PCE Working Group B. Rajagopalan Internet-Draft V. Beeram Intended status: Standards Track Juniper Networks Expires: 25 April 2025 S. Peng ZTE Corporation M. Koldychev Ciena Corporation G. Mishra Verizon Communications Inc. 22 October 2024 Path Computation Element Protocol(PCEP) Extension for Color draft-ietf-pce-pcep-color-05 Abstract Color is a 32-bit numerical attribute that is used to associate a Traffic Engineering (TE) tunnel or policy with an intent or objective (e.g. low latency). This document specifies extensions to Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) to carry the color attribute. 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 25 April 2025. 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 Rajagopalan, et al. Expires 25 April 2025 [Page 1] Internet-Draft PCEP Color October 2024 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 2. Protocol Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Protocol Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.1. Color Capability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.2. Color TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5.1. PCEP TLV Type Indicator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5.2. STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV Flag Field . . . . . . . . . 5 5.3. PCEP-Error Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5.4. LSP-ERROR-CODE TLV Error Code Field . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 8. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 1. Introduction A Traffic Engineering (TE) tunnel or Segment Routing (SR) policy can be associated with an intent or objective (e.g. low latency) by tagging it with a color. This color attribute is used as a guiding criterion for mapping services onto the TE tunnel ([RFC9012]) or SR policy ([RFC9256]). The term color used in this document is not to be interpreted as the 'thread color' specified in [RFC3063] or the 'resource color' (or 'link color') specified in [RFC3630], [RFC5329], [RFC5305] and [RFC7308]. [RFC8231] specifies extensions to the Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) that enable the deployment of a stateful Path Computation Element (PCE) model. These extensions allow a Path Computation Client (PCC) to delegate control of the Label Switched Paths (LSPs) associated with its TE Tunnels to a stateful PCE. [RFC8281] specifies extensions that allow a PCE to instantiate and manage PCE-initiated LSPs on a PCC under the stateful PCE model. [RFC8664] specifies extensions that enable stateful control of SR paths via PCEP. Rajagopalan, et al. Expires 25 April 2025 [Page 2] Internet-Draft PCEP Color October 2024 This document introduces extensions to PCEP to carry the color attribute tagged with TE paths that are setup using RSVP-TE ([RFC8408]) or Segment Routing (SR) ([RFC8664]) or any other path setup type supported under the stateful PCE model. The only exception where the extensions defined in this document are not used for carrying the color attribute is when an SR path is setup using the extensions defined in [I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp]. For these SR paths, the associated color is already included as part of the SR policy identifier encoding. The mechanism used at the PCC for appropriately mapping services onto a TE path that is tagged with a color attribute is outside the 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. 2. Protocol Operation When the PCEP session is created, a PCEP (PCE/PCC) speaker sends an Open message with an OPEN object that contains the STATEFUL-PCE- CAPABILITY TLV, as defined in [RFC8231]. A new STATEFUL-PCE- CAPABILITY TLV Flag (See Section 3.1) is introduced in this document to enable the PCEP speaker to advertise color capability. In PCRpt, PCUpd, and PCInitiate messages, the LSP object ([RFC8231], [RFC8281]) is a mandatory inclusion and is used to carry information specific to the target LSP. A new TLV called the Color TLV (see Section 3.2), which MAY be carried in the LSP object, is introduced in this document to carry the color attribute associated with the LSP. A PCEP speaker that has advertised color capability MUST NOT send Color TLV encoded in the LSP object to a PCEP Peer that has not advertised color capability. A PCEP speaker that advertises both color capability and SR Policy Association capability ([I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp]) SHOULD NOT send Color TLV encoded in the LSP object for SR Paths. The Color TLV is ignored if it shows up in the LSP object of a message which carries an ASSOCIATION object of type SR Policy Association ([I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp]). The color encoded in the SR Policy Association takes precedence in such a scenario. Rajagopalan, et al. Expires 25 April 2025 [Page 3] Internet-Draft PCEP Color October 2024 If a PCC is unable to honor a color value passed in a PCUpd or a PCInitiate message, the PCC MUST reject the message and send a PCErr message with Error-type=19 (Invalid Operation) and error-value=TBD1 (Invalid color). When LSPs that belong to the same TE tunnel are within the same Path Protection Association Group [RFC8745], they are all expected to be attached with the same color. If a PCEP speaker determines inconsistency in the color associated with the LSPs belonging to the same Path Protection Association Group, it MUST reject the message carrying the inconsistent color and send a PCErr message with Error- type=19 (Invalid Operation) and error-value=TB2 (Inconsistent color). 3. Protocol Extensions 3.1. Color Capability Section 7.1.1 of [RFC8231] defines STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV flags. The following flag is used to indicate if the speaker supports color capability: C-bit (Bit 20 - Early allocation by IANA): A PCE/PCC that supports color capability must turn on this bit. 3.2. Color TLV 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 | Length=4 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Color | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 1: Color TLV Type has the value 67 (Early allocation by IANA). Length carries a value of 4. The 'color' field is 4-bytes long, and carries the actual color value. 