One document matched: draft-dhody-pce-association-policy-00.xml
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="us-ascii"?>
<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd"[]>
<?rfc toc="yes" ?>
<?rfc tocompact="yes"?>
<?rfc tocdepth="4"?>
<?rfc tocindent="yes"?>
<?rfc symrefs="yes" ?>
<?rfc sortrefs="no"?>
<?rfc rfcedstyle="yes"?>
<?rfc subcompact="no"?>
<?rfc compact="yes" ?>
<?rfc iprnotified="Yes" ?>
<?rfc strict="no" ?>
<rfc ipr="trust200902" category="std" docName="draft-dhody-pce-association-policy-00" obsoletes="" updates="" submissionType="IETF" xml:lang="en">
<front>
<title abbrev="ASSOC-POLICY">Path Computation Element communication
Protocol extension for associating Policies and LSPs</title>
<author initials="D" surname="Dhody" fullname="Dhruv Dhody" role="editor">
<organization>Huawei Technologies</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street>Divyashree Techno Park, Whitefield</street>
<city>Bangalore</city>
<region>Karnataka</region>
<code>560066</code>
<country>India</country>
</postal>
<email>dhruv.ietf@gmail.com</email>
</address>
</author>
<author initials="S" surname="Sivabalan" fullname="Siva Sivabalan" role="editor">
<organization>Cisco Systems, Inc.</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street>2000 Innovation Drive</street>
<city>Kanata</city>
<region>Ontario</region>
<code>K2K 3E8</code>
<country>Canada</country>
</postal>
<email>msiva@cisco.com</email>
</address>
</author>
<author initials="S" surname="Litkowski" fullname="Stephane Litkowski">
<organization>Orange</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street></street>
<city></city>
<region></region>
<code></code>
<country></country>
</postal>
<email>stephane.litkowski@orange.com</email>
</address>
</author>
<author initials="J" surname="Tantsura" fullname="Jeff Tantsura">
<organization>Individual</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street></street>
<city></city>
<region></region>
<code></code>
<country></country>
</postal>
<email>jefftant.ietf@gmail.com</email>
</address>
</author>
<author initials="J" surname="Hardwick" fullname="Jonathan Hardwick">
<organization>Metaswitch Networks</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street>100 Church Street</street>
<city>Enfield</city>
<region>Middlesex</region>
<code></code>
<country>UK</country>
</postal>
<email>Jonathan.Hardwick@metaswitch.com</email>
</address>
</author>
<date month="October" year="2016" />
<area>Routing</area>
<workgroup>PCE Working Group</workgroup>
<abstract>
<t>
This document introduces a simple mechanism to associate policies to
a group of Label Switched Paths (LSPs) via an extension to the Path Computation
Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP).</t>
</abstract>
</front>
<middle>
<section title="Introduction" toc="default">
<t><xref target="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
<xref target="RFC4655"/>.</t>
<t>PCEP Extensions
for Stateful PCE Model <xref target="I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce"/>
describes a set of extensions to PCEP to
enable active control of MPLS-TE and GMPLS tunnels.
<xref target="I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp"/> 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 RSVP-TE or can be
segment routed as specified in <xref target="I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing"/>.</t>
<t><xref target='I-D.ietf-pce-association-group'/> introduces a generic
mechanism to create a grouping of LSPs which 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 the active and passive modes of a stateful PCE or a stateless PCE.</t>
<t>This document specifies a PCEP extension to associate one or
more LSPs with policies using the generic association mechanism.</t>
<t>A PCEP speaker may want to influence the PCEP peer with respect
to path selection and other policies. This document describes a
PCEP extension to associate policies by creating Policy Association
Group (PAG) and encoding this association in PCEP messages. The
specification is applicable to both stateful and stateless
PCEP sessions.
