draft-ietf-pce-discovery-reqs-03.txt   draft-ietf-pce-discovery-reqs-04.txt 
Network Working Group J.L. Le Roux (Editor) Network Working Group J.L. Le Roux (Editor)
Internet Draft France Telecom Internet Draft France Telecom
Category: Informational Category: Informational
Expires: August 2006 Expires: November 2006
February 2006 May 2006
Requirements for Path Computation Element (PCE) Discovery Requirements for Path Computation Element (PCE) Discovery
draft-ietf-pce-discovery-reqs-03.txt draft-ietf-pce-discovery-reqs-04.txt
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other
skipping to change at page 2, line 13 skipping to change at page 2, line 13
requirements. requirements.
Conventions used in this document Conventions used in this document
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC-2119. document are to be interpreted as described in RFC-2119.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Contributors................................................2 1. Contributors................................................3
2. Terminology.................................................3 2. Terminology.................................................3
3. Introduction................................................3 3. Introduction................................................4
4. Problem Statement and Requirements Overview.................4 4. Problem Statement and Requirements Overview.................5
4.1. Problem Statement...........................................4 4.1. Problem Statement...........................................5
4.2. Requirements overview.......................................5 4.2. Requirements overview.......................................6
5. Example of application scenario.............................6 5. Example of application scenario.............................6
6. Detailed Requirements.......................................7 6. Detailed Requirements.......................................7
6.1. PCE Information to be disclosed.............................7 6.1. PCE Information to be disclosed.............................7
6.1.1. General PCE Information (Mandatory support).................7 6.1.1. General PCE Information (Mandatory support).................8
6.1.1.1. Discovery of PCE Location.................................7 6.1.1.1. Discovery of PCE Location.................................8
6.1.1.2. Discovery of PCE Domains and Inter-domain Functions.......8 6.1.1.2. Discovery of PCE Domains and Inter-domain Functions.......8
6.1.2. Detailed PCE Information (Optional support).................8 6.1.2. Detailed PCE Information (Optional support).................9
6.1.2.1. Discovery of PCE Capabilities.............................8 6.1.2.1. Discovery of PCE Capabilities.............................9
6.1.2.2. Discovery of Alternate PCEs...............................9 6.1.2.2. Discovery of Alternate PCEs...............................9
6.2. Scope of PCE Discovery......................................9 6.2. Scope of PCE Discovery.....................................10
6.2.1. Inter-AS specific requirements.............................10 6.2.1. Inter-AS specific requirements.............................10
6.3. PCE Information Synchronization............................10 6.3. PCE Information Synchronization............................11
6.4. Discovery of PCE deactivation..............................11 6.4. Discovery of PCE deactivation..............................11
6.5. Policy Support.............................................11 6.5. Policy Support.............................................11
6.6. Security Requirements......................................11 6.6. Security Requirements......................................12
6.7. Extensibility..............................................12 6.7. Extensibility..............................................12
6.8. Scalability................................................12 6.8. Scalability................................................12
6.9. Operational orders of magnitudes...........................12 6.9. Operational orders of magnitudes...........................13
6.10. Manageability considerations...............................13 6.10. Manageability considerations...............................13
7. Security Considerations....................................13 7. Security Considerations....................................13
8. Acknowledgments............................................13 8. Acknowledgments............................................13
9. References.................................................13 9. References.................................................14
9.1. Normative references.......................................13 9.1. Normative references.......................................14
9.2. Informative references.....................................13 9.2. Informative references.....................................14
10. Authors' Addresses:........................................13 10. Authors' Addresses:........................................14
11. Intellectual Property Statement............................14 11. Intellectual Property Statement............................15
1. Contributors 1. Contributors
The following are the authors that contributed to the present The following are the authors that contributed to the present
document: document:
Jean-Louis Le Roux (France Telecom) Jean-Louis Le Roux (France Telecom)
Paul Mabey (Qwest Communications) Paul Mabey (Qwest Communications)
Eiji Oki (NTT) Eiji Oki (NTT)
Richard Rabbat (Fujitsu) Richard Rabbat (Fujitsu)
skipping to change at page 4, line 46 skipping to change at page 5, line 9
It is also important to note that the notion of a PCC encompasses a It is also important to note that the notion of a PCC encompasses a
PCE acting as PCC when requesting a path computation of another PCE PCE acting as PCC when requesting a path computation of another PCE
(inter-PCE communication). Hence, this document does not make the (inter-PCE communication). Hence, this document does not make the
distinction between PCE discovery by PCCs and PCE discovery by PCEs. distinction between PCE discovery by PCCs and PCE discovery by PCEs.
