in the Vendor
Information object by examining the Enterprise Number it contains.
An implementation that supports the Vendor Information object, but
Farrel & Zhang Expires April 2014 [Page 3]
draft-ietf-pce-vendor-constraints-11.txt October 2014
receives one carrying an Enterprise number that it does not support
MUST act according to the P flag in the object. That is, if the P
flag is set, the PCE MUST reject the PCReq as defined in [RFC5440] by
sending an Error message with Error-Type="Not supported Object" along
with the corresponding Vendor Information object.
The Vendor Information object is OPTIONAL in a PCReq message.
Multiple instances of the object MAY be used on a single PCReq
message and each MUST be treated according to its P-bit setting.
Different instances of the object can have different Enterprise
Numbers.
The object can be present in the PCReq message to enable it to apply
to a single path computation request or to a set of synchronized
requests. This usage mirrors the usage of the Objective Function
object [RFC5541]. Thus, the PCReq message based on [RFC6006] is
encoded as follows using the syntax described in [RFC5511].
<PCReq Message> ::= <Common Header>
[<svec_list>]
<request-list>
where
<svec-list> ::= <SVEC>
[<OF>]
[<GC>]
[<XRO>]
[<metric-list>]
[<vendor-info-list>]
[<svec-list>]
<metric-list> ::= <METRIC>
[<metric-list>]
<vendor-info-list> ::= <VENDOR-INFORMATION>
[<vendor-info-list>]
<request-list> ::= <request>
[<request-list>]
<request> ::= <RP>
[<vendor-info-list>]
<end-point-rro-pair-list>
[<LSPA>]
[<BANDWIDTH>]
[<metric-list>]
[<OF>]
Farrel & Zhang Expires April 2014 [Page 4]
draft-ietf-pce-vendor-constraints-11.txt October 2014
[<RRO>]
[<IRO>]
[<LOAD-BALANCING>]
where
<end-point-rro-pair-list> ::= <END-POINTS>
[<RRO-List>]
[<BANDWIDTH>]
[<vendor-info-list>]
[<end-point-rro-pair-list>]
<RRO-List> ::= <RRO> [<BANDWIDTH>] [<RRO-List>]
<metric-list> ::= <METRIC> [<metric-list>]
The Vendor Information object can be included in a PCRep message in
exactly the same way as any other object as defined in [RFC5440].
Thus, the PCRep is encoded as follows:
<PCRep Message> ::= <Common Header>
<response>
<response> ::= <RP>
[<vendor-info-list>]
[<end-point-path-pair-list>]
[<NO-PATH>]
[<attribute-list>]
where:
<end-point-path-pair-list> ::=
[<END-POINTS>]
<path>
[<vendor-info-list>]
[<end-point-path-pair-list>]
<path> ::= (<ERO>|<SERO>) [<path>]
<attribute-list> ::= [<OF>]
[<LSPA>]
[<BANDWIDTH>]
[<metric-list>]
[<IRO>]
Farrel & Zhang Expires April 2014 [Page 5]
draft-ietf-pce-vendor-constraints-11.txt October 2014
2.1. Backward Compatibility for the Vendor Information Object
A legacy implementation that does not recognize the Vendor
Information object will act according to the procedures set out in
[RFC5440]. If the P flag is set in the object, the message will be
rejected using a PCErr message with an Error Type of 3 ("Unknown
Object"). If the P flag is not set, the object can safely be ignored
by the recipient.
3. Procedures for The Vendor Information TLV
The Vendor Information TLV can be used to carry vendor-specific
information that applies to a specific PCEP object by including the
TLV in the object.
The PCE determines how to interpret the Vendor Information TLV by
examining the Enterprise Number it contains. If the Enterprise
Number is unknown to the PCE, it MUST treat the Vendor Information
TLV as an unknown TLV and handle it as described in [RFC5440] (see
also Section 3.1).
Further specifications are needed to define the position and meaning
of the Vendor Information TLV for specific PCEP objects.
3.1. Backward Compatibility
A legacy implementation that does not recognize the Vendor
Information TLV in an object will act according to the procedures set
out in [RFC5440]. As described in Section 7.1 of [RFC5440],
unrecognized TLVs MUST be ignored.
