[Isis-wg] draft-hegde-isis-advertising-te-protocols-02 and draft-ginsberg-isis-te-app-00
Chris Bowers <cbowers@juniper.net> Fri, 12 May 2017 17:51 UTC
Return-Path: <cbowers@juniper.net>
X-Original-To: isis-wg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: isis-wg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37C6E129AB5 for <isis-wg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 May 2017 10:51:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=juniper.net
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oFlX1H59Zus4 for <isis-wg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 May 2017 10:51:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from NAM01-SN1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-sn1nam01on0122.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.32.122]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A72D012941D for <isis-wg@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 May 2017 10:47:18 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=juniper.net; s=selector1; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=Lbwt/z5Upmbgwm3bVODyqpg7l/1irCxfMaem+oikH2Y=; b=alyxs00HyqfBa4cqBDk/R2nNN0G5ntNAZGSZBDWPRkg901MQZy2WY+vL+fPvbC4iob6ZW+7oWdaq2oGtzAga4DHRPRfIKrSAryLnWQqBbDhjJ5NMd03dThowsek8cl2GhHjcqxSNYJegXJUKm3iOuYuJBxCMpT3S2abnQ4MM++g=
Received: from MWHPR05MB2829.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.168.245.11) by MWHPR05MB2829.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.168.245.11) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1084.7; Fri, 12 May 2017 17:47:17 +0000
Received: from MWHPR05MB2829.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.168.245.11]) by MWHPR05MB2829.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.168.245.11]) with mapi id 15.01.1084.015; Fri, 12 May 2017 17:47:17 +0000
From: Chris Bowers <cbowers@juniper.net>
To: "isis-wg@ietf.org" <isis-wg@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: draft-hegde-isis-advertising-te-protocols-02 and draft-ginsberg-isis-te-app-00
Thread-Index: AdLLRtm+ZNz9pbnGTU+TnDWIYIoHgg==
Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 17:47:17 +0000
Message-ID: <MWHPR05MB28293E73A559496455BA7BBAA9E20@MWHPR05MB2829.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: ietf.org; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;ietf.org; dmarc=none action=none header.from=juniper.net;
x-originating-ip: [66.129.239.15]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; MWHPR05MB2829; 7:/AJLbhK3PulHMN67W//3PvArndcNRvceKbeAyXrS4S2dX5xySbOja/fScZHw0tqfi96MsLA6YJdmW8A9DjBk92N5FmAvpO89XjamZEK6TFQZBNsD742IXXbPXVQBR/wUcSfD4O9ywNYDH9oqtVDDr6JOnUm0V7ueWpzy3g35x+N0qmP0ckqZcH0wtILhLeMhVk7YXObGhK3xVcA8hp8N/u8NspPQUw0oLkVoRi/6IV87ZS5jqscCoDN05dEwYyMATcNfqXAUM0x2Go286p8n3uyN2C0imBi5eNXl808ddYP4F19WzfSz1WOgZggfa2TB9CtJ4A7Sa/OLTK6NkYWEHQ==
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 17cedaca-2bdb-4fff-7419-08d4995eee76
x-ms-office365-filtering-ht: Tenant
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(22001)(2017030254075)(48565401081)(201703131423075)(201703031133081)(201702281549075); SRVR:MWHPR05MB2829;
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <MWHPR05MB2829FBF7A4169FE2473B1C32A9E20@MWHPR05MB2829.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(278428928389397)(21748063052155);
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(100000700036)(100105000095)(100000701036)(100105300095)(100000702036)(100105100095)(6040450)(601004)(2401047)(8121501046)(5005006)(10201501046)(93006095)(93001095)(3002001)(100000703036)(100105400095)(6055026)(6041248)(20161123558100)(20161123555025)(20161123564025)(20161123562025)(201703131423075)(201702281528075)(201703061421075)(201703061406153)(20161123560025)(6072148)(100000704036)(100105200095)(100000705036)(100105500095); SRVR:MWHPR05MB2829; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(100000800036)(100110000095)(100000801036)(100110300095)(100000802036)(100110100095)(100000803036)(100110400095)(100000804036)(100110200095)(100000805036)(100110500095); SRVR:MWHPR05MB2829;
x-forefront-prvs: 0305463112
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(6009001)(39400400002)(39410400002)(39840400002)(39860400002)(39450400003)(39850400002)(37854004)(51414003)(6436002)(110136004)(38730400002)(2900100001)(122556002)(5640700003)(66066001)(55016002)(6306002)(86362001)(189998001)(6916009)(478600001)(3660700001)(53936002)(966004)(5660300001)(77096006)(99286003)(2906002)(7736002)(2501003)(102836003)(3846002)(230783001)(7696004)(81166006)(33656002)(8676002)(6116002)(2351001)(9686003)(50986999)(6506006)(305945005)(54356999)(8936002)(3280700002)(74316002)(25786009); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:MWHPR05MB2829; H:MWHPR05MB2829.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; MLV:sfv; LANG:en;
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_MWHPR05MB28293E73A559496455BA7BBAA9E20MWHPR05MB2829namp_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 12 May 2017 17:47:17.1337 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: bea78b3c-4cdb-4130-854a-1d193232e5f4
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: MWHPR05MB2829
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/isis-wg/bPsbSK2lNeFvdhCjv52EzAVD7Ps>
Subject: [Isis-wg] draft-hegde-isis-advertising-te-protocols-02 and draft-ginsberg-isis-te-app-00
