< draft-ietf-idr-eag-distribution-13.txt		draft-ietf-idr-eag-distribution-14.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: May 19, 2021 J. Tantsura		Expires: August 21, 2021 J. Tantsura
	Apstra, Inc.		Juniper Networks
	K. Talaulikar		K. Talaulikar
	Cisco Systems		Cisco Systems
	November 15, 2020		February 17, 2021
	Distribution of Traffic Engineering Extended Admin Groups using BGP-LS		Distribution of Traffic Engineering Extended Admin Groups using BGP-LS
	draft-ietf-idr-eag-distribution-13		draft-ietf-idr-eag-distribution-14
	Abstract		Abstract
	Administrative groups are link attributes (commonly referred to as		Administrative groups are link attributes (commonly referred to as
	"colors" or "link colors") advertised by link state protocols (e.g.		"colors" or "link colors") advertised by link state protocols (e.g.
	ISIS or OSPF) and used for traffic engineering. These administrative		ISIS or OSPF) and used for traffic engineering. These administrative
	groups were initially defined as 32 bit masks. As network usage		groups were initially defined as 32 bit masks. As network usage
	grew, these 32 bit masks were found to constrain traffic engineering.		grew, these 32 bit masks were found to constrain traffic engineering.
	Therefore, link state protocols (ISIS, OSPF) were expanded to		Therefore, link state protocols (ISIS, OSPF) were expanded to
	advertise a variable length administrative group.		advertise a variable length administrative group.This document
			defines an extension to BGP-LS for advertisement of extended
			administrative groups (EAGs) to allow to support a number of
			administrative groups greater than 32, as defined in [RFC7308].
	Status of This Memo		Status of This Memo
	This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the		This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
	provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.		provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
	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 19, 2021.		This Internet-Draft will expire on August 21, 2021.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the		Copyright (c) 2021 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 2, line 27 ¶		skipping to change at page 2, line 31 ¶
	4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	5. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		5. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	6. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		6. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	1. Introduction		1. Introduction
	Administrative groups (commonly referred to as "colors" or "link		Administrative groups (commonly referred to as "colors" or "link
	colors") are link attributes that are advertised by link state		colors") are link attributes that are advertised by link state
	protocols like IS-IS [RFC5305], OSPFv2 [RFC3630] and OSPFv3 [RFC5329]		protocols like IS-IS [RFC5305], OSPFv2 [RFC3630] and OSPFv3 [RFC5329]
	for traffic engineering use-cases. The BGP-LS advertisement is		for traffic engineering use-cases. The BGP-LS advertisement of the
	encoded using the Administrative Group (color) TLV 1088 as defined in		originally defined (non-extended) administrative groups is encoded
			using the Administrative Group (color) TLV 1088 as defined in
	[RFC7752].		[RFC7752].
	These administrative groups are defined as a fixed-length 32-bit		These administrative groups are defined as a fixed-length 32-bit
	bitmask. As networks grew and more use-cases were introduced, the		bitmask. As networks grew and more use-cases were introduced, the
	32-bit length was found to be constraining and hence extended		32-bit length was found to be constraining and hence extended
	administrative groups (EAG) were introduced in the IS-IS and OSPFv2		administrative groups (EAG) were introduced in the IS-IS and OSPFv2
	link state routing protocols [RFC7308].		link state routing protocols [RFC7308].
	This document specifies extensions to BGP-LS for advertisement of the		This document specifies an extension to BGP-LS for advertisement of
	extended administrative groups.		the extended administrative groups.
	1.1. Requirements Language		1.1. Requirements Language
	The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",		The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
	"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and		"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
	"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP		"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
	14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all		14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
	capitals, as shown here.		capitals, as shown here.
	2. Advertising Extended Administrative Groups in BGP-LS		2. Advertising Extended Administrative Groups in BGP-LS
	This document defines extensions that enable BGP-LS speakers to		This document defines an extension that enable BGP-LS speakers to
	signal the EAG of links in a network to a BGP-LS consumer of network		signal the EAG of links in a network to a BGP-LS consumer of network
	topology such as a centralized controller. The centralized		topology such as a centralized controller. The centralized
	controller can leverage this information in traffic engineering		controller can leverage this information in traffic engineering
	computations and other use-cases. When a BGP-LS speaker is		computations and other use-cases. When a BGP-LS speaker is
	originating the topology learnt via link-state routing protocols like		originating the topology learnt via link-state routing protocols like
	OSPF or IS-IS, the EAG information of the links is sourced from the		OSPF or IS-IS, the EAG information of the links is sourced from the
	underlying extensions as defined in [RFC7308]. The BGP-LS speaker		underlying extensions as defined in [RFC7308]. The BGP-LS speaker
	may also advertise the EAG information for the local links of a node		may also advertise the EAG information for the local links of a node
	when not running any link-state IGP protocol e.g. when running BGP as		when not running any link-state IGP protocol e.g. when running BGP as
	the only routing protocol.		the only routing protocol.
