Internet DRAFT - draft-wu-pce-discovery-priority-allocation
draft-wu-pce-discovery-priority-allocation
PCE working group Q. Wu
Internet-Draft Huawei
Intended status: Standards Track October 21, 2013
Expires: April 24, 2014
IGP extension for PCEP transport capability support in the PCE discovery
draft-wu-pce-discovery-priority-allocation-01
Abstract
[RFC5088][RFC5089] define a method to advertise path computation
capabilities using IGP flooding. OSPF and ISIS are extended to
support such capabilities advertisement. However
[RFC5088][RFC5089]don't provide a method to advertise PCEP over TLS
support capability.
This document proposes new capability flag bit for PCE-CAP-FLAGS sub-
TLV that can be announced as attribute in the IGP advertisement
(defined in [RFC5088 ][RFC5089]) to distribute transport support
information.
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 April 24, 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
Wu Expires April 24, 2014 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft IGP for PCEP Transport October 2013
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.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. IGP extension for PCEP transport capability support . . . . . 3
3.1. Use of PCEP transport capability support for PCE
discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1. Introduction
As described in [RFC5440], PCEP communication privacy is one
importance issue, especially in an inter-AS context, where PCEP
communication end-points do not reside in the same AS, as an attacker
that intercepts a PCE message could obtain sensitive information
related to computed paths and resources.
Among the possible solutions mentioned in these documents, Transport
Layer Security (TLS) [RFC5246] provides support for peer
authentication, and message encryption and integrity. In order for a
PCC to begin a connection with a PCE server using TLS, PCC should
know whether PCE server Support TLS as transport.
[RFC5088][RFC5089] define a method to advertise path computation
capabilities using IGP flooding. OSPF and ISIS are extended to
support such capabilities advertisement. However
[RFC5088][RFC5089]don't provide a method to advertise PCEP over TLS
support capability.
This document proposes new capability flag bit for PCE-CAP-FLAGS sub-
TLV that can be announced as attribute in the IGP advertisement
(defined in [RFC5088 ][RFC5089]) to distribute transport support
information.
2. Conventions used in this document
Wu Expires April 24, 2014 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft IGP for PCEP Transport October 2013
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 [RFC2119].
3. IGP extension for PCEP transport capability support
The PCE-CAP-FLAGS sub-TLV is defined in section 4.5 of
[RFC5088][RFC5089] and an optional sub-TLV used to advertise PCE
capabilities. In this section, we extend the PCE-CAP-FLAGS sub-TLV
to include the capability and indications that are described for PCEP
over TLS support in the present document.
In the PCE-CAP-FLAGS sub-TLV defined in [RFC5088][RFC5089], nine
capability flags defined in [RFC4657] and two capability flags
defined [RFC5557][RFC6006]are included and follows the following
format: The PCE-CAP-FLAGS sub-TLV has the following format:
o TYPE: 5
o LENGTH: Multiple of 4
o VALUE: This contains an array of units of 32 bit flags with the
most significant bit as 0. Each bit represents one PCE capability
and the processing rule of these flag bits are defined in
[RFC5088][RFC5089]. In this document, we define one new capability
flag bit that indicate TCP MD5 support, TCP AO support, PCEP over TLS
support and PCEP over TLS and TCP AO support respectively as follows:
Bit Capability Description
xx TCP MD5 support
xx TCP AO Support
xx PCEP over TLS support
xx PCEP over TLS support and TCP AO support
3.1. Use of PCEP transport capability support for PCE discovery
TCP MD5, TCP AO, PCEP over TLS support and PCEP over TLS and TCP AO
support flag bits are advertised using IGP flooding. If the PCE
server supports only TCP MD5 as transport, IGP advertisement Should
not include PCEP over TLS support flag bit or TCP AO support flag
bit. If the PCE server supports both TCP MD5 and TCP AO, IGP
advertisment Should include both TCP AO support flag bit and TCP MD5
support flag bit in the PCE-CAP-FLAGS sub-TLV. If the PCE server
only supports TLS over TCP as transport, IGP advertisement MUST
include PCEP over TLS support flag bit in the PCE-CAP-FLAGS sub-TLV.
Wu Expires April 24, 2014 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft IGP for PCEP Transport October 2013
If the client is looking for connecting with PCE server with TCP AO
support, the client MUST check if TCP AO support flag bit in the PCE-
CAP-FLAGS sub-TLV is set before retrieving PCE location information
from IGP message. if not, the client should discard PCEPD TLV with
TCP AO support flag bit clear. If the client is looking for
connecting with PCE server using TLS, the client MUST check if PCEP
over TLS support flag bit in the PCE-CAP-FLAGS sub-TLV is set before
retrieving PCE location information from IGP message. If not, then
the client should discard PCED TLV with PCEP over TLS support flag
bit clear.
4. Security Considerations
This document raises no new security issues beyond those described in
[RFC5088][RFC5089].
5. IANA Considerations
IANA is requested to allocate a new bit in "PCE Capability Flags"
registry for PCEP over TLS support capability.
6. References
6.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", March 1997.
[RFC5088] Le Roux, JL., "OSPF Protocol Extensions for Path
Computation Element (PCE) Discovery", RFC 5088, January
2008.
[RFC5089] Le Roux, JL., "IS-IS Protocol Extensions for Path
Computation Element (PCE) Discovery", RFC 5089, January
2008.
6.2. Informative References
[RFC5246] Dierks, T., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol
Version 1.2", RFC 5440, August 2008.
[RFC5440] Le Roux, JL., "Path Computation Element (PCE)
Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440, March 2009.
Author's Address
Wu Expires April 24, 2014 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft IGP for PCEP Transport October 2013
Qin Wu
Huawei
101 Software Avenue, Yuhua District
Nanjing, Jiangsu 210012
China
Email: sunseawq@huawei.com
Wu Expires April 24, 2014 [Page 5]
