< draft-ietf-idr-eag-distribution-05.txt		draft-ietf-idr-eag-distribution-06.txt >
	IDR Working Group Z. Wang		IDR Working Group Z. Wang
	Internet-Draft Q. Wu		Internet-Draft Q. Wu
	Intended status: Standards Track Huawei		Intended status: Standards Track Huawei
	Expires: June 2, 2018 J. Tantsura		Expires: September 20, 2018 J. Tantsura
	Individual		Nuage Networks
	November 29, 2017		March 19, 2018
	Distribution of MPLS-TE Extended admin Group Using BGP		Distribution of MPLS-TE Extended admin Group Using BGP
	draft-ietf-idr-eag-distribution-05		draft-ietf-idr-eag-distribution-06
	Abstract		Abstract
	As MPLS-TE network grows, administrative Groups advertised as a		As MPLS-TE network grows, administrative Groups advertised as a
	fixed-length 32-bit Bitmask is quite constraining. "Extended		fixed-length 32-bit Bitmask is quite constraining. "Extended
	Administrative Group" IGP TE extensions sub-TLV is introduced to		Administrative Group" IGP TE extensions sub-TLV is introduced to
	provide for additional administrative groups (link colors) beyond the		provide for additional administrative groups (link colors) beyond the
	current limit of 32. This document describes extensions to BGP		current limit of 32. This document describes extensions to BGP
	protocol, that can be used to distribute extended administrative		protocol, that can be used to distribute extended administrative
	groups in MPLS-TE.		groups in MPLS-TE.
	skipping to change at page 1, line 38 ¶		skipping to change at page 1, line 38 ¶
	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 June 2, 2018.		This Internet-Draft will expire on September 20, 2018.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the		Copyright (c) 2018 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
	carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect		carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
	to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must		to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
	include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of		include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
	the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as		the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
	skipping to change at page 3, line 10 ¶		skipping to change at page 3, line 10 ¶
	This document proposes one new BGP link attribute TLVs that can be		This document proposes one new BGP link attribute TLVs that can be
	announced as attribute in the BGP-LS attribute (defined in [I.D-ietf-		announced as attribute in the BGP-LS attribute (defined in [I.D-ietf-
	idr-ls-distribution]) to distribute extended administrative groups.		idr-ls-distribution]) to distribute extended administrative groups.
	The extensions in this document build on the ones provided in BGP-LS		The extensions in this document build on the ones provided in BGP-LS
	[RFC7752] and BGP-4 [RFC4271].		[RFC7752] and BGP-4 [RFC4271].
	BGP-LS attribute defined in [RFC7752] has nested TLVs which allow the		BGP-LS attribute defined in [RFC7752] has nested TLVs which allow the
	BGP-LS attribute to be readily extended. Link attribute TLVs defined		BGP-LS attribute to be readily extended. Link attribute TLVs defined
	in section 3.2.2 of [I-D.ietf-idr-ls- distribution]are TLVs that may		in section 3.2.2 of [I-D.ietf-idr-ls-distribution]are TLVs that may
	be encoded in the BGP-LS attribute with a link NLRI. Each 'Link		be encoded in the BGP-LS attribute with a link NLRI. Each 'Link
	Attribute' is a Type/Length/ Value (TLV) triplet formatted as defined		Attribute' is a Type/Length/ Value (TLV) triplet formatted as defined
	in Section 3.1 of [I-D.ietf-idr- ls-distribution].		in Section 3.1 of [I-D.ietf-idr-ls-distribution].
	This document proposes one new TLV as a link attribute:		This document proposes one new TLV as a link attribute:
	Type Value		Type Value
	TBD1 Extended Admin Group (EAG)		TBD1 Extended Administrative Group (EAG)
	The EAG TLV is used in addition to the Administrative Groups when a		The EAG TLV is used in addition to the Administrative Groups when a
	node wants to advertise more than 32 colors for a link. The EAG TLV		node wants to advertise more than 32 colors for a link. The EAG TLV
	is optional. The format and semantics of the 'value' fields in EAG		is optional. The format and semantics of the 'value' fields in EAG
	TLVs correspond to the format and semantics of value fields in IGP		TLVs correspond to the format and semantics of value fields in IGP
	extension sub-TLVs, defined in [RFC7308].		extension sub-TLVs, defined in [RFC7308].
