PCE working group D. Lopez
Internet-Draft Telefonica I+D
Intended status: Standards Track Q. Wu
Expires: August 14, 2014 D. Dhody
Huawei
D. King
Old Dog Consulting
February 10, 2014
IGP extension for PCEP security capability support in the PCE discovery
draft-wu-pce-discovery-pceps-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. [RFC5088] and
[RFC5089] define a method to advertise path computation capabilities
using IGP flooding for OSPF and ISIS respectively. However [RFC5088]
and [RFC5089] lacks a method to advertise PCEP security (e.g.,
Transport Layer Security(TLS)) support capability.
This document proposes new capability flag bit for PCE-CAP-FLAGS sub-
TLV that can be announced as attribute in the IGP advertisement
(defined in [RFC5088] and [RFC5089]) 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 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 August 14, 2014.
Copyright Notice
Lopez, et al. Expires August 14, 2014 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft IGP discovery for PCEP Security February 2014
Copyright (c) 2014 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. IGP extension for PCEP security capability support . . . . . . 5
3.1. Use of PCEP transport capability support for PCE
discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Backward Compatibility Consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. Management Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Lopez, et al. Expires August 14, 2014 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft IGP discovery for PCEP Security February 2014
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. In order for a
Path Computation Client(PCC) to begin a connection with a PCE server
using TLS, PCC SHOULD know whether PCE server supports TLS as a
secure transport.
[RFC5088] and [RFC5089] define a method to advertise path computation
capabilities using IGP flooding for OSPF and ISIS respectively.
However [RFC5088] and [RFC5089] lacks a method to advertise PCEP
security (ex. TLS) support capability.
This document proposes new capability flag bit for PCE-CAP-FLAGS sub-
TLV that can be announced as attribute in the IGP advertisement
(defined in [RFC5088] and [RFC5089]) to distribute pcep security
support information.
Lopez, et al. Expires August 14, 2014 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft IGP discovery for PCEP Security February 2014
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 August 14, 2014 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft IGP discovery for PCEP Security February 2014
3. IGP extension for PCEP security capability support
The PCE-CAP-FLAGS sub-TLV is defined in section 4.5 of [RFC5088] and
[RFC5089] as an optional sub-TLV used to advertise PCE capabilities.
In this section, we extend the PCE-CAP-FLAGS sub-TLV to include the
capability and indications that are described for PCEP security (ex.
TLS) support in the present document.
In the PCE-CAP-FLAGS sub-TLV defined in [RFC5088] and [RFC5089], nine
capability flags defined in [RFC4657] and two capability flags
defined [RFC5557], [RFC6006] are included and follows the following
format: The PCE-CAP-FLAGS sub-TLV has the following format:
o TYPE: 5
o LENGTH: Multiple of 4
o VALUE: This contains an array of units of 32 bit flags with the
most significant bit as 0. Each bit represents one PCE capability
and the processing rule of these flag bits are defined in [RFC5088][
and RFC5089]. In this document, we define three new capability flag
bits that indicate TCP MD5 support, TCP Authentication Option
(TCP-AO) support, PCEP over TLS support respectively as follows:
Bit Capability Description
xx TCP MD5 support
xx TCP AO Support
xx PCEP over TLS support
3.1. Use of PCEP transport capability support for PCE discovery
TCP MD5, TCP-AO, PCEP over TLS support flag bits are advertised using
IGP flooding. If the PCE server supports only TCP MD5, IGP
advertisement SHOULD include TCP MD5 support flag bit. If the PCE
server supports both TCP MD5 and TCP-AO, IGP advertisement SHOULD
only include TCP-AO support flag bit in the PCE-CAP-FLAGS sub-TLV.
If the PCE server supports both TCP MD5 and PCEP over TLS, IGP
advertisement SHOULD include both TCP MD5 support flag bit and PCEP
over TLS support flag bit in the PCE-CAP-FLAGS sub-TLV. If the PCE
server supports both TCP-AO and PCEP over TLS, IGP advertisement
SHOULD include both TCP-AO support flag bit and PCEP over TLS flag
bit in the PCE-CAP-FLAGS sub-TLV. If the PCE server only supports
TLS over TCP , IGP advertisement MUST include PCEP over TLS support
flag bit in the PCE-CAP-FLAGS sub-TLV.
If the client is looking for connecting with PCE server with TCP-AO
support, the client MUST check if TCP-AO support flag bit in the PCE-
CAP-FLAGS sub-TLV is set. If not, the client SHOULD not consider
this PCE. If the client is looking for connecting with PCE server
Lopez, et al. Expires August 14, 2014 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft IGP discovery for PCEP Security February 2014
using TLS, the client MUST check if PCEP over TLS support flag bit in
the PCE-CAP-FLAGS sub-TLV is set. If not, the client SHOULD not
consider this PCE.
Lopez, et al. Expires August 14, 2014 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft IGP discovery for PCEP Security February 2014
4. Backward Compatibility Consideration
An LSR that does not support the new IGP PCE capability bits
specified in this document silently ignores those bits.
IGP extensions defined in this document do not introduce any new
interoperability issues.
Lopez, et al. Expires August 14, 2014 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft IGP discovery for PCEP Security February 2014
5. Management Considerations
A configuration option may be provided for advertising and
withdrawing PCE security capability via IGP.
Lopez, et al. Expires August 14, 2014 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft IGP discovery for PCEP Security February 2014
6. Security Considerations
This document raises no new security issues beyond those described in
[RFC5088] and [RFC5089].
Lopez, et al. Expires August 14, 2014 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft IGP discovery for PCEP Security February 2014
7. IANA Considerations
IANA is requested to allocate a new bit in "PCE Security Capability
Flags" registry for PCEP Security support capability.
Bit Meaning Reference
xx TCP MD5 support [This.I.D]
xx TCP-AO Support [This.I.D]
xx PCEP over TLS support [This.I.D]
Lopez, et al. Expires August 14, 2014 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft IGP discovery for PCEP Security February 2014
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", March 1997.
[RFC5088] Le Roux, JL., "OSPF Protocol Extensions for Path
Computation Element (PCE) Discovery", RFC 5088,
January 2008.
[RFC5089] Le Roux, JL., "IS-IS Protocol Extensions for Path
Computation Element (PCE) Discovery", RFC 5089,
January 2008.
8.2. Informative References
[RFC5246] Dierks, T., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol
Version 1.2", RFC 5440, August 2008.
[RFC5440] Le Roux, JL., "Path Computation Element (PCE)
Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440, March 2009.
Lopez, et al. Expires August 14, 2014 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft IGP discovery for PCEP Security February 2014
Authors' Addresses
Diego R. Lopez
Telefonica I+D
Email: diego@tid.es
Qin Wu
Huawei
101 Software Avenue, Yuhua District
Nanjing, Jiangsu 210012
China
Email: bill.wu@huawei.com
Dhruv Dhody
Huawei
Leela Palace
Bangalore, Karnataka 560008
INDIA
Email: dhruv.ietf@gmail.com
Daniel King
Old Dog Consulting
UK
Email: daniel@olddog.co.uk
Lopez, et al. Expires August 14, 2014 [Page 12]