PCE Working Group C. Li Internet-Draft H. Zheng Intended status: Standards Track Huawei Technologies Expires: 22 May 2025 S. Sivabalan Ciena S. Sidor Z. Ali Cisco Systems, Inc. 18 November 2024 Conveying Vendor-Specific Information in the Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP) extensions for Stateful PCE. draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-vendor-11 Abstract This document specifies extensions to the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) that enable the inclusion of vendor- specific information in stateful PCE operations. These extensions allow vendors to incorporate proprietary data within PCEP messages, facilitating enhanced network optimization and functionality in environments requiring vendor-specific features. The extensions maintain compatibility with existing PCEP implementations and promote interoperability across diverse network deployments. RFC 7470 defines a facility to carry vendor-specific information in stateless PCE Communication Protocol (PCEP) messages. This document extends this capability for the Stateful PCEP messages. 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 22 May 2025. Li, et al. Expires 22 May 2025 [Page 1] Internet-Draft VENDOR-STATEFUL November 2024 Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2024 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 Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License. Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.2. Use of RBNF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Procedures for the Vendor Information Object . . . . . . . . 4 3. Procedures for the Vendor Information TLV . . . . . . . . . . 6 4. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.1. Control of Function and Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.2. Information and Data Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.4. Verifying Correct Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.5. Requirements On Other Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.6. Impact On Network Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6.1. Cisco Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 8. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Appendix A. Contributor Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 1. Introduction The Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) [RFC5440] provides mechanisms for a Path Computation Element (PCE) to perform path computation in response to a Path Computation Client (PCC) request. Li, et al. Expires 22 May 2025 [Page 2] Internet-Draft VENDOR-STATEFUL November 2024 A Stateful PCE is capable of considering, for the purposes of the path computation, not only the network state in terms of links and nodes (referred to as the Traffic Engineering Database or TED) but also the status of active services (previously computed paths, and currently reserved resources, stored in the Label Switched Paths Database (LSP-DB)). [RFC8051] describes general considerations for a Stateful PCE deployment and examines its applicability and benefits, as well as its challenges and limitations through a number of use cases. [RFC8231] describes a set of extensions to PCEP to provide stateful control. A Stateful PCE has access to not only the information carried by the network's Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP), but also the set of active paths and their reserved resources for its computations. The additional state allows the PCE to compute constrained paths while considering individual LSPs and their interactions. [RFC8281] describes the setup, maintenance, and teardown of PCE-initiated LSPs under the Stateful PCE model. These extensions add new messages in PCEP for Stateful PCE. [RFC7470] defines the Vendor Information object that can be used to carry arbitrary, proprietary information such as vendor-specific constraints in stateless PCEP. It also defines the VENDOR- INFORMATION-TLV that can be used to carry arbitrary information within any existing or future PCEP object that supports TLVs. The Vendor Information Object and the VENDOR-INFORMATION-TLV are also valuable in the Stateful PCE model. The VENDOR-INFORMATION-TLV can be included within any of the objects introduced in PCEP for Stateful PCE as defined in [RFC7470]. This document extends stateful PCEP messages to incorporate the Vendor Information Object. 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. 