4. Protocol Elements
The Vendor Information object and TLV conform to the format for PCEP
objects and TLVs defined in [RFC5440].
VENDOR-INFORMATION Object-Class is <TBD1> to be assigned by IANA.
VENDOR-INFORMATION Object-Type 1
VENDOR-INFORMATION-TLV Type is <TBD2> to be assigned by IANA.
The format of the VENDOR-INFORMATION object and the format of the
VENDOR-INFORMATION-TLV are the same and are as shown in Figure 1.
Farrel & Zhang Expires April 2014 [Page 6]
draft-ietf-pce-vendor-constraints-11.txt October 2014
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Enterprise Number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ Enterprise-Specific Information ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1 : Format of the Vendor Information Object and TLV
Enterprise Number
A unique identifier of an organization encoded as a 32-bit integer.
Enterprise Numbers are assigned by IANA and managed through an IANA
registry [RFC2578].
Enterprise-Specific Information
The detailed enterprise-specific constraint information carried by
the object. The format and interpretation of this information is a
matter for the enterprise identified by the Enterprise Number.
Such formats and interpretation may be published by the enterprise
(possibly through an informational RFC or through commercial
documentation) so that PCCs or PCEs that are not part of the
organization can use the information.
5. IANA Considerations
IANA maintains a registry of PCEP parameters called the "Path
Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers".
5.1. New PCEP Object
IANA is requested to make an allocation from the "PCEP Objects"
sub-registry as follows.
Object-Class Value Name Reference
TBD1 VENDOR-INFORMATION [This.I-D]
Object-Type
0: Unassigned
1: Vendor-Specific Constraints [This.I-D]
2-255: Unassigned
5.2. New PCEP TLV
IANA is requested to make an allocation from the "PCEP TLV Type
Indicators" sub-registry as follows.
Farrel & Zhang Expires April 2014 [Page 7]
draft-ietf-pce-vendor-constraints-11.txt October 2014
Value Description Reference
TBD2 VENDOR-INFORMATION-TLV [This.I-D]
6. Management Considerations
This section follows the guidance of [RFC5706] and [RFC6123].
6.1. Control of Function and Policy
A PCEP implementation SHOULD allow configuring of various parameters
as described in [RFC5440]. A PCC implementation that uses vendor-
specific information MAY make the use of this information
configurable either across the whole PCC, per PCE that the PCC uses,
or per path computation request. A PCE that supports vendor-specific
information MAY make the support of this information configurable,
and MAY allow configuration of policies for the use of the
information.
6.2. Information and Data Models
A PCEP MIB module is defined in [PCE-MIB] that describes managed
objects for modeling of PCEP communications.
It is NOT RECOMMENDED that standard MIB modules are extended to
include detailed information about the content of the Vendor
Information object or TLV. However, the standard MIB module MAY be
extended to report the use of the Vendor Information object or TLV
and the Enterprise Numbers that the objects and TLVs contain.
6.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring
This document makes no change to the basic operation of PCEP and so
there are no changes to the requirements for liveness detection and
monitoring set out in [RFC4657] and [RFC5440].
6.4. Verifying Correct Operation
This document makes no change to the basic operation of PCEP and so
there are no changes to the requirements or techniques for
monitoring the correct operation of the protocol out in [RFC4657]
and [RFC5440].
Note that "correct operation" in this context referes to the
operation of the protocol itself, and not to the operation of the
computation algorithms which are out of scope for all PCEP work.
Mechanisms for verifying the correct operation of computation
algorithms might involve comparing the results returned by more than
Farrel & Zhang Expires April 2014 [Page 8]
draft-ietf-pce-vendor-constraints-11.txt October 2014
one PCE. Scope for this might be limited by the use of vendor
information unless multiple PCEs support the same set of vendor
information.
6.5. Requirements on Other Protocols and Functional Components
This document does not place any new requirements on other network
components or protocols. However, it may be beneficial to consider
whether a PCE should advertise the Enterprise Numbers and vendor
information it supports. This advertisement could be within PCE
Discovery ([RFC5088], [RFC5089]) or through extensions to PCEP
[RFC5440].
Extensions for discovery and advertisement are outside the scope of
this document.
6.6. Impact on Network Operation
The availability of vendor information in PCEP messages may
facilitate more complex and detailed path computations that may
enhance the way in which the network is operated.
