| Internet-Draft | PCEP-PMTU | January 2024 |
| Peng, et al. | Expires 31 July 2024 | [Page] |
The Path Computation Element (PCE) provides path computation functions in support of traffic engineering in Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) networks.¶
The Source Packet Routing in Networking (SPRING) architecture describes how Segment Routing (SR) can be used to steer packets through an IPv6 or MPLS network using the source routing paradigm. A Segment Routed Path can be derived from a variety of mechanisms, including an IGP Shortest Path Tree (SPT), explicit configuration, or a Path Computation Element (PCE).¶
Since the SR does not require signaling, the path maximum transmission unit (MTU) information for SR path is not available at the headend. This document specify the extension to PCE Communication Protocol (PCEP) to carry path MTU as a new metric type in the PCEP messages for SR and other scenarios.¶
This document also updates RFC 5440 to allow metric bounds to be minimum as needed in the case of path MTU.¶
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 31 July 2024.¶
Copyright (c) 2024 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.¶
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.¶
[RFC5440] describes the Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP). PCEP enables the communication between a Path Computation Client (PCC) and a PCE, or between PCE and PCE, for the purpose of computation of Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) as well as Generalzied MPLS (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering Label Switched Path (TE LSP) characteristics.¶
[RFC8231] specifies a set of extensions to PCEP to enable stateful control of TE LSPs within and across PCEP sessions in compliance with [RFC4657]. It includes mechanisms to effect LSP State Synchronization between PCCs and PCEs, delegation of control over LSPs to PCEs, and PCE control of timing and sequence of path computations within and across PCEP sessions. The model of operation where LSPs are initiated from the PCE is described in [RFC8281].¶
As per [RFC8402], with Segment Routing (SR), a node steers a packet through an ordered list of instructions, called segments. A segment can represent any instruction, topological or service-based. A segment can have a semantic local to an SR node or global within an SR domain. SR allows to enforce a flow through any path and service chain while maintaining per-flow state only at the ingress node of the SR domain. Segments can be derived from different components: IGP, BGP, Services, Contexts, Locators, etc. The SR architecture can be applied to the MPLS forwarding plane without any change, in which case an SR path corresponds to an MPLS Label Switching Path (LSP). The SR is applied to IPV6 forwarding plane using SRH. A SR path can be derived from an IGP Shortest Path Tree (SPT), but SR-TE paths may not follow IGP SPT. Such paths may be chosen by a suitable network planning tool, or a PCE and provisioned on the ingress node.¶
As per [RFC8664], it is possible to use a stateful PCE for computing one or more SR-TE paths taking into account various constraints and objective functions. Once a path is chosen, the stateful PCE can initiate an SR-TE path on a PCC using PCEP extensions specified in [RFC8281] using the SR specific PCEP extensions specified in [RFC8664]. [RFC8664] specifies PCEP extensions for supporting a SR-TE LSP for MPLS data plane. [I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing-ipv6] extend PCEP to support SR for IPv6 data plane.¶
[I-D.peng-spring-pmtu-sr-policy] specify the link maximum transmission unit (MTU) and SR Path MTU (SR-PMTU) in the context of SR paths and policies. It also states the motivation, link MTU collection, SR-PMTU Computation, SR-PMTU Enforcement, and handling behaviors on the headend.¶
Since the SR does not require signaling, the path MTU information for SR path is not available. This document specify the extension to PCEP to carry path MTU in the PCEP messages. It is assumed that the PCE is aware of the link MTU as part of the Traffic Engineering Database (TED) population. This could be done via IGP, BGP-LS [I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ls-link-mtu] or some other means. Thus the PCE can find the path MTU at the time of path computation and include this information as part of the PCEP messages.¶
Though the key use case for path MTU is primarily SR, the PCEP extension (as specified in this document) creates a new metric type for path MTU, making this a generic extension that can be used for any path setup type.¶
Note that in SR, the term Maximum SID Depth (MSD) [RFC8491] refers to the maximum number of SIDs that an ingress is capable of imposing on a packet. The PMTU on the other hand determines if the IP fragmentation could be avoided.¶
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.¶
Link MTU: As per [RFC4821], the Maximum Transmission Unit, i.e., maximum IP packet size in bytes, that can be conveyed in one piece over a link. This includes the IP header, but excludes link layer headers and other framing that is not part of IP or the IP payload. In case of MPLS, it also includes the label stack and in case of IPv6, it includes IPv6 extension headers (including SRH).¶
Path MTU, or PMTU: The minimum link MTU of all the links in a path between a source node and a destination node. In the scope of SR, this is also called SR-PMTU for the SR paths and policies. Note that the link MTU takes the SR overhead (label stack or SRH) into consideration.¶
The METRIC object is defined in Section 7.8 of [RFC5440], comprising metric-value and metric-type (T field), and a flags field, comprising a number of bit flags (B "Bound" bit and C "Computed Metric" bit). This document defines a new type for the METRIC object for Path MTU.¶
T = TBD: Path MTU.¶
A network comprises of a set of N links {Li, (i=1...N)}.¶
A path P of a LSP is a list of K links {Lpi,(i=1...K)}.¶
A Link MTU of link L is denoted M(L).¶
A Path MTU metric for the path P = Min {M(Lpi), (i=1...K)}.¶
The Path MTU metric type of the METRIC object in PCEP represents the minimum of the Link MTU of all links along the path.¶
