[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: (draft-dhody-pce-association-policy) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13

PCE Working Group                                           S. Litkowski
Internet-Draft                                       Cisco Systems, Inc.
Intended status: Standards Track                            S. Sivabalan
Expires: April 8, 2021                                             Ciena
                                                             J. Tantsura
                                                            Apstra, Inc.
                                                             J. Hardwick
                                                     Metaswitch Networks
                                                                 M. Negi
                                                             RtBrick Inc
                                                                   C. Li
                                                     Huawei Technologies
                                                        October 05, 2020


 Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP) extension
        for associating Policies and Label Switched Paths (LSPs)
                  draft-ietf-pce-association-policy-13

Abstract

   This document introduces a simple mechanism to associate policies to
   a group of Label Switched Paths (LSPs) via an extension to the Path
   Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP).  The
   extension allows a PCEP speaker to advertise to a PCEP peer that a
   particular LSP belongs to a particular Policy Association Group.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on April 8, 2021.








Litkowski, et al.         Expires April 8, 2021                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft                ASSOC-POLICY                  October 2020


Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2020 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
   (https://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.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.1.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  Motivation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.1.  Policy based Constraints  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   4.  Overview  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   5.  Policy Association Group  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     5.1.  Policy Parameters TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   6.  Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     6.1.  Cisco's Implementation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   7.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   8.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     8.1.  Association object Type Indicators  . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     8.2.  PCEP TLV Type Indicators  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     8.3.  PCEP Errors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   9.  Manageability Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     9.1.  Control of Function and Policy  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     9.2.  Information and Data Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     9.3.  Liveness Detection and Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     9.4.  Verify Correct Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     9.5.  Requirements on Other Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     9.6.  Impact on Network Operations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   10. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   11. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     11.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     11.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   Appendix A.  Example of Policy Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   Appendix B.  Contributor Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16





Litkowski, et al.         Expires April 8, 2021                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft                ASSOC-POLICY                  October 2020


1.  Introduction

   [RFC5440] describes the Path Computation Element Communication
   Protocol (PCEP) which enables the communication between a Path
   Computation Client (PCC) and a Path Control Element (PCE), or between
   two PCEs based on the PCE architecture [RFC4655].  [RFC5394] provides
   additional details on policy within the PCE architecture and also
   provides context for the support of PCE Policy.

   PCEP Extensions for Stateful PCE Model [RFC8231] describes a set of
   extensions to PCEP to enable active control of Multiprotocol Label
   Switching Traffic Engineering (MPLS-TE) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS)
   tunnels.  [RFC8281] describes the set-up and teardown of PCE-
   initiated LSPs under the active stateful PCE model, without the need
   for local configuration on the PCC, thus allowing for a dynamic
   network.  Currently, the LSPs can either be signaled via Resource
   Reservation Protocol Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) or can be segment
   routed as specified in [RFC8664].

   [RFC8697] introduces a generic mechanism to create a grouping of LSPs
   which can then be used to define associations between a set of LSPs
   and a set of attributes (such as configuration parameters or
   behaviors) and is equally applicable to stateful PCE (active and
   passive modes) and stateless PCE.

   This document specifies a PCEP extension to associate one or more
   LSPs with policies using the generic association mechanism.

   A PCEP speaker may want to influence the PCEP peer with respect to
   path selection and other policies.  This document describes a PCEP
   extension to associate policies by creating Policy Association Group
   (PAG) and encoding this association in PCEP messages.  The
   specification is applicable to both stateful and stateless PCEP
   sessions.

   Note that the actual policy definition and the associated parameters
   are out of scope of this document.

1.1.  Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
   14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.






Litkowski, et al.         Expires April 8, 2021                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft                ASSOC-POLICY                  October 2020


2.  Terminology

   The following terminology is used in this document.

   Association parameters:  As described in [RFC8697], the combination
      of the mandatory fields Association type, Association ID and
      Association Source in the ASSOCIATION object uniquely identify the
      association group.  If the optional TLVs - Global Association
      Source or Extended Association ID are included, then they are
      included in combination with mandatory fields to uniquely identify
      the association group.

   Association information:  As described in [RFC8697], the ASSOCIATION
      object could include other optional TLVs based on the association
      types, that provide 'information' related to the association.

   LSR:  Label Switch Router.

   MPLS:  Multiprotocol Label Switching.

   PAG:  Policy Association Group.

   PAT:  Policy Association Type.

