1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
|
<pre>Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) F. Zhang
Request for Comments: 7150 Huawei
Category: Standards Track A. Farrel
ISSN: 2070-1721 Juniper Networks
March 2014
<span class="h1">Conveying Vendor-Specific Constraints in the Path</span>
<span class="h1">Computation Element Communication Protocol</span>
Abstract
The Path Computation Element communication Protocol (PCEP) is used to
convey path computation requests and responses both between Path
Computation Clients (PCCs) and Path Computation Elements (PCEs) and
between cooperating PCEs. In PCEP, the path computation requests
carry details of the constraints and objective functions that the PCC
wishes the PCE to apply in its computation.
This document defines a facility to carry vendor-specific information
in PCEP using a dedicated object and a new Type-Length-Variable that
can be carried in any existing PCEP object.
Status of This Memo
This is an Internet Standards Track document.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in <a href="./rfc5741#section-2">Section 2 of RFC 5741</a>.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
<a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7150">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7150</a>.
<span class="grey">Zhang & Farrel Standards Track [Page 1]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-2" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc7150">RFC 7150</a> Vendor-Specific Constraints in PCE March 2014</span>
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to <a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp78">BCP 78</a> and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(<a href="http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info">http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info</a>) 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.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-1" href="#section-1">1</a>. Introduction</span>
A Path Computation Element (PCE) is 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. An architecture for the use of PCEs is defined in
[<a href="./rfc4655" title=""A Path Computation Element (PCE)-Based Architecture"">RFC4655</a>].
The Path Computation Element communication Protocol (PCEP) is defined
in [<a href="./rfc5440" title=""Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)"">RFC5440</a>] to exchange path computation requests and responses
between Path Computation Clients (PCCs) and PCEs. It is also used
between cooperating PCEs.
Path computations performed by a PCE depend on a set of constraints
indicated by the PCC. These constraints include the endpoints of the
path to compute (source and destination) and may include other simple
constraints such as bandwidth requirements and metric maxima (for
example, a maximum threshold for the hop count or the Traffic
Engineering (TE) metric of the computed path).
The PCE also needs to use an objective function to qualify the path
it selects as meeting the requirements of the PCC. The PCE may have
a default objective function, but the PCC can also indicate which
objective function it wants applied by placing an Objective Function
object in the path computation request message [<a href="./rfc5541" title=""Encoding of Objective Functions in the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)"">RFC5541</a>]. A core set
of objective functions to be supported in PCEP messages is defined in
the base PCEP requirements [<a href="./rfc4657" title=""Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol Generic Requirements"">RFC4657</a>], and [<a href="./rfc5541" title=""Encoding of Objective Functions in the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)"">RFC5541</a>] defines each of
these functions as an abstract formula.
The registry of codepoints used to indicate objective functions is
managed by IANA and new assignments can be made according to "IETF
Review" and "First Come First Served" policies [<a href="./rfc5226" title="">RFC5226</a>]. PCE
implementations may also choose to offer proprietary, vendor-specific
<span class="grey">Zhang & Farrel Standards Track [Page 2]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-3" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc7150">RFC 7150</a> Vendor-Specific Constraints in PCE March 2014</span>
objective functions, and there is scope for this within the codepoint
registry created by [<a href="./rfc5541" title=""Encoding of Objective Functions in the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)"">RFC5541</a>] using the codepoints that are flagged
as "Reserved for Private Use".
Proprietary objective functions may operate on non-standard
constraints or metrics. The PCEP METRIC Object defined in [<a href="./rfc5440" title=""Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)"">RFC5440</a>]
has scope for the definition of new, standardized metrics, but no
facility for the definition of vendor-specific metrics. At the same
time, there is no mechanism in PCEP for carrying other, more complex,
vendor-specific information.
This document defines a new PCEP object, the Vendor Information
object that can be used to carry arbitrary, proprietary information
such as vendor-specific constraints.
This document also defines a new PCEP TLV, the VENDOR-INFORMATION-TLV
that can be used to carry arbitrary information within any PCEP
object that supports TLVs.
