One document matched: draft-wu-pce-discovery-pceps-support-02.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-02"
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/>
<city/>
<region/>
<code/>
<country>Spain</country>
</postal>
<email>diego.r.lopez@telefonica.com</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/>
<city/>
<region/>
<code/>
<country>UK</country>
</postal>
<email>daniel@olddog.co.uk</email>
</address>
</author>
<date year="2015"/>
<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. The IGP extensions
for PCE discovery (RFC 5088 and RFC 5089) define a method to advertise
path computation capabilities using IGP flooding for OSPF and IS-IS
respectively. However these specifications lack 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 to
distribute PCEP security support information.</t>
</abstract>
</front>
<middle>
<section anchor="intro" title="Introduction">
<t>As described in <xref target="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) <xref target="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><xref target="RFC5088"/> and <xref target="RFC5089"/> define a method
to advertise path computation capabilities using IGP flooding for OSPF
and IS-IS respectively. However <xref target="RFC5088"/> and <xref
target="RFC5089"/> lacks a method to advertise PCEP security (e.g., TLS)
support capability.</t>
<t>This document proposes new capability flag bits for PCE-CAP-FLAGS
sub- TLV that can be announced as attributes in the IGP advertisement
(defined in <xref target="RFC5088"/> and <xref target="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 <xref
target="RFC5088"/> and <xref target="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 (e.g., TLS) support in the current
document.</t>
<t>In the PCE-CAP-FLAGS sub-TLV defined in <xref target="RFC5088"/> and
<xref target="RFC5089"/>, nine capability flags defined in <xref
target="RFC5088"/> (as per <xref target="RFC4657"/>) and two capability
flags defined <xref target="RFC5557"/>, <xref target="RFC6006"/> are
included and follows 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 <xref
target="RFC5088"/> and <xref target="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>Editor Note: TCP-MD5 is a MUST in RFC5440, do we need a
capability for it</t>
<section title="Use of PCEP security capability support for PCE discovery">
<t>TCP MD5, TCP-AO, PCEP over TLS support flag bits are advertised
using IGP flooding. <list style="symbols">
<t>PCE supports TCP MD5: IGP advertisement SHOULD include TCP MD5
support flag bit.</t>
<t>PCE supports TCP-AO: IGP advertisement SHOULD include TCP-AO
support flag bit.</t>
<t>PCE supports TLS: IGP advertisement SHOULD include PCEP over
TLS support flag bit.</t>
</list>If PCE supports multiple security mechanisms, it SHOULD
include all corresponding flag bits in IGP advertisement.</t>
<t>If the client is looking for connecting with PCE server with
TCP-MD5 support, the client MUST check if TCP-MD5 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 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/>
</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/>
</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/>
</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="RFC4657">
<front>
<title>Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol Generic
Requirements</title>
<author fullname="J. Ash" initials="J." surname="Ash">
<organization/>
</author>
<author fullname="J.L. Le Roux" initials="J.L." surname="Le Roux">
<organization/>
</author>
<date month="September" year="2006"/>
<abstract>
<t>The PCE model is described in the "PCE Architecture" document
and facilitates path computation requests from Path Computation
Clients (PCCs) to Path Computation Elements (PCEs). This document
specifies generic requirements for a communication protocol
between PCCs and PCEs, and also between PCEs where cooperation
between PCEs is desirable. Subsequent documents will specify
application-specific requirements for the PCE communication
protocol. This memo provides information for the Internet
community.</t>
</abstract>
</front>
<seriesInfo name="RFC" value="4657"/>
<format octets="45284"
target="http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4657.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/>
</author>
<date month="August" year="2008"/>
</front>
<seriesInfo name="RFC" value="5246"/>
<format target="http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5246.txt" type="TXT"/>
</reference>
<reference anchor="RFC5557">
<front>
<title>Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)
Requirements and Protocol Extensions in Support of Global Concurrent
Optimization</title>
<author fullname="Y. Lee" initials="Y." surname="Lee">
<organization/>
</author>
<author fullname="JL. Le Roux" initials="JL." surname="Le Roux">
<organization/>
</author>
<author fullname="D. King" initials="D." surname="King">
<organization/>
</author>
<author fullname="E. Oki" initials="E." surname="Oki">
<organization/>
</author>
<date month="July" year="2009"/>
<abstract>
<t>The Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)
allows Path Computation Clients (PCCs) to request path
computations from Path Computation Elements (PCEs), and lets the
PCEs return responses. When computing or reoptimizing the routes
of a set of Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths (TE LSPs)
through a network, it may be advantageous to perform bulk path
computations in order to avoid blocking problems and to achieve
more optimal network-wide solutions. Such bulk optimization is
termed Global Concurrent Optimization (GCO). A GCO is able to
simultaneously consider the entire topology of the network and the
complete set of existing TE LSPs, and their respective
constraints, and look to optimize or reoptimize the entire network
to satisfy all constraints for all TE LSPs. A GCO may also be
applied to some subset of the TE LSPs in a network. The GCO
application is primarily a Network Management System (NMS)
solution.</t>
<t>This document provides application-specific requirements and
the PCEP extensions in support of GCO applications.
[STANDARDS-TRACK]</t>
</abstract>
</front>
<seriesInfo name="RFC" value="5557"/>
<format octets="58888"
target="http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5557.txt" type="TXT"/>
</reference>
<reference anchor="RFC6006">
<front>
<title>Extensions to the Path Computation Element Communication
Protocol (PCEP) for Point-to-Multipoint Traffic Engineering Label
Switched Paths</title>
<author fullname="Q. Zhao" initials="Q." surname="Zhao">
<organization/>
</author>
<author fullname="D. King" initials="D." surname="King">
<organization/>
</author>
<author fullname="F. Verhaeghe" initials="F." surname="Verhaeghe">
<organization/>
</author>
<author fullname="T. Takeda" initials="T." surname="Takeda">
<organization/>
</author>
<author fullname="Z. Ali" initials="Z." surname="Ali">
<organization/>
</author>
<author fullname="J. Meuric" initials="J." surname="Meuric">
<organization/>
</author>
<date month="September" year="2010"/>
<abstract>
<t>Point-to-point Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and
Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths
(TE LSPs) may be established using signaling techniques, but their
paths may first need to be determined. The Path Computation
Element (PCE) has been identified as an appropriate technology for
the determination of the paths of point-to-multipoint (P2MP) TE
LSPs.</t>
<t>This document describes extensions to the PCE communication
Protocol (PCEP) to handle requests and responses for the
computation of paths for P2MP TE LSPs. [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t>
</abstract>
</front>
<seriesInfo name="RFC" value="6006"/>
<format octets="68107"
target="http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6006.txt" type="TXT"/>
</reference>
</references>
</back>
</rfc>
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-23 10:11:38 |