</t>
<section title="Requirements Language" toc="default">
<t>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 <xref target="RFC2119"/>.</t>
</section>
</section>
<section title="Terminology" toc="default">
<t>The following terminology is used in this document.</t>
<t>
<list style="hanging">
<t hangText="LSR:">Label Switch Router.</t>
<t hangText="MPLS:">Multiprotocol Label Switching.</t>
<t hangText="PAG:">Policy Association Group.</t>
<t hangText="PCC:">Path Computation Client. Any client application requesting a
path computation to be performed by a Path Computation Element.</t>
<t hangText="PCE:">Path Computation Element. An entity (component, application,
or network node) that is capable of computing a network path or route based on a network graph and applying computational constraints.</t>
<t hangText="PCEP:">Path Computation Element Communication Protocol.</t>
</list>
</t>
</section>
<section title="Motivation" toc="default">
<t>Paths computed using PCE MAY be subjected to various policies on
both PCE and PCC. For example, in a centralized traffic engineering
scenario, network operators may instantiate LSPs and specifies
policies for traffic steering, path monitoring, etc., for some LSPs
via the stateful PCE. Similarly, a PCC may request a user- or
service-specific policy to be applied at the PCE, such as constraints relaxation to
meet optimal QoS and resiliency. </t>
<t>PCEP speaker can use the generic mechanism as per
<xref target='I-D.ietf-pce-association-group'/> to associate a set
of LSPs with policy, without the need to know the
details of such policies, which simplifies network operations, avoids
frequent software upgrades, as well provides an ability to introduce
new policy faster.</t>
<t><figure title="Sample use-cases for carrying policies over PCEP session" suppress-title="false" align="left" alt="" width="" height="">
<artwork xml:space="preserve" name="" type="" align="left" alt="" width="" height=""><![CDATA[
Policy-ID Y
{Service-Specific Policy
for cosntraint
Initiate & Monitor LSP relaxation}
| |
| PCReq |
V {policy-ID Y} V
+-----+ ----------------> +-----+
_ _ _ _ _ _| PCE | | | PCE |
| +-----+ | ----------> +-----+
| PCEInitiate | | PCReq
|{policy-ID X} | | {policy-ID Y}
| | |
| .-----. | | .-----.
| ( ) | +----+ ( )
| .--( )--. | |PCC1|--.--( )--.
V ( ) | +----+ ( )
+---+ ( ) | ( )
|PCC|----( (G)MPLS network ) +----+ ( (G)MPLS network )
+---+ ( ) |PCC2|------( )
Policy ID X ( ) +----+ ( )
{Monitor LSP} '--( )--' '--( )--'
( ) ( )
'-----' '-----'
Case 1: Policy initiated by PCE Case 2: Policy initiated by
and enforced by PCC PCC and enforced by
PCE
]]></artwork>
</figure></t>
<section title="Policy based Constraints" toc="default">
<t>In the context of policy-enabled path computation
<xref target="RFC5394"/>, path computation policies may be applied
at both a PCC and a PCE. Consider an Label Switch Router (LSR) with
a policy enabled PCC, it receives a service request via signaling,
including over a Network-Network Interface (NNI) or User Network
Interface (UNI) reference point, or receives a configuration request
over a management interface to establish a service. The PCC may also
apply user- or service-specific policies to decide how the path
selection process should be constrained, that is, which constraints,
diversities, optimization criterion, and constraint relaxation
strategies should be applied in order for the service LSP(s) to have
a likelihood to be successfully established and provide necessary
QoS and resilience against network failures. The user- or
service-specific policies applied to PCC and are then passed to
the PCE along with the Path computation request, in the form of
constraints <xref target="RFC5394"/>. </t>
<t>PCEP speaker can use the generic mechanism as per
<xref target='I-D.ietf-pce-association-group'/> to associate a set
of LSPs with policy and its resulting path computation constraints.
This simplified the path computation message exchanges.</t>
</section>
</section>
<section title="Overview" toc="default">
<t>As per <xref target='I-D.ietf-pce-association-group'/>, LSPs
are associated with other LSPs with which they interact by adding
them to a common association group. Grouping can also be used to
define association between LSPs
and policies associated to them.
One new Association Type is defined in this document,
based on the generic Association object -
<list style="symbols">
<t>Association type = TBD1 ("Policy
Association Type") for Policy Association Group (PAG) </t>
</list>
</t>
<t>A PAG can have one or more LSPs and its associated policy(s).
