PCE H. Chen
Internet-Draft China Telecom
Intended status: Standards Track H. Yuan
Expires: March 1, 2021 UnionPay
T. Zhou
W. Li
G. Fioccola
Y. Wang
Huawei
August 28, 2020
Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions to
Enable IFIT
draft-chen-pce-pcep-ifit-00
Abstract
This document defines PCEP extensions to distribute In-situ Flow
Information Telemetry (IFIT) information. So that IFIT behavior can
be enabled automatically when the path is instantiated. In-situ Flow
Information Telemetry (IFIT) refers to network OAM data plane on-path
telemetry techniques, in particular the most popular are In-situ OAM
(IOAM) and Alternate Marking. The IFIT attributes here described can
be generalized for all path types but the application to Segment
Routing (SR) is considered in this document. The SR policy is a set
of candidate SR paths consisting of one or more segment lists and
necessary path attributes. It enables instantiation of an ordered
list of segments with a specific intent for traffic steering.
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 RFC 2119 [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 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
Chen, et al. Expires March 1, 2021 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft pcep-ifit August 2020
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 March 1, 2021.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2020 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. PCEP Extensions for IFIT Attributes . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. IFIT for SR Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. IFIT capability advertisement TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. IFIT Attributes TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1. IOAM Sub-TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1.1. IOAM Pre-allocated Trace Option Sub-TLV . . . . . . . 7
4.1.2. IOAM Incremental Trace Option Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . 8
4.1.3. IOAM Directly Export Option Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . 9
4.1.4. IOAM Edge-to-Edge Option Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.2. Enhanced Alternate Marking Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5. Example of operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.1. PCE Initiated SR Policy with single or multiple
candidate-paths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Appendix A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Chen, et al. Expires March 1, 2021 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft pcep-ifit August 2020
1. Introduction
In-situ Flow Information Telemetry (IFIT) refers to network OAM data
plane on-path telemetry techniques, including In-situ OAM (IOAM)
[I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data] and Alternate Marking [RFC8321]. It can
provide flow information on the entire forwarding path on a per-
packet basis in real time.
An automatic network requires the Service Level Agreement (SLA)
monitoring on the deployed service. So that the system can quickly
detect the SLA violation or the performance degradation, hence to
change the service deployment.
This document defines extensions to PCEP to distribute paths carrying
IFIT information. So that IFIT behavior can be enabled automatically
when the path is instantiated.
RFC 5440 [RFC5440] describes the Path Computation Element Protocol
(PCEP) as a communication mechanism between a Path Computation Client
(PCC) and a Path Computation Element (PCE), or between a PCE and a
PCE.
RFC 8231 [RFC8231] specifies extensions to PCEP to enable stateful
control and it describes two modes of operation: passive stateful PCE
and active stateful PCE. Further, RFC 8281 [RFC8281] describes the
setup, maintenance, and teardown of PCE-initiated LSPs for the
stateful PCE model, while RFC 8733 [RFC8733] is focused on the active
stateful PCE, where the LSPs are controlled by the PCE.
When a PCE is used to initiate paths using PCEP, it is important that
the head end of the path also understands the IFIT behavior that is
intended for the path. When PCEP is in use for path initiation it
makes sense for that same protocol to be used to also carry the IFIT
attributes that describe the IOAM or Alternate Marking procedure that
needs to be applied to the data that flow those paths.
The PCEP extension defined in this document allows to signal the IFIT
capabilities. In this way IFIT methods are automatically activated
and running. The flexibility and dynamicity of the IFIT applications
are given by the use of additional functions on the controller and on
the network nodes, but this is out of scope here.
The Use Case of Segment Routing (SR) is discussed considering that
IFIT methods are becoming mature for Segment Routing over the MPLS
data plane (SR-MPLS) and Segment Routing over IPv6 data plane (SRv6).
In this way SR policy native IFIT can facilitate the closed loop
control and enable the automation of SR service.
Chen, et al. Expires March 1, 2021 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft pcep-ifit August 2020
Segment Routing (SR) policy [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy]
is a set of candidate SR paths consisting of one or more segment
lists and necessary path attributes. It enables instantiation of an
ordered list of segments with a specific intent for traffic steering.
