One document matched: draft-dhody-pce-stateful-pce-vendor-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-stateful-pce-vendor-00" obsoletes="" updates="" submissionType="IETF" xml:lang="en">
  <front>
    <title abbrev="VENDOR-STATEFUL">Conveying Vendor-Specific Information in the Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP) extensions for stateful PCE.</title>
    <author initials="D" surname="Dhody" fullname="Dhruv Dhody">
      <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>
    

    <date month="March" year="2016" />
    <area>Routing</area>
    <workgroup>PCE Working Group</workgroup>
    <abstract>
   <t> 
   A Stateful Path Computation Element (PCE) maintains information on 
   the current network state, including: computed Label Switched Path
   (LSPs), reserved resources within the network, and pending path
   computation requests. This information may then be considered when 
   computing new traffic engineered LSPs, and for associated
   and dependent LSPs, received from Path Computation Clients (PCCs).  
   </t>
   <t>RFC 7470 defines a facility to carry vendor-specific information
   in PCEP.</t>
   <t>This document extends this capability for stateful PCE. </t>    
   </abstract>
  </front>
  <middle>
    <section title="Introduction" toc="default">
   <t>The Path Computation Element communication Protocol (PCEP)  <xref target="RFC5440"/> provides
   mechanisms for Path Computation Elements (PCEs) to perform path
   computations in response to Path Computation Clients' (PCCs)
   requests.</t>

   <t>A stateful PCE is capable of considering, for the purposes of
   path computation, not only the network state in terms of links and 
   nodes (referred to as the Traffic Engineering Database or TED) but
   also the status of active services (previously computed paths, 
   and currently reserved resources, stored in the Label Switched 
   Paths Database (LSPDB). <xref target="I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce-app"/> describes general considerations for
   a stateful PCE deployment and examines its applicability and
   benefits, as well as its challenges and limitations through a number
   of use cases. </t>
   
   
   <t><xref target="I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce"/> 
   describes a set of extensions to PCEP to
   provide stateful control.  A stateful PCE has access to not only the
   information carried by the network's Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP),
   but also the set of active paths and their reserved resources for its
   computations.  The additional state allows the PCE to compute 
   constrained paths while considering individual LSPs and their 
   interactions.  <xref target="I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp"/> describes the setup,
   maintenance and teardown of PCE-initiated LSPs under the stateful PCE
   model. These extensions added new messages in PCEP.</t>
   
   <t><xref target="RFC7470"/> defined Vendor Information
   object that can be used to carry arbitrary, proprietary information
   such as vendor-specific constraints. It also defined VENDOR-INFORMATION-TLV
   that can be used to carry arbitrary information within any existing
   or future PCEP object that supports TLVs.</t>

   <t>This document extend the usage of Vendor Information Object and 
   VENDOR-INFORMATION-TLV to stateful PCE.
   </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="Procedures for the Vendor Information Object" toc="default">
    <t>A Path Computation LSP State Report message (also referred to as
   PCRpt message) is a PCEP message sent by a PCC to a PCE to report the
   current state of an LSP. A PCC that wants to convey proprietary or vendor-specific information
   or metrics to a PCE does so by including a Vendor Information object
   in the PCRpt message.  The contents and format of the object are
   described in Section 4 of <xref target="RFC7470"/>. The PCE determines 
   how to interpret the information in the Vendor
   Information object by examining the Enterprise Number it contains.</t>
   <t>The Vendor Information object is OPTIONAL in a PCRpt message.
   Multiple instances of the object MAY be used on a single PCRpt
   message. Different instances of the object can have different Enterprise
   Numbers.</t>
   <t>The format of the PCRpt message (with <xref target="I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce"/> as base) is updated as follows </t>
   <t><figure><artwork><![CDATA[
   
      <PCRpt Message> ::= <Common Header>
                          <state-report-list>
   Where:

      <state-report-list> ::= <state-report>[<state-report-list>]

      <state-report> ::= [<SRP>]
                         <LSP>
                         <path>
                         [<vendor-info-list>]
    Where:
      <vendor-info-list> ::= <VENDOR-INFORMATION>
                              [<vendor-info-list>]
      <path> is defined in [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce].                                 
   ]]></artwork></figure> </t> 
   <t>A Path Computation LSP Update Request message (also referred to as
   PCUpd message) is a PCEP message sent by a PCE to a PCC to update
   attributes of an LSP. The Vendor Information object can be included in a PCUpd message
   to convey proprietary or vendor-specific information.</t>
   <t>The format of the PCUpd message (with <xref target="I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce"/> as base) is updated as follows </t>
   <t><figure><artwork><![CDATA[
   
