| < draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd-10.txt | draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd-11.txt > | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| skipping to change at page 1, line 17 ¶ | skipping to change at page 1, line 17 ¶ | |||
| K. Talaulikar | K. Talaulikar | |||
| Cisco Systems | Cisco Systems | |||
| G. Mirsky | G. Mirsky | |||
| ZTE Corp. | ZTE Corp. | |||
| N. Triantafillis | N. Triantafillis | |||
| Amazon Web Services | Amazon Web Services | |||
| February 28, 2020 | February 28, 2020 | |||
| Signaling MSD (Maximum SID Depth) using Border Gateway Protocol - Link | Signaling MSD (Maximum SID Depth) using Border Gateway Protocol - Link | |||
| State | State | |||
| draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd-10 | draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd-11 | |||
| Abstract | Abstract | |||
| This document defines a way for a Border Gateway Protocol - Link | This document defines a way for a Border Gateway Protocol - Link | |||
| State (BGP-LS) speaker to advertise multiple types of supported | State (BGP-LS) speaker to advertise multiple types of supported | |||
| Maximum SID Depths (MSDs) at node and/or link granularity. | Maximum SID Depths (MSDs) at node and/or link granularity. | |||
| Such advertisements allow entities (e.g., centralized controllers) to | Such advertisements allow entities (e.g., centralized controllers) to | |||
| determine whether a particular Segment Identifier (SID) stack can be | determine whether a particular Segment Identifier (SID) stack can be | |||
| supported in a given network. | supported in a given network. | |||
| skipping to change at page 4, line 29 ¶ | skipping to change at page 4, line 29 ¶ | |||
| This document describes extensions that enable BGP-LS speakers to | This document describes extensions that enable BGP-LS speakers to | |||
| signal the MSD capabilities (described in [RFC8491] ) of nodes and | signal the MSD capabilities (described in [RFC8491] ) of nodes and | |||
| their links in a network to a BGP-LS consumer of network topology | their links in a network to a BGP-LS consumer of network topology | |||
| such as a centralized controller. The centralized controller can | such as a centralized controller. The centralized controller can | |||
| leverage this information in computation of SR paths and their | leverage this information in computation of SR paths and their | |||
| instantiation on network nodes based on their MSD capabilities. When | instantiation on network nodes based on their MSD capabilities. When | |||
| a BGP-LS speaker is originating the topology learnt via link-state | a BGP-LS speaker is originating the topology learnt via link-state | |||
| routing protocols like OSPF or IS-IS, the MSD information for the | routing protocols like OSPF or IS-IS, the MSD information for the | |||
| nodes and their links is sourced from the underlying extensions as | nodes and their links is sourced from the underlying extensions as | |||
| defined in [RFC8476] and [RFC8491] respectively. The BGP-LS speaker | defined in [RFC8476] and [RFC8491] respectively. | |||
| may also advertise the MSD information for the local node and its | ||||
| links when not running any link-state IGP protocol e.g. when running | The BGP-LS speaker may also advertise the MSD information for the | |||
| BGP as the only routing protocol. The Protocol-ID field should be | local node and its links when not running any link-state IGP protocol | |||
| set to BGP since the link and node attributes have BGP based | e.g. when running BGP as the only routing protocol. The Protocol-ID | |||
| identifiers. Deployment model for such case would be: a limited | field should be set to BGP since the link and node attributes have | |||
| number (meeting resiliecy requirements) of BGP-LS speakers exposing | BGP based identifiers. Deployment model for such case would be: a | |||
| the topology to the controller, full-mesh/RouterReflectors for iBGP | limited number (meeting resiliecy requirements) of BGP-LS speakers | |||
| or regular eBGP connectivity between every node in the topology. | exposing the topology to the controller, full-mesh/RouteReflectors | |||
| for iBGP(Internal Border Gateway Protocol) or regular eBGP(External | ||||
| Border Gateway Protocol) connectivity between nodes in the topology. | ||||
| The extensions introduced in this document allow for advertisement of | The extensions introduced in this document allow for advertisement of | |||
| different MSD-Types. This document does not define these MSD-Types | different MSD-Types. This document does not define these MSD-Types | |||
| but leverages the definition, guidelines and the code-point registry | but leverages the definition, guidelines and the code-point registry | |||
| specified in [RFC8491]. This enables sharing of MSD-Types that may | specified in [RFC8491]. This enables sharing of MSD-Types that may | |||
| be defined in the future by the IGPs in BGP-LS. | be defined in the future by the IGPs in BGP-LS. | |||
| 3. Node MSD TLV | 3. Node MSD TLV | |||
| Node MSD is encoded in a new Node Attribute TLV [RFC7752] using the | Node MSD is encoded in a new Node Attribute TLV [RFC7752] using the | |||
| End of changes. 2 change blocks. | ||||
| 10 lines changed or deleted | 12 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/ | ||||