< draft-ietf-idr-eag-distribution-15.txt		draft-ietf-idr-eag-distribution-16.txt >
	IDR Working Group Z. Wang		IDR Working Group J. Tantsura
	Internet-Draft Q. Wu		Internet-Draft Juniper Networks
	Intended status: Standards Track Huawei		Intended status: Standards Track Z. Wang
	Expires: September 10, 2021 J. Tantsura		Expires: October 20, 2021 Q. Wu
	Juniper Networks		Huawei
	K. Talaulikar		K. Talaulikar
	Cisco Systems		Cisco Systems
	March 9, 2021		April 18, 2021
	Distribution of Traffic Engineering Extended Admin Groups using BGP-LS		Distribution of Traffic Engineering Extended Administrative Groups using
	draft-ietf-idr-eag-distribution-15		BGP-LS
			draft-ietf-idr-eag-distribution-16
	Abstract		Abstract
	Administrative groups are link attributes (commonly referred to as		Administrative groups are link attributes advertised used for traffic
	"colors" or "link colors") advertised by link state protocols (e.g.		engineering. This document defines an extension to BGP-LS for
	ISIS or OSPF) and used for traffic engineering. These administrative		advertisement of extended administrative groups (EAGs).
	groups were initially defined as 32 bit masks. As network usage
	grew, these 32 bit masks were found to constrain traffic engineering.
	Therefore, link state protocols (ISIS, OSPF) were expanded to
	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 September 10, 2021.		This Internet-Draft will expire on October 20, 2021.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2021 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
	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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2		1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
	2. Advertising Extended Administrative Groups in BGP-LS . . . . 3		2. Advertising Extended Administrative Group in BGP-LS . . . . . 2
	3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	5. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		5. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	6. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
			6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
			6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	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 [RFC1195], OSPFv2 [RFC2328] and OSPFv3
	for traffic engineering use-cases. The BGP-LS advertisement of the		[RFC5340]. The BGP-LS advertisement of the originally defined (non-
	originally defined (non-extended) administrative groups is encoded		extended) administrative groups is encoded using the Administrative
	using the Administrative Group (color) TLV 1088 as defined in		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 [RFC7308].
	link state routing protocols [RFC7308].
	This document specifies an extension to BGP-LS for advertisement of		This document specifies an extension to BGP-LS for advertisement of
	the 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 Group in BGP-LS
	This document defines an extension 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].
	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
	the only routing protocol.
	The EAG of a link is encoded in a new Link Attribute TLV [RFC7752]		The EAG of a link is encoded in a new Link Attribute TLV [RFC7752]
	using 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 Group (variable) //
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	Figure 1: Extended Administrative Groups TLV Format		Figure 1: Extended Administrative Group TLV Format
	Where:		Where:
	o Type: 1173		o Type: 1173
	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 be multiple of 4. If the		value field in octets. The length value MUST be multiple of 4.
	length is not a multiple of 4, the TLV MUST be considered		If the 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 enabled on the link when		administrative groups (colors) that are enabled on the link when
	those specific bits are set.		those specific bits are set.
	The EAG TLV is an optional TLV. The originally defined AG TLV 1108
	and the EAG TLV 1173 defined in this document MAY be advertised
	together. The semantics of the EAG and the backward compatibility
	aspects of EAG with respect to the AG are handled as described in the
	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 a code-point from the registry "BGP-		This document requests assigning a code-point from the registry "BGP-
	LS 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 procedures and protocol extensions defined in this document do
	information specified via [RFC7752] but as a larger/extended value		not affect the BGP security model. See the "Security Considerations"
	and hence does not introduce security issues beyond those discussed		section of [RFC4271] for a discussion of BGP security. Also, refer
	in [RFC7752] and [I-D.ietf-idr-rfc7752bis].		to [RFC4272] and [RFC6952] for analyses of security issues for BGP.
			Security considerations for acquiring and distributing BGP-LS
			information are discussed in [RFC7752]. The TLV introduced in this
			document is used to propagate the EAG extensions defined in
			[RFC7308]. It is assumed that the IGP instances originating this TLV
			will support all the required security (as described in [RFC7308]) in
			order to prevent any security issues when propagating the TLVs into
			BGP-LS. The advertisement of the link attribute information defined
			in this document presents no significant additional risk beyond that
			associated with the existing link attribute information already
			supported in [RFC7752].
