idnits 2.17.1 draft-cz-bier-bgp-ls-bier-te-ext-00.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** There are 5 instances of too long lines in the document, the longest one being 8 characters in excess of 72. ** The abstract seems to contain references ([I-D.ietf-bier-te-arch], [RFC8279]), which it shouldn't. Please replace those with straight textual mentions of the documents in question. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (August 4, 2021) is 995 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Unused Reference: 'I-D.chen-bier-te-isis' is defined on line 203, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'I-D.chen-bier-te-ospf' is defined on line 208, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'I-D.chen-bier-te-ospfv3' is defined on line 213, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Outdated reference: A later version (-04) exists of draft-chen-bier-te-ospf-02 == Outdated reference: A later version (-13) exists of draft-ietf-bier-te-arch-10 ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 4655 ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 7752 (Obsoleted by RFC 9552) Summary: 4 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 6 warnings (==), 1 comment (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Networking Working Group R. Chen 3 Internet-Draft Zh. Zhang 4 Intended status: Standards Track ZTE Corporation 5 Expires: February 5, 2022 August 4, 2021 7 BGP Link-State extensions for BIER-TE 8 draft-cz-bier-bgp-ls-bier-te-ext-00 10 Abstract 12 Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER)-TE shares architecture and 13 packet formats with BIER as described in [RFC8279]. BIER-TE forwards 14 and replicates packets based on a BitString in the packet header, but 15 every BitPosition of the BitString of a BIER-TE packet indicates one 16 or more adjacencies as described in [I-D.ietf-bier-te-arch]. 18 BGP Link-State (BGP-LS) enables the collection of various topology 19 informations from the network, and the topology informations are used 20 by the PCE to calculate the path and then propagate them onto the 21 BFRs(instead of having each node to calculate on its own) and that 22 can be for both inter-as and intra-as situations. 24 This document specifies extensions to the BGP Link-state address- 25 family in order to advertise BIER-TE informations. 27 Status of This Memo 29 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 30 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 32 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 33 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 34 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 35 Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 37 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 38 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 39 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 40 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 42 This Internet-Draft will expire on February 5, 2022. 44 Copyright Notice 46 Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 47 document authors. All rights reserved. 49 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 50 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 51 (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 52 publication of this document. Please review these documents 53 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 54 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 55 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 56 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 57 described in the Simplified BSD License. 59 Table of Contents 61 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 62 2. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 63 3. BGP-LS Extensions for BIER-TE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 64 3.1. The new Link Attribute TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 65 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 66 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 67 6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 68 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 69 7.1. Normative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 70 7.2. Informative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 71 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 73 1. Introduction 75 Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER)-TE shares architecture and 76 packet formats with BIER as described in [RFC8279]. BIER-TE forwards 77 and replicates packets based on a BitString in the packet header, but 78 every BitPosition of the BitString of a BIER-TE packet indicates one 79 or more adjacencies as described in [[I-D.ietf-bier-te-arch]]. 