< draft-ietf-idr-te-lsp-distribution-02.txt   draft-ietf-idr-te-lsp-distribution-03.txt >
Network Working Group J. Dong Network Working Group J. Dong
Internet-Draft M. Chen Internet-Draft M. Chen
Intended status: Standards Track Huawei Technologies Intended status: Standards Track Huawei Technologies
Expires: July 9, 2015 H. Gredler Expires: November 8, 2015 H. Gredler
Juniper Networks, Inc. Juniper Networks, Inc.
S. Previdi S. Previdi
Cisco Systems, Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc.
J. Tantsura J. Tantsura
Ericsson Ericsson
January 5, 2015 May 7, 2015
Distribution of MPLS Traffic Engineering (TE) LSP State using BGP Distribution of MPLS Traffic Engineering (TE) LSP State using BGP
draft-ietf-idr-te-lsp-distribution-02 draft-ietf-idr-te-lsp-distribution-03
Abstract Abstract
This document describes a mechanism to collect the Traffic This document describes a mechanism to collect the Traffic
Engineering (TE) LSP information using BGP. Such information can be Engineering (TE) LSP information using BGP. Such information can be
used by external components for path reoptimization, service used by external components for path reoptimization, service
placement and network visualization. placement and network visualization.
Requirements Language Requirements Language
skipping to change at page 1, line 45 skipping to change at page 1, line 45
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 http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://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 July 9, 2015. This Internet-Draft will expire on November 8, 2015.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2015 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
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://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 25 skipping to change at page 2, line 25
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. Carrying LSP State Information in BGP . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. Carrying LSP State Information in BGP . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. LSP Identifier Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.1. LSP Identifier Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2. LSP State Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.2. LSP State Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3. Operational Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3. Operational Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.1. BGP-LS NLRI-Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.2. BGP-LS Protocol-IDs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.3. BGP-LS Instance-IDs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.4. BGP-LS Attribute TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
In some network environments, the states of established Multi- In some network environments, the states of established Multi-
Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE) Label Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE) Label
Switched Paths (LSPs) in the network are required by some components Switched Paths (LSPs) in the network are required by some components
external to the network domain. Usually this information is directly external to the network domain. Usually this information is directly
maintained by the ingress Label Edge Routers (LERs) of the MPLS TE maintained by the ingress Label Edge Routers (LERs) of the MPLS TE
LSPs. LSPs.
skipping to change at page 4, line 19 skipping to change at page 4, line 23
components, which avoids introducing multiple protocols for network components, which avoids introducing multiple protocols for network
information collection. This document describes a mechanism to information collection. This document describes a mechanism to
distribute the TE LSP information to external components using BGP. distribute the TE LSP information to external components using BGP.
2. Carrying LSP State Information in BGP 2. Carrying LSP State Information in BGP
2.1. LSP Identifier Information 2.1. LSP Identifier Information
The TE LSP Identifier information is advertised in BGP UPDATE The TE LSP Identifier information is advertised in BGP UPDATE
messages using the MP_REACH_NLRI and MP_UNREACH_NLRI attributes messages using the MP_REACH_NLRI and MP_UNREACH_NLRI attributes
[RFC4760]. The "Link State NLRI" defined in [RFC4760]. The "Link-State NLRI" defined in
[I-D.ietf-idr-ls-distribution] is extended to carry the TE LSP [I-D.ietf-idr-ls-distribution] is extended to carry the TE LSP
Identifier information. BGP speakers that wish to exchange TE LSP Identifier information. BGP speakers that wish to exchange TE LSP
information MUST use the BGP Multiprotocol Extensions Capability Code information MUST use the BGP Multiprotocol Extensions Capability Code
(1) to advertise the corresponding (AFI, SAFI) pair, as specified in (1) to advertise the corresponding (AFI, SAFI) pair, as specified in
[RFC4760]. [RFC4760].
The format of "Link State NLRI" is defined in The format of "Link-State NLRI" is defined in
[I-D.ietf-idr-ls-distribution]. Two new "NLRI Type" are defined for [I-D.ietf-idr-ls-distribution]. Two new "NLRI Type" are defined for
TE LSP Identifier Information as following: TE LSP Identifier Information as following:
o NLRI Type = 5: IPv4 TE LSP NLRI o NLRI Type = 5: IPv4 TE LSP NLRI
o NLRI-Type = 6: IPv6 TE LSP NLRI o NLRI Type = 6: IPv6 TE LSP NLRI
The IPv4 TE LSP NLRI (NLRI Type = 5) is shown in the following The IPv4 TE LSP NLRI (NLRI Type = 5) is shown in the following
figure: figure:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Protocol-ID | | Protocol-ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Identifier | | Identifier |
skipping to change at page 5, line 36 skipping to change at page 6, line 5
| | | |
+ + + +
| IPv6 Tunnel End-point Address | | IPv6 Tunnel End-point Address |
+ (16 octets) + + (16 octets) +
| | | |
+ + + +
| | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3. IPv6 TE LSP NLRI Figure 3. IPv6 TE LSP NLRI
For IPv4 TE LSP NLRI and IPv6 TE LSP NLRI, the Protocol-ID field is For IPv4 and IPv6 TE LSP NLRI, the Protocol-ID field specifies the
set to 6, which indicates that the NLRI information has been sourced type of signaling of the TE LSP. The following Protocol-IDs applies
by RSVP-TE. to IPv4/IPv6 TE LSP NLRI:
The Identifier field is used to discriminate between instances with +-------------+----------------------------------+
different LSP technology - e.g. one identifier can identify the | Protocol-ID | NLRI information source protocol |
instance for packet path, and another one is to identify the instance +-------------+----------------------------------+
of optical path. | TBD | RSVP-TE |
| TBD | Segment Routing |
+-------------+----------------------------------+
The 64-Bit 'Identifier' field is used to discriminate between
instances with different LSP technologies. The default identifier
"0" identifies the instance for packet switched LSPs. A new
identifier TBD is used to identify the instance of optical layer
LSPs.
