Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extension for Associating Policies and Label Switched Paths (LSPs)
RFC 9005

Document Type RFC - Proposed Standard (March 2021; No errata)
Authors Stephane Litkowski  , Siva Sivabalan  , Jeff Tantsura  , Jonathan Hardwick  , Cheng Li 
Last updated 2021-03-29
Replaces draft-dhody-pce-association-policy
Stream Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
Formats plain text html xml pdf htmlized (tools) htmlized bibtex
Reviews
Stream WG state Submitted to IESG for Publication
Document shepherd Hariharan Ananthakrishnan
Shepherd write-up Show (last changed 2020-12-10)
IESG IESG state RFC 9005 (Proposed Standard)
Action Holders
(None)
Consensus Boilerplate Yes
Telechat date
Responsible AD Deborah Brungard
Send notices to Hariharan Ananthakrishnan <hari@netflix.com>
IANA IANA review state IANA OK - Actions Needed
IANA action state RFC-Ed-Ack


Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                      S. Litkowski
Request for Comments: 9005                           Cisco Systems, Inc.
Category: Standards Track                                   S. Sivabalan
ISSN: 2070-1721                                                    Ciena
                                                             J. Tantsura
                                                        Juniper Networks
                                                             J. Hardwick
                                                     Metaswitch Networks
                                                            李呈 (C. Li)
                                  华为技术有限公司 (Huawei Technologies)
                                                              March 2021

  Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extension for
          Associating Policies and Label Switched Paths (LSPs)

Abstract

   This document introduces a simple mechanism to associate policies
   with a group of Label Switched Paths (LSPs) via an extension to the
   Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP).  The
   extension allows a PCEP speaker to advertise to a PCEP peer that a
   particular LSP belongs to a particular Policy Association Group
   (PAG).

Status of This Memo

   This is an Internet Standards Track document.

   This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
   (IETF).  It represents the consensus of the IETF community.  It has
   received public review and has been approved for publication by the
   Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Further information on
   Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.

   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9005.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2021 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
     1.1.  Requirements Language
   2.  Terminology
   3.  Motivation
     3.1.  Policy-Based Constraints
   4.  Overview
   5.  Policy Association Group
     5.1.  POLICY-PARAMETERS-TLV
   6.  Security Considerations
   7.  IANA Considerations
     7.1.  ASSOCIATION Object Type Indicators
     7.2.  PCEP TLV Type Indicators
     7.3.  PCEP Errors
   8.  Manageability Considerations
     8.1.  Control of Function and Policy
     8.2.  Information and Data Models
     8.3.  Liveness Detection and Monitoring
     8.4.  Verifying Correct Operations
     8.5.  Requirements on Other Protocols
     8.6.  Impact on Network Operations
   9.  References
     9.1.  Normative References
     9.2.  Informative References
   Appendix A.  Example of Policy Parameters
   Acknowledgments
   Contributors
   Authors' Addresses

1.  Introduction

   [RFC5440] describes the Path Computation Element Communication
   Protocol (PCEP), which enables the communication between a Path
   Computation Client (PCC) and a Path Control Element (PCE) or between
   two PCEs based on the PCE architecture [RFC4655].  [RFC5394] provides
   additional details on policy within the PCE architecture and also
   provides context for the support of PCE policy.

   "Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions
   for Stateful PCE" ([RFC8231]) describes a set of extensions to PCEP
   to enable active control of Multiprotocol Label Switching Traffic
   Engineering (MPLS-TE) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) tunnels.
   [RFC8281] describes the setup and teardown of PCE-initiated LSPs
   under the active stateful PCE model without the need for local
   configuration on the PCC, thus allowing for a dynamic network.
   Currently, the LSPs can either be signaled via Resource Reservation
   Protocol Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) or segment routed as specified
   in [RFC8664].

   [RFC8697] introduces a generic mechanism to create a grouping of LSPs
   that can then be used to define associations between a set of LSPs
   and a set of attributes (such as configuration parameters or
   behaviors) and is equally applicable to stateful PCE (active and
   passive modes) and stateless PCE.

   This document specifies a PCEP extension to associate one or more
   LSPs with policies using the generic association mechanism.

   A PCEP speaker may want to influence the PCEP peer with respect to
Show full document text