Experimental Codepoint Allocation for the Path Computation Element communication Protocol (PCEP)
draft-ietf-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints-02
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type | Active Internet-Draft (pce WG) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Dhruv Dhody , Daniel King , Adrian Farrel | ||
| Last updated | 2017-11-11 (Latest revision 2017-08-23) | ||
| Replaces | draft-dhody-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints | ||
| Stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | plain text xml htmlized pdfized bibtex | ||
| Reviews | |||
| Stream | WG state | Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead | |
| Document shepherd | Jonathan Hardwick | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | Jonathan Hardwick <jonathan.hardwick@metaswitch.com> |
draft-ietf-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints-02
PCE Working Group D. Dhody
Internet-Draft Huawei Technologies
Updates: 5440 (if approved) D. King
Intended status: Standards Track Lancaster University
Expires: February 24, 2018 A. Farrel
Juniper Networks
August 23, 2017
Experimental Codepoint Allocation for the Path Computation Element
communication Protocol (PCEP)
draft-ietf-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints-02
Abstract
IANA assigns values to the Path Computation Element (PCE)
communication Protocol (PCEP) parameters (messages, objects, TLVs).
IANA established a new top-level registry to contain all PCEP
codepoints and sub-registries. The allocation policy for each new
registry is by IETF Review.
This document updates RFC 5440 by changing the allocation policies
for these three registries to mark some of the code points as
assigned for Experimental Use.
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 February 24, 2018.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Dhody, et al. Expires February 24, 2018 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft EXP-CODEPOINT August 2017
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. PCEP Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. PCEP Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. PCEP TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
5. Handling of Unknown Experimentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6.1. New PCEP Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6.2. New PCEP Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6.3. New PCEP TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
8. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Appendix A. Other PCEP Registries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1. Introduction
The Path Computation Element communication Protocol (PCEP) provides
mechanisms for Path Computation Elements (PCEs) to perform path
computations in response to Path Computation Clients (PCCs) requests.
Dhody, et al. Expires February 24, 2018 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft EXP-CODEPOINT August 2017
Further, in order to support use cases described in [RFC8051],
[I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] specifies a set of extensions to PCEP to
enable stateful control of MPLS-TE and GMPLS LSPs via PCEP.
[I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp] describes the setup, maintenance and
teardown of PCE-initiated LSPs under the stateful PCE model.
In section 9 of [RFC5440], IANA assigns values to the PCEP protocol
parameters (messages, objects, TLVs). IANA established a new top-
level registry to contain all PCEP codepoints and sub-registries.
The allocation policy for each new registry is by IETF Review as
described in [RFC8126]. Also, early allocation [RFC7120] provides
some latitude for allocation of these code points, but is reserved
for features that are considered appropriately stable.
With some recent advancement, there is an enhanced need to experiment
with PCEP. It is often necessary to use some sort of number or
constant in order to actually test or experiment with the new
function, even when testing in a closed environment. In order to run
experiments, it is important that the value won't collide not only
with existing codepoints but any future allocation.
This document updates [RFC5440] by changing the allocation policies
for these three registries to mark some of the code points as
assigned for Experimental Use. See [RFC3692] for further discussion
of the use of experimental codepoints.
2. PCEP Messages
PCEP message types are in the range 0 to 255. This document sets
aside message types 252-255 for experimentation as described in
Section 6.1.
3. PCEP Objects
PCEP objects are identified by values in the range 0 to 255. This
document sets aside object identifiers 248-255 for experimentation as
described in Section 6.2.
4. PCEP TLVs
PCEP TLV type codes are in the range 0 to 65535. This document sets
aside object identifiers 65504-65535 for experimentation as described
in Section 6.2.
Dhody, et al. Expires February 24, 2018 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft EXP-CODEPOINT August 2017
5. Handling of Unknown Experimentation
A PCEP implementation that receives an experimental PCEP message,
that it does not recognize, would react as per section 6.9 of
[RFC5440] by sending a PCErr message with Error-value=2 (capability
not supported).
