< draft-wang-idr-eag-distribution-01.txt		draft-wang-idr-eag-distribution-02.txt >
	IDR Working Group Z. Wang		IDR Working Group Z. Wang
	Internet-Draft Q. Wu		Internet-Draft Q. Wu
	Intended status: Standards Track Huawei		Intended status: Standards Track Huawei
	Expires: September 5, 2015 March 4, 2015		Expires: October 16, 2015 J. Tantsura
			Ericsson
			April 14, 2015
	Distribution of MPLS-TE Extended admin Group Using BGP		Distribution of MPLS-TE Extended admin Group Using BGP
	draft-wang-idr-eag-distribution-01		draft-wang-idr-eag-distribution-02
	Abstract		Abstract
	As MPLS-TE network grows, administrative Groups advertised as a		As MPLS-TE network grows, administrative Groups advertised as a
	fixed-length 32-bit Bitmask is quite constraining. "Extended		fixed-length 32-bit Bitmask is quite constraining. "Extended
	Administrative Group" IGP TE extensions sub-TLV defined in [RFC7308]		Administrative Group" IGP TE extensions sub-TLV defined in [RFC7308]
	is introduced to provide for additional administrative groups (link		is introduced to provide for additional administrative groups (link
	colors) beyond the current limit of 32. This document describes		colors) beyond the current limit of 32. This document describes
	extensions to BGP protocol, that can be used to distribute extended		extensions to BGP protocol, that can be used to distribute extended
	administrative groups in MPLS-TE.		administrative groups in MPLS-TE.
	skipping to change at page 1, line 36 ¶		skipping to change at page 1, line 38 ¶
	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 September 5, 2015.		This Internet-Draft will expire on October 16, 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 3, line 37 ¶		skipping to change at page 3, line 40 ¶
	| Point | | TLV/Sub-TLV | |		| Point | | TLV/Sub-TLV | |
	+------------+---------------------+--------------+-----------------+		+------------+---------------------+--------------+-----------------+
	| xxxx | Extended | 22/xx | [RFC7308] |		| xxxx | Extended | 22/xx | [RFC7308] |
	| | Admin Group | | |		| | Admin Group | | |
	+------------+---------------------+--------------+-----------------+		+------------+---------------------+--------------+-----------------+
	Table 1: 'EAG' Link Attribute TLV		Table 1: 'EAG' Link Attribute TLV
	3.1. AG and EAG coexistence		3.1. AG and EAG coexistence
	Similar to section 2.3.1 of [I-D.ietf-mpls-extended- admin-group],if		Similar to section 2.3.1 of [RFC7308],if a BGP speaker advertises
	a BGP speaker advertises both AG and EAG then AG and EAG should be		both AG and EAG then AG and EAG should be dealt with in the same way
	dealt with in the same way as AG and EAG carried in the Extended		as AG and EAG carried in the Extended Administrative Group (EAG) sub-
	Administrative Group (EAG) sub-TLV [I-D.ietf-mpls-extended- admin-		TLV [RFC7308] for both OSPF [RFC3630] and ISIS [RFC5305].
	group] for both OSPF [RFC3630] and ISIS [RFC5305].
	3.2. Desire for unadvertised EAG bits		3.2. Desire for unadvertised EAG bits
	Unlike AGs, EAGs are advertised as any non-zero-length-bit Bitmask.		Unlike AGs, EAGs are advertised as any non-zero-length-bit Bitmask.
	the EAG length may be longer for some links than for others. Similar		the EAG length may be longer for some links than for others. Similar
	to section 2.3.2 of [RFC7308], if a BGP peer wants to only use links		to section 2.3.2 of [RFC7308], if a BGP peer wants to only use links
	where the specific bits of an EAG is set to 1 but the specific bits		where the specific bits of an EAG is set to 1 but the specific bits
	of this EAG is not advertised, then the implementation SHOULD process		of this EAG is not advertised, then the implementation SHOULD process
	these desire and unadvertised EAG bits in accordance with rule		these desire and unadvertised EAG bits in accordance with rule
	defined in section 2.3.2 of [RFC7308].		defined in section 2.3.2 of [RFC7308].
	skipping to change at page 4, line 25 ¶		skipping to change at page 4, line 27 ¶
	6. Acknowledgments		6. Acknowledgments
	The authors gratefully acknowledge the review made by Eric Osborne.		The authors gratefully acknowledge the review made by Eric Osborne.
	7. Normative References		7. Normative References
	[I-D.ietf-idr-ls-distribution]		[I-D.ietf-idr-ls-distribution]
	Gredler, H., "North-Bound Distribution of Link-State and		Gredler, H., "North-Bound Distribution of Link-State and
	TE Information using BGP", ID draft-ietf-idr-ls-		TE Information using BGP", ID draft-ietf-idr-ls-
	distribution-03, May 2013.		distribution-10, 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", March 1997.		Requirement Levels", March 1997.
	[RFC3630] Katz, D., Yeung, D., and K. Kompella, "Traffic Engineering		[RFC3630] Katz, D., Yeung, D., and K. Kompella, "Traffic Engineering
	(TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC 3630, September		(TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC 3630, September
	2003.		2003.
	[RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., "A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC		[RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., "A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC
	4271, January 2006.		4271, January 2006.
	skipping to change at page 4, line 44 ¶		skipping to change at page 5, line 4 ¶
	[RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., "A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC		[RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., "A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC
	4271, January 2006.		4271, January 2006.
	[RFC5305] Li, T. and H. Smit, "IS-IS Extensions for Traffic		[RFC5305] Li, T. and H. Smit, "IS-IS Extensions for Traffic
	Engineering", RFC 5305, October 2008.		Engineering", RFC 5305, October 2008.
	[RFC7308] Osborne, E., "Extended Administrative Groups in MPLS-TE",		[RFC7308] Osborne, E., "Extended Administrative Groups in MPLS-TE",
	ID RFC7308, July 2014.		ID RFC7308, July 2014.
	Authors' Addresses		Authors' Addresses
	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
			Ericsson
			300 Holger Way
			San Jose, CA 95134
			US
			Email: jeff.tantsura@ericsson.com
End of changes. 8 change blocks.
	10 lines changed or deleted		11 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/