idnits 2.17.00 (12 Aug 2021) /tmp/idnits26054/draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp-17.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (December 14, 2018) is 1254 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Outdated reference: draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis has been published as RFC 8570 Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 1 comment (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Networking Working Group L. Ginsberg, Ed. 3 Internet-Draft Cisco Systems, Inc. 4 Intended status: Standards Track S. Previdi 5 Expires: June 17, 2019 Q. Wu 6 Huawei 7 J. Tantsura 8 Apstra, Inc. 9 C. Filsfils 10 Cisco Systems, Inc. 11 December 14, 2018 13 BGP-LS Advertisement of IGP Traffic Engineering Performance Metric 14 Extensions 15 draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp-17 17 Abstract 19 This document defines new BGP-LS TLVs in order to carry the IGP 20 Traffic Engineering Extensions defined in the IS-IS and OSPF 21 protocols. 23 Status of This Memo 25 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 26 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 28 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 29 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 30 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 31 Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 33 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 34 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 35 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 36 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 38 This Internet-Draft will expire on June 17, 2019. 40 Copyright Notice 42 Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 43 document authors. All rights reserved. 45 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 46 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 47 (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 48 publication of this document. Please review these documents 49 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 50 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 51 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 52 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 53 described in the Simplified BSD License. 55 Table of Contents 57 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 58 2. Link Attribute TLVs for TE Metric Extensions . . . . . . . . 2 59 2.1. Unidirectional Link Delay TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 60 2.2. Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay TLV . . . . . . . . . . 3 61 2.3. Unidirectional Delay Variation TLV . . . . . . . . . . . 4 62 2.4. Unidirectional Link Loss TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 63 2.5. Unidirectional Residual Bandwidth TLV . . . . . . . . . . 5 64 2.6. Unidirectional Available Bandwidth TLV . . . . . . . . . 5 65 2.7. Unidirectional Utilized Bandwidth TLV . . . . . . . . . . 6 66 2.8. Mappings to IGP Source sub-TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 67 3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 68 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 69 5. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 70 6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 71 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 72 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 73 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 74 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 76 1. Introduction 78 BGP-LS ([RFC7752]) defines NLRI and attributes in order to carry 79 link-state information. New BGP-LS Link-Attribute TLVs are required 80 in order to carry the Traffic Engineering Metric Extensions defined 81 in [I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis] and [RFC7471]. 83 2. Link Attribute TLVs for TE Metric Extensions 85 The following new Link Attribute TLVs are defined: 87 TLV code-point Value 88 -------------------------------------------------------- 89 1114 Unidirectional Link Delay 91 1115 Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay 93 1116 Unidirectional Delay Variation 95 1117 Unidirectional Link Loss 97 1118 Unidirectional Residual Bandwidth 99 1119 Unidirectional Available Bandwidth 101 1120 Unidirectional Bandwidth Utilization 103 TLV formats are described in detail in the following sub-sections. 104 TLV formats follow the rules defined in [RFC7752]. 106 2.1. Unidirectional Link Delay TLV 108 This TLV advertises the average link delay between two directly 109 connected IGP link-state neighbors. The semantics of the value field 110 in the TLV are described in [I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis] and 111 [RFC7471]. 