4. Problem Statement and Requirements Overview 4. Problem Statement and Requirements Overview
4.1. Problem Statement 4.1. Problem Statement
A routing domain may, in practice, be comprised of multiple PCEs: A routing domain may, in practice, contain multiple PCEs:
- The path computation load may be balanced among a set of PCEs - The path computation load may be balanced among a set of PCEs
to improve scalability; to improve scalability;
- For the purpose of redundancy, primary and backup PCEs may be - For the purpose of redundancy, primary and backup PCEs may be
used; used;
- PCEs may have distinct path computation capabilities (multi- - PCEs may have distinct path computation capabilities (multi-
constrained path computation, backup path computation, etc.); constrained path computation, backup path computation, etc.);
- In an inter-domain context there can be several PCEs with - In an inter-domain context there can be several PCEs with
distinct inter-domain functions (inter-area, inter-AS, inter- distinct inter-domain functions (inter-area, inter-AS, inter-
layer), each PCE being responsible for path computation in one or layer), each PCE being responsible for path computation in one or
more domains. more domains.
skipping to change at page 12, line 10 skipping to change at page 12, line 31
Hence mechanisms MUST be defined to ensure authenticity, integrity, Hence mechanisms MUST be defined to ensure authenticity, integrity,
privacy, and containment of PCE discovery information: privacy, and containment of PCE discovery information:
- There MUST be a mechanism to authenticate discovery information; - There MUST be a mechanism to authenticate discovery information;
- There MUST be a mechanism to verify discovery information - There MUST be a mechanism to verify discovery information
integrity; integrity;
- There MUST be a mechanism to encrypt discovery information; - There MUST be a mechanism to encrypt discovery information;
- There MUST be a mechanism to restrict the scope of discovery to a - There MUST be a mechanism to restrict the scope of discovery to a
set of authorized PCCs and to filter PCE information disclosed set of authorized PCCs and to filter PCE information disclosed
at domain boundaries (as per defined in 6.5). at domain boundaries (as per defined in 6.5).
Mechanisms MUST be defined in order to limit the impact of a DoS Mechanisms MUST be defined in order to limit the impact of a
attack on the PCE discovery procedure (e.g. filter out excessive PCE DoS attack on the PCE discovery procedure (e.g. filter out excessive
information change and flapping PCEs). PCE information change and flapping PCEs). Note also that DOS
attacks may be either accidental (caused by a mis-behaving
PCE system) or intentional. As discussed in [PCE-COM-REQ] such
mechanisms may include packet filtering, rate limiting, no
promiscuous listening, and where applicable use of private addresses
spaces.
Also, key consideration MUST be given in terms of how to establish a Also, key consideration MUST be given in terms of how to establish a
trust model for PCE discovery. The PCE discovery mechanism MUST trust model for PCE discovery. The PCE discovery mechanism MUST
explicitly support a specific set of one or more trust models. explicitly support a specific set of one or more trust models.
6.7. Extensibility 6.7. Extensibility
The PCE discovery mechanism MUST be flexible and extensible so as to The PCE discovery mechanism MUST be flexible and extensible so as to
easily allow for the inclusion of additional PCE information that easily allow for the inclusion of additional PCE information that
could be defined in the future. could be defined in the future.
skipping to change at page 13, line 28 skipping to change at page 13, line 49
A set of security requirements that MUST be addressed when A set of security requirements that MUST be addressed when
considering the design and deployment of a PCE Discovery mechanism considering the design and deployment of a PCE Discovery mechanism
have been identified in section 6.6. have been identified in section 6.6.
8. Acknowledgments 8. Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Benoit Fondeviole, Thomas Morin, Emile We would like to thank Benoit Fondeviole, Thomas Morin, Emile
Stephan, Jean-Philippe Vasseur, Dean Cheng, Adrian Farrel, Renhai Stephan, Jean-Philippe Vasseur, Dean Cheng, Adrian Farrel, Renhai
Zhang, Mohamed Boucadair, Eric Gray, Igor Bryskin, Dimitri Zhang, Mohamed Boucadair, Eric Gray, Igor Bryskin, Dimitri
Papadimitriou, Arthi Ayyangar, Andrew Dolganow, Lou Berger, Nabil Papadimitriou, Arthi Ayyangar, Andrew Dolganow, Lou Berger, Nabil
Bitar, and Kenji Kumaki for their useful comments and suggestions. Bitar, Kenji Kumaki and Ross Callon for their useful comments and
suggestions.
9. References 9. References
9.1. Normative references 9.1. Normative references
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[PCE-ARCH] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J.P., Ash, J., "Path Computation [PCE-ARCH] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J.P., Ash, J., "Path Computation
Element (PCE) Architecture", draft-ietf-pce-architecture, work in Element (PCE) Architecture", draft-ietf-pce-architecture, work in
 End of changes. 15 change blocks. 
26 lines changed or deleted 32 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.31. The latest version is available from http://www.levkowetz.com/ietf/tools/rfcdiff/