< draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp-08.txt		draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp-09.txt >
	Networking Working Group L. Ginsberg, Ed.		Networking Working Group L. Ginsberg, Ed.
	Internet-Draft S. Previdi		Internet-Draft S. Previdi
	Intended status: Standards Track Cisco Systems, Inc.		Intended status: Standards Track Cisco Systems, Inc.
	Expires: February 19, 2018 Q. Wu		Expires: August 17, 2018 Q. Wu
	Huawei		Huawei
	H. Gredler		H. Gredler
	S. Ray		S. Ray
	J. Tantsura		J. Tantsura
	Individual		Individual
	C. Filsfils		C. Filsfils
	Cisco Systems, Inc.		Cisco Systems, Inc.
	August 18, 2017		February 13, 2018
	BGP-LS Advertisement of IGP Traffic Engineering Performance Metric		BGP-LS Advertisement of IGP Traffic Engineering Performance Metric
	Extensions		Extensions
	draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp-08		draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp-09
	Abstract		Abstract
	This document defines new BGP-LS TLVs in order to carry the IGP		This document defines new BGP-LS TLVs in order to carry the IGP
	Traffic Engineering Extensions defined in IS-IS and OSPF protocols.		Traffic Engineering Extensions defined in IS-IS and OSPF protocols.
	Requirements Language		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", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this		"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
	skipping to change at page 1, line 43 ¶		skipping to change at page 1, line 43 ¶
	interpreted as carrying RFC-2119 significance.		interpreted as carrying RFC-2119 significance.
	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 http://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 February 19, 2018.		This Internet-Draft will expire on August 17, 2018.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the		Copyright (c) 2018 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		(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
	skipping to change at page 3, line 45 ¶		skipping to change at page 3, line 45 ¶
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| Type | Length |		| Type | Length |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	|A| RESERVED | Delay |		|A| RESERVED | Delay |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	where:		where:
	Figure 1		Figure 1
	Type: TBA		Type: 1114
	Length: 4.		Length: 4.
	3.2. Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay TLV		3.2. Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay TLV
	This sub-TLV advertises the minimum and maximum delay values between		This sub-TLV advertises the minimum and maximum delay values between
	two directly connected IGP link-state neighbors. The semantic of the		two directly connected IGP link-state neighbors. The semantic of the
	TLV is described in [RFC7810] and [RFC7471].		TLV is described in [RFC7810] and [RFC7471].
	0 1 2 3		0 1 2 3
	skipping to change at page 4, line 25 ¶		skipping to change at page 4, line 25 ¶
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	|A| RESERVED | Min Delay |		|A| RESERVED | Min Delay |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| RESERVED | Max Delay |		| RESERVED | Max Delay |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	where:		where:
	Figure 2		Figure 2
	Type: TBA		Type: 1115
	Length: 8.		Length: 8.
	3.3. Unidirectional Delay Variation TLV		3.3. Unidirectional Delay Variation TLV
	This sub-TLV advertises the average link delay variation between two		This sub-TLV advertises the average link delay variation between two
	directly connected IGP link-state neighbors. The semantic of the TLV		directly connected IGP link-state neighbors. The semantic of the TLV
	is described in [RFC7810] and [RFC7471].		is described in [RFC7810] and [RFC7471].
	0 1 2 3		0 1 2 3
	skipping to change at page 4, line 47 ¶		skipping to change at page 4, line 47 ¶
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| Type | Length |		| Type | Length |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| RESERVED | Delay Variation |		| RESERVED | Delay Variation |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	where:		where:
	Figure 3		Figure 3
	Type: TBA		Type: 1116
	Length: 4.		Length: 4.
	3.4. Unidirectional Link Loss TLV		3.4. Unidirectional Link Loss TLV
	This sub-TLV advertises the loss (as a packet percentage) between two		This sub-TLV advertises the loss (as a packet percentage) between two
	directly connected IGP link-state neighbors. The semantic of the TLV		directly connected IGP link-state neighbors. The semantic of the TLV
	is described in [RFC7810] and [RFC7471].		is described in [RFC7810] and [RFC7471].
	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 |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	|A| RESERVED | Link Loss |		|A| RESERVED | Link Loss |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	where:		where:
	Type: TBA		Type:1117
	Length: 4.		Length: 4.