X-BeenThere: isis-wg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF IS-IS working group <isis-wg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/isis-wg>, <mailto:isis-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/isis-wg/>
List-Post: <mailto:isis-wg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:isis-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg>, <mailto:isis-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 17:51:27 -0000
ISIS-WG, As I said at the microphone at the WG meeting in Chicago, I think there may be some common ground that can address the general goals of both draft-hegde-isis-advertising-te-protocols-02 and draft-ginsberg-isis-te-app-00. The text below describes proposed encodings that I think reflect potential common ground. The main idea is to decouple the advertisement of what protocols are enabled on a link and the advertisement of different sets of attributes on a link, and then allow applications to choose how to use that information as they see fit. This takes into account input from networks operators regarding the desire for a flexible mapping between attribute sets and the applications that use them. I look forward to feedback from the WG on these proposed encodings. The text below borrows liberally from the existing text in draft-hegde-isis-advertising-te-protocols-02 and draft-ginsberg-isis-te-app-00 with some important differences. Chris ====== Attribute Set Identifier The new Attribute Set Identifier is a 32-bit value that identifies a set of attributes. All of the attributes advertised with a given value of the Attribute Set Identifier are considered to be part of the attribute set. This allows different applications to use different attribute sets, if desired. The Attribute Set Identifier with a value of zero is special. Existing encodings for advertising attributes that do not explicitly support the inclusion of the Attribute Set Identifier are now understood to implicitly advertise attributes with the Attribute Set Identifier set to zero. In this framework, existing implementations using the existing encodings already support the advertisement of attributes with the Attribute Set Identifier = 0. In order to ensure a consistent view of the attribute set scoped attributes, for encodings that explicitly support the Attribute Set Identifier, advertising an attribute with Attribute Set Identifier set to zero is not allowed. >From a standardization perspective, there is not intended to be any fixed mapping between a given Attribute Set Identifier and a given application. A network operator wishing to advertise different attribute sets could configure the network equipment to advertise attributes with different values of the Attribute Set Identifier based on their objectives. The different applications (be they controller-based applications or distributed applications) would make use of the different attribute sets based on convention within that network. As an example, a network operator might choose to advertise four different attribute sets, in support of five different applications with the following mapping. Application Attribute Set Identifier =========================== ======================== Distributed RSVP-based 0 (implicit) auto-bandwidth Centralized SR-based TE 0 (implicit) Distributed SR-based FRR 100 Centralized RSVP-based 200 diverse low-latency paths Potential new application 300 that uses both SR and RSVP to build LSPs Below are descriptions of proposed encodings that allow attributes to be advertised with non-zero values of the Attribute Set Identifier. The Traffic-engineering Protocol sub-TLV is described as well, since it is needed to indicate what protocols are enabled on a link. ====== Link Attribute Set sub-TLV The Link Attribute Set sub-TLV is a new sub-TLV for TLVs 22, 23, 141, 222, and 223. It allows different sets of link attributes to be advertised for the same link. This allows different applications to use different sets of attributes. Type: to be assigned by IANA (suggested value 101 ) Length: Variable (1 octet) Value: Attribute Set Identifier - a 32-bit value containing the non-zero Attribute Set Identifier that identifies a set of attributes. The Link Attribute Set sub-TLV MUST be ignored if the Attribute Set Identifier is zero. This ensures a consistent view of the attribute set scoped link attributes, where the Link Attribute sub-TLVs advertised directly in TLV#22 are now understood to be implicitly advertised with the Attribute Set Identifier equal to zero. Link Attribute sub-sub-TLVs - the format of these Link Attribute sub-sub-TLVs matches the existing formats for the Link Attribute sub-TLVs defined in [RFC5305] and [RFC7810]. Each Link Attribute sub-sub-TLV advertised in a given Link Attribute Set sub-TLV is associated with the Attribute Set Identifier in the Link Attribute Set sub-TLV. ======= Attribute Set Scoped SRLG TLV A new TLV is defined to allow SRLGs to be advertised for a given link and associated with a specific attribute set identifier. Although similar in functionality to TLV 138 (defined by [RFC5307]) and TLV 139 (defined by [RFC6119] a single TLV provides support for IPv4, IPv6, and unnumbered identifiers for a link. Unlike TLVs 138/139 it utilizes sub-TLVs to encode the link identifiers in order to provide the flexible formatting required to support multiple link identifier types. Type: to be assigned by IANA (suggested value 238) Length: Number of octets in the value field (1 octet) Value: Neighbor System-ID + pseudo-node