113 0 1 2 3 114 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 1 115 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 116 | Type | Length | 117 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 118 |A| RESERVED | Delay | 119 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 121 where: 123 Figure 1 125 Type: 1114 127 Length: 4. 129 2.2. Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay TLV 131 This sub-TLV advertises the minimum and maximum delay values between 132 two directly connected IGP link-state neighbors. The semantics of 133 the value field in the TLV are described in 134 [I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis] and [RFC7471]. 136 0 1 2 3 137 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 1 138 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 139 | Type | Length | 140 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 141 |A| RESERVED | Min Delay | 142 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 143 | RESERVED | Max Delay | 144 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 146 where: 148 Figure 2 150 Type: 1115 152 Length: 8. 154 2.3. Unidirectional Delay Variation TLV 156 This sub-TLV advertises the average link delay variation between two 157 directly connected IGP link-state neighbors. The semantics of the 158 value field in the TLV are described in 159 [I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis] and [RFC7471]. 161 0 1 2 3 162 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 1 163 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 164 | Type | Length | 165 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 166 | RESERVED | Delay Variation | 167 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 169 where: 171 Figure 3 173 Type: 1116 175 Length: 4. 177 2.4. Unidirectional Link Loss TLV 179 This sub-TLV advertises the loss (as a packet percentage) between two 180 directly connected IGP link-state neighbors. The semantics of the 181 value field in the TLV are described in 182 [I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis] and [RFC7471]. 184 0 1 2 3 185 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 1 186 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 187 | Type | Length | 188 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 189 |A| RESERVED | Link Loss | 190 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 192 where: 194 Type:1117 196 Length: 4. 198 2.5. Unidirectional Residual Bandwidth TLV 200 This sub-TLV advertises the residual bandwidth between two directly 201 connected IGP link-state neighbors. The semantics of the value field 202 in the TLV are described in [I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis] and 203 [RFC7471]. 205 0 1 2 3 206 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 1 207 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 208 | Type | Length | 209 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 210 | Residual Bandwidth | 211 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 213 where: 215 Type: 1118 217 Length: 4. 219 2.6. Unidirectional Available Bandwidth TLV 221 This sub-TLV advertises the available bandwidth between two directly 222 connected IGP link-state neighbors. The semantics of the value field 223 in the TLV are described in [I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis] and 224 [RFC7471]. 226 0 1 2 3 227 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 1 228 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 229 | Type | Length | 230 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 231 | Available Bandwidth | 232 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 234 where: 236 Figure 4 238 Type: 1119 240 Length: 4. 242 2.7. Unidirectional Utilized Bandwidth TLV 244 This sub-TLV advertises the bandwidth utilization between two 245 directly connected IGP link-state neighbors. The semantics of the 246 value field in the TLV are described in 247 [I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis] and [RFC7471]. 249 0 1 2 3 250 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 1 251 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 252 | Type | Length | 253 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 254 | Utilized Bandwidth | 255 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 257 where: 259 Figure 5 261 Type: 1120 263 Length: 4. 265 2.8. Mappings to IGP Source sub-TLVs 267 This section documents the mappings between the Link Attribute TLVs 268 defined in this document and the corresponding advertisements sourced 269 by the IGPs. 271 For OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 the advertisements are defined in [RFC7471] . 272 For IS-IS the advertisements are defined in 273 [I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis] . 