	3.5. Unidirectional Residual Bandwidth TLV		3.5. Unidirectional Residual Bandwidth TLV
	This sub-TLV advertises the residual bandwidth between two directly		This sub-TLV advertises the residual bandwidth between two directly
	connected IGP link-state neighbors. The semantic of the TLV is		connected IGP link-state neighbors. The semantic of the TLV is
	described in [RFC7810] and [RFC7471].		described in [RFC7810] and [RFC7471].
	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 |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| Residual Bandwidth |		| Residual Bandwidth |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	where:		where:
	Type: TBA		Type: 1118
	Length: 4.		Length: 4.
	3.6. Unidirectional Available Bandwidth TLV		3.6. Unidirectional Available Bandwidth TLV
	This sub-TLV advertises the available bandwidth between two directly		This sub-TLV advertises the available bandwidth between two directly
	connected IGP link-state neighbors. The semantic of the TLV is		connected IGP link-state neighbors. The semantic of the TLV is
	described in [RFC7810] and [RFC7471].		described in [RFC7810] and [RFC7471].
	0 1 2 3		0 1 2 3
	skipping to change at page 6, line 17 ¶		skipping to change at page 6, line 17 ¶
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| Type | Length |		| Type | Length |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| Available Bandwidth |		| Available Bandwidth |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	where:		where:
	Figure 4		Figure 4
	Type: TBA		Type: 1119
	Length: 4.		Length: 4.
	3.7. Unidirectional Utilized Bandwidth TLV		3.7. Unidirectional Utilized Bandwidth TLV
	This sub-TLV advertises the bandwidth utilization between two		This sub-TLV advertises the bandwidth utilization between two
	directly connected IGP link-state neighbors. The semantic of the TLV		directly connected IGP link-state neighbors. The semantic of the TLV
	is described in [RFC7810] and [RFC7471].		is described in [RFC7810] and [RFC7471].
	0 1 2 3		0 1 2 3
	skipping to change at page 6, line 39 ¶		skipping to change at page 6, line 39 ¶
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| Type | Length |		| Type | Length |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| Utilized Bandwidth |		| Utilized Bandwidth |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	where:		where:
	Figure 5		Figure 5
	Type: TBA		Type: 1120
	Length: 4.		Length: 4.
	4. Security Considerations		4. 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 the 'Security Considerations'		affect the BGP security model. See the 'Security Considerations'
	section of [RFC4271] for a discussion of BGP security. Also refer to		section of [RFC4271] for a discussion of BGP security. Also refer to
	[RFC4272] and [RFC6952] for analysis of security issues for BGP.		[RFC4272] and [RFC6952] for analysis of security issues for BGP.
	skipping to change at page 7, line 33 ¶		skipping to change at page 7, line 33 ¶
	1117 Unidirectional Packet Loss		1117 Unidirectional Packet Loss
	1118 Unidirectional Residual Bandwidth		1118 Unidirectional Residual Bandwidth
	1119 Unidirectional Available Bandwidth		1119 Unidirectional Available Bandwidth
	1120 Unidirectional Bandwidth Utilization		1120 Unidirectional Bandwidth Utilization
	6. Acknowledgements		6. Acknowledgements
	TBD		The authors wish to acknowledge comments from Ketan Talaulikar.
	7. References		7. References
	7.1. 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, <https://www.rfc-		DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
	editor.org/info/rfc2119>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
	[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, <https://www.rfc-		DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006,
	editor.org/info/rfc4271>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4271>.
	[RFC7471] Giacalone, S., Ward, D., Drake, J., Atlas, A., and S.		[RFC7471] Giacalone, S., Ward, D., Drake, J., Atlas, A., and S.
	Previdi, "OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric		Previdi, "OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric
	Extensions", RFC 7471, DOI 10.17487/RFC7471, March 2015,		Extensions", RFC 7471, DOI 10.17487/RFC7471, March 2015,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7471>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7471>.
	[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, <https://www.rfc-		DOI 10.17487/RFC7752, March 2016,
	editor.org/info/rfc7752>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7752>.
	[RFC7810] Previdi, S., Ed., Giacalone, S., Ward, D., Drake, J., and		[RFC7810] Previdi, S., Ed., Giacalone, S., Ward, D., Drake, J., and
	Q. Wu, "IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions",		Q. Wu, "IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions",
	RFC 7810, DOI 10.17487/RFC7810, May 2016,		RFC 7810, DOI 10.17487/RFC7810, May 2016,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7810>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7810>.
	7.2. Informative References		7.2. Informative References
	[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,
End of changes. 18 change blocks.
	21 lines changed or deleted		21 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/