draft-ietf-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations-09.txt   draft-ietf-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations-10.txt 
PCE Working Group E. Crabbe PCE Working Group E. Crabbe
Internet-Draft Oracle Internet-Draft Oracle
Intended status: Standards Track I. Minei Intended status: Standards Track I. Minei
Expires: September 1, 2017 Google, Inc. Expires: September 28, 2017 Google, Inc.
J. Medved J. Medved
Cisco Systems, Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc.
R. Varga R. Varga
Pantheon Technologies SRO Pantheon Technologies SRO
X. Zhang X. Zhang
D. Dhody D. Dhody
Huawei Technologies Huawei Technologies
February 28, 2017 March 27, 2017
Optimizations of Label Switched Path State Synchronization Procedures Optimizations of Label Switched Path State Synchronization Procedures
for a Stateful PCE for a Stateful PCE
draft-ietf-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations-09 draft-ietf-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations-10
Abstract Abstract
A stateful Path Computation Element (PCE) has access to not only the A stateful Path Computation Element (PCE) has access to not only the
information disseminated by the network's Interior Gateway Protocol information disseminated by the network's Interior Gateway Protocol
(IGP), but also the set of active paths and their reserved resources (IGP), but also the set of active paths and their reserved resources
for its computation. The additional Label Switched Path (LSP) state for its computation. The additional Label Switched Path (LSP) state
information allows the PCE to compute constrained paths while information allows the PCE to compute constrained paths while
considering individual LSPs and their interactions. This requires a considering individual LSPs and their interactions. This requires a
state synchronization mechanism between the PCE and the network, PCE state synchronization mechanism between the PCE and the network, PCE
skipping to change at page 2, line 12 skipping to change at page 2, line 12
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on September 1, 2017. This Internet-Draft will expire on September 28, 2017.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 3, line 18 skipping to change at page 3, line 18
9.2. Information and Data Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 9.2. Information and Data Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
9.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 9.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
9.4. Verify Correct Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 9.4. Verify Correct Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
9.5. Requirements On Other Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 9.5. Requirements On Other Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
9.6. Impact On Network Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 9.6. Impact On Network Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
11. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 11. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
12. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 12. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
13. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 13. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
13.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 13.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
13.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 13.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
The Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) provides The Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) provides
mechanisms for Path Computation Elements (PCEs) to perform path mechanisms for Path Computation Elements (PCEs) to perform path
computations in response to Path Computation Clients (PCCs) requests. computations in response to Path Computation Clients (PCCs) requests.
[I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] describes a set of extensions to PCEP to [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] describes a set of extensions to PCEP to
provide stateful control. A stateful PCE has access to not only the provide stateful control. A stateful PCE has access to not only the
skipping to change at page 22, line 45 skipping to change at page 22, line 45
10. Security Considerations 10. Security Considerations
The security considerations listed in [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] The security considerations listed in [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce]
apply to this document as well. However, this document also apply to this document as well. However, this document also
introduces some new attack vectors. An attacker could spoof the introduces some new attack vectors. An attacker could spoof the
SPEAKER-ENTITY-ID and pretend to be another PCEP speaker. An SPEAKER-ENTITY-ID and pretend to be another PCEP speaker. An
attacker may flood the PCC with triggered re-synchronization request attacker may flood the PCC with triggered re-synchronization request
at a rate which exceeds the PCC's ability to process them, either by at a rate which exceeds the PCC's ability to process them, either by
spoofing messages or by compromising the PCE itself. The PCC can spoofing messages or by compromising the PCE itself. The PCC can
respond with PCErr message as described in Section 6.2 and terminate respond with PCErr message as described in Section 6.2 and terminate
the session. Thus securing the PCEP session using mechanism like TCP the session. Thus securing the PCEP session using Transport Layer
Authentication Option (TCP-AO) [RFC5925] or Transport Layer Security Security (TLS) [I-D.ietf-pce-pceps], as per the recommendations and
(TLS) [I-D.ietf-pce-pceps] is RECOMMENDED. best current practices in [RFC7525], is RECOMMENDED. An
administrator could also expose the speaker entity id as part of the
certificate, for the peer identity verification.
11. Acknowledgments 11. Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Young Lee, Sergio Belotti and Cyril Margaria We would like to thank Young Lee, Sergio Belotti and Cyril Margaria
for their comments and discussions. for their comments and discussions.
Thanks to Jonathan Hardwick for being the document shepherd and Thanks to Jonathan Hardwick for being the document shepherd and
provide comments and guidance. provide comments and guidance.
Thanks to Tomonori Takeda for Routing Area Directorate review. Thanks to Tomonori Takeda for Routing Area Directorate review.
