< draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sbfd-extensions-03.txt		draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sbfd-extensions-04.txt >
	Inter-Domain Routing Z. Li		Inter-Domain Routing Z. Li
	Internet-Draft S. Zhuang		Internet-Draft S. Zhuang
	Intended status: Standards Track Huawei		Intended status: Standards Track Huawei
	Expires: May 2, 2021 K. Talaulikar		Expires: May 17, 2021 K. Talaulikar
	Cisco Systems		Cisco Systems
	S. Aldrin		S. Aldrin
	Google, Inc		Google, Inc
	J. Tantsura		J. Tantsura
	Apstra		Apstra
	G. Mirsky		G. Mirsky
	ZTE Corp.		ZTE Corp.
	October 29, 2020		November 13, 2020
	BGP Link-State Extensions for Seamless BFD		BGP Link-State Extensions for Seamless BFD
	draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sbfd-extensions-03		draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sbfd-extensions-04
	Abstract		Abstract
	Seamless Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (S-BFD) defines a		Seamless Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (S-BFD) defines a
	simplified mechanism to use Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD)		simplified mechanism to use Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD)
	with large portions of negotiation aspects eliminated, thus providing		with large portions of negotiation aspects eliminated, thus providing
	benefits such as quick provisioning as well as improved control and		benefits such as quick provisioning as well as improved control and
	flexibility to network nodes initiating the path monitoring. The		flexibility to network nodes initiating the path monitoring. The
	link-state routing protocols (IS-IS and OSPF) have been extended to		link-state routing protocols (IS-IS and OSPF) have been extended to
	advertise the Seamless BFD (S-BFD) Discriminators.		advertise the Seamless BFD (S-BFD) Discriminators.
	skipping to change at page 1, line 47 ¶		skipping to change at page 1, line 47 ¶
	Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering		Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
	Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute		Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
	working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-		working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
	Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.		Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
	Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months		Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
	and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any		and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
	time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference		time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
	material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."		material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
	This Internet-Draft will expire on May 2, 2021.		This Internet-Draft will expire on May 17, 2021.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the		Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
	document authors. All rights reserved.		document authors. All rights reserved.
	This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal		This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
	Provisions Relating to IETF Documents		Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
	(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of		(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
	publication of this document. Please review these documents		publication of this document. Please review these documents
	skipping to change at page 2, line 27 ¶		skipping to change at page 2, line 27 ¶
	the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as		the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
	described in the Simplified BSD License.		described in the Simplified BSD License.
	Table of Contents		Table of Contents
	1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2		1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
	1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	3. Problem and Requirement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		3. Problem and Requirement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	4. BGP-LS Extensions for S-BFD Discriminator . . . . . . . . . . 4		4. BGP-LS Extensions for S-BFD Discriminator . . . . . . . . . . 4
	5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	6. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		6. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	6.1. Operational Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		6.1. Operational Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	6.2. Management Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		6.2. Management Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8		9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8		Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	1. Introduction		1. Introduction
	Seamless Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (S-BFD) [RFC7880] defines		Seamless Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (S-BFD) [RFC7880] defines
	a simplified mechanism to use Bidirectional Forwarding Detection		a simplified mechanism to use Bidirectional Forwarding Detection
	(BFD) [RFC5880] with large portions of negotiation aspects		(BFD) [RFC5880] with large portions of negotiation aspects
	eliminated, thus providing benefits such as quick provisioning as		eliminated, thus providing benefits such as quick provisioning as
	well as improved control and flexibility to network nodes initiating		well as improved control and flexibility to network nodes initiating
	the path monitoring.		the path monitoring.
	skipping to change at page 3, line 37 ¶		skipping to change at page 3, line 37 ¶
	2. Terminology		2. Terminology
	This memo makes use of the terms defined in [RFC7880].		This memo makes use of the terms defined in [RFC7880].
	3. Problem and Requirement		3. Problem and Requirement
	Seamless MPLS [I-D.ietf-mpls-seamless-mpls] extends the core domain		Seamless MPLS [I-D.ietf-mpls-seamless-mpls] extends the core domain
	and integrates aggregation and access domains into a single MPLS		and integrates aggregation and access domains into a single MPLS
	domain. In a large network, the core and aggregation networks can be		domain. In a large network, the core and aggregation networks can be
	organized as different ASes. Although the core and aggregation		organized as different ASes. Although the core and aggregation
	networks are segmented into different ASes, an E2E LSP can be created		networks are segmented into different ASes, an end-to-end label
	using hierarchical BGP signaled LSPs based on iBGP labeled unicast		switched path (LSP) can be created using hierarchical BGP signaled
	within each AS, and eBGP labeled unicast to extend the LSP across AS		LSPs based on internal-BGP (IBGP) labeled unicast within each AS, and
			external-BGP (EBGP) labeled unicast to extend the LSP across AS
	boundaries. This provides a seamless MPLS transport connectivity for		boundaries. This provides a seamless MPLS transport connectivity for
	any two service end-points across the entire domain. In order to		any two service end-points across the entire domain. In order to
	detect failures for such end to end services and trigger faster		detect failures for such end to end services and trigger faster
	protection and/or re-routing, S-BFD MAY be used for the Service Layer		protection and/or re-routing, S-BFD MAY be used for the Service Layer
	(e.g. for MPLS VPNs, PW, etc. ) or the Transport Layer monitoring.		(e.g. for MPLS VPNs, pseudowires, etc. ) or the Transport Layer
	This brings up the need for setting up S-BFD session spanning across		monitoring. This brings up the need for setting up S-BFD session
	AS domains.		spanning across AS domains.