The other fields in the IPv4 TE LSP NLRI and IPv6 TE LSP NLRI are the The other fields in the IPv4 TE LSP NLRI and IPv6 TE LSP NLRI are the
same as specified in [RFC3209]. same as defined in [RFC3209]. When the Protocol-ID is set to Segment
Routing, the Tunnel ID and LSP ID field SHOULD be filled with the
source node's locally generated identifiers which can uniquely
identify a specific SR LSP.
2.2. LSP State Information 2.2. LSP State Information
The LSP State TLV is used to describe the characteristics of the TE The LSP State TLV is used to describe the characteristics of the TE
LSPs, which is carried in the optional non-transitive BGP Attribute LSPs, which is carried in the optional non-transitive BGP Attribute
"LINK_STATE Attribute" defined in [I-D.ietf-idr-ls-distribution]. "LINK_STATE Attribute" defined in [I-D.ietf-idr-ls-distribution].
The "Value" field of the LSP State TLV corresponds to the format and The "Value" field of the LSP State TLV corresponds to the format and
semantics of a set of objects defined in [RFC3209], [RFC3473] and semantics of a set of objects defined in [RFC3209], [RFC3473] and
other extensions for TE LSPs. Rather than replicating all RSVP-TE other extensions for TE LSPs. Rather than replicating all RSVP-TE
related objects in this document, the semantics and encodings of related objects in this document, the semantics and encodings of the
existing TE LSP objects are re-used. Hence all TE LSP objects are existing TE LSP objects are re-used. Hence all TE LSP objects are
regarded as sub-TLVs. The LSP State TLV SHOULD only be used with regarded as sub-TLVs. The LSP State TLV SHOULD only be used with
IPv4/IPv6 TE LSP NLRI. IPv4/IPv6 TE LSP NLRI.
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | | |
skipping to change at page 7, line 4 skipping to change at page 7, line 33
o SECONDARY_RECORD_ROUTE (SRRO) [RFC4873] o SECONDARY_RECORD_ROUTE (SRRO) [RFC4873]
o LSP_ATTRIBUTES Object [RFC5420] o LSP_ATTRIBUTES Object [RFC5420]
o LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES Object [RFC5420] o LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES Object [RFC5420]
o PROTECTION Object [RFC3473][RFC4872][RFC4873] o PROTECTION Object [RFC3473][RFC4872][RFC4873]
o ASSOCIATION Object [RFC4872] o ASSOCIATION Object [RFC4872]
o PRIMARY_PATH_ROUTE Object [RFC4872] o PRIMARY_PATH_ROUTE Object [RFC4872]
o ADMIN_STATUS Object [RFC3473] o ADMIN_STATUS Object [RFC3473]
o BANDWIDTH Object [RFC5440] o BANDWIDTH Object [RFC5440]
o METRIC Object [RFC5440] o METRIC Object [RFC5440]
Other TE LSP objects which reflect specific state or attribute of the For the TE LSP Objects listed above, the corresponding subobjects are
LSP may also be carried in the LSP state TLV, which is for further also applicable to this mechanism. Other TE LSP objects which
study. reflect specific states or attributes of the LSP may also be carried
in the LSP state TLV, which is for further study.
3. Operational Considerations 3. Operational Considerations
The Existing BGP operational procedures apply to this document. No The Existing BGP operational procedures apply to this document. No
new operation procedures are defined in this document. The new operation procedures are defined in this document. The
operational considerations as specified in operational considerations as specified in
[I-D.ietf-idr-ls-distribution] apply to this document . [I-D.ietf-idr-ls-distribution] apply to this document.
4. IANA Considerations In general the ingress nodes of the LSPs are responsible for the
distribution of LSP state information, while other nodes on the LSP
path may report the LSP information if needed, e.g. the border
routers in the inter-domain case, where the ingress node may not have
the complete information of the end-to-end path.