   PCC:  Path Computation Client; any client application requesting a
      path computation to be performed by a Path Computation Element.

   PCE:  Path Computation Element; an entity (component, application, or
      network node) that is capable of computing a network path or route
      based on a network graph and applying computational constraints.

   PCEP:  Path Computation Element Communication Protocol.

3.  Motivation

   Paths computed using PCE can be subjected to various policies at both
   the PCE and the PCC.  For example, in a centralized traffic
   engineering (TE) scenario, network operators may instantiate LSPs and
   specify policies for traffic accounting, path monitoring, telemetry,
   etc., for some LSPs via the Stateful PCE.  Similarly, a PCC could
   request a user-specific or service-specific policy to be applied at
   the PCE, such as constraints relaxation policy to meet optimal QoS
   and resiliency.

   PCEP speaker can use the generic mechanism as per [RFC8697] to
   associate a set of LSPs with a policy, without the need to know the
   details of such a policy, which simplifies network operations, avoids




Litkowski, et al.         Expires April 8, 2021                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft                ASSOC-POLICY                  October 2020


   frequent software upgrades, as well as provides an ability to
   introduce new policies faster.



                                                            PAG Y
                                             {Service-Specific Policy
                                                       for constraint
               Monitor LSP                                relaxation}
                    |                                          |
                    | PAG X                    PCReq/PCRpt     |
                    V {Monitor LSP}            {PAG Y}         V
                 +-----+                   ----------------> +-----+
      _ _ _ _ _ _| PCE |                  |                  | PCE |
     |           +-----+                  |      ----------> +-----+
     | PCInitiate/PCUpd                   |     |    PCReq/PCRpt
     |{PAG X}                             |     |    {PAG Y}
     |                                    |     |
     |              .-----.               |     |         .-----.
     |             (       )              |  +----+      (       )
     |         .--(         )--.          |  |PCC1|--.--(         )--.
     V        (                 )         |  +----+ (                 )
   +---+     (                   )        |        (                   )
   |PCC|----(   (G)MPLS network    )   +----+     ( (G)MPLS network   )
   +---+     (                   )     |PCC2|------(                   )
   PAG X      (                 )      +----+       (                 )
   {Monitor    '--(         )--'                     '--(         )--'
   LSP}            (       )                             (       )
                    '-----'                               '-----'

   Case 1: Policy requested by PCE        Case 2: Policy requested by
           and enforced by PCC                    PCC and enforced by
                                                  PCE


        Figure 1: Sample use-cases for carrying policies over PCEP

3.1.  Policy based Constraints

   In the context of Policy-Enabled Path Computation Framework
   [RFC5394], path computation policies may be applied at either a PCC
   or a PCE or both.  Consider a Label Switch Router (LSR) with a policy
   enabled PCC, it receives a service request via signaling, including
   over a Network-Network Interface (NNI) or User-Network Interface
   (UNI) reference point, or receives a configuration request over a
   management interface to establish a service.  The PCC may also apply
   user-specific or service-specific policies to decide how the path
   selection process should be constrained, that is, which constraints,



Litkowski, et al.         Expires April 8, 2021                 [Page 5]


Internet-Draft                ASSOC-POLICY                  October 2020


   diversities, optimization criterion, and constraint relaxation
   strategies should be applied in order for the service LSP(s) to have
   a likelihood to be successfully established and provide necessary QoS
   and resilience against network failures.  The user-specific or
   service-specific policies applied to PCC and are then passed to the
   PCE along with the Path computation request, in the form of
   constraints [RFC5394].

   PCEP speaker can use the generic mechanism as per [RFC8697] to
   associate a set of LSPs with policy and its resulting path
   computation constraints.  This would simplify the path computation
   message exchanges in PCEP.

4.  Overview

   As per [RFC8697], LSPs are associated with other LSPs with which they
   interact by adding them to a common association group.  Grouping can
   also be used to define the association between LSPs and policies
   associated to them.  As described in [RFC8697], the association group
   is uniquely identified by the combination of the following fields in
   the ASSOCIATION object: Association Type, Association ID, Association
   Source, and (if present) Global Association Source or Extended
   Association ID.  This document defines a new Association type, called
   "Policy Association", of value 3 (early-allocated by IANA), based on
   the generic ASSOCIATION object.  This new Association type is also
   called "PAT", for "Policy Association Type".