1.2. Use of RBNF The message formats in this document are illustrated using Routing Backus-Naur Form (RBNF) encoding, as specified in [RFC5511]. The use of RBNF is illustrative only and may omit certain important details; the normative specification of messages is found in the descriptive text. If there is any divergence between the RBNF and the descriptive text, the descriptive text is considered authoritative. Li, et al. Expires 22 May 2025 [Page 3] Internet-Draft VENDOR-STATEFUL November 2024 2. Procedures for the Vendor Information Object A Path Computation LSP State Report message (also referred to as PCRpt message) [RFC8231] (Section 6.1) is a PCEP message sent by a PCC to a PCE to report the current state of an LSP. A PCC that wants to convey proprietary or vendor-specific information or metrics to a PCE does so by including a Vendor Information object in the PCRpt message. The contents and format of the object, including the VENDOR-INFORMATION object and the VENDOR-INFORMATION-TLV, are described in Section 4 of [RFC7470]. The PCE determines how to interpret the information in the Vendor Information object by examining the Enterprise Number it contains. The Vendor Information object is OPTIONAL in a PCRpt message. Multiple instances of the object MAY be contained in a single PCRpt message. Different instances of the object MAY have different Enterprise Numbers. The message formats in this document are specified using RBNF encoding as specified in [RFC5511]. The format of the PCRpt message (with Section 6.1 of [RFC8231] as the base) is updated as follows: ::= Where: ::= [] ::= [] [] Where: ::= [] is defined in [RFC8231]. A Path Computation LSP Update Request message (also referred to as PCUpd message) [RFC8231] (Section 6.2) is a PCEP message sent by a PCE to a PCC to update the attributes of an LSP. The Vendor Information object can be included in a PCUpd message to convey proprietary or vendor-specific information. The format of the PCUpd message (with Section 6.2 of [RFC8231] as the base) is updated as follows: Li, et al. Expires 22 May 2025 [Page 4] Internet-Draft VENDOR-STATEFUL November 2024 ::= Where: ::= [] ::= [] Where: ::= [] is defined in [RFC8231]. A Path Computation LSP Initiate Message (also referred to as PCInitiate message) [RFC8281] (Section 5.1) is a PCEP message sent by a PCE to a PCC to trigger an LSP instantiation or deletion. The Vendor Information object can be included in a PCInitiate message to convey proprietary or vendor-specific information. The format of the PCInitiate message (with Section 5.1 of [RFC8281] as the base) is updated as follows: Li, et al. Expires 22 May 2025 [Page 5] Internet-Draft VENDOR-STATEFUL November 2024 ::= Where: ::= [] ::= (| ) ::= [] [] [] Where: ::= [] and is as per [RFC8281]. A legacy implementation that does not recognize the Vendor Information object will act according to the procedures set out in [RFC8231] and [RFC8281]. An implementation that supports the Vendor Information object, but receives one carrying an Enterprise Number that it does not support, MUST ignore the object in the same way as described in Section 2 of [RFC7470]. 3. Procedures for the Vendor Information TLV The Vendor Information TLV can be used to carry vendor-specific information that applies to a specific PCEP object by including the TLV in the object. This includes objects used in Stateful PCE extensions such as Stateful PCE Request Parameter (SRP) and LSP objects. All the procedures are as per section 3 of [RFC7470]. 4. Manageability Considerations All manageability requirements and considerations listed in [RFC5440], [RFC7470], [RFC8231], and [RFC8281] apply to PCEP protocol extensions defined in this document. In addition, the requirements and considerations listed in this section apply. Li, et al. Expires 22 May 2025 [Page 6] Internet-Draft VENDOR-STATEFUL November 2024 4.1. Control of Function and Policy The requirements for control of function and policy for vendor- specific information as set out in [RFC7470] continue to apply to Stateful PCEP extensions specified in this document. 4.2. Information and Data Models The PCEP YANG module is specified in [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang]. Any standard YANG module will not include details of vendor-specific information. 4.3. 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]. 4.4. Verifying Correct Operations Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new operation verification requirements in addition to those already listed in [RFC5440] and [RFC8231]. 4.5. Requirements On Other Protocols Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new requirements on other protocols. 4.6. Impact On Network Operations Mechanisms defined in [RFC5440] and [RFC8231] also apply to PCEP extensions defined in this document. Section 6.6 of [RFC7470] highlights how the presence of additional vendor-specific information in PCEP messages may congest the operations and how to detect and handle it. This also applies to stateful PCEP messages as outlined in Section 2. Specifically, a PCEP speaker SHOULD NOT include vendor information in stateful PCEP message if it believes the recipient does not support that information. Encoding optimization for the Vendor Information Object, for example, in case of the object with the same content encoded for multiple LSPs, is considered out of the scope of this document and may be proposed in the future as a separate document applicable to other PCEP objects. Li, et al. Expires 22 May 2025 [Page 7] Internet-Draft VENDOR-STATEFUL November 2024 5. IANA Considerations There are no IANA actions in this document, only a clarification. [RFC7470] defines the Enterprise Numbers allocated by IANA and managed through an IANA registry [RFC2578]. This document clarifies the Private Enterprise Numbers (PEN) as described in the IANA registry. The registration procedures and the registry location are described by [RFC9371]. 