



PCE Working Group                                     H. Ananthakrishnan
Internet-Draft                                                   Netflix
Intended status: Standards Track                            S. Sivabalan
Expires: March 28, 2020                                            Cisco
                                                                C. Barth
                                                        Juniper Networks
                                                                I. Minei
                                                             Google, Inc
                                                                 M. Negi
                                                     Huawei Technologies
                                                      September 25, 2019


    PCEP Extensions for Associating Working and Protection LSPs with
                              Stateful PCE
               draft-ietf-pce-stateful-path-protection-11

Abstract

   An active stateful Path Computation Element (PCE) is capable of
   computing as well as controlling via Path Computation Element
   Communication Protocol (PCEP) Multiprotocol Label Switching Traffic
   Engineering (MPLS-TE) Label Switched Paths (LSPs).  Furthermore, it
   is also possible for an active stateful PCE to create, maintain, and
   delete LSPs.  This document defines the PCEP extension to associate
   two or more LSPs to provide end-to-end path protection.

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 March 28, 2020.








Ananthakrishnan, et al.  Expires March 28, 2020                 [Page 1]

Internet-Draft      Stateful PCE LSP Path Protection      September 2019


Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2019 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  PCEP Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.1.  Path Protection Association Type  . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.2.  Path Protection Association TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   4.  Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     4.1.  State Synchronization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     4.2.  PCC-Initiated LSPs  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     4.3.  PCE-Initiated LSPs  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     4.4.  Session Termination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     4.5.  Error Handling  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   5.  Other Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     6.1.  Association Type  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     6.2.  Path Protection Association TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     6.3.  PCEP Errors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   7.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   8.  Manageability Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     8.1.  Control of Function and Policy  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     8.2.  Information and Data Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     8.3.  Liveness Detection and Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     8.4.  Verify Correct Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     8.5.  Requirements On Other Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     8.6.  Impact On Network Operations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   9.  Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   10. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     10.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     10.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   Appendix A.  Contributor Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16



Ananthakrishnan, et al.  Expires March 28, 2020                 [Page 2]

Internet-Draft      Stateful PCE LSP Path Protection      September 2019


1.  Introduction

   [RFC5440] describes Path Computation Element Communication Protocol
   for communication between a Path Computation Client (PCC) and a PCE
   or between a pair of PCEs as per [RFC4655].  A PCE computes paths for
   MPLS-TE Label Switched Paths (LSPs) based on various constraints and
   optimization criteria.

   Stateful PCE [RFC8231] specifies a set of extensions to PCEP to
   enable stateful control of paths such as MPLS-TE LSPs between and
   across PCEP sessions in compliance with [RFC4657].  It includes
   mechanisms to affect LSP state synchronization between PCCs and PCEs,
   delegation of control of LSPs to PCEs, and PCE control of timing and
   sequence of path computations within and across PCEP sessions.  The
   focus is on a model where LSPs are configured on the PCC and control
   over them is delegated to the Stateful PCE.  Furthermore, [RFC8281]
   specifies a mechanism to dynamically instantiate LSPs on a PCC based
   on the requests from a stateful PCE or a controller using stateful
   PCE.

   Path protection [RFC4427] refers to a paradigm in which the working
   LSP is protected by one or more protection LSP(s).  When the working
   LSP fails, protection LSP(s) is/are activated.  When the working LSPs
   are computed and controlled by the PCE, there is benefit in a mode of
   operation where protection LSPs are also computed and controlled by
   the same PCE.  [RFC8051] describes applicability of path protection
   in PCE deployments.

   This document specifies a stateful PCEP extension to associate two or
   more LSPs for the purpose of setting up path protection.  The
   extension defined in this document covers the following scenarios:

   o  A PCC initiates a protection LSP and retains the control of the
      LSP.  The PCC computes the path itself or makes a request for path
      computation to a PCE.  After the path setup, it reports the
      information and state of the path to the PCE.  This includes the
      association group identifying the working and protection LSPs.
      This is the passive stateful mode [RFC8051].

   o  A PCC initiates a protection LSP and delegates the control of the
      LSP to a stateful PCE.  During delegation the association group
      identifying the working and protection LSPs is included.  The PCE
      computes the path for the protection LSP and updates the PCC with
      the information about the path as long as it controls the LSP.
      This is the active stateful mode [RFC8051].

   o  A protection LSP could be initiated by a stateful PCE, which
      retains the control of the LSP.  The PCE is responsible for



Ananthakrishnan, et al.  Expires March 28, 2020                 [Page 3]

Internet-Draft      Stateful PCE LSP Path Protection      September 2019


      computing the path of the LSP and updating to the PCC with the
      information about the path.  This is the PCE-Initiated mode
      [RFC8281].