   [RFC8697] specifies the mechanism for the capability advertisement of
   the Association types supported by a PCEP speaker by defining a
   ASSOC-Type-List TLV to be carried within an OPEN object.  This
   capability exchange for the PAT MUST be done before using the policy
   association.  Thus the PCEP speaker MUST include the PAT in the
   ASSOC-Type-List TLV and MUST receive the same from the PCEP peer
   before using the Policy Association Group (PAG) in PCEP messages.

   This Association type is operator-configured [RFC8697] association in
   nature and created by the operator manually on the PCEP peers.  An
   LSP belonging to this association is conveyed via PCEP messages to
   the PCEP peer.  Operator-configured Association Range MUST NOT be set
   for this association-type, and MUST be ignored, so that the full
   range of association identifier can be utilized.

   A PAG can have one or more LSPs.  The association parameters
   including association identifier, Association type (PAT), as well as
   the association source IP address is manually configured by the
   operator and is used to identify the PAG as described in [RFC8697].
   The Global Association Source and Extended Association ID MAY also be
   included.



Litkowski, et al.         Expires April 8, 2021                 [Page 6]


Internet-Draft                ASSOC-POLICY                  October 2020


   As per the processing rules specified in section 6.4 of [RFC8697], if
   a PCEP speaker does not support this Policy Association type, it
   would return a PCErr message with Error-Type 26 "Association Error"
   and Error-Value 1 "Association type is not supported".  Since the PAG
   is opaque in nature, the PAG and the policy MUST be configured on the
   PCEP peers as per the operator-configured association procedures.
   All further processing is as per section 6.4 of [RFC8697].  If a PCE
   speaker receives PAG in a PCEP message, and the policy association
   information is not configured, it MUST return a PCErr message with
   Error-Type 26 "Association Error" and Error-Value 4 "Association
   unknown".

   Associating a particular LSP to multiple policy groups is authorized
   from a protocol perspective, however, there is no assurance that the
   PCEP speaker will be able to apply multiple policies.  If a PCEP
   speaker does not support handling of multiple policies for an LSP, it
   MUST NOT add the LSP into the association group and MUST return a
   PCErr with Error- Type 26 (Association Error) and Error-value 7
   (Cannot join the association group).

5.  Policy Association Group

   Association groups and their memberships are defined using the
   ASSOCIATION object defined in [RFC8697].  Two object types for IPv4
   and IPv6 are defined.  The ASSOCIATION object includes "Association
   type" indicating the type of the association group.  This document
   add a new Association type (PAT).

   PAG may carry optional TLVs including but not limited to -

   o  POLICY-PARAMETERS-TLV: Used to communicate opaque information
      useful to apply the policy, described in Section 5.1.

   o  VENDOR-INFORMATION-TLV: Used to communicate arbitrary vendor
      specific behavioral information, described in [RFC7470].

5.1.  Policy Parameters TLV

   The POLICY-PARAMETERS-TLV is an optional TLV that can be carried in
   ASSOCIATION object (for PAT) to carry opaque information needed to
   apply the policy at the PCEP peer.  In some cases to apply a PCE
   policy successfully, it is required to also associate some policy
   parameters that need to be evaluated.  This TLV is used to carry
   those policy parameters.  The TLV could include one or more policy
   related parameters.  The encoding format and the order MUST be known
   to the PCEP peers, this could be done during the configuration of the
   policy (and its association parameters) for the PAG.  The TLV format
   is as per the format of the PCEP TLVs, as defined in [RFC5440], and



Litkowski, et al.         Expires April 8, 2021                 [Page 7]


Internet-Draft                ASSOC-POLICY                  October 2020


   shown in Figure 2.  Only one POLICY-PARAMETERS-TLV can be carried and
   only the first occurrence is processed and any others MUST be
   ignored.



       0                   1                   2                   3
       0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |         Type=48               |          Length               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                                                               |
      //                     Policy Parameters                       //
      |                                                               |
      +---------------------------------------------------------------+



                Figure 2: The POLICY-PARAMETERS-TLV format

   The type of the POLICY-PARAMETERS-TLV is 48 (early-allocated by IANA)
   and it has a variable length.  The Value field is variable and padded
   to a 4-byte alignment; padding is not included in the Length field.
   The PCEP peer implementation needs to be aware of the encoding
   format, order, and meaning of the 'Policy Parameters' well in advance
   based on the policy.  Note that from the protocol point of view this
   data is opaque and can be used to carry parameters in any format
   understood by the PCEP peers and associated to the policy.  The exact
   use of this TLV is beyond the scope of this document.  Examples are
   included for illustration purposes in Appendix A.

