idnits 2.17.1 draft-head-idr-bgp-ls-isis-fr-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 : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year == The document doesn't use any RFC 2119 keywords, yet seems to have RFC 2119 boilerplate text. -- The document date (21 October 2021) is 916 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: 'RFC8126' is defined on line 177, but no explicit reference was found in the text -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'IS-IS-FR' ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 4272 ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 6952 ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 7752 (Obsoleted by RFC 9552) Summary: 3 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 3 warnings (==), 2 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group J. Head, Ed. 3 Internet-Draft T. Przygienda 4 Intended status: Standards Track Juniper Networks 5 Expires: 24 April 2022 21 October 2021 7 BGP-LS Extensions for IS-IS Flood Reflectors 8 draft-head-idr-bgp-ls-isis-fr-00 10 Abstract 12 This document defines new BGP-LS (BGP Link-State) TLVs in order to 13 carry IS-IS Flood Reflection information. 15 Status of This Memo 17 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 18 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 20 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 21 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 22 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 23 Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 25 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 26 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 27 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 28 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 30 This Internet-Draft will expire on 24 April 2022. 32 Copyright Notice 34 Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 35 document authors. All rights reserved. 37 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 38 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/ 39 license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. 40 Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights 41 and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components 42 extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text 43 as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are 44 provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. 46 Table of Contents 48 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 49 1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 50 2. BGP-LS Extensions for IS-IS Flood Reflectors . . . . . . . . 2 51 3. BGP-LS TLVs for IS-IS Flood Reflection . . . . . . . . . . . 2 52 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 53 4.1. Requested TLV Entries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 54 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 55 6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 56 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 57 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 58 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 60 1. Introduction 62 BGP Link-State RFC7752 [RFC7752] defines mechanisms to advertise 63 information about the underlying IGP in BGP NLRI to an external 64 entity (e.g. a controller). New BGP-LS TLVs are required in order to 65 faciliate IS-IS Flood Reflection [IS-IS-FR] extensions. 67 1.1. Requirements Language 69 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 70 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 71 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. 73 2. BGP-LS Extensions for IS-IS Flood Reflectors 75 This document defines the following BGP-LS TLV code point value in 76 accordance with RFC7752 rules: 78 +================+======================+=======================+ 79 | TLV Code Point | Description | IS-IS TLV | 80 +================+======================+=======================+ 81 | TBD1 | Flood Reflection TLV | TBD1 (161) [IS-IS-FR] | 82 +----------------+----------------------+-----------------------+ 84 Table 1: BGP-LS Flood Reflection TLV Code Points 86 TLV formats are described in detail in subsequent subsections. 88 3. BGP-LS TLVs for IS-IS Flood Reflection 90 This TLV advertises Flood Reflector details. The semantics and 91 values of the fields in the TLV are described in [IS-IS-FR]. 93 0 1 2 3 94 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 95 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 96 | Type | Length | 97 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 98 |C| RESERVED | 99 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 100 | Flood Reflection Cluster ID | 101 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 103 Figure 1: Flood Reflection TLVs 105 where: 107 *Type:* TBD1 109 *Length:* 5 111 4. IANA Considerations 113 This section requests entries from the "BGP-LS Node Descriptor, Link 114 Descriptor, Prefix Descriptor, and Attribute TLVs" registry for the 115 following TLVs: 117 4.1. Requested TLV Entries 119 +================+======================+ 120 | TLV Code Point | Description | 121 +================+======================+ 122 | TBD1 | Flood Reflection TLV | 123 +----------------+----------------------+ 125 Table 2: IANA Requests 127 5. Security Considerations 129 Procedures and protocol extensions defined in this document do not 130 affect the BGP security model. See the "Security Considerations" 131 section of [RFC4271] for a discussion of BGP security. Also, refer 132 to [RFC4272] and [RFC6952] for analyses of BGP security issues. 133 Security considerations for acquiring and distributing BGP-LS 134 information are discussed in [RFC7752]. 136 The TLVs introduced in this document are used to propagate IS-IS 137 Flood Reflection TLVs defined in [IS-IS-FR]. These TLVs represent 138 IS-IS Flood Reflector state and are therefore assumed to support any/ 139 all of the required security and authentication mechanisms as 140 described in [IS-IS-FR] to prevent any security issues when 141 propagating the TLVs into BGP-LS. 143 6. Acknowledgements 145 7. References 147 7.1. Normative References 149 [IS-IS-FR] Przygienda, T., Bowers, C., Lee, Y., Sharma, A., and R. 150 White, "IS-IS Flood Reflection", October 2021, 151 . 154 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 155 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 156 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 157 . 159 [RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Li, T., and S. Hares, "A Border Gateway 160 Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", January 2006, 161 . 163 [RFC4272] Murphy, S., "BGP Security Vulnerabilities Analysis", 164 January 2006, . 166 [RFC6952] Jethanandani, M., Patel, K., and L. Zheng, "Analysis of 167 BGP, LDP, PCEP, and MSDP Issues According to the Keying 168 and Authentication for Routing Protocols (KARP) Design 169 Guide", May 2013, 170 . 172 [RFC7752] Gredler, H., Medved, J., Previdi, S., Farrel, A., and S. 173 Ray, "North-Bound Distribution of Link-State and Traffic 174 Engineering (TE) Information Using BGP", March 2016, 175 . 177 [RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for 178 Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", June 179 2017, . 181 Authors' Addresses 182 Jordan Head (editor) 183 Juniper Networks 184 1137 Innovation Way 185 Sunnyvale, CA 186 United States of America 188 Email: jhead@juniper.net 190 Tony Przygienda 191 Juniper Networks 192 1137 Innovation Way 193 Sunnyvale, CA 194 United States of America 196 Email: prz@juniper.net