   Note that a protection LSP can be established (signaled) before the
   failure (in which case the LSP is said to be in standby mode
   [RFC4427] or a Primary LSP [RFC4872]) or after failure of the
   corresponding working LSP (known as a secondary LSP [RFC4872]).
   Whether to establish it before or after failure is according to
   operator choice or policy.

   [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group] introduces a generic mechanism to
   create a grouping of LSPs, which can then be used to define
   associations between a set of LSPs.  The mechanism is equally
   applicable to stateful PCE (active and passive modes) and stateless
   PCE.

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

   This document describes a PCEP extension to associate protection LSPs
   by creating Path Protection Association Group (PPAG) and encoding
   this association in PCEP messages for stateful PCEP sessions.

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.  Terminology

   The following terminologies are used in this document:

   ERO:  Explicit Route Object.

   LSP:  Label Switched Path.

   PCC:  Path Computation Client.

   PCE:  Path Computation Element

   PCEP:  Path Computation Element Communication Protocol.

   PPAG:  Path Protection Association Group.



Ananthakrishnan, et al.  Expires March 28, 2020                 [Page 4]

Internet-Draft      Stateful PCE LSP Path Protection      September 2019


   TLV:  Type, Length, and Value.

3.  PCEP Extensions

3.1.  Path Protection Association Type

   As per [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group], LSPs are not associated by
   listing the other LSPs with which they interact, but rather by making
   them belong to an association groups.  All LSPs join an association
   group individually.  The generic ASSOCIATION object is used to
   associate two or more LSPs as specified in
   [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group].  This document defines a new
   Association type called "Path Protection Association Type" of value
   TBD1 and a "Path Protection Association Group" (PPAG).  A member LSP
   of a PPAG can take the role of working or protection LSP.  A PPAG can
   have one working LSP and/or one or more protection LSPs.  The source,
   destination, Tunnel ID (as carried in LSP-IDENTIFIERS TLV [RFC8231],
   with description as per [RFC3209]), and Protection Type (PT) (in Path
   Protection Association TLV) of all LSPs within a PPAG MUST be the
   same.  As per [RFC3209], TE tunnel is used to associate a set of LSPs
   during reroute or to spread a traffic trunk over multiple paths.

   The format of the Association object used for PPAG is specified in
   [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group].

   [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group] 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 Association type
   described in this document (i.e.  Path Protection Association Type)
   MAY be done before using this association, i.e., the PCEP speaker MAY
   include the Path Protection Association Type (TBD1) in the ASSOC-
   Type-List TLV before using the PPAG in the PCEP messages.

   This Association type is dynamic in nature and created by the PCC or
   PCE for the LSPs belonging to the same TE tunnel (as described in
   [RFC3209]) originating at the same head node and terminating at the
   same destination.  These associations are conveyed via PCEP messages
   to the PCEP peer.  As per [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group], the
   association source is set to the local PCEP speaker address that
   created the association, unless local policy dictates otherwise.
   Operator-configured Association Range MUST NOT be set for this
   Association type and MUST be ignored.








Ananthakrishnan, et al.  Expires March 28, 2020                 [Page 5]

Internet-Draft      Stateful PCE LSP Path Protection      September 2019


3.2.  Path Protection Association TLV

   The Path Protection Association TLV is an optional TLV for use in the
   ASSOCIATION Object with the Path Protection Association Type.  The
   Path Protection Association TLV MUST NOT be present more than once.
   If it appears more than once, only the first occurrence is processed
   and any others MUST be ignored.

   The Path Protection Association TLV follows the PCEP TLV format of
   [RFC5440].

   The type (16 bits) of the TLV is TBD2.  The length field (16 bit) has
   a fixed value of 4.

   The value comprises of a single field, the Path Protection
   Association Flags (32 bits), where each bit represents a flag option.

