Ability for a stateful PCE to request and obtain control of a LSP
draft-raghu-pce-lsp-control-request-04

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Last updated 2017-07-16
Stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text xml pdf html bibtex
Stream Stream state (No stream defined)
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
RFC Editor Note (None)
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
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: January 17, 2018                                           AT&T
                                                              J. Karthik
                                                            S. Sivabalan
                                                               J. Parker
                                                     Cisco Systems, Inc.
                                                                D. Dhody
                                                     Huawei Technologies
                                                           July 16, 2017

   Ability for a stateful PCE to request and obtain control of a LSP
                 draft-raghu-pce-lsp-control-request-04

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", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].

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."

Raghuram, et al.        Expires January 17, 2018                [Page 1]
Internet-Draft             LSP Control Request                 July 2017

   This Internet-Draft will expire on January 17, 2018.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2017 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.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  LSP Control Request Flag  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     6.1.  SRP Object Flags  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   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  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   8.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   9.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     9.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     9.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8

1.  Introduction
Show full document text