	EAG of a link is encoded in a new Link Attribute TLV [RFC7752] using		The EAG of a link is encoded in a new Link Attribute TLV [RFC7752]
	the following format:		using the following format:
	0 1 2 3		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		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
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| Type | Length |		| Type | Length |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| Extended Administrative Groups (variable) //		| Extended Administrative Groups (variable) //
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	Figure 1: Extended Administrative Groups TLV Format		Figure 1: Extended Administrative Groups TLV Format
	skipping to change at page 3, line 45 ¶		skipping to change at page 3, line 45 ¶
	o Length: variable length which represents the total length of the		o Length: variable length which represents the total length of the
	value field. The length value must MUST be multiple of 4. If the		value field. The length value must MUST be multiple of 4. If the
	length is not a multiple of 4, the TLV must be considered		length is not a multiple of 4, the TLV must be considered
	malformed.		malformed.
	o Value: one or more sets of 32-bit bitmasks that indicate the		o Value: one or more sets of 32-bit bitmasks that indicate the
	administrative groups (colors) that are enable on the link when		administrative groups (colors) that are enable on the link when
	those specific bits are set.		those specific bits are set.
	The EAG TLV is an optional TLV. The existing AG TLV 108 and the EAG		The EAG TLV is an optional TLV. The originally defined AG TLV 1108
	TLV defined in this document MAY be advertised together. The		and the EAG TLV 1173 defined in this document MAY be advertised
	semantics of the EAG and the backward compatibility aspects of EAG		together. The semantics of the EAG and the backward compatibility
	with respect to the AG are handled as described in the Backward		aspects of EAG with respect to the AG are handled as described in the
	Compatibility section of [RFC7308].		Backward Compatibility section of [RFC7308], namely - If a node
			advertises both AG and EAG, then the first 32 bits of the EAG MUST be
			identical to the advertised AG.
	3. IANA Considerations		3. IANA Considerations
	This document requests assigning code-point from the registry "BGP-LS		This document requests assigning a code-point from the registry "BGP-
	Node Descriptor, Link Descriptor, Prefix Descriptor, and Attribute		LS Node Descriptor, Link Descriptor, Prefix Descriptor, and Attribute
	TLVs" based on table below. Early allocation for these code-points		TLVs" based on table below. Early allocation for these code-points
	have been done by IANA.		have been done by IANA.
	+------------+-------------------------------+-------------------+		+------------+-------------------------------+-------------------+
	| Code Point | Description | IS-IS TLV/Sub-TLV |		| Code Point | Description | IS-IS TLV/Sub-TLV |
	+------------+-------------------------------+-------------------+		+------------+-------------------------------+-------------------+
	| 1173 | Extended Administrative Group | 22/14 |		| 1173 | Extended Administrative Group | 22/14 |
	+------------+-------------------------------+-------------------+		+------------+-------------------------------+-------------------+
	4. Security Considerations		4. Security Considerations
	The extensions in this document advertise same administrative group		The extensions in this document advertise same administrative group
	information specified via [RFC7752] but as a larger/extended value		information specified via [RFC7752] but as a larger/extended value
	and hence does not introduce security issues beyond those discussed		and hence does not introduce security issues beyond those discussed
	in [RFC7752] and [I-D.ietf-idr-rfc7752bis] .		in [RFC7752] and [I-D.ietf-idr-rfc7752bis].
	5. Acknowledgments		5. Acknowledgments
	The authors gratefully acknowledge the review by Eric Osborne and Les		The authors gratefully acknowledge the review by Eric Osborne and Les
	Ginsberg.		Ginsberg.
	6. Normative References		6. Normative References
	[I-D.ietf-idr-rfc7752bis]		[I-D.ietf-idr-rfc7752bis]
	Talaulikar, K., "Distribution of Link-State and Traffic		Talaulikar, K., "Distribution of Link-State and Traffic
	Engineering Information Using BGP", draft-ietf-idr-		Engineering Information Using BGP", draft-ietf-idr-
	rfc7752bis-04 (work in progress), September 2020.		rfc7752bis-05 (work in progress), November 2020.
	[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate		[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
	Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,		Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,		DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
	[RFC3630] Katz, D., Kompella, K., and D. Yeung, "Traffic Engineering		[RFC3630] Katz, D., Kompella, K., and D. Yeung, "Traffic Engineering
	(TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC 3630,		(TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC 3630,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC3630, September 2003,		DOI 10.17487/RFC3630, September 2003,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3630>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3630>.
	skipping to change at page 5, line 44 ¶		skipping to change at page 5, line 44 ¶
	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
	Apstra, Inc.		Juniper Networks
	Email: jefftant.ietf@gmail.com		Email: jefftant.ietf@gmail.com
	Ketan Talaulikar		Ketan Talaulikar
	Cisco Systems		Cisco Systems
	Email: ketant@cisco.com		Email: ketant@cisco.com
End of changes. 15 change blocks.
	24 lines changed or deleted		30 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/