It should be noted that by the very definition of "vendor-specific",
the inclusion of either a Vendor Information object or the VENDOR-
INFORMATION-TLV implies an inability to interoperate at a functional
level with implementations from other vendors unless there is some
cooperation agreement between vendors. Sections <a href="#section-2.1">2.1</a> and <a href="#section-3.1">3.1</a> discuss
backward compatibility, which indicates how these protocol constructs
are handled by implementations that do not support them at all, while
text in Sections <a href="#section-2">2</a> and <a href="#section-3">3</a> describe how implementations handle the
constructs if they understand them, but do not support the embedded
Enterprise Number that indicates to which vendor the constructs
apply.
When vendor-specific information is used by an implementation, the
vendor is encouraged to document the meaning of the information to
encourage wider use and implementation. In particular, when there is
more general interest in a vendor-specific extension, the vendor is
encouraged to bring it to the IETF for standardization as a regular
protocol construct moving it out of the vendor-specific space.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-1.1" href="#section-1.1">1.1</a>. Conventions Used in This Document</span>
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
[<a href="./rfc2119" title=""Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels"">RFC2119</a>].
<span class="grey">Zhang & Farrel Standards Track [Page 3]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-4" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc7150">RFC 7150</a> Vendor-Specific Constraints in PCE March 2014</span>
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-2" href="#section-2">2</a>. Procedures for the Vendor Information Object</span>
A PCC that wants to convey proprietary or vendor-specific constraints
or metrics to a PCE does so by including a Vendor Information object
in the PCReq message. The contents and format of the object are
described in <a href="#section-4">Section 4</a>, but it is important to note that the object
includes an Enterprise Number that is a unique identifier of an
organization responsible for the definition of the content and
meaning of the object.
A PCE that receives a PCReq message containing a Vendor Information
object MUST act according to the P flag in the object header. That
is, if the P flag is set, the object will be treated as mandatory and
the request will either be processed using the contents of the object
or be rejected as defined in [<a href="./rfc5440" title=""Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)"">RFC5440</a>] (see also <a href="#section-2.1">Section 2.1</a>). If
the P flag is clear, then, as defined in [<a href="./rfc5440" title=""Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)"">RFC5440</a>], the object may be
used by the PCE or may be ignored. The PCC sets the P flag according
to how it wishes the request to be processed.
The PCE determines how to interpret the information in the Vendor
Information object by examining the Enterprise Number it contains.
An implementation that supports the Vendor Information object, but
receives one carrying an Enterprise Number that it does not support
MUST act according to the P flag in the object. That is, if the P
flag is set, the PCE MUST reject the PCReq as defined in [<a href="./rfc5440" title=""Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)"">RFC5440</a>] by
sending an Error message with Error-Type="Not supported Object" along
with the corresponding Vendor Information object.
The Vendor Information object is OPTIONAL in a PCReq message.
Multiple instances of the object MAY be used on a single PCReq
message, and each MUST be treated according to its P-bit setting.
Different instances of the object can have different Enterprise
Numbers.
The object can be present in the PCReq message to enable it to apply
to a single path computation request or to a set of synchronized
requests. This usage mirrors the usage of the Objective Function
object [<a href="./rfc5541" title=""Encoding of Objective Functions in the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)"">RFC5541</a>]. Thus, the PCReq message based on [<a href="./rfc6006" title=""Extensions to the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) for Point-to-Multipoint Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths"">RFC6006</a>] is
encoded as follows using the syntax described in [<a href="./rfc5511" title=""Routing Backus-Naur Form (RBNF): A Syntax Used to Form Encoding Rules in Various Routing Protocol Specifications"">RFC5511</a>].