It is to be noted the companion document [I-D.qin-idr-sr-policy-ifit]
that proposes the BGP extension to enable IFIT methods for SR policy.
2. PCEP Extensions for IFIT Attributes
This document is to add IFIT attribute TLVs as PCEP Extensions. The
following sections will describe the requirement and usage of
different IFIT modes, and define the corresponding TLV encoding in
PCEP.
The IFIT attributes here described can be generalized and included as
TLVs carried inside the LSPA (LSP Attributes) object in order to be
applied for all path types, as long as they support the relevant data
plane telemetry method. IFIT TLVs are o ptional and can be taken
into account by the PCE during path computation. In general, the
LSPA object is carried within a PCInitiate message or a PCRpt
message.
In this document it is considered the case of SR Policy since IOAM
and Alternate Marking are more mature especially for Segment Routing
(SR) and for IPv6.
2.1. IFIT for SR Policies
RFC 8664 [RFC8664] and [I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing-ipv6] specify
extensions to the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol
(PCEP) that allow a stateful PCE to compute and initiate Traffic-
Engineering (TE) paths, as well as a Path Computation Client (PCC) to
request a path subject to certain constraints and optimization
criteria in SR networks both for SR-MPLS and SRv6.
IFIT attibutes, here defined as TLVs for the LSPA object, complement
both RFC 8664 [RFC8664], [I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing-ipv6] and
[I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp].
3. IFIT capability advertisement TLV
During the PCEP initialization phase, PCEP speakers (PCE or PCC)
SHOULD advertise their support of IFIT methods (e.g. IOAM and
Alternate Marking).
A PCEP speaker includes the IFIT TLVs in the OPEN object to advertise
its support for PCEP IFIT extensions.
Chen, et al. Expires March 1, 2021 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft pcep-ifit August 2020
RFC 8664 [RFC8664] and and [I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing-ipv6] define
a new Path Setup Type (PST) for SR and also define the SR-PCE-
CAPABILITY sub-TLV. This document defined a new IFIT-CAPABILITY TLV,
that is an optional TLV for use in the OPEN Object for IFIT
attributes via PCEP capability advertisement.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Flag |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Fig. 1 IFIT-CAPABILITY TLV Format
Where:
Type: to be assigned by IANA.
Length: The Length field defines the length of the value portion in
bytes as per RFC 5440 [RFC5440].
Flag: No flags are defined for this TLV in this document. Unassigned
bits are considered reserved. They MUST be set to 0 on transmission
and MUST be ignored on receipt.
Advertisement of the IFIT-CAPABILITY TLV implies support of IFIT
methods (IOAM and/or Alternate Marking) as well as the objects, TLVs,
and procedures defined in this document. It is worth mentioning that
IOAM and Alternate Marking can be activated one at a time or can
coexist; so it is possible to have only IOAM or only Alternate
Marking enabled but they are recognized in general as IFIT
capability.
4. IFIT Attributes TLV
The IFIT TLV provides the configurable knobs of the IFIT feature, and
it can be included as an optional TLV in the LSPA object (as
described in RFC 5440 [RFC5440]).
For a PCE-initiated LSP RFC 8281 [RFC8281], this TLV is included in
the LSPA object with the PCInitiate message. For the PCC-initiated
delegated LSPs, this TLV is carried in the Path Computation State
Report (PCRpt) message in the LSPA object. This TLV is also carried
in the LSPA object with the Path Computation Update Request (PCUpd)
message to direct the PCC (LSP head-end) to make updates to IFIT
attributes.
Chen, et al. Expires March 1, 2021 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft pcep-ifit August 2020
The TLV is encoded in all PCEP messages for the LSP if IFIT feature
is enabled. The absence of the TLV indicates the PCEP speaker wishes
to disable the feature. This TLV includes multiple IFIT-ATTRIBUTES
sub-TLVs. The IFIT-ATTRIBUTES sub-TLVs are included if there is a
change since the last information sent in the PCEP message. The
default values for missing sub-TLVs apply for the first PCEP message
for the LSP.
