One document matched: draft-wu-pce-discovery-pceps-support-05.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-05"
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 abbrev="Huawei">Huawei Technologies</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street>12 Mozhou East Road, Jiangning 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 abbrev="Huawei">Huawei Technologies</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street>Divyashree Techno Park, Whitefield</street>
<city>Bangalore</city>
<region>Karnataka</region>
<code>560037</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>
<author fullname="Michael Wang" initials="Z." surname="Wang">
<organization>Huawei</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street>12 Mozhou East Road, Jiangning District</street>
<city>Nanjing</city>
<region>Jiangsu</region>
<code>210012</code>
<country>China</country>
</postal>
<email>wangzitao@huawei.com</email>
</address>
</author>
<date year="2016"/>
<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),TCP Authentication
Option (TCP-AO)) support capability.</t>
<t>This document proposes new capability flag bits 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 while TCP
Authentication Option (TCP-AO) offer significantly improved security for
applications using TCP. In order for a Path Computation Client(PCC) to
begin a connection with a PCE server using TLS or TCP-AO, PCC SHOULD
know whether PCE server supports TLS or TCP-AO 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 two new capability flag bits that indicate TCP Authentication
Option (TCP-AO) support, PCEP over TLS support respectively as follows:
<figure>
<artwork>
Bit Capability Description
xx TCP AO Support
xx PCEP over TLS support
</artwork>
</figure></t>
<section title="Use of PCEP security capability support for PCE discovery">
<t>TCP-AO, PCEP over TLS support flag bits are advertised using IGP
flooding. <list style="symbols">
<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-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-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>
<section title="Appendix A: No MD5 Capability Support">
<t>To be compliant with Section 10.2 of RFC5440, this document doesn't
consider to add capability for TCP-MD5. Therefore by default, PCEP
Speaker in communication supports capability for TCP-MD5 (See section
10.2,[RFC5440]). A method to advertise TCP-MD5 Capability support using
IGP flooding is not required. If the client is looking for connecting
with PCE server with other Security capability support (e.g., TLS
support) than TCP-MD5, the client MUST check if flag bit in the PCE-
CAP-FLAGS sub-TLV for specific capability is set (See section 3.1).</t>
</section>
</back>
</rfc>
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-23 10:10:35 |