81 When BIER-TE is enabled in an IGP domain, BIER-TE-related 82 informations will be advertised via IGP link-state routing protocols. 83 The flooding scope for the IGP extensions for BIER-TE is IGP area- 84 wide. by using the IGP alone it is not enough to construct across 85 multiple IGP Area. 87 The BGP-LS address-family/sub-address-family have been defined to 88 allow BGP to carry Link-State informations. This document specifies 89 extensions to the BGP Link-state address-family in order to advertise 90 BIER-TE-specific informations, Similar to BGP-LS Advertisement of IGP 91 Traffic Engineering Performance Metric Extensions([RFC8571]). An 92 external component (e.g., a controller/a PCE(see [RFC4655] for PCE- 93 Based Architecture , [RFC5440] for PCEP and [RFC5376] for Inter-AS 94 Requirements for the PCEP.))then can learn the BIER-TE informations 95 in the "northbound" direction and calculate BIER-TE Path and then 96 propagate them onto BFRs (instead of having each BFR to calculate on 97 its own), and that can be for both inter-as and intra-as situations. 99 2. Conventions used in this document 101 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 102 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 103 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC2119. 105 3. BGP-LS Extensions for BIER-TE 107 BIER-TE attributes and BitPositions associated with a link or 108 adjacency are advertised using the BGP-LS link Attribute TLV defined 109 in this section and associated with the BGP-LS Link NLRI. 111 3.1. The new Link Attribute TLV 113 The BIER-TE information TLV is defined to advertise the BIER-TE 114 informations. The informations are derived from BIER-TE Info Sub-TLV 115 of IS-IS(section 2 of [[I-D.chen-bier-te-isis]]) BIER-TE sub-TLV of 116 OSPFv2 (section 2 of [[I-D.chen-bier-te-ospf]]) and OSPFv3 (section 2 117 of [[I-D.chen-bier-te-ospfv3]]). According to different subdomain, 118 the BIER-TE information TLV may appear multiple times. 120 The BIER-TE information TLV has the following format: 122 0 1 2 3 123 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 1 124 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 125 | Type (TBD1) | Length | 126 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 127 | sub-domain-id | MT-ID | BAR | IPA | 128 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 129 | BitPosition | EndBitPosition | 130 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 132 Figure 1: The BIER-TE information TLV 134 Type:A 2-octet field with value TBD1, see IANA Considerations 135 section. 137 Length: 2 octets. 139 Subdomain-id: Unique value identifying the BIER-TE sub-domain, 1 140 octet. 142 MT-ID: Multi-Topology ID that identifies the topology that is 143 associated with the BIER-TE sub-domain. 1 octet. 145 BAR: A 1-octet field encoding the BIER Algorithm, used to calculate 146 underlay paths to reach BFERs. Values are allocated from the "BIER 147 Algorithms" registry which is defined in [RFC8401]. 149 IPA: A 1-octet field encoding the IGP Algorithm, used to either 150 modify,enhance, or replace the calculation of underlay paths to reach 151 BFERs as defined by the BAR value. Values are from the IGP Algorithm 152 registry. 154 BitPosition: A 2-octet field encoding the BitPosition locally 155 configured on the link/interface when the Link Type of the link in 156 the Router-Link TLV containing this Sub-TLV is 1 (i.e., Point-to- 157 Point connection to another router) or 2 (i.e., connection to Transit 158 Network or say LAN). 160 EndBitPosition: A 2-octet field encoding the BitPosition of the 161 connection on the designated Intermediate Systems (Dis) end (ISIS) / 162 designated router (DR) end( OSPFv2 and OSPFv3). For ISIS, this field 163 is valid when the neighbor is a pseudonode. If the neighbor is not a 164 pseudonode, this field MUST be ignored. For OSPFv2 and OSPFv3, this 165 field is valid when the Link Type in the Router-Link TLV containing 166 this Sub-TLV is 2 (i.e., Transit Network or LAN) and for the other 167 value of the Link Type, this field MUST be ignored. The 168 EndBitPosition may be configured on the link/interface to a transit 169 network (i.e., broadcast link or say LAN). 