The format of the IFIT-ATTRIBUTES TLV is shown in the following
figure:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
// sub-TLVs //
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Fig. 2 IFIT-ATTRIBUTES TLV Format
Where:
Type: to be assigned by IANA.
Length: The Length field defines the length of the value portion in
bytes as per RFC 5440 [RFC5440].
Value: This comprises one or more sub-TLVs.
The following sub-TLVs are defined in this document:
Chen, et al. Expires March 1, 2021 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft pcep-ifit August 2020
+------+-----+--------------------------------------+
| Type | Len | Name |
+======+=====+======================================+
| 1 | 8 | IOAM Pre-allocated Trace Option |
+------+-----+--------------------------------------+
| 2 | 8 | IOAM Incremental Trace Option |
+------+-----+--------------------------------------+
| 3 | 12 | IOAM Directly Export Option |
+------+-----+--------------------------------------+
| 4 | 4 | IOAM Edge-to-Edge Option |
+------+-----+--------------------------------------+
| 5 | 4 | Enhanced Alternate Marking |
+------+-----+--------------------------------------+
Fig. 3 Sub-TLV Types of the IFIT-ATTRIBUTES TLV
4.1. IOAM Sub-TLVs
In-situ Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (IOAM)
[I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data] records operational and telemetry
information in the packet while the packet traverses a path between
two points in the network. In terms of the classification given in
RFC 7799 [RFC7799] IOAM could be categorized as Hybrid Type 1. IOAM
mechanisms can be leveraged where active OAM do not apply or do not
offer the desired results.
For the SR use case, when SR policy enables IOAM, the IOAM header
will be inserted into every packet of the traffic that is steered
into the SR paths. Since this document aims to define the control
plane, it is to be noted that a relevant document for the data plane
is [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-ipv6-options] for Segment Routing over IPv6
data plane (SRv6).
4.1.1. IOAM Pre-allocated Trace Option Sub-TLV
The IOAM tracing data is expected to be collected at every node that
a packet traverses to ensure visibility into the entire path a packet
takes within an IOAM domain. The preallocated tracing option will
create pre-allocated space for each node to populate its information.
The format of IOAM pre-allocated trace option Sub-TLV is defined as
follows:
Chen, et al. Expires March 1, 2021 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft pcep-ifit August 2020
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-------------------------------+-------------------------------+
| Type=1 | Length |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| Namespace ID | Rsvd1 |
+-------------------------------+-----------------------+-------+
| IOAM Trace Type | Flags | Rsvd2 |
+----------------------------------------------+--------+-------+
Fig. 4 IOAM Pre-allocated Trace Option Sub-TLV
Where:
Type: 1 (to be assigned by IANA).
Length: the total length of the value field not including Type and
Length fields.
Namespace ID: A 16-bit identifier of an IOAM-Namespace. The
definition is the same as described in section 4.4 of
[I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data].
IOAM Trace Type: A 24-bit identifier which specifies which data types
are used in the node data list. The definition is the same as
described in section 4.4 of [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data].
Flags: A 4-bit field. The definition is the same as described in
[I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-flags] and section 4.4 of
[I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data].
Rsvd1: A 16-bit field reserved for further usage. It MUST be zero.
Rsvd2: A 4-bit field reserved for further usage. It MUST be zero.
4.1.2. IOAM Incremental Trace Option Sub-TLV
The incremental tracing option contains a variable node data fields
where each node allocates and pushes its node data immediately
following the option header.
The format of IOAM incremental trace option Sub-TLV is defined as
follows:
Chen, et al. Expires March 1, 2021 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft pcep-ifit August 2020
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-------------------------------+-------------------------------+
| Type=2 | Length |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| Namespace ID | Rsvd1 |
+-------------------------------+-----------------------+-------+
| IOAM Trace Type | Flags | Rsvd2 |
+----------------------------------------------+--------+-------+
Fig. 5 IOAM Incremental Trace Option Sub-TLV
Where:
Type: 2 (to be assigned by IANA).
Length: the total length of the value field not including Type and
Length fields.
All the other fields definition is the same as the pre-allocated
trace option Sub-TLV in the previous section.