<span class="grey">Zhang & Farrel Standards Track [Page 4]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-5" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc7150">RFC 7150</a> Vendor-Specific Constraints in PCE March 2014</span>
<PCReq Message> ::= <Common Header>
[<svec_list>]
<request-list>
where
<svec-list> ::= <SVEC>
[<OF>]
[<GC>]
[<XRO>]
[<metric-list>]
[<vendor-info-list>]
[<svec-list>]
<metric-list> ::= <METRIC>
[<metric-list>]
<vendor-info-list> ::= <VENDOR-INFORMATION>
[<vendor-info-list>]
<request-list> ::= <request>
[<request-list>]
<request> ::= <RP>
[<vendor-info-list>]
<end-point-rro-pair-list>
[<LSPA>]
[<BANDWIDTH>]
[<metric-list>]
[<OF>]
[<RRO>]
[<IRO>]
[<LOAD-BALANCING>]
where
<end-point-rro-pair-list> ::= <END-POINTS>
[<RRO-List>]
[<BANDWIDTH>]
[<vendor-info-list>]
[<end-point-rro-pair-list>]
<RRO-List> ::= <RRO> [<BANDWIDTH>] [<RRO-List>]
<metric-list> ::= <METRIC> [<metric-list>]
The Vendor Information object can be included in a PCRep message in
exactly the same way as any other object as defined in [<a href="./rfc5440" title=""Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)"">RFC5440</a>].
<span class="grey">Zhang & Farrel Standards Track [Page 5]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-6" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc7150">RFC 7150</a> Vendor-Specific Constraints in PCE March 2014</span>
Thus, the PCRep is encoded as follows:
<PCRep Message> ::= <Common Header>
<response>
<response> ::= <RP>
[<vendor-info-list>]
[<end-point-path-pair-list>]
[<NO-PATH>]
[<attribute-list>]
where:
<end-point-path-pair-list> ::=
[<END-POINTS>]
<path>
[<vendor-info-list>]
[<end-point-path-pair-list>]
<path> ::= (<ERO>|<SERO>) [<path>]
<attribute-list> ::= [<OF>]
[<LSPA>]
[<BANDWIDTH>]
[<metric-list>]
[<IRO>]
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-2.1" href="#section-2.1">2.1</a>. Backward Compatibility for the Vendor Information Object</span>
A legacy implementation that does not recognize the Vendor
Information object will act according to the procedures set out in
[<a href="./rfc5440" title=""Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)"">RFC5440</a>]. If the P flag is set in the object, the message will be
rejected using a PCErr message with an Error Type of 3 ("Unknown
Object"). If the P flag is not set, the object can safely be ignored
by the recipient.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-3" href="#section-3">3</a>. Procedures for the Vendor Information TLV</span>
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.
The PCE determines how to interpret the Vendor Information TLV by
examining the Enterprise Number it contains. If the Enterprise
Number is unknown to the PCE, it MUST treat the Vendor Information
TLV as an unknown TLV and handle it as described in [<a href="./rfc5440" title=""Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)"">RFC5440</a>] (see
also <a href="#section-3.1">Section 3.1</a>).
<span class="grey">Zhang & Farrel Standards Track [Page 6]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-7" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc7150">RFC 7150</a> Vendor-Specific Constraints in PCE March 2014</span>
Further specifications are needed to define the position and meaning
of the Vendor Information TLV for specific PCEP objects.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.1" href="#section-3.1">3.1</a>. Backward Compatibility</span>
A legacy implementation that does not recognize the Vendor
Information TLV in an object will act according to the procedures set
out in [<a href="./rfc5440" title=""Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)"">RFC5440</a>]. As described in <a href="./rfc5440#section-7.1">Section 7.1 of [RFC5440]</a>,
unrecognized TLVs MUST be ignored.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-4" href="#section-4">4</a>. Protocol Elements</span>
The Vendor Information object and TLV conform to the format for PCEP
objects and TLVs defined in [<a href="./rfc5440" title=""Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)"">RFC5440</a>].