275 +---------------------------------------+----------+----------------+ 276 | Attribute Name | IS-IS | OSPFv2/OSPFv3 | 277 | | sub-TLV | sub-TLV | 278 +---------------------------------------+----------+----------------+ 279 | Unidirectional Link Delay | 33 | 27 | 280 +---------------------------------------+----------+----------------+ 281 | Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay | 34 | 28 | 282 +---------------------------------------+----------+----------------+ 283 | Unidirectional Delay Variation | 35 | 29 | 284 +---------------------------------------+----------+----------------+ 285 | Unidirectional Link Loss | 36 | 30 | 286 +---------------------------------------+----------+----------------+ 287 | Unidirectional Residual Bandwidth | 37 | 31 | 288 +---------------------------------------+----------+----------------+ 289 | Unidirectional Available Bandwidth | 38 | 32 | 290 +---------------------------------------+----------+----------------+ 291 | Unidirectional Bandwidth Utilization | 39 | 33 | 292 +---------------------------------------+----------+----------------+ 294 3. Security Considerations 296 Procedures and protocol extensions defined in this document do not 297 affect the BGP security model. See the 'Security Considerations' 298 section of [RFC4271] for a discussion of BGP security. Also refer to 299 [RFC4272] and [RFC6952] for analysis of security issues for BGP. 300 Security considerations for acquiring and distributing BGP-LS 301 information are discussed in [RFC7752]. 303 The TLVs introduced in this document are used to propagate IGP 304 defined information ([I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis] and [RFC7471].) 305 These TLVs represent the state and resource availability of the IGP 306 link. The IGP instances originating these TLVs are assumed to 307 support all the required security and authentication mechanisms (as 308 described in [I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis] and [RFC7471]) in order 309 to prevent any security issue when propagating the TLVs into BGP-LS. 310 The advertisement of the link attribute information defined in this 311 document presents no additional risk beyond that associated with the 312 existing set of link attribute information already supported in 313 [RFC7752]. 315 4. IANA Considerations 317 IANA has made temporary assignments in the registry "BGP-LS Node 318 Descriptor, Link Descriptor, Prefix Descriptor, and Attribute TLVs" 319 for the new Link Attribute TLVs defined in the table below: 321 TLV code-point Value 322 -------------------------------------------------------- 323 1114 Unidirectional Link Delay 325 1115 Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay 327 1116 Unidirectional Delay Variation 329 1117 Unidirectional Link Loss 331 1118 Unidirectional Residual Bandwidth 333 1119 Unidirectional Available Bandwidth 335 1120 Unidirectional Bandwidth Utilization 337 5. Contributors 339 The following people have substantially contributed to this document 340 and should be considered co-authors: 342 Saikat Ray 343 Individual 344 Email: raysaikat@gmail.com 346 Hannes Gredler 347 RtBrick Inc. 348 Email: hannes@rtbrick.com 350 6. Acknowledgements 352 The authors wish to acknowledge comments from Ketan Talaulikar. 354 7. References 356 7.1. Normative References 358 [I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis] 359 Ginsberg, L., Previdi, S., Giacalone, S., Ward, D., Drake, 360 J., and Q. Wu, "IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric 361 Extensions", draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis-03 (work in 362 progress), November 2018. 364 [RFC7471] Giacalone, S., Ward, D., Drake, J., Atlas, A., and S. 365 Previdi, "OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric 366 Extensions", RFC 7471, DOI 10.17487/RFC7471, March 2015, 367 . 369 [RFC7752] Gredler, H., Ed., Medved, J., Previdi, S., Farrel, A., and 370 S. Ray, "North-Bound Distribution of Link-State and 371 Traffic Engineering (TE) Information Using BGP", RFC 7752, 372 DOI 10.17487/RFC7752, March 2016, 373 . 375 7.2. Informative References 377 [RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A 378 Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, 379 DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006, 380 . 382 [RFC4272] Murphy, S., "BGP Security Vulnerabilities Analysis", 383 RFC 4272, DOI 10.17487/RFC4272, January 2006, 384 . 386 [RFC6952] Jethanandani, M., Patel, K., and L. Zheng, "Analysis of 387 BGP, LDP, PCEP, and MSDP Issues According to the Keying 388 and Authentication for Routing Protocols (KARP) Design 389 Guide", RFC 6952, DOI 10.17487/RFC6952, May 2013, 390 . 392 Authors' Addresses 394 Les Ginsberg (editor) 395 Cisco Systems, Inc. 396 US 398 Email: ginsberg@cisco.com 400 Stefano Previdi 401 Huawei 402 IT 404 Email: stefano@previdi.net 406 Qin Wu 407 Huawei 408 101 Software Avenue, Yuhua District 409 Nanjing, Jiangsu 210012 410 China 412 Email: bill.wu@huawei.com 413 Jeff Tantsura 414 Apstra, Inc. 415 US 417 Email: jefftant.ietf@gmail.com 419 Clarence Filsfils 420 Cisco Systems, Inc. 421 Brussels 422 BE 424 Email: cfilsfil@cisco.com