4.1.3. IOAM Directly Export Option Sub-TLV
IOAM directly export option is used as a trigger for IOAM data to be
directly exported to a collector without being pushed into in-flight
data packets.
The format of IOAM directly export option Sub-TLV is defined as
follows:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-------------------------------+-------------------------------+
| Type=3 | Length |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| Namespace ID | Flags |
+-------------------------------+---------------+---------------+
| IOAM Trace Type | Rsvd |
+-----------------------------------------------+---------------+
| Flow ID |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
Fig. 6 IOAM Directly Export Option Sub-TLV
Where:
Type: 3 (to be assigned by IANA).
Chen, et al. Expires March 1, 2021 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft pcep-ifit August 2020
Length: the total length of the value field not including Type and
Length fields.
Namespace ID: A 16-bit identifier of an IOAM-Namespace. The
definition is the same as described in section 4.4 of
[I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data].
IOAM Trace Type: A 24-bit identifier which specifies which data types
are used in the node data list. The definition is the same as
described in section 4.4 of [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data].
Flags: A 16-bit field. The definition is the same as described in
section 3.2 of [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-direct-export].
Flow ID: A 32-bit flow identifier. The definition is the same as
described in section 3.2 of [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-direct-export].
Rsvd: A 4-bit field reserved for further usage. It MUST be zero.
4.1.4. IOAM Edge-to-Edge Option Sub-TLV
The IOAM edge to edge option is to carry data that is added by the
IOAM encapsulating node and interpreted by IOAM decapsulating node.
The format of IOAM edge-to-edge option Sub-TLV is defined as follows:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-------------------------------+-------------------------------+
| Type=4 | Length |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| Namespace ID | IOAM E2E Type |
+-------------------------------+-------------------------------+
Fig. 7 IOAM Edge-to-Edge Option Sub-TLV
Where:
Type: 4 (to be assigned by IANA).
Length: the total length of the value field not including Type and
Length fields.
Namespace ID: A 16-bit identifier of an IOAM-Namespace. The
definition is the same as described in section 4.6 of
[I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data].
Chen, et al. Expires March 1, 2021 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft pcep-ifit August 2020
IOAM E2E Type: A 16-bit identifier which specifies which data types
are used in the E2E option data. The definition is the same as
described in section 4.6 of [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data].
4.2. Enhanced Alternate Marking Sub-TLV
The Alternate Marking [RFC8321]technique is an hybrid performance
measurement method, per RFC 7799 [RFC7799] classification of
measurement methods. Because this method is based on marking
consecutive batches of packets. It can be used to measure packet
loss, latency, and jitter on live traffic.
For the SR use case, since this document aims to define the control
plane, it is to be noted that a relevant document for the data plane
is [I-D.ietf-6man-ipv6-alt-mark] for Segment Routing over IPv6 data
plane (SRv6).
The format of Enhanced Alternate Marking (EAM) Sub-TLV is defined as
follows:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-------------------------------+-------------------------------+
| Type=5 | Length |
+-------------------------------+-------+---------------+-------+
| FlowMonID | Period | Rsvd |
+---------------------------------------+---------------+-------+
Fig. 8 Enhanced Alternate Marking Sub-TLV
Where:
Type: 5 (to be assigned by IANA).
Length: the total length of the value field not including Type and
Length fields.
FlowMonID: A 20-bit identifier to uniquely identify a monitored flow
within the measurement domain. The definition is the same as
described in section 5.3 of [I-D.ietf-6man-ipv6-alt-mark]. It is to
be noted that PCE also needs to maintain the uniqueness of FlowMonID
as described in [I-D.ietf-6man-ipv6-alt-mark].
Period: Time interval between two alternate marking period. The unit
is second.
Rsvd: A 4-bit field reserved for further usage. It MUST be zero.
Chen, et al. Expires March 1, 2021 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft pcep-ifit August 2020
5. Example of operation
5.1. PCE Initiated SR Policy with single or multiple candidate-paths
A PCC or PCE sets the IFIT-CAPABILITY TLV in the Open message during
the PCEP initialization phase to indicate that it supports the IFIT
procedures.
