idnits 2.17.00 (12 Aug 2021) /tmp/idnits45102/draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp-18.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 20, 2018) is 1241 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(See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Outdated reference: draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis has been published as RFC 8570 Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 1 comment (--).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 23, 2019 Q. Wu 6 Huawei 7 J. Tantsura 8 Apstra, Inc. 9 C. Filsfils 10 Cisco Systems, Inc. 11 December 20, 2018 13 BGP-LS Advertisement of IGP Traffic Engineering Performance Metric 14 Extensions 15 draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp-18 17 Abstract 19 This document defines new BGP-LS TLVs in order to carry the IGP 20 Traffic Engineering Metric 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 23, 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 . . . . . . . . . . 4 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 . . . . . . . . . 6 65 2.7. Unidirectional Utilized Bandwidth TLV . . . . . . . . . . 6 66 2.8. Mappings to IGP Source sub-TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 67 3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 68 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 69 5. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 70 6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 71 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 72 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 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 Utilized Bandwidth 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 Figure 1 123 where: 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 Figure 2 148 where: 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 Figure 3 171 where: 173 Type: 1116 174 Length: 4. 176 2.4. Unidirectional Link Loss TLV 178 This sub-TLV advertises the loss (as a packet percentage) between two 179 directly connected IGP link-state neighbors. The semantics of the 180 value field in the TLV are described in 181 [I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis] and [RFC7471]. 183 0 1 2 3 184 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 1 185 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 186 | Type | Length | 187 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 188 |A| RESERVED | Link Loss | 189 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 191 Figure 4 193 where: 195 Type:1117 197 Length: 4. 199 2.5. Unidirectional Residual Bandwidth TLV 201 This sub-TLV advertises the residual bandwidth between two directly 202 connected IGP link-state neighbors. The semantics of the value field 203 in the TLV are described in [I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis] and 204 [RFC7471]. 206 0 1 2 3 207 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 1 208 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 209 | Type | Length | 210 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 211 | Residual Bandwidth | 212 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 214 Figure 5 216 where: 218 Type: 1118 219 Length: 4. 221 2.6. Unidirectional Available Bandwidth TLV 223 This sub-TLV advertises the available bandwidth between two directly 224 connected IGP link-state neighbors. The semantics of the value field 225 in the TLV are described in [I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis] and 226 [RFC7471]. 228 0 1 2 3 229 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 1 230 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 231 | Type | Length | 232 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 233 | Available Bandwidth | 234 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 236 Figure 6 238 where: 240 Type: 1119 242 Length: 4. 244 2.7. Unidirectional Utilized Bandwidth TLV 246 This sub-TLV advertises the bandwidth utilization between two 247 directly connected IGP link-state neighbors. The semantics of the 248 value field in the TLV are described in 249 [I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis] and [RFC7471]. 251 0 1 2 3 252 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 1 253 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 254 | Type | Length | 255 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 256 | Utilized Bandwidth | 257 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 259 Figure 7 261 where: 263 Type: 1120 264 Length: 4. 266 2.8. Mappings to IGP Source sub-TLVs 268 This section documents the mappings between the Link Attribute TLVs 269 defined in this document and the corresponding advertisements sourced 270 by the IGPs. 272 For OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 the advertisements are defined in [RFC7471] . 273 For IS-IS the advertisements are defined in 274 [I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis] . 