< draft-ietf-idr-eag-distribution-08.txt   draft-ietf-idr-eag-distribution-09.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: April 26, 2019 J. Tantsura Expires: April 20, 2020 J. Tantsura
Apstra, Inc. Apstra, Inc.
October 23, 2018 October 18, 2019
Distribution of MPLS-TE Extended admin Group Using BGP Distribution of MPLS-TE Extended admin Group Using BGP
draft-ietf-idr-eag-distribution-08 draft-ietf-idr-eag-distribution-09
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 April 26, 2019. This Internet-Draft will expire on April 20, 2020.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2019 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
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. Carrying Extended Administrative Groups in BGP . . . . . . . 2 3. Carrying Extended Administrative Groups in BGP . . . . . . . 3
3.1. AG and EAG coexistence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3.1. AG and EAG coexistence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.2. Desire for unadvertised EAG bits . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3.2. Desire for unadvertised EAG bits . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 6. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
7. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 8. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
MPLS-TE advertises 32 administrative groups (commonly referred to as MPLS-TE advertises 32 administrative groups (commonly referred to as
"colors" or "link colors") using the Administrative Group sub-TLV of "colors" or "link colors") using the Administrative Group sub-TLV of
the Link TLV defined in OSPFv2 (RFC3630), OSPFv3 (RFC5329) and ISIS the Link TLV defined in OSPFv2 (RFC3630), OSPFv3 (RFC5329) and ISIS
(RFC5305). (RFC5305).
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
skipping to change at page 4, line 18 skipping to change at page 4, line 26
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
This document requests assigning code-points from the registry "BGP- This document requests assigning code-points from the registry "BGP-
LS Node Descriptor, Link Descriptor, Prefix Descriptor, and Attribute LS Node Descriptor, Link Descriptor, Prefix Descriptor, and Attribute
TLVs" for the new Link Attribute TLVs defined in the table above: TLVs" for the new Link Attribute TLVs defined in the table above:
6. Acknowledgments 6. Contributors
Ketan Talaulikar
Cisco Systems Inc.
Email: ketant@cisco.com
7. Acknowledgments
The authors gratefully acknowledge the review made by Eric Osborne. The authors gratefully acknowledge the review made by Eric Osborne.
7. Normative References 8. 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.
[RFC3630] Katz, D., Yeung, D., and K. Kompella, "Traffic Engineering [RFC3630] Katz, D., Yeung, D., and K. Kompella, "Traffic Engineering
(TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC 3630, September (TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC 3630, September
2003. 2003.
[RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., "A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", [RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., "A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)",
RFC 4271, January 2006. RFC 4271, January 2006.
 End of changes. 10 change blocks. 
12 lines changed or deleted 19 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/