   If the PCEP peer is unaware of the policy parameters associated with
   the policy and it receives the POLICY-PARAMETERS-TLV, it MUST reject
   the PCEP message and send a PCErr message with Error-Type 26
   "Association Error" and Error-Value TBD3 "Not expecting policy
   parameters".  Further, if one or more parameters in the POLICY-
   PARAMETERS-TLV received by the PCEP speaker are considered as
   unacceptable in the context of the associated policy (e.g. out of
   range value, badly encoded value...), the PCEP speaker MUST reject
   the PCEP message and send a PCErr message with Error-Type 26
   "Association Error" and Error-Value TBD4 "Unacceptable policy
   parameters".

   Note that, the vendor-specific behavioral information is encoded in
   VENDOR-INFORMATION-TLV which can be used along with this TLV.






Litkowski, et al.         Expires April 8, 2021                 [Page 8]


Internet-Draft                ASSOC-POLICY                  October 2020


6.  Implementation Status

   [Note to the RFC Editor - remove this section before publication, as
   well as remove the reference to RFC 7942.]

   This section records the status of known implementations of the
   protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of this
   Internet-Draft, and is based on a proposal described in [RFC7942].
   The description of implementations in this section is intended to
   assist the IETF in its decision processes in progressing drafts to
   RFCs.  Please note that the listing of any individual implementation
   here does not imply endorsement by the IETF.  Furthermore, no effort
   has been spent to verify the information presented here that was
   supplied by IETF contributors.  This is not intended as, and must not
   be construed to be, a catalog of available implementations or their
   features.  Readers are advised to note that other implementations may
   exist.

   According to [RFC7942], "this will allow reviewers and working groups
   to assign due consideration to documents that have the benefit of
   running code, which may serve as evidence of valuable experimentation
   and feedback that have made the implemented protocols more mature.
   It is up to the individual working groups to use this information as
   they see fit".

6.1.  Cisco's Implementation

   o  Organization: Cisco Systems, Inc.

   o  Implementation: IOS-XR PCE and PCC.

   o  Description: The PCEP extension specified in this document is used
      to convey traffic steering policies.

   o  Maturity Level: In shipping product.

   o  Coverage: Partial.

   o  Contact: mkoldych@cisco.com

7.  Security Considerations

   This document defines one new type for association, which do not add
   any new security concerns beyond those discussed in [RFC5440],
   [RFC8231] and [RFC8697] in itself.

   Extra care needs to be taken by the implementation with respect to
   POLICY-PARAMETERS-TLV while decoding, verifying, and applying these



Litkowski, et al.         Expires April 8, 2021                 [Page 9]


Internet-Draft                ASSOC-POLICY                  October 2020


   policy variables.  This TLV parsing could be exploited by an
   attacker.

   Some deployments may find policy associations and their implications
   as extra sensitive and thus securing the PCEP session using Transport
   Layer Security (TLS) [RFC8253], as per the recommendations and best
   current practices in BCP 195 [RFC7525], is RECOMMENDED.

8.  IANA Considerations

8.1.  Association object Type Indicators

   This document defines a new Association type.  The sub-registry
   "ASSOCIATION Type Field" of the "Path Computation Element Protocol
   (PCEP) Numbers" registry was originally defined in [RFC8697].  IANA
   is requested to confirm the early-allocated codepoint.

   Value     Name                        Reference

   3         Policy Association          [This.I-D]

8.2.  PCEP TLV Type Indicators

   The following TLV Type Indicator value is requested within the "PCEP
   TLV Type Indicators" subregistry of the "Path Computation Element
   Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry.  IANA is requested to confirm the
   early-allocated codepoint.

   Value     Description                 Reference

   48        POLICY-PARAMETERS-TLV       [This.I-D]

8.3.  PCEP Errors

   This document defines new Error-Values for Error-type 26 "Association
   Error" defined in [RFC8697].  IANA is requested to allocate new error
   values within the "PCEP- ERROR Object Error Types and Values"
   subregistry of the PCEP Numbers registry as follows:

   Error-Type Meaning     Error-value         Reference

   26         Association                     [RFC8697]
              Error
                          TBD3: Not expecting [This.I-D]
                          policy parameters

                          TBD4: Unacceptable  [This.I-D]
                          policy parameters



Litkowski, et al.         Expires April 8, 2021                [Page 10]


Internet-Draft                ASSOC-POLICY                  October 2020


9.  Manageability Considerations

9.1.  Control of Function and Policy

   An operator MUST be allowed to configure the policy associations at
   PCEP peers and associate it with the LSPs.  They MAY also allow
   configuration to related policy parameters, in which case the
   operator MUST also be allowed to set the encoding format and order to
   parse the associated policy parameters TLV.