1. For single candidate-path, PCE sends PCInitiate message,
containing the SRPAG Association object
([I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp]) and IFIT-ATTRIBUTES via
LSPA TLVs. For multiple candidate-paths, PCE sends a separate
PCInitiate message for every candidate path that it wants to create,
or it sends multiple LSP objects within a single PCInitiate message.
The SRPAG Association object
([I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp]) is sent for every LSP in
the PCInitiate message and the IFIT-ATTRIBUTES are sent as LSPA TLVs.
2. For single candidate-path, PCC uses the color, endpoint and
preference from the SRPAG object to create a new candidate path. If
no SR policy exists to hold the candidate path, then a new SR policy
is created to hold the new candidate-path considering the IFIT LSPA
TLVs too. For multiple candidate-paths, PCC creates multiple
candidate paths under the same SR policy, identified by Color and
Endpoint and also IFIT-ATTRIBUTES.
3. For both single candidate-path and multiple candidate-paths, PCC
sends a PCRpt message back to the PCE to report the newly created
Candidate Path. The PCRpt message contains the SRPAG Association
object and IFIT-ATTRIBUTES information.
+-+-+ +-+-+
|PCC| |PCE|
+-+-+ +-+-+
| |
|<--PCInitiate-------------------|
| |
|---PCRpt----------------------->|
| |
The procedure of enabling/disabling IFIT is simple, indeed the PCE
can update the IFIT-ATTRIBUTES of the LSP by sending subsequent Path
Computation Update Request (PCUpd) messages.
Chen, et al. Expires March 1, 2021 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft pcep-ifit August 2020
+-+-+ +-+-+
|PCC| |PCE|
+-+-+ +-+-+
| |
|<--PCUpd------------------------|
| |
|---PCRpt----------------------->|
| |
6. IANA Considerations
This document defines the new IFIT-CAPABILITY TLV and IFIT-ATTRIBUTES
TLV. IANA is requested to make the assignment from the "PCEP TLV
Type Indicators" subregistry of the "Path Computation Element
Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry as follows:
Value Description Reference
-------------------------------------------------------------
TBD1 IFIT-CAPABILITY This document
TBD2 IFIT-ATTRIBUTES This document
This document also specifies the IFIT-ATTRIBUTES sub-TLVs. IANA is
requested to create an "IFIT-ATTRIBUTES Sub-TLV Types" subregistry
within the "Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers"
registry.
This document defines the following types:
Type Description Reference
-------------------------------------------------------------
0 Reserved This document
1 IOAM Pre-allocated Trace Option This document
2 IOAM Incremental Trace Option This document
3 IOAM Directly Export Option This document
4 IOAM Edge-to-Edge Option This document
5 Enhanced Alternate Marking This document
6-65535 Unassigned/Experimental Use This document
Chen, et al. Expires March 1, 2021 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft pcep-ifit August 2020
7. Security Considerations
This document defines the new IFIT-CAPABILITY TLV and IFIT Attributes
TLVs, which do not add any substantial new security concerns beyond
those already discussed in RFC 8231 [RFC8231] and RFC 8281 [RFC8281]
for stateful PCE operations.
8. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Dhruv Doody for the precious inputs
and suggestions.
9. References
9.1. 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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[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>.
[RFC7799] Morton, A., "Active and Passive Metrics and Methods (with
Hybrid Types In-Between)", RFC 7799, DOI 10.17487/RFC7799,
May 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7799>.
[RFC8231] Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Medved, J., and R. Varga, "Path
Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)
Extensions for Stateful PCE", RFC 8231,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8231, September 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8231>.
[RFC8281] Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Sivabalan, S., and R. Varga, "Path
Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)
Extensions for PCE-Initiated LSP Setup in a Stateful PCE
Model", RFC 8281, DOI 10.17487/RFC8281, December 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8281>.
[RFC8321] Fioccola, G., Ed., Capello, A., Cociglio, M., Castaldelli,
L., Chen, M., Zheng, L., Mirsky, G., and T. Mizrahi,
"Alternate-Marking Method for Passive and Hybrid
Performance Monitoring", RFC 8321, DOI 10.17487/RFC8321,
January 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8321>.
