One document matched: draft-wu-pce-discovery-pceps-support-00.xml
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!-- edited with XMLSPY v5 rel. 3 U (http://www.xmlspy.com)
by Daniel M Kohn (private) -->
<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd" [
<!ENTITY rfc2119 PUBLIC "" "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2119.xml">
]>
<rfc category="std" docName="draft-wu-pce-discovery-pceps-support-00"
ipr="trust200902">
<?xml-stylesheet type='text/xsl' href='rfc2629.xslt' ?>
<?rfc toc="yes" ?>
<?rfc symrefs="yes" ?>
<?rfc sortrefs="yes"?>
<?rfc iprnotified="no" ?>
<?rfc strict="yes" ?>
<front>
<title abbrev="IGP discovery for PCEP Security">IGP extension for PCEP
security capability support in the PCE discovery</title>
<author fullname="Diego R. Lopez " initials="D" surname="Lopez">
<organization>Telefonica I+D</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street></street>
<city></city>
<region></region>
<code></code>
<country></country>
</postal>
<email>diego@tid.es</email>
</address>
</author>
<author fullname="Qin Wu" initials="Q." surname="Wu">
<organization>Huawei</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street>101 Software Avenue, Yuhua District</street>
<city>Nanjing</city>
<region>Jiangsu</region>
<code>210012</code>
<country>China</country>
</postal>
<email>bill.wu@huawei.com</email>
</address>
</author>
<author fullname="Dhruv Dhody" initials="D." surname="Dhody">
<organization>Huawei</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street>Leela Palace</street>
<city>Bangalore</city>
<region>Karnataka</region>
<code>560008</code>
<country>INDIA</country>
</postal>
<email>dhruv.ietf@gmail.com</email>
</address>
</author>
<author fullname="Daniel King" initials="D" surname="King">
<organization>Old Dog Consulting</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street></street>
<city></city>
<region></region>
<code></code>
<country>UK</country>
</postal>
<email>daniel@olddog.co.uk</email>
</address>
</author>
<date month="February" year="2014" />
<area>Routing Area</area>
<workgroup>PCE working group</workgroup>
<keyword>RFC</keyword>
<keyword>Request for Comments</keyword>
<keyword>I-D</keyword>
<keyword>Internet-Draft</keyword>
<keyword>Path Computation Element</keyword>
<abstract>
<t>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. </t>
<t>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.</t>
</abstract>
</front>
<middle>
<section anchor="intro" title="Introduction">
<t>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. </t>
<t>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. </t>
<t>[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.</t>
<t>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.</t>
</section>
<section title="Conventions used in this document">
<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">RFC2119</xref>.</t>
</section>
<section title="IGP extension for PCEP security capability support">
<t>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.</t>
<t>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: <figure>
<artwork>
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
</artwork>
</figure></t>
<t>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: <figure>
<artwork>
Bit Capability Description
xx TCP MD5 support
xx TCP AO Support
xx PCEP over TLS support
</artwork>
</figure></t>
<section title="Use of PCEP transport capability support for PCE discovery">
<t>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. </t>
<t>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 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. </t>
</section>
</section>
<section title="Backward Compatibility Consideration">
<t>An LSR that does not support the new IGP PCE capability bits
specified in this document silently ignores those bits.</t>
<t>IGP extensions defined in this document do not introduce any new
interoperability issues.</t>
</section>
<section title="Management Considerations">
<t>A configuration option may be provided for advertising and
withdrawing PCE security capability via IGP.</t>
</section>
<section title="Security Considerations">
<t>This document raises no new security issues beyond those described in
[RFC5088] and [RFC5089].</t>
</section>
<section title="IANA Considerations">
<t>IANA is requested to allocate a new bit in "PCE Security Capability
Flags" registry for PCEP Security support capability.</t>
<figure>
<artwork>
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]
</artwork>
</figure>
</section>
</middle>
<back>
<references title="Normative References">
<reference anchor="RFC2119">
<front>
<title abbrev="RFC Key Words">Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels</title>
<author fullname="Scott Bradner" initials="S." surname="Bradner">
<organization>Harvard University</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street>1350 Mass. Ave.</street>
<street>Cambridge</street>
<street>MA 02138</street>
</postal>
<phone>- +1 617 495 3864</phone>
<email>sob@harvard.edu</email>
</address>
</author>
<date month="March" year="1997" />
<area>General</area>
<keyword>keyword</keyword>
<abstract>
<t>In many standards track documents several words are used to
signify the requirements in the specification. These words are
often capitalized. This document defines these words as they
should be interpreted in IETF documents. Authors who follow these
guidelines should incorporate this phrase near the beginning of
their document: <list>
<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 RFC 2119.</t>
</list></t>
<t>Note that the force of these words is modified by the
requirement level of the document in which they are used.</t>
</abstract>
</front>
</reference>
<reference anchor="RFC5088">
<front>
<title>OSPF Protocol Extensions for Path Computation Element (PCE)
Discovery</title>
<author fullname="JL. Le Roux" initials="JL." surname="Le Roux">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<date month="January" year="2008" />
</front>
<seriesInfo name="RFC" value="5088" />
<format target="http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5088.txt" type="TXT" />
</reference>
<reference anchor="RFC5089">
<front>
<title>IS-IS Protocol Extensions for Path Computation Element (PCE)
Discovery</title>
<author fullname="JL. Le Roux" initials="JL." surname="Le Roux">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<date month="January" year="2008" />
</front>
<seriesInfo name="RFC" value="5089" />
<format target="http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5089.txt" type="TXT" />
</reference>
</references>
<references title="Informative References">
<reference anchor="RFC5440">
<front>
<title>Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol
(PCEP)</title>
<author fullname="JL. Le Roux" initials="JL." surname="Le Roux">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<date month="March" year="2009" />
</front>
<seriesInfo name="RFC" value="5440" />
<format target="http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5440.txt" type="TXT" />
</reference>
<reference anchor="RFC5246">
<front>
<title>The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol Version
1.2</title>
<author fullname="T. Dierks" initials="T." surname="Dierks">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<date month="August" year="2008" />
</front>
<seriesInfo name="RFC" value="5440" />
<format target="http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5246.txt" type="TXT" />
</reference>
</references>
</back>
</rfc>
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-23 10:13:10 |