      <PCUpd Message> ::= <Common Header>
                          <update-request-list>
   Where:

      <update-request-list> ::= <update-request>[<update-request-list>]

      <update-request> ::= <SRP>
                           <LSP>
                           <path>
                           [<vendor-info-list>]
   Where:
      <vendor-info-list> ::= <VENDOR-INFORMATION>
                              [<vendor-info-list>]
      <path> is defined in [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce].
   ]]></artwork></figure> </t> 
   <t>A Path Computation LSP Initiate Message (also referred to as
   PCInitiate message) is a PCEP message sent by a PCE to a PCC to
   trigger LSP instantiation or deletion. The Vendor Information object can be included in a PCInitiate  message
   to convey proprietary or vendor-specific information.</t>
   <t>The format of the PCInitiate message (with <xref target="I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp"/> as base) is updated as follows </t>
   <t><figure><artwork><![CDATA[
   
   <PCInitiate Message> ::= <Common Header>
                            <PCE-initiated-lsp-list>
   Where:

   <PCE-initiated-lsp-list> ::= <PCE-initiated-lsp-request>
                                [<PCE-initiated-lsp-list>]

   <PCE-initiated-lsp-request> ::= (<PCE-initiated-lsp-instantiation>
                                   |<PCE-initiated-lsp-deletion>)

   <PCE-initiated-lsp-instantiation> ::= <SRP>
                                         <LSP>
                                         <END-POINTS>
                                         <ERO>
                                         [<attribute-list>]
                                         [<vendor-info-list>]

   <PCE-initiated-lsp-deletion> ::= <SRP>
                                    <LSP>   
   Where:                                     
   <vendor-info-list> ::= <VENDOR-INFORMATION>
                              [<vendor-info-list>]
   <PCE-initiated-lsp-deletion> and <attribute-list> is as per 
   [I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp].                              
   ]]></artwork></figure> </t>
   
    <t>A legacy implementation that does not recognize the Vendor
   Information object will act according to the procedures set out in
   <xref target="I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce"/> and <xref target="I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp"/>.
   An implementation that supports the Vendor Information object, but
   receives one carrying an Enterprise Number that it does not support, 
   SHOULD ignore the object.</t>
</section>
<section title="Procedures for the Vendor Information TLV" toc="default">
<t>The Vendor Information TLV can be used to carry vendor-specific
   information that applies to a specific PCEP object by including the
   TLV in the object. This includes objects used in stateful PCE 
   extension such as SRP and LSP object. All the procedures as per 
   section 3 of <xref target="RFC7470"/>.</t>
</section>
<section title="Vendor Information Object and TLV" toc="default">
<t><xref target="RFC7470"/> specify the format of VENDOR-INFORMATION Object and 
VENDOR-INFORMATION-TLV.</t>
</section>

    <section title="IANA Considerations" toc="default">
    <t>There are no IANA consideration.</t>    
    </section>  
      
    
    <section title="Security Considerations" toc="default">
    <t>The protocol extensions defined in this document do not 
   change the nature of PCEP.  Therefore, the security considerations
   set out in <xref target="RFC5440"/>, <xref target="RFC7470"/>, <xref target="I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce"/> and <xref target="I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp"/> apply unchanged.  Note that further security
   considerations for the use of PCEP over TCP are presented in
   <xref target="RFC6952"/>.</t>
    </section>
      
    
    
    <section title="Acknowledgments" toc="default">
      <t>Thanks to Avantika, Mahendra Singh Negi, Udayasree Palle and Swapna K for their suggestions.</t>
    </section>    
  </middle>
  <back>
    <references title="Normative References">
    <?rfc include="reference.RFC.2119.xml" ?>
    <?rfc include="reference.RFC.5440.xml" ?>
    <?rfc include="reference.RFC.7470.xml" ?>
    <?rfc include="reference.I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce"?>
    <?rfc include="reference.I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp"?>
    </references>
    <references title="Informative References">
    <?rfc include="reference.RFC.6952.xml" ?>
    <?rfc include="reference.I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce-app"?>
    </references>
    
  </back>
</rfc>