Ability for a stateful PCE to request and obtain control of a LSP
draft-ietf-pce-lsp-control-request-01

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (pce WG)
Last updated 2018-06-18
Replaces draft-raghu-pce-lsp-control-request
Stream IETF
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text xml pdf html bibtex
Stream WG state WG Document
Document shepherd No shepherd assigned
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
PCE Working Group                                            A. Raghuram
Internet-Draft                                                A. Goddard
Intended status: Standards Track                           C. Yadlapalli
Expires: December 20, 2018                                          AT&T
                                                              J. Karthik
                                                            S. Sivabalan
                                                               J. Parker
                                                     Cisco Systems, Inc.
                                                                D. Dhody
                                                     Huawei Technologies
                                                           June 18, 2018

   Ability for a stateful PCE to request and obtain control of a LSP
                 draft-ietf-pce-lsp-control-request-01

Abstract

   The stateful Path Computation Element (PCE) communication Protocol
   (PCEP) extensions provide stateful control of Multiprotocol Label
   Switching (MPLS) Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths (TE LSP)
   via PCEP, for a model where a Path Computation Client (PCC) delegates
   control over one or more locally configured LSPs to a stateful PCE.
   There are use-cases in which a stateful PCE may wish to request and
   obtain control of one or more LSPs from a PCC.  This document
   describes a simple extension to stateful PCEP to achieve such an
   objective.

Requirements Language

   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 BCP
   14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

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

Raghuram, et al.        Expires December 20, 2018               [Page 1]
Internet-Draft             LSP Control Request                 June 2018

   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 December 20, 2018.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2018 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
   (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 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.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  LSP Control Request Flag  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     6.1.  SRP Object Flags  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   7.  Manageability Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     7.1.  Control of Function and Policy  . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     7.2.  Information and Data Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     7.3.  Liveness Detection and Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     7.4.  Verify Correct Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     7.5.  Requirements On Other Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     7.6.  Impact On Network Operations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   8.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   9.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     9.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     9.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8

1.  Introduction

   Stateful PCEP extensions [RFC8231] specifies a set of extensions to
   PCEP [RFC5440] to enable stateful control of TE LSPs between and
   across PCEP sessions in compliance with [RFC4657].  It includes
Show full document text