   The format of the Path Protection Association TLV (Figure 1) is as
   follows:

     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 = TBD2         |              Length = 4         |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |   PT      |               Unassigned Flags                |S|P|
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


             Figure 1: Path Protection Association TLV format

   Path Protection Association Flags (32 bits) - The following flags are
   currently defined -

      Protecting (P): 1 bit - This bit is as defined in Section 14.1 of
      [RFC4872] to indicate if the LSP is a working (0) or protection
      (1) LSP.

      Secondary (S): 1 bit - This bit is as defined in Section 14.1 of
      [RFC4872] to indicate if the LSP is a primary (0) or secondary (1)
      LSP.  The S flag is ignored if the P flag is not set.

      Protection Type (PT): 6 bits - This field is as defined in
      Section 14.1 of [RFC4872] to indicate the LSP protection type in
      use.  Any type already defined or that could be defined in the
      future for use in the RSVP-TE PROTECTION object is acceptable in
      this TLV unless explicitly stated otherwise.




Ananthakrishnan, et al.  Expires March 28, 2020                 [Page 6]

Internet-Draft      Stateful PCE LSP Path Protection      September 2019


      Unassigned bits are considered reserved.  They MUST be set to 0 on
      transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt.

   If the TLV is missing in PPAG ASSOCIATION object, it is considered
   that the LSP is a working LSP (i.e. as if the P bit is unset).

4.  Operation

   An LSP is associated with other LSPs with which it interacts by
   adding them to a common association group via the ASSOCIATION object.
   All procedures and error-handling for the ASSOCIATION object is as
   per [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group].

4.1.  State Synchronization

   During state synchronization, a PCC reports all the existing LSP
   states as described in [RFC8231].  The association group membership
   pertaining to an LSP is also reported as per
   [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group].  This includes PPAGs.

4.2.  PCC-Initiated LSPs

   A PCC can associate a set of LSPs under its control for path
   protection purposes.  Similarly, the PCC can remove one or more LSPs
   under its control from the corresponding PPAG.  In both cases, the
   PCC reports the change in association to PCE(s) via Path Computation
   Report (PCRpt) messages.  A PCC can also delegate the working and
   protection LSPs to an active stateful PCE, where the PCE would
   control the LSPs.  The stateful PCE could update the paths and
   attributes of the LSPs in the association group via Path Computation
   Update (PCUpd) message.  A PCE could also update the association to
   the PCC via PCUpd message.  These procedures are described in
   [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group].

   It is expected that both working and protection LSPs are delegated
   together (and to the same PCE) to avoid any race conditions.  Refer
   to [I-D.litkowski-pce-state-sync] for the problem description.

4.3.  PCE-Initiated LSPs

   A PCE can create/update working and protection LSPs independently.
   As specified in [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group], Association Groups
   can be created by both the PCE and the PCC.  Further, a PCE can
   remove a protection LSP from a PPAG as specified in
   [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group].  The PCE uses PCUpd or Path
   Computation Initiate (PCInitiate) messages to communicate the
   association information to the PCC.




Ananthakrishnan, et al.  Expires March 28, 2020                 [Page 7]

Internet-Draft      Stateful PCE LSP Path Protection      September 2019


4.4.  Session Termination

   As per [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group] the association information
   is cleared along with the LSP state information.  When a PCEP session
   is terminated, after expiry of State Timeout Interval at the PCC, the
   LSP state associated with that PCEP session is reverted to operator-
   defined default parameters or behaviors as per [RFC8231].  The same
   procedure is also followed for the association information.  On
   session termination at the PCE, when the LSP state reported by PCC is
   cleared, the association information is also cleared as per
   [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group].  Where there are no LSPs in a
   association group, the association is considered to be deleted.

4.5.  Error Handling

   As per the processing rules specified in section 6.4 of
   [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group], if a PCEP speaker does not support
   this Path Protection Association Type, it would return a PCErr
   message with Error-Type 26 "Association Error" and Error-Value 1
   "Association type is not supported".