VENDOR-INFORMATION Object-Class 32
VENDOR-INFORMATION Object-Type 1
VENDOR-INFORMATION-TLV Type 7
The format of the VENDOR-INFORMATION object and the format of the
VENDOR-INFORMATION-TLV are the same and are as shown in Figure 1.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Enterprise Number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ Enterprise-Specific Information ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1 : Format of the Vendor Information Object and TLV
Enterprise Number
A unique identifier of an organization encoded as a 32-bit
integer. Enterprise Numbers are assigned by IANA and managed
through an IANA registry [<a href="./rfc2578" title=""Structure of Management Information Version 2 (SMIv2)"">RFC2578</a>].
Enterprise-Specific Information
The detailed enterprise-specific constraint information carried by
the object. The format and interpretation of this information is
a matter for the enterprise identified by the Enterprise Number.
Such formats and interpretation may be published by the enterprise
<span class="grey">Zhang & Farrel Standards Track [Page 7]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-8" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc7150">RFC 7150</a> Vendor-Specific Constraints in PCE March 2014</span>
(possibly through an Informational RFC or through commercial
documentation) so that PCCs or PCEs that are not part of the
organization can use the information.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-5" href="#section-5">5</a>. IANA Considerations</span>
IANA maintains a registry of PCEP parameters called the "Path
Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers".
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.1" href="#section-5.1">5.1</a>. New PCEP Object</span>
IANA has made an allocation from the "PCEP Objects" subregistry as
follows.
Object-Class Value Name Reference
32 VENDOR-INFORMATION [<a href="./rfc7150">RFC7150</a>]
Object-Type
0: Unassigned
1: Vendor-Specific Constraints [<a href="./rfc7150">RFC7150</a>]
2-255: Unassigned
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.2" href="#section-5.2">5.2</a>. New PCEP TLV</span>
IANA has made an allocation from the "PCEP TLV Type Indicators"
subregistry as follows.
Value Description Reference
7 VENDOR-INFORMATION-TLV [<a href="./rfc7150">RFC7150</a>]
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-6" href="#section-6">6</a>. Management Considerations</span>
This section follows the guidance of [<a href="./rfc5706" title=""Guidelines for Considering Operations and Management of New Protocols and Protocol Extensions"">RFC5706</a>] and [<a href="./rfc6123" title=""Inclusion of Manageability Sections in Path Computation Element (PCE) Working Group Drafts"">RFC6123</a>].
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-6.1" href="#section-6.1">6.1</a>. Control of Function and Policy</span>
A PCEP implementation SHOULD allow configuring of various parameters
as described in [<a href="./rfc5440" title=""Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)"">RFC5440</a>]. A PCC implementation that uses vendor-
specific information MAY make the use of this information
configurable either across the whole PCC, per PCE that the PCC uses,
or per path computation request. A PCE that supports vendor-specific
information MAY make the support of this information configurable,
and MAY allow configuration of policies for the use of the
information.
<span class="grey">Zhang & Farrel Standards Track [Page 8]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-9" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc7150">RFC 7150</a> Vendor-Specific Constraints in PCE March 2014</span>
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-6.2" href="#section-6.2">6.2</a>. Information and Data Models</span>
A PCEP MIB module is defined in [<a href="#ref-PCE-MIB" title=""Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Management Information Base"">PCE-MIB</a>] that describes managed
objects for modeling of PCEP communications.
It is NOT RECOMMENDED that standard MIB modules be extended to
include detailed information about the content of the Vendor
Information object or TLV. However, the standard MIB module MAY be
extended to report the use of the Vendor Information object or TLV
and the Enterprise Numbers that the objects and TLVs contain.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-6.3" href="#section-6.3">6.3</a>. Liveness Detection and Monitoring</span>
This document makes no change to the basic operation of PCEP, so
there are no changes to the requirements for liveness detection and
monitoring set out in [<a href="./rfc4657" title=""Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol Generic Requirements"">RFC4657</a>] and [<a href="./rfc5440" title=""Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)"">RFC5440</a>].
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-6.4" href="#section-6.4">6.4</a>. Verifying Correct Operation</span>
This document makes no change to the basic operation of PCEP, so
there are no changes to the requirements or techniques for monitoring
the correct operation of the protocol out in [<a href="./rfc4657" title=""Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol Generic Requirements"">RFC4657</a>] and [<a href="./rfc5440" title=""Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)"">RFC5440</a>].