On the other hand, the presence of additional vendor-specific
information in PCEP messages may congest the operation of the
protocol especially if the PCE does not support the information
supplied by the PCC. Thus, a PCC SHOULD monitor the capabilities of
a PCE either by discovery mechanisms as described in Section 6.5, or
through the receipt of negative responses. A PCC SHOULD NOT include
vendor information in a PCReq message to a PCE that it believes does
not support the information and that will not forward the request to
some other PCE that does support the information.
7. Security Considerations
The protocol extensions defined in this document do not
substantially change the nature of PCEP. Therefore, the security
considerations set out in [RFC5440] apply unchanged. Note that
further security considerations for the use of PCEP over TCP are
presented in [RFC6952].
Operators should note that an attack on PCEP may involve making PCEP
messages as large as possible in order to consume bandwidth and
processing power. The Vendor Information object and TLV may provide
a vector for this type of attack. It may be protected against by
using the authentication and integrity procedures described in
[RFC5440].
Farrel & Zhang Expires April 2014 [Page 9]
draft-ietf-pce-vendor-constraints-11.txt October 2014
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] S. Bradner, "Key words for use in RFCs to indicate
requirements levels", RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC5440] Vasseur, J.P., Le Roux, J.L., Ayyangar, A., Oki, E.,
Ikejiri, A., Atlas, A., Dolganow, A., "Path Computation
Element (PCE) communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440,
March 2009.
[RFC5511] Farrel, A., "Reduced Backus-Naur Form (RBNF): A Syntax to
Form Encoding Rules in Various Routing Protocol
Specifications", RFC 5511, April 2007.
[RFC6006] Q. Zhao, et al., "Extensions to the Path Computation
Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) for Point-to-
Multipoint Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths", RFC
6006, September 2009.
8.2. Informative References
[RFC2578] McCloghrie, K., Perkins, D., and J. Schoenwaelder,
"Structure of Management Information Version 2 (SMIv2)",
STD 58, RFC 2578, April 1999.
[RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J.P., Ash, J., "Path Computation
Element (PCE) Architecture", RFC 4655, August 2006.
[RFC4657] Ash, J. and J. Le Roux, "Path Computation Element (PCE)
Communication Protocol Generic Requirements", RFC 4657,
September 2006.
[RFC5088] Le Roux, JL., Vasseur, JP., Ikejiri, Y., and R. Zhang,
"OSPF Protocol Extensions for Path Computation Element
(PCE) Discovery", RFC 5088, January 2008.
[RFC5089] Le Roux, JL., Vasseur, JP., Ikejiri, Y., and R. Zhang,
"IS-IS Protocol Extensions for Path Computation Element
(PCE) Discovery", RFC 5089, January 2008.
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
May 2008.
Farrel & Zhang Expires April 2014 [Page 10]
draft-ietf-pce-vendor-constraints-11.txt October 2014
[RFC5541] Le Roux, JL., Vasseur, JP., and Y. Lee, "Objective
Function Encoding in Path Computation Element
Communication and Discovery protocols", RFC 5541, June
2009.
[RFC5706] Harrington, D., "Guidelines for Considering Operations and
Management of New Protocols and Protocol Extensions", RFC
5706, November 2009.
[RFC6123] Farrel, A., "Inclusion of Manageability Sections in Path
Computation Element (PCE) Working Group Drafts", RFC 6123,
February 2011.
[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, May 2013.
[PCE-MIB] Stephan, E. and K. Koushik, "PCE Communication Protocol
(PCEP) Management Information Base", draft-ietf-pce-pcep-
mib, work in progress.
9. Acknowledgements
Thanks to Meral Shirazipour, Ramon Casellas, Cyril Margaria, Dhruv
Dhody, and Julien Meuric for review and comments.
10. Authors' Addresses
Adrian Farrel
Juniper Networks
EMail: adrian@olddog.co.uk
Fatai Zhang
Huawei Technologies
EMail: zhangfatai@huawei.com
11. Contributors
Greg Bernstein
Grotto Networking
EMail: gregb@grotto-networking.com
Ina Minei
Juniper Networks
EMail: ina@juniper.net
Farrel & Zhang Expires April 2014 [Page 11]