The Association ID defined in
<xref target='I-D.ietf-pce-association-group'/> is used to identify the PAG.</t>
</section>
<section title="Policy Association Group" toc="default">
<t>Association groups
and their memberships are defined using the ASSOCIATION object defined in
<xref target='I-D.ietf-pce-association-group'/>. Two object types for IPv4 and IPv6
are defined. The ASSOCIATION object includes "Association type" indicating
the type of the association group. This document add a new Association type - </t>
<t>Association type = TBD1 ("Policy
Association Type") for PAG.</t>
<t>PAG may carry optional TLVs including but not limited to -</t>
<t>
<list style="symbols">
<t>VENDOR-INFORMATION-TLV: Used to communicate arbitrary vendor specific behavioral
information, described in <xref target="RFC7470"/>.</t>
</list>
</t>
</section>
<section title="Security Considerations" toc="default">
<t>This document defines one new type for association, which do not add any new
security concerns beyond those discussed in <xref target="RFC5440"/>,
<xref target='I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce'/> and <xref target='I-D.ietf-pce-association-group'/> in itself.</t>
<t> Some deployments may find policy associations and their implications
as extra sensitive
and thus should employ suitable PCEP security mechanisms like TCP-AO
or <xref target='I-D.ietf-pce-pceps'/>.</t>
</section>
<section title="IANA Considerations" toc="default">
<section title="Association object Type Indicators" toc="default">
<t>This document defines the following new association type originally
defined in <xref target='I-D.ietf-pce-association-group'/>.</t>
<t>
<figure title="" suppress-title="false" align="left" alt="" width="" height="">
<artwork xml:space="preserve" name="" type="" align="left" alt="" width="" height=""><![CDATA[
Value Name Reference
TBD1 Policy Association Type [This I.D.]
]]></artwork>
</figure>
</t>
</section>
</section>
<section title="Manageability Considerations" toc="default">
<section title="Control of Function and Policy" toc="default">
<t>
An operator MUST BE allowed to configure the policy associations at PCEP peers
and associate it with the LSPs. </t>
</section>
<section title="Information and Data Models" toc="default">
<t><xref target="RFC7420"/> describes the PCEP MIB, there are no new MIB Objects
for this document.</t>
</section>
<section title="Liveness Detection and Monitoring" toc="default">
<t>Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new liveness detection
and monitoring requirements in addition to those already listed in
<xref target="RFC5440"/>.</t>
</section>
<section title="Verify Correct Operations" toc="default">
<t>Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new operation
verification requirements in addition to those already listed in
<xref target="RFC5440"/>.</t>
</section>
<section title="Requirements On Other Protocols" toc="default">
<t>Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new requirements
on other protocols.</t>
</section>
<section title="Impact On Network Operations" toc="default">
<t>Mechanisms defined in this document do not have any impact on
network operations in addition to those already listed in
<xref target="RFC5440"/>.</t>
</section>
</section>
<section title="Acknowledgments" toc="default">
<t>A special thanks to author of
<xref target='I-D.ietf-pce-association-group'/>, this document borrow
some of the text from it.</t>
</section>
</middle>
<back>
<references title="Normative References">
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.2119.xml" ?>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.5440.xml" ?>
<?rfc include="reference.I-D.ietf-pce-association-group"?>
<?rfc include="reference.I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce"?>
</references>
<references title="Informative References">
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.4655.xml" ?>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.5394.xml" ?>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.7420.xml" ?>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.7470.xml" ?>
<?rfc include="reference.I-D.ietf-pce-pceps"?>
<?rfc include="reference.I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp"?>
<?rfc include="reference.I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing"?>
</references>
<section title="Contributor Addresses" toc="default">
<t>
<figure title="" suppress-title="false" align="left" alt="" width="" height="">
<artwork xml:space="preserve" name="" type="" align="left" alt="" width="" height=""><![CDATA[
Qin Wu
Huawei Technologies
101 Software Avenue, Yuhua District
Nanjing, Jiangsu 210012
China
EMail: sunseawq@huawei.com
Clarence Filsfils
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Pegasus Parc
De kleetlaan 6a, DIEGEM BRABANT 1831
BELGIUM
Email: cfilsfil@cisco.com
Xian Zhang
Huawei Technologies
Bantian, Longgang District
Shenzhen 518129
P.R.China
EMail: zhang.xian@huawei.com
Udayasree Palle
Huawei Technologies
Divyashree Techno Park, Whitefield
Bangalore, Karnataka 560066
India
EMail: udayasree.palle@huawei.com
]]></artwork>
</figure>
</t>
</section>
</back>
</rfc>
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-24 12:26:11 |