Note that "correct operation" in this context refers to the operation
of the protocol itself and not to the operation of the computation
algorithms which are out of scope for all PCEP work.
Mechanisms for verifying the correct operation of computation
algorithms might involve comparing the results returned by more than
one PCE. Scope for this might be limited by the use of vendor
information unless multiple PCEs support the same set of vendor
information.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-6.5" href="#section-6.5">6.5</a>. Requirements on Other Protocols and Functional Components</span>
This document does not place any new requirements on other network
components or protocols. However, it may be beneficial to consider
whether a PCE should advertise the Enterprise Numbers and vendor
information it supports. This advertisement could be within PCE
Discovery [<a href="./rfc5088" title=""OSPF Protocol Extensions for Path Computation Element (PCE) Discovery"">RFC5088</a>] [<a href="./rfc5089" title=""IS-IS Protocol Extensions for Path Computation Element (PCE) Discovery"">RFC5089</a>] or through extensions to PCEP
[<a href="./rfc5440" title=""Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)"">RFC5440</a>].
Extensions for discovery and advertisement are outside the scope of
this document.
<span class="grey">Zhang & Farrel Standards Track [Page 9]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-10" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc7150">RFC 7150</a> Vendor-Specific Constraints in PCE March 2014</span>
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-6.6" href="#section-6.6">6.6</a>. Impact on Network Operation</span>
The availability of vendor information in PCEP messages may
facilitate more complex and detailed path computations that may
enhance the way in which the network is operated.
On the other hand, the presence of additional vendor-specific
information in PCEP messages may congest the operation of the
protocol especially if the PCE does not support the information
supplied by the PCC. Thus, a PCC SHOULD monitor the capabilities of
a PCE either by discovery mechanisms as described in <a href="#section-6.5">Section 6.5</a> or
through the receipt of negative responses. A PCC SHOULD NOT include
vendor information in a PCReq message to a PCE that it believes does
not support the information and that will not forward the request to
some other PCE that does support the information.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-7" href="#section-7">7</a>. Security Considerations</span>
The protocol extensions defined in this document do not substantially
change the nature of PCEP. Therefore, the security considerations
set out in [<a href="./rfc5440" title=""Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)"">RFC5440</a>] apply unchanged. Note that further security
considerations for the use of PCEP over TCP are presented in
[<a href="./rfc6952" title=""Analysis of BGP, LDP, PCEP, and MSDP Issues According to the Keying and Authentication for Routing Protocols (KARP) Design Guide"">RFC6952</a>].
Operators should note that an attack on PCEP may involve making PCEP
messages as large as possible in order to consume bandwidth and
processing power. The Vendor Information object and TLV may provide
a vector for this type of attack. It may be protected against by
using the authentication and integrity procedures described in
[<a href="./rfc5440" title=""Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)"">RFC5440</a>].
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-8" href="#section-8">8</a>. References</span>
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-8.1" href="#section-8.1">8.1</a>. Normative References</span>
[<a id="ref-RFC2119">RFC2119</a>] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", <a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp14">BCP 14</a>, <a href="./rfc2119">RFC 2119</a>, March 1997.
[<a id="ref-RFC5440">RFC5440</a>] Vasseur, JP., Ed., and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation
Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", <a href="./rfc5440">RFC 5440</a>,
March 2009.
[<a id="ref-RFC5511">RFC5511</a>] Farrel, A., "Routing Backus-Naur Form (RBNF): A Syntax
Used to Form Encoding Rules in Various Routing Protocol
Specifications", <a href="./rfc5511">RFC 5511</a>, April 2009.
