Conveying Vendor-Specific Information in the Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP) extensions for Stateful PCE.

Introduction The Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) provides mechanisms for a Path Computation Element (PCE) to perform path computation in response to a Path Computation Client (PCC) request. 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). 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. 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. describes the set up, maintenance and teardown of PCE-initiated LSPs under the Stateful PCE model. These extensions added new messages in PCEP for Stateful PCE. defined Vendor Information object that can be used to carry arbitrary, proprietary information such as vendor-specific constraints. It also defined VENDOR-INFORMATION-TLV that can be used to carry arbitrary information within any existing or future PCEP object that supports TLVs. This document extend the usage of Vendor Information Object and VENDOR-INFORMATION-TLV to Stateful PCE. The VENDOR-INFORMATION-TLV can be carried inside any of the new objects added in PCEP for Stateful PCE as per , this document extend the stateful PCEP messages to also include the Vendor Information Object as well.

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 when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.

Procedures for the Vendor Information Object A Path Computation LSP State Report message (also referred to as PCRpt message) 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 are described in Section 4 of . 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 used on a single PCRpt message. Different instances of the object can have different Enterprise Numbers. The format of the PCRpt message (with as base) is updated as follows: ::=

Where: ::= [] ::= [] [] Where: ::= [] is defined in [RFC8231]. ]]>

A Path Computation LSP Update Request message (also referred to as PCUpd message) is a PCEP message sent by a PCE to a PCC to update 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 as base) is updated as follows: ::=

Where: ::= [] ::= [] Where: ::= [] is defined in [RFC8231]. ]]>

A Path Computation LSP Initiate Message (also referred to as PCInitiate message) 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 as base) is updated as follows: ::=

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 and . 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 .

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 extension such as SRP and LSP object. All the procedures as per section 3 of .

Vendor Information Object and TLV specify the format of VENDOR-INFORMATION Object and VENDOR- INFORMATION-TLV.

Manageability Considerations All manageability requirements and considerations listed in , , , and apply to PCEP protocol extensions defined in this document. In addition, requirements and considerations listed in this section apply.

Control of Function and Policy As stated in , this capability, the associated vendor specific information and policy SHOULD made configurable. This information can be used in Stateful PCEP messages as well.

Information and Data Models The PCEP YANG module is specified in . It is RECOMMENDED that standard YANG module not be augmented with details of vendor information. It MAY be extended to include the use of this information and the Enterprise Numbers that the object and TLVs contain.

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 .

Verify Correct Operations Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new operation verification requirements in addition to those already listed in and .

Requirements On Other Protocols Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new requirements on other protocols.

Impact On Network Operations Mechanisms defined in and also apply to PCEP extensions defined in this document. Further, the mechanism described in this document can help the operator to request control of the LSPs at a particular PCE.

IANA Considerations There are no IANA consideration in this document.

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 . 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 , "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".

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

Security Considerations The protocol extensions defined in this document do not change the nature of PCEP. Therefore, the security considerations set out in , , and apply unchanged. As stated in , PCEP implementations SHOULD support the TCP- AO and not use TCP MD5 because of TCP MD5's known vulnerabilities and weakness. PCEP also support Transport Layer Security (TLS) as per the recommendations and best current practices in .

Acknowledgments Thanks to Avantika, Mahendra Singh Negi, Udayasree Palle and Swapna K for their suggestions.

References Normative References Informative References

Contributor Addresses