Thanks to Adrian Farrel for TSVART review and providing detailed Thanks to Adrian Farrel for TSVART review and providing detailed
comments and suggestions. comments and suggestions.
Thanks to Daniel Franke for SECDIR review.
Thanks to Alvaro Retana, Kathleen Moriarty, and Stephen Farrell for
comments during the IESG evaluation.
Thanks to Deborah Brungard for being the responsible AD and guiding
the authors as needed.
12. Contributors 12. Contributors
Gang Xie Gang Xie
Huawei Technologies Huawei Technologies
F3-5-B R&D Center, Huawei Industrial Base, Bantian, Longgang District F3-5-B R&D Center, Huawei Industrial Base, Bantian, Longgang District
Shenzhen, Guangdong, 518129 Shenzhen, Guangdong, 518129
P.R. China P.R. China
Email: xiegang09@huawei.com Email: xiegang09@huawei.com
13. References 13. References
skipping to change at page 23, line 48 skipping to change at page 24, line 7
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation [RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation
Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440, Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5440, March 2009, DOI 10.17487/RFC5440, March 2009,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5440>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5440>.
13.2. Informative References 13.2. Informative References
[RFC5925] Touch, J., Mankin, A., and R. Bonica, "The TCP [RFC7525] Sheffer, Y., Holz, R., and P. Saint-Andre,
Authentication Option", RFC 5925, DOI 10.17487/RFC5925, "Recommendations for Secure Use of Transport Layer
June 2010, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5925>. Security (TLS) and Datagram Transport Layer Security
(DTLS)", BCP 195, RFC 7525, DOI 10.17487/RFC7525, May
2015, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7525>.
[RFC8051] Zhang, X., Ed. and I. Minei, Ed., "Applicability of a [RFC8051] Zhang, X., Ed. and I. Minei, Ed., "Applicability of a
Stateful Path Computation Element (PCE)", RFC 8051, Stateful Path Computation Element (PCE)", RFC 8051,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8051, January 2017, DOI 10.17487/RFC8051, January 2017,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8051>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8051>.
[I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang] [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang]
Dhody, D., Hardwick, J., Beeram, V., and j. Dhody, D., Hardwick, J., Beeram, V., and j.
jefftant@gmail.com, "A YANG Data Model for Path jefftant@gmail.com, "A YANG Data Model for Path
Computation Element Communications Protocol (PCEP)", Computation Element Communications Protocol (PCEP)",
draft-ietf-pce-pcep-yang-01 (work in progress), October draft-ietf-pce-pcep-yang-02 (work in progress), March
2016. 2017.
[I-D.ietf-pce-pceps] [I-D.ietf-pce-pceps]
Lopez, D., Dios, O., Wu, W., and D. Dhody, "Secure Lopez, D., Dios, O., Wu, W., and D. Dhody, "Secure
Transport for PCEP", draft-ietf-pce-pceps-11 (work in Transport for PCEP", draft-ietf-pce-pceps-11 (work in
progress), January 2017. progress), January 2017.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Edward Crabbe Edward Crabbe
Oracle Oracle
skipping to change at page 24, line 36 skipping to change at page 25, line 4
EMail: edward.crabbe@gmail.com EMail: edward.crabbe@gmail.com
Ina Minei Ina Minei
Google, Inc. Google, Inc.
1600 Amphitheatre Parkway 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway
Mountain View, CA 94043 Mountain View, CA 94043
US US
EMail: inaminei@google.com EMail: inaminei@google.com
Jan Medved Jan Medved
Cisco Systems, Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc.
170 West Tasman Dr. 170 West Tasman Dr.
San Jose, CA 95134 San Jose, CA 95134
US US
EMail: jmedved@cisco.com EMail: jmedved@cisco.com
Robert Varga Robert Varga
Pantheon Technologies SRO Pantheon Technologies SRO
Mlynske Nivy 56 Mlynske Nivy 56
Bratislava 821 05 Bratislava 821 05
Slovakia Slovakia
EMail: robert.varga@pantheon.sk EMail: robert.varga@pantheon.tech
Xian Zhang Xian Zhang
Huawei Technologies Huawei Technologies
F3-5-B R&D Center, Huawei Industrial Base, Bantian, Longgang District F3-5-B R&D Center, Huawei Industrial Base, Bantian, Longgang District
Shenzhen, Guangdong 518129 Shenzhen, Guangdong 518129
P.R.China P.R.China
EMail: zhang.xian@huawei.com EMail: zhang.xian@huawei.com
Dhruv Dhody Dhruv Dhody
 End of changes. 12 change blocks. 
15 lines changed or deleted 27 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.45. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/