One document matched: draft-wu-pce-discovery-priority-allocation-01.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-priority-allocation-01"
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 for PCEP Transport">IGP extension for PCEP transport
capability support in the PCE discovery</title>
<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>sunseawq@huawei.com</email>
</address>
</author>
<date year="2013" />
<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>[RFC5088][RFC5089] define a method to advertise path computation
capabilities using IGP flooding. OSPF and ISIS are extended to support
such capabilities advertisement. However [RFC5088][RFC5089]don’t provide
a method to advertise PCEP over 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 ][RFC5089]) to distribute transport support
information.</t>
</abstract>
</front>
<middle>
<section anchor="intro" title="Introduction">
<t>As described in [RFC5440], PCEP communication privacy is one
importance issue, especially in an inter-AS context, where PCEP
communication end-points do not reside in the same AS, as an attacker
that intercepts a 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 PCC to begin a
connection with a PCE server using TLS, PCC should know whether PCE
server Support TLS as transport.</t>
<t>[RFC5088][RFC5089] define a method to advertise path computation
capabilities using IGP flooding. OSPF and ISIS are extended to support
such capabilities advertisement. However [RFC5088][RFC5089]don’t provide
a method to advertise PCEP over 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 ][RFC5089]) to distribute transport 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 transport capability support">
<t>The PCE-CAP-FLAGS sub-TLV is defined in section 4.5 of
[RFC5088][RFC5089] and 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 over
TLS support in the present document.</t>
<t>In the PCE-CAP-FLAGS sub-TLV defined in [RFC5088][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][RFC5089]. In this document, we define one new capability flag
bit that indicate TCP MD5 support, TCP AO support, PCEP over TLS support
and PCEP over TLS and TCP AO support respectively as follows: <figure>
<artwork>
Bit Capability Description
xx TCP MD5 support
xx TCP AO Support
xx PCEP over TLS support
xx PCEP over TLS support and TCP AO support
</artwork>
</figure></t>
<section title="Use of PCEP transport capability support for PCE discovery">
<t>TCP MD5, TCP AO, PCEP over TLS support and PCEP over TLS and TCP AO
support flag bits are advertised using IGP flooding. If the PCE server
supports only TCP MD5 as transport, IGP advertisement Should not
include PCEP over TLS support flag bit or TCP AO support flag bit. If
the PCE server supports both TCP MD5 and TCP AO, IGP advertisment
Should include both TCP AO support flag bit and TCP MD5 support flag
bit in the PCE-CAP-FLAGS sub-TLV. If the PCE server only supports TLS
over TCP as transport, 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 before retrieving PCE location
information from IGP message. if not, the client should discard PCEPD
TLV with TCP AO support flag bit clear. 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 before
retrieving PCE location information from IGP message. If not, then the
client should discard PCED TLV with PCEP over TLS support flag bit
clear.</t>
</section>
</section>
<section title="Security Considerations">
<t>This document raises no new security issues beyond those described in
[RFC5088][RFC5089].</t>
</section>
<section title="IANA Considerations">
<t>IANA is requested to allocate a new bit in "PCE Capability Flags"
registry for PCEP over TLS support capability.</t>
</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 19:30:01 |