	+------------+---------------------+--------------+-----------------+		+------------+---------------------+--------------+-----------------+
	| TLV Code | Description | IS-IS | Defined in: |		| TLV Code | Description | IS-IS | Defined in: |
	| Point | | TLV/Sub-TLV | |		| Point | | TLV/Sub-TLV | |
	+------------+---------------------+--------------+-----------------+		+------------+---------------------+--------------+-----------------+
	| xxxx | Extended | 22/xx | [RFC7308] |		| TBD1 | Extended | 22/14 | [RFC7308] |
	| | Admin Group | | |		| |Admininstrative Group| | |
	+------------+---------------------+--------------+-----------------+		+------------+---------------------+--------------+-----------------+
	Table 1: 'EAG' Link Attribute TLV		Table 1: 'EAG' Link Attribute TLV
	3.1. AG and EAG coexistence		3.1. AG and EAG coexistence
	Similar to section 2.3.1 of [RFC7308],if a BGP speaker advertises		Similar to section 2.3.1 of [RFC7308],if a BGP speaker advertises
	both AG and EAG then AG and EAG should be dealt with in the same way		both AG and EAG then AG and EAG should be dealt with in the same way
	as AG and EAG carried in the Extended Administrative Group (EAG) sub-		as AG and EAG carried in the Extended Administrative Group (EAG) sub-
	TLV [RFC7308] for both OSPF [RFC3630] and ISIS [RFC5305].		TLV [RFC7308] for both OSPF [RFC3630] and ISIS [RFC5305].
	skipping to change at page 4, line 14 ¶		skipping to change at page 4, line 14 ¶
	these desire and unadvertised EAG bits in accordance with rule		these desire and unadvertised EAG bits in accordance with rule
	defined in section 2.3.2 of [RFC7308].		defined in section 2.3.2 of [RFC7308].
	4. Security Considerations		4. Security Considerations
	This document does not introduce security issues beyond those		This document does not introduce security issues beyond those
	discussed in [RFC7752] and [RFC4271].		discussed in [RFC7752] and [RFC4271].
	5. IANA Considerations		5. IANA Considerations
	IANA maintains the registry for the TLVs. BGP Extended Admin Group		This document requests assigning code-points from the registry "BGP-
	link attribute TLV will require one new type code defined in this		LS Node Descriptor, Link Descriptor, Prefix Descriptor, and Attribute
	document.		TLVs" for the new Link Attribute TLVs defined in the table above:
	6. Acknowledgments		6. Acknowledgments
	The authors gratefully acknowledge the review made by Eric Osborne.		The authors gratefully acknowledge the review made by Eric Osborne.
	7. Normative References		7. Normative References
	[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate		[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
	Requirement Levels", March 1997.		Requirement Levels", March 1997.
	skipping to change at page 5, line 13 ¶		skipping to change at page 5, line 13 ¶
	Email: wangzitao@huawei.com		Email: wangzitao@huawei.com
	Qin Wu		Qin Wu
	Huawei		Huawei
	101 Software Avenue, Yuhua District		101 Software Avenue, Yuhua District
	Nanjing, Jiangsu 210012		Nanjing, Jiangsu 210012
	China		China
	Email: bill.wu@huawei.com		Email: bill.wu@huawei.com
	Jeff Tantsura		Jeff Tantsura
	Individual		Nuage Networks
	Email: jefftant.ietf@gmail.com		Email: jefftant.ietf@gmail.com
End of changes. 10 change blocks.
	15 lines changed or deleted		15 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/