171 If the MT-ID value is outside of the values specified in [RFC4915], 172 the BIER-TE information Sub-TLV MUST be ignored. 174 4. IANA Considerations 176 This document requests assigning code-points from the registry for 177 the new Link Attribute TLV. 179 +-------------------+-----------------------------+-----------------+ 180 | TLV Code Point | Description | Value defined | 181 +-------------------+-----------------------------+-----------------+ 182 | TBD1 | BIER-TE information | this document | 183 +-------------------+-----------------------------+-----------------+ 185 Table 1: The new Link Attribute TLV 187 5. Security Considerations 189 Procedures and protocol extensions defined in this document do not 190 affect the BGP security model. See the "Security 191 Considerations"section of [RFC4271] for a discussion of BGP security. 192 Security considerations for acquiring and distributing BGP-LS 193 information are discussed in [RFC7752]. 195 6. Acknowledgements 197 TBD. 199 7. References 201 7.1. Normative references 203 [I-D.chen-bier-te-isis] 204 Chen, H., McBride, M., Wang, A., Mishra, G. S., Fan, Y., 205 Liu, L., and X. Liu, "IS-IS Extensions for BIER-TE", 206 draft-chen-bier-te-isis-01 (work in progress), July 2021. 208 [I-D.chen-bier-te-ospf] 209 Chen, H., McBride, M., Wang, A., Mishra, G. S., Fan, Y., 210 Liu, L., and X. Liu, "OSPF Extensions for BIER-TE", draft- 211 chen-bier-te-ospf-02 (work in progress), July 2021. 213 [I-D.chen-bier-te-ospfv3] 214 Chen, H., McBride, M., Wang, A., Mishra, G. S., Fan, Y., 215 Liu, L., and X. Liu, "OSPFv3 Extensions for BIER-TE", 216 draft-chen-bier-te-ospfv3-02 (work in progress), July 217 2021. 219 [I-D.ietf-bier-te-arch] 220 Eckert, T., Cauchie, G., and M. Menth, "Tree Engineering 221 for Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER-TE)", draft-ietf- 222 bier-te-arch-10 (work in progress), July 2021. 224 [RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J., and J. Ash, "A Path Computation 225 Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655, 226 DOI 10.17487/RFC4655, August 2006, 227 . 229 [RFC4915] Psenak, P., Mirtorabi, S., Roy, A., Nguyen, L., and P. 230 Pillay-Esnault, "Multi-Topology (MT) Routing in OSPF", 231 RFC 4915, DOI 10.17487/RFC4915, June 2007, 232 . 234 [RFC7752] Gredler, H., Ed., Medved, J., Previdi, S., Farrel, A., and 235 S. Ray, "North-Bound Distribution of Link-State and 236 Traffic Engineering (TE) Information Using BGP", RFC 7752, 237 DOI 10.17487/RFC7752, March 2016, 238 . 240 [RFC8279] Wijnands, IJ., Ed., Rosen, E., Ed., Dolganow, A., 241 Przygienda, T., and S. Aldrin, "Multicast Using Bit Index 242 Explicit Replication (BIER)", RFC 8279, 243 DOI 10.17487/RFC8279, November 2017, 244 . 246 [RFC8401] Ginsberg, L., Ed., Przygienda, T., Aldrin, S., and Z. 247 Zhang, "Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER) Support via 248 IS-IS", RFC 8401, DOI 10.17487/RFC8401, June 2018, 249 . 251 [RFC8571] Ginsberg, L., Ed., Previdi, S., Wu, Q., Tantsura, J., and 252 C. Filsfils, "BGP - Link State (BGP-LS) Advertisement of 253 IGP Traffic Engineering Performance Metric Extensions", 254 RFC 8571, DOI 10.17487/RFC8571, March 2019, 255 . 257 7.2. Informative references 259 [RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A 260 Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, 261 DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006, 262 . 264 [RFC5376] Bitar, N., Zhang, R., and K. Kumaki, "Inter-AS 265 Requirements for the Path Computation Element 266 Communication Protocol (PCECP)", RFC 5376, 267 DOI 10.17487/RFC5376, November 2008, 268 . 270 [RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation 271 Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440, 272 DOI 10.17487/RFC5440, March 2009, 273 . 275 Authors' Addresses 276 Ran Chen 277 ZTE Corporation 278 No.50 Software Avenue,Yuhuatai District 279 Nanjing, Jiangsu Province 210012 280 China 282 Phone: +86 025 88014636 283 Email: chen.ran@zte.com.cn 285 Zheng Zhang 286 ZTE Corporation 287 No.50 Software Avenue,Yuhuatai District 288 Nanjing, Jiangsu Province 210012 289 China 291 Email: zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn