PCE working group D. Lopez Internet-Draft Telefonica I+D Intended status: Standards Track Q. Wu Expires: August 14, 2014 D. Dhody Huawei D. King Old Dog Consulting February 10, 2014 IGP extension for PCEP security capability support in the PCE discovery draft-wu-pce-discovery-pceps-support-00 Abstract When a Path Computation Element(PCE) is a Label Switching Router (LSR) participating in the Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP), or even a server participating in IGP, its presence and path computation capabilities can be advertised using IGP flooding. [RFC5088] and [RFC5089] define a method to advertise path computation capabilities using IGP flooding for OSPF and ISIS respectively. However [RFC5088] and [RFC5089] lacks a method to advertise PCEP security (e.g., Transport Layer Security(TLS)) support capability. This document proposes new capability flag bit for PCE-CAP-FLAGS sub- TLV that can be announced as attribute in the IGP advertisement (defined in [RFC5088] and [RFC5089]) to distribute PCEP security support information. 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 http://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 August 14, 2014. Copyright Notice Lopez, et al. Expires August 14, 2014 [Page 1] Internet-Draft IGP discovery for PCEP Security February 2014 Copyright (c) 2014 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 (http://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 2. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. IGP extension for PCEP security capability support . . . . . . 5 3.1. Use of PCEP transport capability support for PCE discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4. Backward Compatibility Consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5. Management Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Lopez, et al. Expires August 14, 2014 [Page 2] Internet-Draft IGP discovery for PCEP Security February 2014 1. Introduction As described in [RFC5440], PCEP communication privacy is one importance issue, as an attacker that intercepts a Path Computation Element (PCE) message could obtain sensitive information related to computed paths and resources. Among the possible solutions mentioned in these documents, Transport Layer Security (TLS) [RFC5246] provides support for peer authentication, and message encryption and integrity. In order for a Path Computation Client(PCC) to begin a connection with a PCE server using TLS, PCC SHOULD know whether PCE server supports TLS as a secure transport. [RFC5088] and [RFC5089] define a method to advertise path computation capabilities using IGP flooding for OSPF and ISIS respectively. However [RFC5088] and [RFC5089] lacks a method to advertise PCEP security (ex. TLS) support capability. This document proposes new capability flag bit for PCE-CAP-FLAGS sub- TLV that can be announced as attribute in the IGP advertisement (defined in [RFC5088] and [RFC5089]) to distribute pcep security support information. Lopez, et al. Expires August 14, 2014 [Page 3] Internet-Draft IGP discovery for PCEP Security February 2014 2. Conventions used in this document The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC2119 [RFC2119]. Lopez, et al. Expires August 14, 2014 [Page 4] Internet-Draft IGP discovery for PCEP Security February 2014 3. IGP extension for PCEP security capability support The PCE-CAP-FLAGS sub-TLV is defined in section 4.5 of [RFC5088] and [RFC5089] as an optional sub-TLV used to advertise PCE capabilities. In this section, we extend the PCE-CAP-FLAGS sub-TLV to include the capability and indications that are described for PCEP security (ex. TLS) support in the present document. In the PCE-CAP-FLAGS sub-TLV defined in [RFC5088] and [RFC5089], nine capability flags defined in [RFC4657] and two capability flags defined [RFC5557], [RFC6006] are included and follows the following format: The PCE-CAP-FLAGS sub-TLV has the following format: o TYPE: 5 o LENGTH: Multiple of 4 o VALUE: This contains an array of units of 32 bit flags with the most significant bit as 0. Each bit represents one PCE capability and the processing rule of these flag bits are defined in [RFC5088][ and RFC5089]. In this document, we define three new capability flag bits that indicate TCP MD5 support, TCP Authentication Option (TCP-AO) support, PCEP over TLS support respectively as follows: Bit Capability Description xx TCP MD5 support xx TCP AO Support xx PCEP over TLS support 3.1. Use of PCEP transport capability support for PCE discovery TCP MD5, TCP-AO, PCEP over TLS support flag bits are advertised using IGP flooding. If the PCE server supports only TCP MD5, IGP advertisement SHOULD include TCP MD5 support flag bit. If the PCE server supports both TCP MD5 and TCP-AO, IGP advertisement SHOULD only include TCP-AO support flag bit in the PCE-CAP-FLAGS sub-TLV. If the PCE server supports both TCP MD5 and PCEP over TLS, IGP advertisement SHOULD include both TCP MD5 support flag bit and PCEP over TLS support flag bit in the PCE-CAP-FLAGS sub-TLV. If the PCE server supports both TCP-AO and PCEP over TLS, IGP advertisement SHOULD include both TCP-AO support flag bit and PCEP over TLS flag bit in the PCE-CAP-FLAGS sub-TLV. If the PCE server only supports TLS over TCP , IGP advertisement MUST include PCEP over TLS support flag bit in the PCE-CAP-FLAGS sub-TLV. If the client is looking for connecting with PCE server with TCP-AO support, the client MUST check if TCP-AO support flag bit in the PCE- CAP-FLAGS sub-TLV is set. If not, the client SHOULD not consider this PCE. If the client is looking for connecting with PCE server Lopez, et al. Expires August 14, 2014 [Page 5] Internet-Draft IGP discovery for PCEP Security February 2014 using TLS, the client MUST check if PCEP over TLS support flag bit in the PCE-CAP-FLAGS sub-TLV is set. If not, the client SHOULD not consider this PCE. Lopez, et al. Expires August 14, 2014 [Page 6] Internet-Draft IGP discovery for PCEP Security February 2014 4. Backward Compatibility Consideration An LSR that does not support the new IGP PCE capability bits specified in this document silently ignores those bits. IGP extensions defined in this document do not introduce any new interoperability issues. Lopez, et al. Expires August 14, 2014 [Page 7] Internet-Draft IGP discovery for PCEP Security February 2014 5. Management Considerations A configuration option may be provided for advertising and withdrawing PCE security capability via IGP. Lopez, et al. Expires August 14, 2014 [Page 8] Internet-Draft IGP discovery for PCEP Security February 2014 6. Security Considerations This document raises no new security issues beyond those described in [RFC5088] and [RFC5089]. Lopez, et al. Expires August 14, 2014 [Page 9] Internet-Draft IGP discovery for PCEP Security February 2014 7. IANA Considerations IANA is requested to allocate a new bit in "PCE Security Capability Flags" registry for PCEP Security support capability. Bit Meaning Reference xx TCP MD5 support [This.I.D] xx TCP-AO Support [This.I.D] xx PCEP over TLS support [This.I.D] Lopez, et al. Expires August 14, 2014 [Page 10] Internet-Draft IGP discovery for PCEP Security February 2014 8. References 8.1. Normative References [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", March 1997. [RFC5088] Le Roux, JL., "OSPF Protocol Extensions for Path Computation Element (PCE) Discovery", RFC 5088, January 2008. [RFC5089] Le Roux, JL., "IS-IS Protocol Extensions for Path Computation Element (PCE) Discovery", RFC 5089, January 2008. 8.2. Informative References [RFC5246] Dierks, T., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5440, August 2008. [RFC5440] Le Roux, JL., "Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440, March 2009. Lopez, et al. Expires August 14, 2014 [Page 11] Internet-Draft IGP discovery for PCEP Security February 2014 Authors' Addresses Diego R. Lopez Telefonica I+D Email: diego@tid.es Qin Wu Huawei 101 Software Avenue, Yuhua District Nanjing, Jiangsu 210012 China Email: bill.wu@huawei.com Dhruv Dhody Huawei Leela Palace Bangalore, Karnataka 560008 INDIA Email: dhruv.ietf@gmail.com Daniel King Old Dog Consulting UK Email: daniel@olddog.co.uk Lopez, et al. Expires August 14, 2014 [Page 12]