IANA needs to assign two code points for "IPv4 TE LSP NLRI" and "IPv6 4. IANA Considerations
TE LSP NLRI" from the BGP-LS registry of NLRI Types.
IANA needs to assign one Protocol-ID for "RSVP-TE" from the BGP-LS IANA is requested to administer the assignment of new values defined
registry of Protocol-IDs. in this document and summarized in this section.
IANA needs to assign one new TLV type for "LSP State TLV" from the IANA needs to assign one new TLV type for "LSP State TLV" from the
registry of BGP-LS Attribute TLVs. registry of BGP-LS Attribute TLVs.
4.1. BGP-LS NLRI-Types
IANA maintains a registry called "Border Gateway Protocol - Link
State (BGP-LS) Parameters" with a sub-registry called "BGP-LS NLRI-
Types".
IANA is requested to assign two new NLRI-Types:
+------+---------------------------+---------------+
| Type | NLRI Type | Reference |
+------+---------------------------+---------------+
| 5 | IPv4 TE LSP NLRI | this document |
| 6 | IPv6 TE LSP NLRI | this document |
+------+---------------------------+---------------+
4.2. BGP-LS Protocol-IDs
IANA maintains a registry called "Border Gateway Protocol - Link
State (BGP-LS) Parameters" with a sub-registry called "BGP-LS
Protocol-IDs".
IANA is requested to assign two new Protocol-IDs:
+-------------+----------------------------------+---------------+
| Protocol-ID | NLRI information source protocol | Reference |
+-------------+----------------------------------+---------------+
| TBD | RSVP-TE | this document |
| TBD | Segment Routing | this document |
+-------------+----------------------------------+---------------+
4.3. BGP-LS Instance-IDs
IANA maintains a registry called "Border Gateway Protocol - Link
State (BGP-LS) Parameters" with a sub-registry called "BGP-LS Well-
known Instance-IDs".
IANA is requested to assign one new Instance-ID:
+------------+----------------------------------+---------------+
| Identifier | Routing Universe | Reference: |
+------------+----------------------------------+---------------+
| TBD | Default Optical Network Topology | this document |
+------------+----------------------------------+---------------+
4.4. BGP-LS Attribute TLVs
IANA maintains a registry called "Border Gateway Protocol - Link
State (BGP-LS) Parameters" with a sub-registry called "Node Anchor,
Link Descriptor and Link Attribute TLVs".
IANA is requested to assign one new TLV code point:
+-----------+---------------------+---------------+-----------------+
| TLV Code | Description | IS-IS TLV/ | Value defined |
| Point | | Sub-TLV | in: |
+-----------+---------------------+---------------+-----------------+
| TBD | LSP State TLV | --- | this document |
+-----------+---------------------+---------------+-----------------+
5. Security Considerations 5. Security Considerations
Procedures and protocol extensions defined in this document do not Procedures and protocol extensions defined in this document do not
affect the BGP security model. See [RFC6952] for details. affect the BGP security model. See [RFC6952] for details.
6. Acknowledgements 6. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Dhruv Dhody and Mohammed Abdul Aziz The authors would like to thank Dhruv Dhody and Mohammed Abdul Aziz
Khalid for their review and valuable comments. Khalid for their review and valuable comments.
7. References 7. References
7.1. Normative References 7.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-idr-ls-distribution] [I-D.ietf-idr-ls-distribution]
Gredler, H., Medved, J., Previdi, S., Farrel, A., and S. Gredler, H., Medved, J., Previdi, S., Farrel, A., and S.
Ray, "North-Bound Distribution of Link-State and TE Ray, "North-Bound Distribution of Link-State and TE
Information using BGP", draft-ietf-idr-ls-distribution-07 Information using BGP", draft-ietf-idr-ls-distribution-10
(work in progress), November 2014. (work in progress), January 2015.
[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, March 1997. Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2205] Braden, B., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S., and S. [RFC2205] Braden, B., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S., and S.
Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1 Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1
Functional Specification", RFC 2205, September 1997. Functional Specification", RFC 2205, September 1997.
[RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V., [RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.,
and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
skipping to change at page 9, line 14 skipping to change at page 11, line 10
[RFC5440] Vasseur, JP. and JL. Le Roux, "Path Computation Element [RFC5440] Vasseur, JP. and JL. Le Roux, "Path Computation Element
(PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440, March (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440, March
2009. 2009.
7.2. Informative References 7.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce]
Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Medved, J., and R. Varga, "PCEP Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Medved, J., and R. Varga, "PCEP
Extensions for Stateful PCE", draft-ietf-pce-stateful- Extensions for Stateful PCE", draft-ietf-pce-stateful-
pce-10 (work in progress), October 2014. pce-11 (work in progress), April 2015.
[RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J., and J. Ash, "A Path Computation [RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J., and J. Ash, "A Path Computation
Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655, August 2006. Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655, August 2006.
[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, May 2013. Guide", RFC 6952, May 2013.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
 End of changes. 22 change blocks. 
36 lines changed or deleted 115 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/