   All LSPs (working or protection) within a PPAG MUST belong to the
   same TE Tunnel (as described in [RFC3209]) and have the same source
   and destination.  If a PCEP speaker attempts to add or update an LSP
   to a PPAG and the Tunnel ID (as carried in LSP-IDENTIFIERS TLV
   [RFC8231], with description as per [RFC3209]) or source or
   destination of the LSP is different from the LSP(s) in the PPAG, the
   PCEP speaker MUST send PCErr with Error-Type 26 (Association Error)
   [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group] and Error-Value TBD3 (Tunnel ID or
   End points mismatch for Path Protection Association).  In case of
   Path Protection, LSP-IDENTIFIERS TLV SHOULD be included for all LSPs
   (including Segment Routing (SR) [I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing]).  If
   the Protection Type (PT) (in Path Protection Association TLV) is
   different from the LSPs in the PPAG, the PCEP speaker MUST send PCErr
   with Error-Type 26 (Association Error)
   [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group] and Error-Value 6 (Association
   information mismatch) as per [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group].

   When the PCEP peer does not support the protection type set in PPAG,
   the PCEP peer MUST send PCErr with Error-Type 26 (Association Error)
   [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group] and Error-Value TBD5 (Protection
   type is not supported).

   A given LSP MAY belong to more than one PPAG.  If there is a conflict
   between any of the two PPAGs, the PCEP peer MUST send PCErr with
   Error-Type 26 (Association Error) [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group]
   and Error-Value 6 (Association information mismatch) as per
   [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group].



Ananthakrishnan, et al.  Expires March 28, 2020                 [Page 8]

Internet-Draft      Stateful PCE LSP Path Protection      September 2019


   When the protection type is set to 1+1 (i.e., protection type=0x08 or
   0x10), there MUST be at maximum, only one working LSP and one
   protection LSP within a PPAG.  If a PCEP speaker attempts to add
   another working/protection LSP, the PCEP peer MUST send PCErr with
   Error-Type 26 (Association Error) [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group]
   and Error-Value TBD4 (Attempt to add another working/protection LSP
   for Path Protection Association).

   When the protection type is set to 1:N (i.e., protection type=0x04),
   there MUST be at maximum, only one working LSP and number of
   protection LSPs MUST NOT be more than N within a PPAG.  If a PCEP
   speaker attempts to add another working/protection LSP, the PCEP peer
   MUST send PCErr with Error-Type 26 (Association Error)
   [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group] and Error-Value TBD4 (Attempt to add
   another working/protection LSP for Path Protection Association).

   During the make-before-break (MBB) procedure, two paths will briefly
   coexist.  The error handling related to number of LSPs allowed in a
   PPAG MUST NOT be applied during MBB.

   All processing as per [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group] continues to
   apply.

5.  Other Considerations

   The working and protection LSPs are typically resource disjoint
   (e.g., node, SRLG disjoint).  This ensures that a single failure will
   not affect both the working and protection LSPs.  The disjoint
   requirement for a group of LSPs is handled via another Association
   type called "Disjointness Association", as described in
   [I-D.ietf-pce-association-diversity].  The diversity requirements for
   the protection LSP are also handled by including both ASSOCIATION
   objects identifying both the protection association group and the
   disjoint association group for the group of LSPs.  The relationship
   between the Synchronization VECtor (SVEC) object and the Disjointness
   Association is described in section 5.3 of
   [I-D.ietf-pce-association-diversity].

   [RFC4872] introduces the concept and mechanisms to support the
   association of one LSP to another LSP across different RSVP Traffic
   Engineering (RSVP-TE) sessions using ASSOCIATION and PROTECTION
   object.  The information in the Path Protection Association TLV in
   PCEP as received from the PCE is used to trigger the signaling of
   working LSP and protection LSP, with the Path Protection Association
   Flags mapped to the corresponding fields in the PROTECTION Object in
   RSVP-TE.





Ananthakrishnan, et al.  Expires March 28, 2020                 [Page 9]

Internet-Draft      Stateful PCE LSP Path Protection      September 2019


6.  IANA Considerations

   [Note to RFC Editor and IANA: Sections 3.1, 3.2, and 4.5 contain
   "TBD1" through "TBD5" those should be replaced by the values that
   IANA assigns.]