	5. Acknowledgments		5. Acknowledgments
	The authors gratefully acknowledge the review by Eric Osborne and Les		The authors would like to thank Eric Osborne, Les Ginsberg, Tim
	Ginsberg.		Chown, Ben Niven-Jenkins and Alvaro Retana for their reviews and
			valuable comments.
	6. Normative References		6. References
	[I-D.ietf-idr-rfc7752bis]		6.1. Normative References
	Talaulikar, K., "Distribution of Link-State and Traffic
	Engineering Information Using BGP", draft-ietf-idr-
	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
	(TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC 3630,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC3630, September 2003,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3630>.
	[RFC5305] Li, T. and H. Smit, "IS-IS Extensions for Traffic
	Engineering", RFC 5305, DOI 10.17487/RFC5305, October
	2008, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5305>.
	[RFC5329] Ishiguro, K., Manral, V., Davey, A., and A. Lindem, Ed.,
	"Traffic Engineering Extensions to OSPF Version 3",
	RFC 5329, DOI 10.17487/RFC5329, September 2008,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5329>.
	[RFC7308] Osborne, E., "Extended Administrative Groups in MPLS		[RFC7308] Osborne, E., "Extended Administrative Groups in MPLS
	Traffic Engineering (MPLS-TE)", RFC 7308,		Traffic Engineering (MPLS-TE)", RFC 7308,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC7308, July 2014,		DOI 10.17487/RFC7308, July 2014,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7308>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7308>.
	[RFC7752] Gredler, H., Ed., Medved, J., Previdi, S., Farrel, A., and		[RFC7752] Gredler, H., Ed., Medved, J., Previdi, S., Farrel, A., and
	S. Ray, "North-Bound Distribution of Link-State and		S. Ray, "North-Bound Distribution of Link-State and
	Traffic Engineering (TE) Information Using BGP", RFC 7752,		Traffic Engineering (TE) Information Using BGP", RFC 7752,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC7752, March 2016,		DOI 10.17487/RFC7752, March 2016,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7752>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7752>.
	[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC		[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
	2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,		2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
	May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.		May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
			6.2. Informative References
			[RFC1195] Callon, R., "Use of OSI IS-IS for routing in TCP/IP and
			dual environments", RFC 1195, DOI 10.17487/RFC1195,
			December 1990, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1195>.
			[RFC2328] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328,
			DOI 10.17487/RFC2328, April 1998,
			<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2328>.
			[RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A
			Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271,
			DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006,
			<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4271>.
			[RFC4272] Murphy, S., "BGP Security Vulnerabilities Analysis",
			RFC 4272, DOI 10.17487/RFC4272, January 2006,
			<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4272>.
			[RFC5340] Coltun, R., Ferguson, D., Moy, J., and A. Lindem, "OSPF
			for IPv6", RFC 5340, DOI 10.17487/RFC5340, July 2008,
			<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5340>.
			[RFC6952] Jethanandani, M., Patel, K., and L. Zheng, "Analysis of
			BGP, LDP, PCEP, and MSDP Issues According to the Keying
			and Authentication for Routing Protocols (KARP) Design
			Guide", RFC 6952, DOI 10.17487/RFC6952, May 2013,
			<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6952>.
	Authors' Addresses		Authors' Addresses
			Jeff Tantsura
			Juniper Networks
			Email: jefftant.ietf@gmail.com
	Zitao Wang		Zitao Wang
	Huawei		Huawei
	101 Software Avenue, Yuhua District		101 Software Avenue, Yuhua District
	Nanjing, Jiangsu 210012		Nanjing, Jiangsu 210012
	China		China
	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
	Juniper Networks
	Email: jefftant.ietf@gmail.com
	Ketan Talaulikar		Ketan Talaulikar
	Cisco Systems		Cisco Systems
	Email: ketant@cisco.com		Email: ketant@cisco.com
End of changes. 24 change blocks.
	76 lines changed or deleted		82 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/