9.2.  Information and Data Models

   [RFC7420] describes the PCEP MIB, there are no new MIB Objects for
   this document.

   The PCEP YANG module is defined in [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang].  This
   module supports associations as defined in [RFC8697] and thus
   supports the Policy Association groups.

   An implementation SHOULD allow the operator to view the PAG
   configured.  Further implementation SHOULD allow to view associations
   reported by each peer, and the current set of LSPs in the PAG.

9.3.  Liveness Detection and Monitoring

   Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new liveness
   detection and monitoring requirements in addition to those already
   listed in [RFC5440], [RFC8231], and [RFC8281].

9.4.  Verify Correct Operations

   Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new operation
   verification requirements in addition to those already listed in
   [RFC5440], [RFC8231], and [RFC8281].

9.5.  Requirements on Other Protocols

   Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new requirements
   on other protocols.

9.6.  Impact on Network Operations

   Mechanisms defined in this document do not have any impact on network
   operations in addition to those already listed in [RFC5440],
   [RFC8231], and [RFC8281].






Litkowski, et al.         Expires April 8, 2021                [Page 11]


Internet-Draft                ASSOC-POLICY                  October 2020


10.  Acknowledgments

   A special thanks to the authors of [RFC8697], this document borrowed
   some of the text from it.  The authors would like to thank Aijun
   Wang, Peng Shuping, and Gyan Mishra for their useful comments.

   Thanks to Hari for shepherding this document.

11.  References

11.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC5440]  Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation
              Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5440, March 2009,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5440>.

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

   [RFC8231]  Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Medved, J., and R. Varga, "Path
              Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)
              Extensions for Stateful PCE", RFC 8231,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8231, September 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8231>.

   [RFC8697]  Minei, I., Crabbe, E., Sivabalan, S., Ananthakrishnan, H.,
              Dhody, D., and Y. Tanaka, "Path Computation Element
              Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for Establishing
              Relationships between Sets of Label Switched Paths
              (LSPs)", RFC 8697, DOI 10.17487/RFC8697, January 2020,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8697>.

11.2.  Informative References

   [RFC4655]  Farrel, A., Vasseur, J., and J. Ash, "A Path Computation
              Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4655, August 2006,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4655>.






Litkowski, et al.         Expires April 8, 2021                [Page 12]


Internet-Draft                ASSOC-POLICY                  October 2020


   [RFC5905]  Mills, D., Martin, J., Ed., Burbank, J., and W. Kasch,
              "Network Time Protocol Version 4: Protocol and Algorithms
              Specification", RFC 5905, DOI 10.17487/RFC5905, June 2010,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5905>.

   [RFC5394]  Bryskin, I., Papadimitriou, D., Berger, L., and J. Ash,
              "Policy-Enabled Path Computation Framework", RFC 5394,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5394, December 2008,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5394>.

   [RFC7420]  Koushik, A., Stephan, E., Zhao, Q., King, D., and J.
              Hardwick, "Path Computation Element Communication Protocol
              (PCEP) Management Information Base (MIB) Module",
              RFC 7420, DOI 10.17487/RFC7420, December 2014,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7420>.

   [RFC7470]  Zhang, F. and A. Farrel, "Conveying Vendor-Specific
              Constraints in the Path Computation Element Communication
              Protocol", RFC 7470, DOI 10.17487/RFC7470, March 2015,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7470>.

   [RFC7525]  Sheffer, Y., Holz, R., and P. Saint-Andre,
              "Recommendations for Secure Use of Transport Layer
              Security (TLS) and Datagram Transport Layer Security
              (DTLS)", BCP 195, RFC 7525, DOI 10.17487/RFC7525, May
              2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7525>.

   [RFC7942]  Sheffer, Y. and A. Farrel, "Improving Awareness of Running
              Code: The Implementation Status Section", BCP 205,
              RFC 7942, DOI 10.17487/RFC7942, July 2016,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7942>.

