< draft-ietf-idr-eag-distribution-16.txt   draft-ietf-idr-eag-distribution-17.txt >
IDR Working Group J. Tantsura IDR Working Group J. Tantsura
Internet-Draft Juniper Networks Internet-Draft Juniper Networks
Intended status: Standards Track Z. Wang Intended status: Standards Track Z. Wang
Expires: October 20, 2021 Q. Wu Expires: November 19, 2021 Q. Wu
Huawei Huawei
K. Talaulikar K. Talaulikar
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
April 18, 2021 May 18, 2021
Distribution of Traffic Engineering Extended Administrative Groups using Distribution of Traffic Engineering Extended Administrative Groups using
BGP-LS BGP-LS
draft-ietf-idr-eag-distribution-16 draft-ietf-idr-eag-distribution-17
Abstract Abstract
Administrative groups are link attributes advertised used for traffic Administrative groups are link attributes used for traffic
engineering. This document defines an extension to BGP-LS for engineering. This document defines an extension to BGP-LS for
advertisement of extended administrative groups (EAGs). advertisement of extended administrative groups (EAGs).
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 October 20, 2021. This Internet-Draft will expire on November 19, 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 Group in BGP-LS . . . . . 2 2. Advertising Extended Administrative Group in BGP-LS . . . . . 3
3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
skipping to change at page 2, line 35 skipping to change at page 2, line 35
protocols like IS-IS [RFC1195], OSPFv2 [RFC2328] and OSPFv3 protocols like IS-IS [RFC1195], OSPFv2 [RFC2328] and OSPFv3
[RFC5340]. The BGP-LS advertisement of the originally defined (non- [RFC5340]. The BGP-LS advertisement of the originally defined (non-
extended) administrative groups is encoded using the Administrative extended) administrative groups is encoded using the Administrative
Group (color) TLV 1088 as defined in [RFC7752]. Group (color) TLV 1088 as defined in [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 [RFC7308]. administrative groups (EAG) were introduced in [RFC7308].
The EAG TLV (Section 2) is not a replacement for the Administrative
Group (color) TLV; as explained in [RFC7308] both values can coexist.
It is out of scope for this document to specify the behavior of the
BGP-LS consumer [RFC7752].
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 Group 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 enables 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]. underlying extensions as defined in [RFC7308].
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:
skipping to change at page 3, line 27 skipping to change at page 3, line 34
| Extended Administrative Group (variable) // | Extended Administrative Group (variable) //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: Extended Administrative Group 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 in octets. The length value MUST be multiple of 4. value field in octets. The length value MUST be a multiple of 4.
If the 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.
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-
 End of changes. 9 change blocks. 
8 lines changed or deleted 13 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/