<span class="grey">Zhang & Farrel Standards Track [Page 10]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-11" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc7150">RFC 7150</a> Vendor-Specific Constraints in PCE March 2014</span>
[<a id="ref-RFC6006">RFC6006</a>] Zhao, Q., Ed., King, D., Ed., Verhaeghe, F., Takeda, T.,
Ali, Z., and J. Meuric, "Extensions to the Path
Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) for
Point-to-Multipoint Traffic Engineering Label Switched
Paths", <a href="./rfc6006">RFC 6006</a>, September 2010.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-8.2" href="#section-8.2">8.2</a>. Informative References</span>
[<a id="ref-RFC2578">RFC2578</a>] McCloghrie, K., Ed., Perkins, D., Ed., and J.
Schoenwaelder, Ed., "Structure of Management Information
Version 2 (SMIv2)", STD 58, <a href="./rfc2578">RFC 2578</a>, April 1999.
[<a id="ref-RFC4655">RFC4655</a>] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J.-P., and J. Ash, "A Path
Computation Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", <a href="./rfc4655">RFC 4655</a>,
August 2006.
[<a id="ref-RFC4657">RFC4657</a>] Ash, J., Ed., and J. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation
Element (PCE) Communication Protocol Generic
Requirements", <a href="./rfc4657">RFC 4657</a>, September 2006.
[<a id="ref-RFC5088">RFC5088</a>] Le Roux, JL., Ed., Vasseur, JP., Ed., Ikejiri, Y., and R.
Zhang, "OSPF Protocol Extensions for Path Computation
Element (PCE) Discovery", <a href="./rfc5088">RFC 5088</a>, January 2008.
[<a id="ref-RFC5089">RFC5089</a>] Le Roux, JL., Ed., Vasseur, JP., Ed., Ikejiri, Y., and R.
Zhang, "IS-IS Protocol Extensions for Path Computation
Element (PCE) Discovery", <a href="./rfc5089">RFC 5089</a>, January 2008.
[<a id="ref-RFC5226">RFC5226</a>] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", <a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp26">BCP 26</a>, <a href="./rfc5226">RFC 5226</a>,
May 2008.
[<a id="ref-RFC5541">RFC5541</a>] Le Roux, JL., Vasseur, JP., and Y. Lee, "Encoding of
Objective Functions in the Path Computation Element
Communication Protocol (PCEP)", <a href="./rfc5541">RFC 5541</a>, June 2009.
[<a id="ref-RFC5706">RFC5706</a>] Harrington, D., "Guidelines for Considering Operations and
Management of New Protocols and Protocol Extensions", <a href="./rfc5706">RFC</a>
<a href="./rfc5706">5706</a>, November 2009.
[<a id="ref-RFC6123">RFC6123</a>] Farrel, A., "Inclusion of Manageability Sections in Path
Computation Element (PCE) Working Group Drafts", <a href="./rfc6123">RFC 6123</a>,
February 2011.
<span class="grey">Zhang & Farrel Standards Track [Page 11]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-12" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc7150">RFC 7150</a> Vendor-Specific Constraints in PCE March 2014</span>
[<a id="ref-RFC6952">RFC6952</a>] Jethanandani, M., Patel, K., and L. Zheng, "Analysis of
BGP, LDP, PCEP, and MSDP Issues According to the Keying
and Authentication for Routing Protocols (KARP) Design
Guide", <a href="./rfc6952">RFC 6952</a>, May 2013.
[<a id="ref-PCE-MIB">PCE-MIB</a>] Koushik, A., Stephan, E., Zhao, Q., King, D., and J.
Hardwick, "Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP)
Management Information Base", Work in Progress, February
2014.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-9" href="#section-9">9</a>. Acknowledgements</span>
Thanks to Meral Shirazipour, Ramon Casellas, Cyril Margaria, Dhruv
Dhody, Julien Meuric, and Robert Sparks for review and comments.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-10" href="#section-10">10</a>. Contributors</span>
Greg Bernstein
Grotto Networking
EMail: gregb@grotto-networking.com
Ina Minei
Juniper Networks
EMail: ina@juniper.net
Authors' Addresses
Adrian Farrel
Juniper Networks
EMail: adrian@olddog.co.uk
Fatai Zhang
Huawei Technologies
EMail: zhangfatai@huawei.com
Zhang & Farrel Standards Track [Page 12]
</pre>
|