6. Implementation Status [NOTE TO RFC EDITOR : This whole section and the reference to RFC 7942 is to be removed before publication as an RFC] 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 Systems * Organization: Cisco Systems, Inc. * Implementation: Cisco IOS-XR PCE and PCC * Description: Vendor Information Object used in PCRpt, PCUpd and PCInitiate messages. * Maturity Level: Production * Coverage: Full * Contact: ssidor@cisco.com Li, et al. Expires 22 May 2025 [Page 8] Internet-Draft VENDOR-STATEFUL November 2024 7. Security Considerations The protocol extensions defined in this document do not change the nature of PCEP. Therefore, the security considerations set out in [RFC5440], [RFC7470], [RFC8231] and [RFC8281] apply unchanged. As per [RFC8231] it is RECOMMENDED that these PCEP extensions only be activated on authenticated and encrypted sessions across PCEs and PCCs using Transport Layer Security (TLS) [RFC8253], as per the recommendations and best current practices in RFC 9325 [BCP195] (unless explicitly set aside in [RFC8253]). The use of vendor-specific information as defined in [RFC7470] and in this document may provide a covert channel that could be misused by PCEP speaker implementations or by malign software at PCEP speakers. While there is limited protection against this, an operator monitoring the PCEP sessions can detect the use of vendor-specific information, be aware of the decoding mechanism for this data, and inspect it accordingly. It is crucial for the operator to remain vigilant and monitor for any potential misuse of this object. 8. Acknowledgments Thanks to Adrian Farrel, Avantika, Mahendra Singh Negi, Udayasree Palle, and Swapna K for their suggestions. 9. References 9.1. Normative References [BCP195] Best Current Practice 195, . At the time of writing, this BCP comprises the following: Moriarty, K. and S. Farrell, "Deprecating TLS 1.0 and TLS 1.1", BCP 195, RFC 8996, DOI 10.17487/RFC8996, March 2021, . Sheffer, Y., Saint-Andre, P., and T. Fossati, "Recommendations for Secure Use of Transport Layer Security (TLS) and Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS)", BCP 195, RFC 9325, DOI 10.17487/RFC9325, November 2022, . [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, . Li, et al. Expires 22 May 2025 [Page 9] Internet-Draft VENDOR-STATEFUL November 2024 [RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440, DOI 10.17487/RFC5440, March 2009, . [RFC5511] Farrel, A., "Routing Backus-Naur Form (RBNF): A Syntax Used to Form Encoding Rules in Various Routing Protocol Specifications", RFC 5511, DOI 10.17487/RFC5511, April 2009, . [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, . [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, May 2017, . [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, . [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, . 9.2. Informative References [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang] Dhody, D., Beeram, V. P., Hardwick, J., and J. Tantsura, "A YANG Data Model for Path Computation Element Communications Protocol (PCEP)", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-pce-pcep-yang-26, 19 October 2024, . [RFC2578] McCloghrie, K., Ed., Perkins, D., Ed., and J. Schoenwaelder, Ed., "Structure of Management Information Version 2 (SMIv2)", STD 58, RFC 2578, DOI 10.17487/RFC2578, April 1999, . Li, et al. Expires 22 May 2025 [Page 10] Internet-Draft VENDOR-STATEFUL November 2024 [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, . [RFC8051] Zhang, X., Ed. and I. Minei, Ed., "Applicability of a Stateful Path Computation Element (PCE)", RFC 8051, DOI 10.17487/RFC8051, January 2017, . [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, . [RFC9371] Baber, A. and P. Hoffman, "Registration Procedures for Private Enterprise Numbers (PENs)", RFC 9371, DOI 10.17487/RFC9371, March 2023, . Appendix A. Contributor Addresses Dhruv Dhody Huawei India EMail: dhruv.ietf@gmail.com Mike Koldychev Ciena EMail: mkoldych@proton.me Authors' Addresses Cheng Li Huawei Technologies Huawei Campus, No. 156 Beiqing Rd. Beijing 100095 China Email: c.l@huawei.com Haomian Zheng Huawei Technologies H1, Huawei Xiliu Beipo Village, Songshan Lake Li, et al. Expires 22 May 2025 [Page 11] Internet-Draft VENDOR-STATEFUL November 2024 Dongguan Guangdong, 523808 China Email: zhenghaomian@huawei.com Siva Sivabalan Ciena 385 Terry Fox Drive Kanata Ontario K2K 0L1 Canada Email: msiva282@gmail.com Samuel Sidor Cisco Systems, Inc. Email: ssidor@cisco.com Zafar Ali Cisco Systems, Inc. Email: zali@cisco.com Li, et al. Expires 22 May 2025 [Page 12]