   [RFC8253]  Lopez, D., Gonzalez de Dios, O., Wu, Q., and D. Dhody,
              "PCEPS: Usage of TLS to Provide a Secure Transport for the
              Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)",
              RFC 8253, DOI 10.17487/RFC8253, October 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8253>.

   [RFC8281]  Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Sivabalan, S., and R. Varga, "Path
              Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)
              Extensions for PCE-Initiated LSP Setup in a Stateful PCE
              Model", RFC 8281, DOI 10.17487/RFC8281, December 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8281>.








Litkowski, et al.         Expires April 8, 2021                [Page 13]


Internet-Draft                ASSOC-POLICY                  October 2020


   [RFC8664]  Sivabalan, S., Filsfils, C., Tantsura, J., Henderickx, W.,
              and J. Hardwick, "Path Computation Element Communication
              Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for Segment Routing", RFC 8664,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8664, December 2019,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8664>.

   [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang]
              Dhody, D., Hardwick, J., Beeram, V., and J. Tantsura, "A
              YANG Data Model for Path Computation Element
              Communications Protocol (PCEP)", draft-ietf-pce-pcep-
              yang-14 (work in progress), July 2020.








































Litkowski, et al.         Expires April 8, 2021                [Page 14]


Internet-Draft                ASSOC-POLICY                  October 2020


Appendix A.  Example of Policy Parameters

   An example could be a monitoring and telemetry policy P1 that is
   dependent on a profile (GOLD/SILVER/BRONZE) as set by the operator.
   The PCEP peers need to be aware of the policy P1 (and its associated
   characteristics) in advance as well the fact that the policy
   parameter will encode the profile of type string in the POLICY-
   PARAMETERS-TLV.  As an example, LSP1 could encode the PAG with the
   POLICY-PARAMETERS-TLV with a string "GOLD".

   Another example where the path computation at PCE could be dependent
   on when the LSP was configured at the PCC.  For such a policy P2, the
   time-stamp can be encoded in the POLICY-PARAMETERS-TLV and the exact
   encoding could be the 64-bit timestamp format as defined in
   [RFC5905].

   While the above example has a single field in the POLICY-PARAMETERS-
   TLV, it is possible to include multiple fields, but the exact order,
   encoding format and meanings need to be known in advance at the PCEP
   peers.

Appendix B.  Contributor Addresses





























Litkowski, et al.         Expires April 8, 2021                [Page 15]


Internet-Draft                ASSOC-POLICY                  October 2020


   Dhruv Dhody
   Huawei Technologies
   Divyashree Techno Park, Whitefield
   Bangalore, Karnataka  560066
   India

   EMail: dhruv.ietf@gmail.com

   Qin Wu
   Huawei Technologies
   101 Software Avenue, Yuhua District
   Nanjing, Jiangsu  210012
   China

   EMail: sunseawq@huawei.com

   Xian Zhang
   Huawei Technologies
   Bantian, Longgang District
   Shenzhen  518129
   P.R.China

   EMail: zhang.xian@huawei.com

   Udayasree Palle

   EMail: udayasreereddy@gmail.com

   Mike Koldychev
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   Canada

   EMail: mkoldych@cisco.com

Authors' Addresses

   Stephane Litkowski
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   11 Rue Camille Desmoulins
   Issy-les-Moulineaux  92130
   France

   EMail: slitkows@cisco.com








Litkowski, et al.         Expires April 8, 2021                [Page 16]


Internet-Draft                ASSOC-POLICY                  October 2020


   Siva Sivabalan
   Ciena
   385 Terry Fox Drive
   Kanata, Ontario  K2K 0L1
   Canada

   EMail: msiva282@gmail.com


   Jeff Tantsura
   Apstra, Inc.

   EMail: jefftant.ietf@gmail.com


   Jonathan Hardwick
   Metaswitch Networks
   100 Church Street
   Enfield, Middlesex
   UK

   EMail: Jonathan.Hardwick@metaswitch.com


   Mahendra Singh Negi
   RtBrick Inc
   N-17L, 18th Cross Rd, HSR Layout
   Bangalore, Karnataka  560102
   India

   EMail: mahend.ietf@gmail.com


   Cheng Li
   Huawei Technologies
   Huawei Campus, No. 156 Beiqing Rd.
   Beijing  100095
   China

   EMail: c.l@huawei.com











Litkowski, et al.         Expires April 8, 2021                [Page 17]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129d, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/