Network Working Group Hamid Ould-Brahim (Nortel Networks) Internet Draft Don Fedyk (Nortel Networks) Expiration Date: July 2008 Yakov Rekhter (Juniper Networks) Intended Status: Proposed Standard Traffic Engineering Attribute draft-ietf-softwire-bgp-te-attribute-00.txt Status of this Memo By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- Drafts. 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". The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. Abstract This document defines a new BGP attribute, Traffic Engineering attribute, than enables BGP to carry Traffic Engineering information. Fedyk, Ould-Brahim, Rekhter [Page 1] Internet Draft draft-ietf-softwire-bgp-te-attribute-00.txt January 2008 1. Specification of Requirements 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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. 2. Introduction In certain cases (e.g., L1VPN [L1VPN]) it may be useful to augment reachability information carried in BGP with the Traffic Engineering information. This document defines a new BGP attribute, Traffic Engineering attribute, than enables BGP [BGP-4] to carry Traffic Engineering information. 3. Traffic Engineering Attribute Traffic Engineering attribute is an optional non-transitive BGP attribute. The information carried in this attribute is identical to what is carried in the Interface Switching Capability Descriptor, as specified in [RFC4203], [RFC4205]. The attribute contains one or more of the following: 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Switching Cap | Encoding | Reserved | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 0 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 1 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 2 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 3 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 4 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 5 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 6 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Fedyk, Ould-Brahim, Rekhter [Page 2] Internet Draft draft-ietf-softwire-bgp-te-attribute-00.txt January 2008 | Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 7 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Switching Capability-specific information | | (variable) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ The Switching Capability (Switching Cap) field contains one of the values specified in Section 3.1.1 of [GMPLS-SIG]. The Encoding field contains one of the values specified in Section 3.1.1 of [GMPLS-SIG]. The Reserved field SHOULD be set to 0 on transmit and MUST be ignored on receive. Maximum LSP Bandwidth is encoded as a list of eight 4 octet fields in the IEEE floating point format [IEEE], with priority 0 first and priority 7 last. The units are bytes (not bits!) per second. The content of the Switching Capability specific information field depends on the value of the Switching Capability field. When the Switching Capability field is PSC-1, PSC-2, PSC-3, or PSC-4, the Switching Capability specific information field includes Minimum LSP Bandwidth and Interface MTU. 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Minimum LSP Bandwidth | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Interface MTU | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ The Minimum LSP Bandwidth is encoded in a 4 octet field in the IEEE floating point format. The units are bytes (not bits!) per second. The Interface MTU is encoded as a 2 octet integer. When the Switching Capability field is L2SC, there is no Switching Capability specific information field present. When the Switching Capability field is TDM, the Switching Capability specific information field includes Minimum LSP Bandwidth and an indication of whether the interface supports Standard or Arbitrary SONET/SDH. 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 Fedyk, Ould-Brahim, Rekhter [Page 3] Internet Draft draft-ietf-softwire-bgp-te-attribute-00.txt January 2008 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Minimum LSP Bandwidth | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Indication | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ The Minimum LSP Bandwidth is encoded in a 4 octet field in the IEEE floating point format. The units are bytes (not bits!) per second. The indication of whether the interface supports Standard or Arbitrary SONET/SDH is encoded as 1 octet. The value of this octet is 0 if the interface supports Standard SONET/SDH, and 1 if the interface supports Arbitrary SONET/SDH. When the Switching Capability field is LSC, there is no Switching Capability specific information field present. 4. IANA Considerations This document defines a new BGP attribute. This attribute is optional and non-transitive. 5. Security Considerations This extension to BGP does not change the underlying security issues inherent in the existing BGP. 6. Intellectual Property Statement The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in this document or the extent to which any license under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at http://www.ietf.org/ipr. The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any Fedyk, Ould-Brahim, Rekhter [Page 4] Internet Draft draft-ietf-softwire-bgp-te-attribute-00.txt January 2008 copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf- ipr@ietf.org. 7. Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008). This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. This document and the information contained herein are provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 8. Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank John Scudder for his review and comments. 9. Normative References [BGP-4] Rekhter, Y., T. Li, Hares, S., "A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC4271, January 2006. [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. [GMPLS-SIG] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC 3471, January 2003. [IEEE] IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Binary Floating-Point Arithmetic", Standard 754-1985, 1985 (ISBN 1-5593-7653-8). Fedyk, Ould-Brahim, Rekhter [Page 5] Internet Draft draft-ietf-softwire-bgp-te-attribute-00.txt January 2008 10. Non-Normative References [RFC4203] Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., "OSPF Extensions in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)", RFC4203, October 2005 [RFC4205] Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., "Intermediate System to Intermediate System (IS-IS) Extensions in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)", RFC4205, October 2005 [L1VPN] Fedyk, D., Ould-Brahim, H., Rekhter, Y., "BGP-based Auto- Discovery for L1VPNs", draft-ietf-l1vpn-bgp-auto-discovery, work in progress 11. Author Information Hamid Ould-Brahim Nortel Networks Email: hbrahim@nortel.com Don Fedyk Nortel Networks Email: dwfedyk@nortel.com Yakov Rekhter Juniper Networks, Inc. email: yakov@juniper.com Fedyk, Ould-Brahim, Rekhter [Page 6]