IGP extension for PCEP security capability support in the PCE discovery
draft-wu-lsr-pce-discovery-security-support-00

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Last updated 2018-08-23
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                                               D. Lopez
Internet-Draft                                            Telefonica I+D
Intended status: Standards Track                                   Q. Wu
Expires: February 24, 2019                                      D. Dhody
                                                                 Z. Wang
                                                                  Huawei
                                                                 D. King
                                                      Old Dog Consulting
                                                         August 23, 2018

IGP extension for PCEP security capability support in the PCE discovery
             draft-wu-lsr-pce-discovery-security-support-00

Abstract

   When a Path Computation Element (PCE) is a Label Switching Router
   (LSR) participating in the Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP), or even a
   server participating in IGP, its presence and path computation
   capabilities can be advertised using IGP flooding.  The IGP
   extensions for PCE discovery (RFC 5088 and RFC 5089) define a method
   to advertise path computation capabilities using IGP flooding for
   OSPF and IS-IS respectively.  However these specifications lack a
   method to advertise PCEP security (e.g., Transport Layer
   Security(TLS),TCP Authentication Option (TCP-AO)) support capability.

   This document proposes new capability flag bits for PCE-CAP-FLAGS
   sub-TLV that can be announced as attribute in the IGP advertisement
   to distribute PCEP security 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 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
   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, 2019.

Lopez, et al.           Expires February 24, 2019               [Page 1]
Internet-Draft       IGP discovery for PCEP Security         August 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.

1.  Introduction

   As described in [RFC5440], PCEP communication privacy is one
   importance issue, as an attacker that intercepts a Path Computation
   Element (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 while TCP
   Authentication Option (TCP-AO) [RFC5925] and Cryptographic Algorithms
   for TCP-AO [RFC5926] offer significantly improved security for
   applications using TCP.  As specified in section 4 of [RFC8253], in
   order for a Path Computation Client(PCC) to begin a connection with a
   PCE server using TLS or TCP-AO, PCC SHOULD know whether PCE server
   supports TLS or TCP-AO as a secure transport.

   [RFC5088] and [RFC5089] define a method to advertise path computation
   capabilities using IGP flooding for OSPF and IS-IS respectively.
   However [RFC5088] and [RFC5089] lacks a method to advertise PCEP
   security (e.g., TLS) support capability.

   This document proposes new capability flag bits for PCE-CAP-FLAGS
   sub-TLV that can be announced as attributes in the IGP advertisement
   (defined in [RFC5088] and [RFC5089]) to distribute PCEP security
   support information.

2.  Conventions used in this document

   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].

Lopez, et al.           Expires February 24, 2019               [Page 2]
Internet-Draft       IGP discovery for PCEP Security         August 2018

3.  IGP extension for PCEP security capability support

   The PCE-CAP-FLAGS sub-TLV is defined in section 4.5 of [RFC5088] and
Show full document text