ID (7 octets) Attribute Set Identifier - a 32-bit value containing the non-zero Attribute Set Identifier that identifies a set of attributes. The Attribute Set Scoped SRLG TLV MUST be ignored if the Attribute Set Identifier is zero. This ensures a consistent view of the attribute set scoped link attributes, where the SRLGs advertised directly in TLV#138 and TLV#139 are now understood to be implicitly advertised with the Attribute Set Identifier equal to zero. Length of sub-TLVs (1 octet) Link Identifier sub-TLVs (variable) 0 or more SRLG Values (Each value is 4 octets) The following Link Identifier sub-TLVs are defined. The type values are suggested and will be assigned by IANA - but as the formats are identical to existing sub-TLVs defined for TLVs 22, 23, 141, 222, and 223 the use of the suggested sub-TLV types is strongly encouraged. Type Description 4 Link Local/Remote Identifiers (see [RFC5307]) 6 IPv4 interface address (see [RFC5305]) 8 IPv4 neighbor address (see [RFC5305]) 12 IPv6 Interface Address (see [RFC6119]) 13 IPv6 Neighbor Address (see [RFC6119]) At least one set of link identifiers (IPv4, IPv6, or unnumbered) MUST be present. TLVs which do not meet this requirement MUST be ignored. Multiple TLVs for the same link MAY be advertised. ======= Traffic-engineering Protocol sub-TLV A new Traffic-engineering protocol sub-TLV is a new sub-TLV for TLVs 22, 23, 141, 222, and 223. The sub-TLV indicates the protocols enabled on the link. The sub-TLV has flags in the value field to indicate the protocol enabled on the link. The length field is variable to allow the flags field to grow for future requirements. Type : to be assigned by IANA (suggested value 102) Length: Variable (1 octet) Value: The value field consists of bits indicating the protocols enabled on the link. This document defines the two protocol values below. 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Flags | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +----------+-------------------------------+ | Value | Protocol Name | +----------+-------------------------------+ |0x01 | RSVP | +----------+-------------------------------+ |0x02 | Segment Routing | +----------+-------------------------------+ The RSVP flag is set to one to indicate that RSVP-TE is enabled on a link. The RSVP flag is set to zero to indicate that RSVP-TE is not enabled on a link. The Segment Routing flag is set to one to indicate that Segment Routing is enabled on a link. The Segment Routing flag is set to zero to indicate that Segment Routing is not enabled on a link ========
- [Isis-wg] draft-hegde-isis-advertising-te-protoco… Chris Bowers
- Re: [Isis-wg] draft-hegde-isis-advertising-te-pro… Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [Isis-wg] draft-hegde-isis-advertising-te-pro… stephane.litkowski
- Re: [Isis-wg] draft-hegde-isis-advertising-te-pro… Peter Psenak
- Re: [Isis-wg] draft-hegde-isis-advertising-te-pro… stephane.litkowski
- Re: [Isis-wg] draft-hegde-isis-advertising-te-pro… Peter Psenak
- Re: [Isis-wg] draft-hegde-isis-advertising-te-pro… Shraddha Hegde
- Re: [Isis-wg] draft-hegde-isis-advertising-te-pro… Peter Psenak
- Re: [Isis-wg] draft-hegde-isis-advertising-te-pro… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [Isis-wg] draft-hegde-isis-advertising-te-pro… stephane.litkowski
- Re: [Isis-wg] draft-hegde-isis-advertising-te-pro… Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [Isis-wg] draft-hegde-isis-advertising-te-pro… Uma Chunduri
- Re: [Isis-wg] draft-hegde-isis-advertising-te-pro… Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [Isis-wg] draft-hegde-isis-advertising-te-pro… Uma Chunduri
- Re: [Isis-wg] draft-hegde-isis-advertising-te-pro… Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [Isis-wg] draft-hegde-isis-advertising-te-pro… stephane.litkowski
- Re: [Isis-wg] draft-hegde-isis-advertising-te-pro… Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [Isis-wg] draft-hegde-isis-advertising-te-pro… Shraddha Hegde
- Re: [Isis-wg] draft-hegde-isis-advertising-te-pro… Uma Chunduri
- Re: [Isis-wg] draft-hegde-isis-advertising-te-pro… stephane.litkowski
- Re: [Isis-wg] draft-hegde-isis-advertising-te-pro… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [Isis-wg] draft-hegde-isis-advertising-te-pro… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [Isis-wg] draft-hegde-isis-advertising-te-pro… Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [Isis-wg] draft-hegde-isis-advertising-te-pro… Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [Isis-wg] draft-hegde-isis-advertising-te-pro… stephane.litkowski
- Re: [Isis-wg] draft-hegde-isis-advertising-te-pro… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [Isis-wg] draft-hegde-isis-advertising-te-pro… Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [Isis-wg] draft-hegde-isis-advertising-te-pro… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [Isis-wg] draft-hegde-isis-advertising-te-pro… Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [Isis-wg] draft-hegde-isis-advertising-te-pro… Uma Chunduri
- Re: [Isis-wg] draft-hegde-isis-advertising-te-pro… Jeff Tantsura
- Re: [Isis-wg] draft-hegde-isis-advertising-te-pro… Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [Isis-wg] draft-hegde-isis-advertising-te-pro… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [Isis-wg] draft-hegde-isis-advertising-te-pro… stephane.litkowski
- Re: [Isis-wg] draft-hegde-isis-advertising-te-pro… Acee Lindem (acee)