276 +---------------------------------------+----------+----------------+ 277 | Attribute Name | IS-IS | OSPFv2/OSPFv3 | 278 | | sub-TLV | sub-TLV | 279 +---------------------------------------+----------+----------------+ 280 | Unidirectional Link Delay | 33 | 27 | 281 +---------------------------------------+----------+----------------+ 282 | Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay | 34 | 28 | 283 +---------------------------------------+----------+----------------+ 284 | Unidirectional Delay Variation | 35 | 29 | 285 +---------------------------------------+----------+----------------+ 286 | Unidirectional Link Loss | 36 | 30 | 287 +---------------------------------------+----------+----------------+ 288 | Unidirectional Residual Bandwidth | 37 | 31 | 289 +---------------------------------------+----------+----------------+ 290 | Unidirectional Available Bandwidth | 38 | 32 | 291 +---------------------------------------+----------+----------------+ 292 | Unidirectional Utilized Bandwidth | 39 | 33 | 293 +---------------------------------------+----------+----------------+ 295 Figure 8 297 3. Security Considerations 299 Procedures and protocol extensions defined in this document do not 300 affect the BGP security model. See the 'Security Considerations' 301 section of [RFC4271] for a discussion of BGP security. Also refer to 302 [RFC4272] and [RFC6952] for analysis of security issues for BGP. 303 Security considerations for acquiring and distributing BGP-LS 304 information are discussed in [RFC7752]. 306 The TLVs introduced in this document are used to propagate IGP 307 defined information ([I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis] and [RFC7471].) 308 These TLVs represent the state and resource availability of the IGP 309 link. The IGP instances originating these TLVs are assumed to 310 support all the required security and authentication mechanisms (as 311 described in [I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis] and [RFC7471]) in order 312 to prevent any security issue when propagating the TLVs into BGP-LS. 313 The advertisement of the link attribute information defined in this 314 document presents no additional risk beyond that associated with the 315 existing set of link attribute information already supported in 316 [RFC7752]. 318 4. IANA Considerations 320 IANA has made temporary assignments in the registry "BGP-LS Node 321 Descriptor, Link Descriptor, Prefix Descriptor, and Attribute TLVs" 322 for the new Link Attribute TLVs defined in the table below: 324 TLV code-point Value 325 -------------------------------------------------------- 326 1114 Unidirectional Link Delay 328 1115 Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay 330 1116 Unidirectional Delay Variation 332 1117 Unidirectional Link Loss 334 1118 Unidirectional Residual Bandwidth 336 1119 Unidirectional Available Bandwidth 338 1120 Unidirectional Utilized Bandwidth 340 5. Contributors 342 The following people have substantially contributed to this document 343 and should be considered co-authors: 345 Saikat Ray 346 Individual 347 Email: raysaikat@gmail.com 349 Hannes Gredler 350 RtBrick Inc. 351 Email: hannes@rtbrick.com 353 6. Acknowledgements 355 The authors wish to acknowledge comments from Ketan Talaulikar. 357 7. References 359 7.1. Normative References 361 [I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis] 362 Ginsberg, L., Previdi, S., Giacalone, S., Ward, D., Drake, 363 J., and Q. Wu, "IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric 364 Extensions", draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis-04 (work in 365 progress), December 2018. 367 [RFC7471] Giacalone, S., Ward, D., Drake, J., Atlas, A., and S. 368 Previdi, "OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric 369 Extensions", RFC 7471, DOI 10.17487/RFC7471, March 2015, 370 . 372 [RFC7752] Gredler, H., Ed., Medved, J., Previdi, S., Farrel, A., and 373 S. Ray, "North-Bound Distribution of Link-State and 374 Traffic Engineering (TE) Information Using BGP", RFC 7752, 375 DOI 10.17487/RFC7752, March 2016, 376 . 378 7.2. Informative References 380 [RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A 381 Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, 382 DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006, 383 . 385 [RFC4272] Murphy, S., "BGP Security Vulnerabilities Analysis", 386 RFC 4272, DOI 10.17487/RFC4272, January 2006, 387 . 389 [RFC6952] Jethanandani, M., Patel, K., and L. Zheng, "Analysis of 390 BGP, LDP, PCEP, and MSDP Issues According to the Keying 391 and Authentication for Routing Protocols (KARP) Design 392 Guide", RFC 6952, DOI 10.17487/RFC6952, May 2013, 393 . 395 Authors' Addresses 396 Les Ginsberg (editor) 397 Cisco Systems, Inc. 398 US 400 Email: ginsberg@cisco.com 402 Stefano Previdi 403 Huawei 404 IT 406 Email: stefano@previdi.net 408 Qin Wu 409 Huawei 410 101 Software Avenue, Yuhua District 411 Nanjing, Jiangsu 210012 412 China 414 Email: bill.wu@huawei.com 416 Jeff Tantsura 417 Apstra, Inc. 418 US 420 Email: jefftant.ietf@gmail.com 422 Clarence Filsfils 423 Cisco Systems, Inc. 424 Brussels 425 BE 427 Email: cfilsfil@cisco.com