	In a similar Segment Routing (SR) [RFC8402] multi-domain network, an		In a similar Segment Routing (SR) [RFC8402] multi-domain network, an
	end to end SR Policy [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy] path		end to end SR Policy [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy] path
	may be provisioned between service end-points across domains either		may be provisioned between service end-points across domains either
	via local provisioning or by a controller or signalled from a Path		via local provisioning or by a controller or signalled from a Path
	Computation Engine (PCE). Monitoring using S-BFD can similarly be		Computation Engine (PCE). Monitoring using S-BFD can similarly be
	setup for such a SR Policy.		setup for such a SR Policy.
	Extending the automatic discovery of S-BFD discriminators of nodes		Extending the automatic discovery of S-BFD discriminators of nodes
	from within the IGP domain to across the administrative domain using		from within the IGP domain to across the administrative domain using
	skipping to change at page 5, line 23 ¶		skipping to change at page 5, line 23 ¶
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| ... |		| ... |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| Discriminator n (Optional) |		| Discriminator n (Optional) |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	Figure 1: S-BFD Discriminators TLV		Figure 1: S-BFD Discriminators TLV
	where:		where:
	o Type: 1032		o Type: 1032 (early allocation by IANA)
	o Length: variable. Minimum of 4 octets and increments of 4 octets		o Length: variable. Minimum of 4 octets and increments of 4 octets
	there on for each additional discriminator		there on for each additional discriminator
	o Discriminators : multiples of 4 octets, each carrying a S-BFD		o Discriminators : multiples of 4 octets, each carrying a S-BFD
	local discriminator value of the node. At least one discriminator		local discriminator value of the node. At least one discriminator
	MUST be included in the TLV.		MUST be included in the TLV.
	The S-BFD Discriminators TLV can only be added to the BGP-LS		The S-BFD Discriminators TLV can be added to the BGP-LS Attribute
	Attribute associated with the Node NLRI that originates the		associated with the Node NLRI that originates the corresponding
	corresponding underlying IGP TLV/sub-TLV as described below. This		underlying IGP TLV/sub-TLV as described below. This information is
	information is derived from the protocol specific advertisements as		derived from the protocol specific advertisements as below..
	below..
	o IS-IS, as defined by the S-BFD Discriminators sub-TLV in		o IS-IS, as defined by the S-BFD Discriminators sub-TLV in
	[RFC7883].		[RFC7883].
	o OSPFv2/OSPFv3, as defined by the S-BFD Discriminators TLV in		o OSPFv2/OSPFv3, as defined by the S-BFD Discriminators TLV in
	[RFC7884].		[RFC7884].
	When the node is not running any of the IGPs but running a protocol		When the node is not running any of the IGPs but running a protocol
	like BGP, then the locally provisioned S-BFD discriminators of the		like BGP, then the locally provisioned S-BFD discriminators of the
	node MAY be originated as part of the BGP-LS attribute within the		node MAY be originated as part of the BGP-LS attribute within the
	skipping to change at page 8, line 15 ¶		skipping to change at page 8, line 8 ¶
	9.2. Informative References		9.2. Informative References
	[I-D.ietf-mpls-seamless-mpls]		[I-D.ietf-mpls-seamless-mpls]
	Leymann, N., Decraene, B., Filsfils, C., Konstantynowicz,		Leymann, N., Decraene, B., Filsfils, C., Konstantynowicz,
	M., and D. Steinberg, "Seamless MPLS Architecture", draft-		M., and D. Steinberg, "Seamless MPLS Architecture", draft-
	ietf-mpls-seamless-mpls-07 (work in progress), June 2014.		ietf-mpls-seamless-mpls-07 (work in progress), June 2014.
	[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy]		[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy]
	Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Voyer, D., Bogdanov, A., and		Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Voyer, D., Bogdanov, A., and
	P. Mattes, "Segment Routing Policy Architecture", draft-		P. Mattes, "Segment Routing Policy Architecture", draft-
	ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy-08 (work in progress),		ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy-09 (work in progress),
	July 2020.		November 2020.
	[RFC5706] Harrington, D., "Guidelines for Considering Operations and		[RFC5706] Harrington, D., "Guidelines for Considering Operations and
	Management of New Protocols and Protocol Extensions",		Management of New Protocols and Protocol Extensions",
	RFC 5706, DOI 10.17487/RFC5706, November 2009,		RFC 5706, DOI 10.17487/RFC5706, November 2009,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5706>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5706>.
	[RFC5880] Katz, D. and D. Ward, "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection		[RFC5880] Katz, D. and D. Ward, "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection
	(BFD)", RFC 5880, DOI 10.17487/RFC5880, June 2010,		(BFD)", RFC 5880, DOI 10.17487/RFC5880, June 2010,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5880>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5880>.
End of changes. 11 change blocks.
	20 lines changed or deleted		20 lines changed or added
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/