A PCE that does not recognize an experimental PCEP object, will
reject the entire PCEP message and send a PCE error message with
Error- Type="Unknown Object" or "Not supported object" as described
in [RFC5440].
As per section 7.1 of [RFC5440], unknown experimental PCEP TLV would
be ignored.
6. IANA Considerations
IANA maintains the "Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers"
at <http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep>.
6.1. New PCEP Messages
Within this registry IANA maintains a sub-registry for PCEP Messages
(see PCEP Messages at <http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep>).
IANA is requested to change the registration procedure for this
registry to read as follows:
0-251 IETF Review
252-255 Experimental Use
IANA is also requested to mark the values 252-255 in the registry
accordingly.
6.2. New PCEP Objects
Within this registry IANA maintains a sub-registry for PCEP Objects
(see PCEP Objects at <http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep>).
IANA is requested to change the registration procedure for this
registry to read as follows:
0-247 IETF Review
248-255 Experimental Use
IANA is also requested to mark the values 248-255 in the registry
accordingly.
Dhody, et al. Expires February 24, 2018 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft EXP-CODEPOINT August 2017
6.3. New PCEP TLVs
Within this registry IANA maintains a sub-registry for PCEP TLVs (see
PCEP TLV Type Indicators at <http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep>).
IANA is requested to change the registration procedure for this
registry to read as follows:
0-65503 IETF Review
65504-65535 Experimental Use
IANA is also requested to mark the values 65504-65535 in the registry
accordingly.
7. Security Considerations
This document does not introduce any new security considerations to
the existing protocol. Refer to [RFC5440] for further details of the
specific security measures.
[RFC3692] asserts that the existence of experimental code points
introduce no new security considerations. However, implementations
accepting experimental codepoints need to take care in how they parse
and process the messages, objects, and TLVs in case they come,
accidentally from another experiment.
8. Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Ramon Casellas, Jeff Tantsura,
Jonathan Hardwick, Julien Mueric, Lou Berger, Michael Shroff, and
Andrew Dolganow for their feedback and suggestions.
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation
Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5440, March 2009, <https://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc5440>.
[RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
Dhody, et al. Expires February 24, 2018 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft EXP-CODEPOINT August 2017
9.2. Informative References
[RFC3692] Narten, T., "Assigning Experimental and Testing Numbers
Considered Useful", BCP 82, RFC 3692,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3692, January 2004, <https://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc3692>.
[RFC7120] Cotton, M., "Early IANA Allocation of Standards Track Code
Points", BCP 100, RFC 7120, DOI 10.17487/RFC7120, January
2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7120>.
[RFC8051] Zhang, X., Ed. and I. Minei, Ed., "Applicability of a
Stateful Path Computation Element (PCE)", RFC 8051,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8051, January 2017, <https://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc8051>.
[I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce]
Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Medved, J., and R. Varga, "PCEP
Extensions for Stateful PCE", draft-ietf-pce-stateful-
pce-21 (work in progress), June 2017.
[I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp]
Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Sivabalan, S., and R. Varga, "PCEP
Extensions for PCE-initiated LSP Setup in a Stateful PCE
Model", draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp-10 (work in
progress), June 2017.
Dhody, et al. Expires February 24, 2018 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft EXP-CODEPOINT August 2017
Appendix A. Other PCEP Registries
Based on the feedback from the WG, it was decided to focus only on
the essentials in the scope of this documents. For others,
Experiments can use a new experimental TLV/Object instead.
Authors' Addresses
Dhruv Dhody
Huawei Technologies
Divyashree Techno Park, Whitefield
Bangalore, Karnataka 560066
India
EMail: dhruv.ietf@gmail.com
Daniel King
Lancaster University
UK
EMail: d.king@lancaster.ac.uk
Adrian Farrel
Juniper Networks
UK
EMail: afarrel@juniper.net
Dhody, et al. Expires February 24, 2018 [Page 7]