When PCE computes the path, it can also find the Path MTU (based on the above criteria) and include this information in the METRIC object with the above metric type in the PCEP message when replying to the PCC. In a Path Computation Reply (PCRep) message, the PCE MAY insert the METRIC object with an Explicit Route Object (ERO) so as to provide the METRIC (path MTU) for the computed path. The PCE MAY also insert the METRIC object with a NO-PATH object to indicate that the metric constraint could not be satisfied.¶
Further, a PCC MAY use the Path MTU metric in a Path Computation Request (PCReq) message to request a path meeting the MTU requirement of the path. In this case, the B bit MUST be set to suggest a bound (a maximum) for the Path MTU metric that must not be exceeded for the PCC to consider the computed path as acceptable. The Path MTU metric must be less than or equal to the value specified in the metric-value field.¶
A PCC can also use this metric to ask PCE to optimize the path MTU during path computation. In this case, the B bit MUST be cleared.¶
The error handling and processing of the METRIC object is as specified in [RFC5440].¶
For the handling of B bit in METRIC Object, [RFC5440] states: "When set in a PCReq message, the metric-value indicates a bound (a maximum) for the path metric that must not be exceeded for the PCC to consider the computed path as acceptable. The path metric must be less than or equal to the value specified in the metric-value field."¶
The new metric type path MTU defined in this document is different. The bound for the path MTU indicates a minimum value instead of maximum. That is when the metric type is set to TBD for path MTU, the metric-value indicates a bound (a minimum path MTU) for the path metric that must not be subceeded for the PCC to consider the computed path as acceptable. The path metric for path MTU must be greater than or equal to the value specified in the metric-value field.¶
Further, a PCC MAY request that PCE optimizes an individual path computation request to maximize the path MTU of the computed path by clearing the B bit in the METRIC object with metric-type=TBD for path MTU.¶
[RFC8231] specifies a set of extensions to PCEP to enable stateful control of MPLS-TE LSPs via PCEP and the maintaining of these LSPs at the stateful PCE. It further distinguishes between an active and a passive stateful PCE. A passive stateful PCE uses LSP state information learned from PCCs to optimize path computations but does not actively update LSP state. In contrast, an active stateful PCE utilizes the LSP delegation mechanism to update LSP parameters in those PCCs that delegated control over their LSPs to the PCE. [RFC8281] describes the setup, maintenance, and teardown of PCE-initiated LSPs under the stateful PCE model. The document defines the PCInitiate message that is used by a PCE to request a PCC to set up a new LSP.¶
The new metric type defined in this document can also be used with the stateful PCE extensions. The format of PCEP messages described in [RFC8231] and [RFC8281] uses <intended-attribute-list> and <attribute-list>, respectively, (where the <intended-attribute-list> is the attribute-list defined in Section 6.5 of [RFC5440]).¶
A PCE MAY include the path MTU metric in PCInitiate or PCUpd message to inform the PCC of the path MTU calculated for the path. A PCC MAY include the path MTU metric as a bound constraint or to indicate optimization criteria (similar to PCReq).¶
A Segment Routed path (SR path) can be derived from an IGP Shortest Path Tree (SPT). Segment Routed Traffic Engineering paths (SR-TE paths) may not follow IGP SPT. Such paths may be chosen by a suitable network planning tool and provisioned on the source node of the SR-TE path.¶
It is possible to use a PCE for computing one or more SR-TE paths taking into account various constraints and objective functions. Once a path is chosen, the PCE can inform an SR-TE path on a PCC using PCEP extensions specified in [RFC8664]. Further, [I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing-ipv6] adds the support for IPv6 data plane in SR.¶
The new metric type for path MTU is applicable for the SR-TE path and require no additional extensions.¶
Refer [I-D.peng-spring-pmtu-sr-policy] for SR-PMTU considerations.¶
[I-D.peng-spring-pmtu-sr-policy] specify the handling of SR-PMTU at the SR Policy, Candidate paths, and at each segment list level. In PCEP, support for multiple segment list is added in [I-D.ietf-pce-multipath]. The METRIC object is currently encoded at candidate path level. A future update of the document could investigate and include mechanism to support SR-PMTU at each segment list level.¶
The path MTU metric can be used for both primary and protection path.¶
As per [I-D.peng-spring-pmtu-sr-policy], it is possible for the headend implementation to take an FRR overhead into consideration when determining if fragmentation would be needed for the SR Path with TI-LFA enabled where the overhead is allowed to be configured by an operator.¶
This document defines a new METRIC type that do not add any new security concerns beyond those discussed in [RFC5440] in itself. Some deployments may find the path MTU information to be extra sensitive and could be used to influence path computation and setup with adverse effect. Additionally, snooping of PCEP messages with such data or using PCEP messages for network reconnaissance may give an attacker sensitive information about the operations of the network. Thus, such deployment should employ suitable PCEP security mechanisms like TCP Authentication Option (TCP-AO) [RFC5925] or Transport Layer Security (TLS) [RFC8253]. The procedure based on TLS is considered a security enhancement and thus is much better suited for the sensitive information.¶
This document makes following requests to IANA for action.¶
IANA maintains the "Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry. Within this registry, IANA maintains a subregistry for "METRIC Object T Field". IANA is requested to make the following allocation:¶
Value Description Reference ---------------------- ---------------------------- -------------- TBD Path MTU This document¶
We would like to thank Dhruv Dhody for his contributions for this document.¶