6.1.  Association Type

   This document defines a new Association type, originally defined in
   [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group], for path protection.  IANA is
   requested to make the assignment of a new value for the sub-registry
   "ASSOCIATION Type Field" (request to be created in
   [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group]), as follows:

   +----------------------+-------------------------+------------------+
   | Association type     | Association Name        | Reference        |
   | Value                |                         |                  |
   +----------------------+-------------------------+------------------+
   | TBD1                 | Path Protection         | This             |
   |                      | Association             | document         |
   +----------------------+-------------------------+------------------+

6.2.  Path Protection Association TLV

   This document defines a new TLV for carrying additional information
   of LSPs within a path protection association group.  IANA is
   requested to make the assignment of a new value for the existing
   "PCEP TLV Type Indicators" registry as follows:

   +---------------+-----------------------------------+---------------+
   | TLV Type      | TLV Name                          | Reference     |
   | Value         |                                   |               |
   +---------------+-----------------------------------+---------------+
   | TBD2          | Path Protection Association Group | This document |
   |               | TLV                               |               |
   +---------------+-----------------------------------+---------------+

   This document requests that a new sub-registry, named "Path
   protection Association Group TLV Flag Field", is created within the
   "Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry to manage
   the Flag field in the Path Protection Association Group TLV.  New
   values are to be assigned by Standards Action [RFC8126].  Each bit
   should be tracked with the following qualities:

   o  Bit number (count from 0 as the most significant bit)

   o  Name flag




Ananthakrishnan, et al.  Expires March 28, 2020                [Page 10]

Internet-Draft      Stateful PCE LSP Path Protection      September 2019


   o  Reference

          +------------+-----------------------+----------------+
          | Bit Number |          Name         |   Reference    |
          +------------+-----------------------+----------------+
          |     31     |   P - PROTECTION-LSP  | This document  |
          |     30     |   S - SECONDARY-LSP   | This document  |
          |    6-29    |       Unassigned      | This document  |
          |    0-5     | Protection Type Flags | This document  |
          +------------+-----------------------+----------------+

            Table 1: Path Protection Association TLV Flag Field

6.3.  PCEP Errors

   This document defines new Error-Values related to path protection
   association for Error-type 26 "Association Error" defined in
   [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group].  IANA is requested to allocate new
   error values within the "PCEP-ERROR Object Error Types and Values"
   sub-registry of the PCEP Numbers registry, as follows:

   +---------+----------+-----------------+----------------------------+
   | Error-  | Error-   | Meaning         | Reference                  |
   | type    | value    |                 |                            |
   +---------+----------+-----------------+----------------------------+
   | 26      |          | Association     | [I-D.ietf-pce-association- |
   |         |          | Error           | group]                     |
   |         |          |                 |                            |
   |         | TBD3     | Tunnel ID or    | This document              |
   |         |          | End points      |                            |
   |         |          | mismatch for    |                            |
   |         |          | Path Protection |                            |
   |         |          | Association     |                            |
   |         | TBD4     | Attempt to add  | This document              |
   |         |          | another working |                            |
   |         |          | /protection LSP |                            |
   |         |          | for Path        |                            |
   |         |          | Protection      |                            |
   |         |          | Association     |                            |
   |         | TBD5     | Protection type | This document              |
   |         |          | is not          |                            |
   |         |          | supported       |                            |
   +---------+----------+-----------------+----------------------------+








Ananthakrishnan, et al.  Expires March 28, 2020                [Page 11]

Internet-Draft      Stateful PCE LSP Path Protection      September 2019


7.  Security Considerations

   The security considerations described in [RFC8231], [RFC8281], and
   [RFC5440] apply to the extensions described in this document as well.
   Additional considerations related to associations where a malicious
   PCEP speaker could be spoofed and could be used as an attack vector
   by creating associations as described in
   [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group].  Adding a spurious protection LSP
   to the Path Protection Association group could give false sense of
   network reliability, which leads to issues when the working LSP is
   down and the protection LSP fails as well.  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.  Manageability Considerations

8.1.  Control of Function and Policy

   Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any control or
   policy requirements in addition to those already listed in [RFC5440],
   [RFC8231], and [RFC8281].

8.2.  Information and Data Models

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

   The PCEP YANG module [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang] supports associations.

8.3.  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].

8.4.  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].

8.5.  Requirements On Other Protocols

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





Ananthakrishnan, et al.  Expires March 28, 2020                [Page 12]

Internet-Draft      Stateful PCE LSP Path Protection      September 2019


8.6.  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].

9.  Acknowledgments

   We would like to thank Jeff Tantsura, Xian Zhang and Greg Mirsky for
   their contributions to this document.

   Thanks to Ines Robles for the RTGDIR review.