4. Security Considerations This document defines a new TLV for color, and a new flag in capability negotiation, which do not add any new security concerns beyond those discussed in [RFC5440], [RFC8231] and [RFC8281]. An unauthorized PCE may maliciously associate the LSP with an incorrect color. The procedures described in [RFC8253] and [RFC9325] can be used to protect against this attack. Rajagopalan, et al. Expires 25 April 2025 [Page 4] Internet-Draft PCEP Color October 2024 5. IANA Considerations 5.1. PCEP TLV Type Indicator This document introduces a new value in the "PCEP TLV Type Indicators" sub-registry of the PCEP Numbers registry as follows: Value Description Reference ---------------------------------------------- 67 Color This document Note: The code point specified for the new TLV Type Indicator is an early allocation by IANA. 5.2. STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV Flag Field This document introduces a new bit value in the "STATEFUL-PCE- CAPABILITY TLV Flag Field" sub-registry of the PCEP Numbers registry as follows: Value Description Reference ---------------------------------------------- 20 COLOR-CAPABILITY This document Note: The code point specified for the new STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV Flag is an early allocation by IANA. 5.3. PCEP-Error Object This document introduces two new Error-values for Error-Type=19 (Invalid Operation) within the "PCEP-ERROR Object Error Types and Values" registry of the "Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry group as follows: Error- Meaning Error-value Reference Type ------------------------------------------------------------------ 19 Invalid Operation TBD1: Invalid Color This document TBD2: Inconsistent Color This document 5.4. LSP-ERROR-CODE TLV Error Code Field Note to IANA: IANA is requested to cancel the early allocation made for this. This is not needed anymore. This section MUST be removed after the early allocation made for this is cancelled. Rajagopalan, et al. Expires 25 April 2025 [Page 5] Internet-Draft PCEP Color October 2024 This document introduces a new error code in the "LSP-ERROR-CODE TLV Error Code Field" sub-registry of the PCEP Numbers registry as follows: Value Meaning Reference ---------------------------------------------- 9 Unsupported Color This document Note: The code point specified for the new LSP-ERROR-CODE TLV Error Code is an early allocation by IANA. 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". At the time of publication of this version, there are no known implementations. Juniper Networks has plans to implement the extensions defined in this document. 7. Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank Kaliraj Vairavakkalai, Colby Barth, Natrajan Venkataraman, Tarek Saad, Dhruv Dhody, Adrian Farrel, Andrew Stone, Diego Achaval and Narasimha Kommuri for their review and suggestions. Rajagopalan, et al. Expires 25 April 2025 [Page 6] Internet-Draft PCEP Color October 2024 8. Contributors The following people have contributed to this document Quan Xiong ZTE Corporation Email: xiong.quan@zte.com.cn 9. References 9.1. 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, . [RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440, DOI 10.17487/RFC5440, March 2009, . [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, . [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, . [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, . Rajagopalan, et al. Expires 25 April 2025 [Page 7] Internet-Draft PCEP Color October 2024 [RFC8408] Sivabalan, S., Tantsura, J., Minei, I., Varga, R., and J. Hardwick, "Conveying Path Setup Type in PCE Communication Protocol (PCEP) Messages", RFC 8408, DOI 10.17487/RFC8408, July 2018, . [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, . [RFC8745] Ananthakrishnan, H., Sivabalan, S., Barth, C., Minei, I., and M. Negi, "Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for Associating Working and Protection Label Switched Paths (LSPs) with Stateful PCE", RFC 8745, DOI 10.17487/RFC8745, March 2020, . [RFC9012] Patel, K., Van de Velde, G., Sangli, S., and J. Scudder, "The BGP Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute", RFC 9012, DOI 10.17487/RFC9012, April 2021, . [RFC9325] 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, . 9.2. Informative References [I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp] Koldychev, M., Sivabalan, S., Barth, C., Peng, S., and H. Bidgoli, "Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for Segment Routing (SR) Policy Candidate Paths", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft- ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-18, 14 October 2024, . [RFC3063] Ohba, Y., Katsube, Y., Rosen, E., and P. Doolan, "MPLS Loop Prevention Mechanism", RFC 3063, DOI 10.17487/RFC3063, February 2001, . Rajagopalan, et al. Expires 25 April 2025 [Page 8] Internet-Draft PCEP Color October 2024 [RFC3630] Katz, D., Kompella, K., and D. Yeung, "Traffic Engineering (TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC 3630, DOI 10.17487/RFC3630, September 2003, . [RFC5305] Li, T. and H. Smit, "IS-IS Extensions for Traffic Engineering", RFC 5305, DOI 10.17487/RFC5305, October 2008, . [RFC5329] Ishiguro, K., Manral, V., Davey, A., and A. Lindem, Ed., "Traffic Engineering Extensions to OSPF Version 3", RFC 5329, DOI 10.17487/RFC5329, September 2008, . [RFC7308] Osborne, E., "Extended Administrative Groups in MPLS Traffic Engineering (MPLS-TE)", RFC 7308, DOI 10.17487/RFC7308, July 2014, . [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, . [RFC9256] Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Ed., Voyer, D., Bogdanov, A., and P. Mattes, "Segment Routing Policy Architecture", RFC 9256, DOI 10.17487/RFC9256, July 2022, . Authors' Addresses Balaji Rajagopalan Juniper Networks Email: balajir@juniper.net Vishnu Pavan Beeram Juniper Networks Email: vbeeram@juniper.net Shaofu Peng ZTE Corporation Email: peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn Mike Koldychev Ciena Corporation Rajagopalan, et al. Expires 25 April 2025 [Page 9] Internet-Draft PCEP Color October 2024 Email: mkoldych@proton.me Gyan Mishra Verizon Communications Inc. Email: gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com Rajagopalan, et al. Expires 25 April 2025 [Page 10]