Update to Include Route Object (IRO) specification in Path Computation Element communication Protocol (PCEP)
draft-ietf-pce-iro-update-06
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type | Active Internet-Draft (pce WG) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Author | Dhruv Dhody | ||
| Last updated | 2016-04-21 (Latest revision 2016-03-14) | ||
| Stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | plain text xml htmlized pdfized bibtex | ||
| Reviews |
GENART Last Call review
Ready with Nits
OPSDIR Last Call review
Ready
|
||
| Stream | WG state | Submitted to IESG for Publication | |
| Document shepherd | Jonathan Hardwick | ||
| Shepherd write-up | Show Last changed 2016-02-03 | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Approved-announcement to be sent::Revised I-D Needed | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Yes | ||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | Deborah Brungard | ||
| Send notices to | "Jonathan Hardwick" <jonathan.hardwick@metaswitch.com> | ||
| IANA | IANA review state | IANA OK - No Actions Needed |
draft-ietf-pce-iro-update-06
PCE Working Group D. Dhody
Internet-Draft Huawei Technologies
Updates: 5440 (if approved) March 14, 2016
Intended status: Standards Track
Expires: September 15, 2016
Update to Include Route Object (IRO) specification in Path Computation
Element communication Protocol (PCEP)
draft-ietf-pce-iro-update-06
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.
An informal survey was conducted to determine the state of current
and planned implementations with respect to IRO ordering and the
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, based
on the survey conclusion and recommendation.
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 September 15, 2016.
Dhody Expires September 15, 2016 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft IRO-UPDATE March 2016
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 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.
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
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Update in IRO specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Update to RFC 5440 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Other Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
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
Dhody Expires September 15, 2016 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft IRO-UPDATE March 2016
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 IRO to indicate the sequence of
domains to be traversed during inter-domain path computation.
During recent discussions, it was determined that there was a need to
define a standard representation to ensure interoperability. In
order to understand the current usage amongst implementations, a
survey of existing and planned implementations was conducted. This
survey was informal and conducted via email. Responses were
collected and anonymized by the PCE working group chair.
This document updates the IRO specifications in section 7.12 of
[RFC5440] as per the conclusion of the survey.
1.1. Requirements Language
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].
2. Update in 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.
A survey of the existing and planned implementations was conducted in
order to understand the current state of usage amongst
implementations.
The survey found that most implementations construct or interpret the
IRO in an ordered fashion and consider it to be an ordered list.
More than half of implementations interpreted the IRO sub-objects as
strict hops, others interpreted as loose or supported both
interpretation. The results shown in this survey found that most
implementations support updating [RFC5440] to specify the IRO as an
ordered list and supported the use of the Loose hop bit (L bit) such
that both strict and loose hops could be supported in the IRO.
Dhody Expires September 15, 2016 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft IRO-UPDATE March 2016
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 -
- The content of IRO is an ordered list of sub-objects representing a
series of abstract nodes. An abstract node could be a simple
abstract node comprising one node or a group of nodes, for example an
AS (comprising of multiple hops within the AS) (refer section 4.3.2
of [RFC3209]).
- The L Bit of 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 Loose bit (L bit) is as per section
4.3.3.1 of [RFC3209].
3. Other Considerations
Based on the survey, it should be noted that most implementations
already support this update in the IRO specification. The other
implementations are expected to make an update to the IRO procedures
based on this document.
During the survey, it was also noted that a minority of the
implementations, interpreted 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 IRO sub-objects as
loose hops, but the PCE interprets them as strict hops).
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.
Dhody Expires September 15, 2016 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft IRO-UPDATE March 2016
Thus it is RECOMMENDED that network operators ensure that all PCEP
speakers in their network conform to this document if they intend to
use IRO.
4. Security Considerations
This update in 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.
7. References
7.1. 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,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[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>.
Dhody Expires September 15, 2016 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft IRO-UPDATE March 2016
[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 September 15, 2016 [Page 6]