Enter chinese/english word(s), Taiwan address or math. expression :

可輸入英文單字中文字詞台灣地址計算式 按[Enter]重新輸入
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                          D. Dhody
Request for Comments: 7896                           Huawei Technologies
Updates: 5440                                                  June 2016
Category: Standards Track
ISSN: 2070-1721

         Update to the Include Route Object (IRO) Specification
     in the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)

Abstract

   The Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) enables
   communications between a Path Computation Client (PCC) and a PCE, or
   between two PCEs.  RFC 5440 defines the Include Route Object (IRO) to
   specify network elements to be traversed in the computed path.  The
   specification does not specify if the IRO contains an ordered or
   unordered list of subobjects.  During recent discussions, it was
   determined that there was a need to define a standard representation
   to ensure interoperability.  It was also noted that there is a
   benefit in the handling of an attribute of the IRO's subobject, the L
   bit.

   This document updates RFC 5440 regarding the IRO specification.

Status of This Memo

   This is an Internet Standards Track document.

   This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
   (IETF).  It represents the consensus of the IETF community.  It has
   received public review and has been approved for publication by the
   Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Further information on
   Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.

   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
   http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 7896.

Dhody                        Standards Track                    [Page 1]
RFC 7896 IRO Specification Update June 2016 Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF Contributions published or made publicly available before November 10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process. Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other than English. Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Update in the IRO Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.1. Update to RFC 5440 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Operational Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Dhody Standards Track [Page 2]
RFC 7896 IRO Specification Update June 2016 1. Introduction The Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) enables communications between a Path Computation Client (PCC) and a PCE, or between two PCEs. [RFC 5440] defines the Include Route Object (IRO) to specify network elements to be traversed in the computed path. The specification does not specify if the IRO is an ordered or unordered list of subobjects. In addition, it defines the L bit as having no meaning within an IRO. [RFC 5441] describes the use of an IRO to indicate the sequence of domains to be traversed during inter-domain path computation. During recent discussions, it was determined that there was a need to define a standard representation to ensure interoperability. This document updates the IRO specifications in Section 7.12 of [RFC 5440]. 2. Update in the IRO Specification Section 7.12 of [RFC 5440] describes the IRO as an optional object used to specify a set of network elements to be traversed in the computed path. It states that the L bit in the subobject has no meaning within an IRO. It does not mention if the IRO contains an ordered or unordered list of subobjects. 2.1. Update to RFC 5440 The IRO specification is updated to remove the last line in the Section 7.12 of [RFC 5440], which states: "The L bit of such sub-object has no meaning within an IRO." Further, Section 7.12 of [RFC 5440] is updated to add the following two statements at the end of the first paragraph. - The content of an IRO is an ordered list of subobjects representing a series of abstract nodes (refer to Section 4.3.2 of [RFC 3209]). - The L bit of an IRO subobject is set based on the loose or strict hop property of the subobject; it is set if the subobject represents a loose hop. If the bit is not set, the subobject represents a strict hop. The interpretation of the L bit is as per Section 4.3.3.1 of [RFC 3209]. Dhody Standards Track [Page 3]
RFC 7896 IRO Specification Update June 2016 3. Operational Considerations Because of the lack of clarity in [RFC 5440], it is possible to encounter implementations that always interpret the IRO subobjects as loose. When these implementations interwork with an implementation conforming to this document, the following impact might be seen: o If a non-conforming (to this document) PCC sends an IRO to a conforming (to this document) PCE, then the PCE may unexpectedly fail to find a path (since the PCC may think of the IRO subobjects as loose hops, but the PCE interprets them as strict hops). o If a conforming PCC sends an IRO containing strict hops to a non- conforming PCE, then the PCE may erroneously return a path that does not comply with the requested strict hops (since the PCE interprets them all as loose hops). The PCC may check the returned path and find the issue, or it may end up using an incorrect path. 4. Security Considerations This update in the IRO specification does not introduce any new security considerations, apart from those mentioned in [RFC 5440]. Clarification in the supported IRO ordering or Loose hop bit handling will not have any negative security impact. It is worth noting that PCEP operates over TCP. An analysis of the security issues for routing protocols that use TCP (including PCEP) is provided in [RFC 6952]. 5. References 5.1. Normative References [RFC 3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V., and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels", RFC 3209, DOI 10.17487/RFC 3209, December 2001, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 3209>. [RFC 5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440, DOI 10.17487/RFC 5440, March 2009, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 5440>. Dhody Standards Track [Page 4]
RFC 7896 IRO Specification Update June 2016 5.2. Informative References [RFC 5441] Vasseur, JP., Ed., Zhang, R., Bitar, N., and JL. Le Roux, "A Backward-Recursive PCE-Based Computation (BRPC) Procedure to Compute Shortest Constrained Inter-Domain Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths", RFC 5441, DOI 10.17487/RFC 5441, April 2009, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 5441>. [RFC 6952] Jethanandani, M., Patel, K., and L. Zheng, "Analysis of BGP, LDP, PCEP, and MSDP Issues According to the Keying and Authentication for Routing Protocols (KARP) Design Guide", RFC 6952, DOI 10.17487/RFC 6952, May 2013, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 6952>. Acknowledgments A special thanks to the PCE chairs for guidance regarding this work. Thanks to Francesco Fondelli for his suggestions in clarifying the L bit usage. Thanks to Adrian Farrel for his review and comments. Thanks to Jonathan Hardwick for shepherding the document and providing text in Section 3. Thanks to Deborah Brungard for her comments and being the responsible AD. Thanks to Peter Yee for the Gen-ART review. Thanks to Alvaro Retana for comments during the IESG review. Author's Address Dhruv Dhody Huawei Technologies Divyashree Techno Park, Whitefield Bangalore, Karnataka 560066 India Email: dhruv.ietf@gmail.com Dhody Standards Track [Page 5]