   Thanks to Pete Resnick for the GENART review.

   Thanks to Donald Eastlake for the SECDIR review.

   Thanks to Barry Leiba, Benjamin Kaduk, Eric Vyncke, and Roman Danyliw
   for the IESG review.

10.  References

10.1.  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>.

   [RFC3209]  Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.,
              and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
              Tunnels", RFC 3209, DOI 10.17487/RFC3209, December 2001,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3209>.

   [RFC4872]  Lang, J., Ed., Rekhter, Y., Ed., and D. Papadimitriou,
              Ed., "RSVP-TE Extensions in Support of End-to-End
              Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)
              Recovery", RFC 4872, DOI 10.17487/RFC4872, May 2007,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4872>.

   [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>.







Ananthakrishnan, et al.  Expires March 28, 2020                [Page 13]

Internet-Draft      Stateful PCE LSP Path Protection      September 2019


   [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>.

   [RFC8126]  Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
              Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
              RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.

   [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>.

   [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>.

   [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group]
              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)", draft-ietf-pce-association-group-10 (work in
              progress), August 2019.

10.2.  Informative References

   [RFC4427]  Mannie, E., Ed. and D. Papadimitriou, Ed., "Recovery
              (Protection and Restoration) Terminology for Generalized
              Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)", RFC 4427,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4427, March 2006,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4427>.



Ananthakrishnan, et al.  Expires March 28, 2020                [Page 14]

Internet-Draft      Stateful PCE LSP Path Protection      September 2019


   [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>.

   [RFC4657]  Ash, J., Ed. and J. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation
              Element (PCE) Communication Protocol Generic
              Requirements", RFC 4657, DOI 10.17487/RFC4657, September
              2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4657>.

   [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>.

   [RFC8051]  Zhang, X., Ed. and I. Minei, Ed., "Applicability of a
              Stateful Path Computation Element (PCE)", RFC 8051,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8051, January 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8051>.

   [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-12 (work in progress), July 2019.

   [I-D.ietf-pce-association-diversity]
              Litkowski, S., Sivabalan, S., Barth, C., and M. Negi,
              "Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)
              Extension for LSP Diversity Constraint Signaling", draft-
              ietf-pce-association-diversity-10 (work in progress),
              August 2019.

   [I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing]
              Sivabalan, S., Filsfils, C., Tantsura, J., Henderickx, W.,
              and J. Hardwick, "PCEP Extensions for Segment Routing",
              draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-16 (work in progress),
              March 2019.

   [I-D.litkowski-pce-state-sync]
              Litkowski, S., Sivabalan, S., Li, C., and H. Zheng, "Inter
              Stateful Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication
              Procedures.", draft-litkowski-pce-state-sync-06 (work in
              progress), July 2019.






Ananthakrishnan, et al.  Expires March 28, 2020                [Page 15]

Internet-Draft      Stateful PCE LSP Path Protection      September 2019


Appendix A.  Contributor Addresses

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

   EMail: dhruv.ietf@gmail.com

   Raveendra Torvi
   Juniper Networks
   1194 N Mathilda Ave,
   Sunnyvale, CA, 94086
   USA

   EMail: rtorvi@juniper.net


   Edward Crabbe
   Individual Contributor

   EMail: edward.crabbe@gmail.com

Authors' Addresses

   Hariharan Ananthakrishnan
   Netflix
   USA

   Email: hari@netflix.com


   Siva Sivabalan
   Cisco
   2000 Innovation Drive
   Kananta, Ontaria K2K 3E8
   Canada

   Email: msiva@cisco.com











Ananthakrishnan, et al.  Expires March 28, 2020                [Page 16]

Internet-Draft      Stateful PCE LSP Path Protection      September 2019


   Colby Barth
   Juniper Networks
   1194 N Mathilda Ave,
   Sunnyvale, CA, 94086
   USA

   Email: cbarth@juniper.net


   Ina Minei
   Google, Inc
   1600 Amphitheatre Parkway
   Mountain View, CA, 94043
   USA

   Email: inaminei@google.com


   Mahendra Singh Negi
   Huawei Technologies
   Divyashree Techno Park, Whitefield
   Bangalore, Karnataka  560066
   India

   Email: mahend.ietf@gmail.com


























Ananthakrishnan, et al.  Expires March 28, 2020                [Page 17]