Chen, et al. Expires March 1, 2021 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft pcep-ifit August 2020
[RFC8664] Sivabalan, S., Filsfils, C., Tantsura, J., Henderickx, W.,
and J. Hardwick, "Path Computation Element Communication
Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for Segment Routing", RFC 8664,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8664, December 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8664>.
[RFC8733] Dhody, D., Ed., Gandhi, R., Ed., Palle, U., Singh, R., and
L. Fang, "Path Computation Element Communication Protocol
(PCEP) Extensions for MPLS-TE Label Switched Path (LSP)
Auto-Bandwidth Adjustment with Stateful PCE", RFC 8733,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8733, February 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8733>.
9.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-6man-ipv6-alt-mark]
Fioccola, G., Zhou, T., Cociglio, M., Qin, F., and R.
Pang, "IPv6 Application of the Alternate Marking Method",
draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-alt-mark-01 (work in progress), June
2020.
[I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data]
Brockners, F., Bhandari, S., and T. Mizrahi, "Data Fields
for In-situ OAM", draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data-10 (work in
progress), July 2020.
[I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-direct-export]
Song, H., Gafni, B., Zhou, T., Li, Z., Brockners, F.,
Bhandari, S., Sivakolundu, R., and T. Mizrahi, "In-situ
OAM Direct Exporting", draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-direct-
export-01 (work in progress), August 2020.
[I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-flags]
Mizrahi, T., Brockners, F., Bhandari, S., Sivakolundu, R.,
Pignataro, C., Kfir, A., Gafni, B., Spiegel, M., and J.
Lemon, "In-situ OAM Flags", draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-flags-02
(work in progress), July 2020.
[I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-ipv6-options]
Bhandari, S., Brockners, F., Pignataro, C., Gredler, H.,
Leddy, J., Youell, S., Mizrahi, T., Kfir, A., Gafni, B.,
Lapukhov, P., Spiegel, M., Krishnan, S., and R. Asati,
"In-situ OAM IPv6 Options", draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-
ipv6-options-02 (work in progress), July 2020.
Chen, et al. Expires March 1, 2021 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft pcep-ifit August 2020
[I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing-ipv6]
Li, C., Negi, M., Koldychev, M., Kaladharan, P., and Y.
Zhu, "PCEP Extensions for Segment Routing leveraging the
IPv6 data plane", draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-ipv6-06
(work in progress), July 2020.
[I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp]
Koldychev, M., Sivabalan, S., Barth, C., Peng, S., and H.
Bidgoli, "PCEP extension to support Segment Routing Policy
Candidate Paths", draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-
cp-00 (work in progress), June 2020.
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy]
Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Voyer, D., Bogdanov, A., and
P. Mattes, "Segment Routing Policy Architecture", draft-
ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy-08 (work in progress),
July 2020.
[I-D.qin-idr-sr-policy-ifit]
Qin, F., Yuan, H., Zhou, T., Fioccola, G., and Y. Wang,
"BGP SR Policy Extensions to Enable IFIT", draft-qin-idr-
sr-policy-ifit-02 (work in progress), July 2020.
Appendix A.
Authors' Addresses
Huanan Chen
China Telecom
Guangzhou
China
Email: chenhuan6@chinatelecom.cn
Hang Yuan
UnionPay
1899 Gu-Tang Rd., Pudong
Shanghai
China
Email: yuanhang@unionpay.com
Chen, et al. Expires March 1, 2021 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft pcep-ifit August 2020
Tianran Zhou
Huawei
156 Beiqing Rd., Haidian District
Beijing
China
Email: zhoutianran@huawei.com
Weidong Li
Huawei
156 Beiqing Rd., Haidian District
Beijing
China
Email: poly.li@huawei.com
Giuseppe Fioccola
Huawei
Riesstrasse, 25
Munich
Germany
Email: giuseppe.fioccola@huawei.com
Yali Wang
Huawei
156 Beiqing Rd., Haidian District
Beijing
China
Email: wangyali11@huawei.com
Chen, et al. Expires March 1, 2021 [Page 17]