< draft-ietf-idr-eag-distribution-17.txt   draft-ietf-idr-eag-distribution-18.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: November 19, 2021 Q. Wu Expires: December 3, 2021 Q. Wu
Huawei Huawei
K. Talaulikar K. Talaulikar
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
May 18, 2021 June 1, 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-17 draft-ietf-idr-eag-distribution-18
Abstract Abstract
Administrative groups are link attributes 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
skipping to change at page 1, line 37 skipping to change at page 1, line 37
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 November 19, 2021. This Internet-Draft will expire on December 3, 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
skipping to change at page 2, line 14 skipping to change at page 2, line 14
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 . . . . . 3 2. Advertising Extended Administrative Group in BGP-LS . . . . . 3
3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 6. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
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 [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].
skipping to change at page 4, line 11 skipping to change at page 4, line 11
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. Manageability Considerations
The new protocol extensions introduced in this document augment the
existing IGP topology information that is distributed via [RFC7752].
Procedures and protocol extensions defined in this document do not
affect the BGP protocol operations and management other than as
discussed in the Manageability Considerations section of [RFC7752].
Specifically, the malformed attribute tests for syntactic checks in
the Fault Management section of [RFC7752] now encompass the new BGP-
LS Attribute TLV defined in this document. The semantic or content
checking for the TLV specified in this document and its association
with the BGP-LS NLRI types or its BGP-LS Attribute is left to the
consumer of the BGP-LS information (e.g. an application or a
controller) and not the BGP protocol.
A consumer of the BGP-LS information retrieves this information over
a BGP-LS session (refer Section 1 and 2 of [RFC7752]).
5. Security Considerations
The procedures and protocol extensions defined in this document do The procedures and protocol extensions defined in this document do
not affect the BGP security model. See the "Security Considerations" not affect the BGP security model. See the "Security Considerations"
section of [RFC4271] for a discussion of BGP security. Also, refer section of [RFC4271] for a discussion of BGP security. This document
to [RFC4272] and [RFC6952] for analyses of security issues for BGP. only introduces a new Attribute TLV and any syntactic error in it
Security considerations for acquiring and distributing BGP-LS would result in the BGP-LS Attribute being discarded [RFC7752].
information are discussed in [RFC7752]. The TLV introduced in this Also, refer to [RFC4272] and [RFC6952] for analyses of security
document is used to propagate the EAG extensions defined in issues for BGP. Security considerations for acquiring and
[RFC7308]. It is assumed that the IGP instances originating this TLV distributing BGP-LS information are discussed in [RFC7752]. The TLV
will support all the required security (as described in [RFC7308]) in introduced in this document is used to propagate the EAG extensions
order to prevent any security issues when propagating the TLVs into defined in [RFC7308]. It is assumed that the IGP instances
BGP-LS. The advertisement of the link attribute information defined originating this TLV will support all the required security (as
in this document presents no significant additional risk beyond that described in [RFC7308]) and the OSPF and IS-IS RFCs below, in order
to prevent any security issues when propagating the Sub-TLVs into
BGP-LS.
Security concerns for OSPF are addressed in [RFC7474], [RFC4552] and
[RFC7166]. Further security analysis for OSPF protocol is done in
[RFC6863].
Security considerations for IS-IS are specified by [RFC5304].
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 associated with the existing link attribute information already
supported in [RFC7752]. supported in [RFC7752].
5. Acknowledgments 6. Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Eric Osborne, Les Ginsberg, Tim The authors would like to thank Eric Osborne, Les Ginsberg, Tim
Chown, Ben Niven-Jenkins and Alvaro Retana for their reviews and Chown, Ben Niven-Jenkins and Alvaro Retana for their reviews and
valuable comments. valuable comments.
6. References 7. References
6.1. Normative References 7.1. 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", 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>.
[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>.
skipping to change at page 5, line 15 skipping to change at page 5, line 40
[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 7.2. Informative References
[RFC1195] Callon, R., "Use of OSI IS-IS for routing in TCP/IP and [RFC1195] Callon, R., "Use of OSI IS-IS for routing in TCP/IP and
dual environments", RFC 1195, DOI 10.17487/RFC1195, dual environments", RFC 1195, DOI 10.17487/RFC1195,
December 1990, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1195>. December 1990, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1195>.
[RFC2328] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328, [RFC2328] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2328, April 1998, DOI 10.17487/RFC2328, April 1998,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2328>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2328>.
[RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A [RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A
Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006, DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4271>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4271>.
[RFC4272] Murphy, S., "BGP Security Vulnerabilities Analysis", [RFC4272] Murphy, S., "BGP Security Vulnerabilities Analysis",
RFC 4272, DOI 10.17487/RFC4272, January 2006, RFC 4272, DOI 10.17487/RFC4272, January 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4272>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4272>.
[RFC4552] Gupta, M. and N. Melam, "Authentication/Confidentiality
for OSPFv3", RFC 4552, DOI 10.17487/RFC4552, June 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4552>.
[RFC5304] Li, T. and R. Atkinson, "IS-IS Cryptographic
Authentication", RFC 5304, DOI 10.17487/RFC5304, October
2008, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5304>.
[RFC5340] Coltun, R., Ferguson, D., Moy, J., and A. Lindem, "OSPF [RFC5340] Coltun, R., Ferguson, D., Moy, J., and A. Lindem, "OSPF
for IPv6", RFC 5340, DOI 10.17487/RFC5340, July 2008, for IPv6", RFC 5340, DOI 10.17487/RFC5340, July 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5340>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5340>.
[RFC6863] Hartman, S. and D. Zhang, "Analysis of OSPF Security
According to the Keying and Authentication for Routing
Protocols (KARP) Design Guide", RFC 6863,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6863, March 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6863>.
[RFC6952] Jethanandani, M., Patel, K., and L. Zheng, "Analysis of [RFC6952] Jethanandani, M., Patel, K., and L. Zheng, "Analysis of
BGP, LDP, PCEP, and MSDP Issues According to the Keying BGP, LDP, PCEP, and MSDP Issues According to the Keying
and Authentication for Routing Protocols (KARP) Design and Authentication for Routing Protocols (KARP) Design
Guide", RFC 6952, DOI 10.17487/RFC6952, May 2013, Guide", RFC 6952, DOI 10.17487/RFC6952, May 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6952>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6952>.
Authors' Addresses [RFC7166] Bhatia, M., Manral, V., and A. Lindem, "Supporting
Authentication Trailer for OSPFv3", RFC 7166,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7166, March 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7166>.
[RFC7474] Bhatia, M., Hartman, S., Zhang, D., and A. Lindem, Ed.,
"Security Extension for OSPFv2 When Using Manual Key
Management", RFC 7474, DOI 10.17487/RFC7474, April 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7474>.
Authors' Addresses
Jeff Tantsura Jeff Tantsura
Juniper Networks Juniper Networks
Email: jefftant.ietf@gmail.com 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
 End of changes. 16 change blocks. 
26 lines changed or deleted 80 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/