idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-idr-eag-distribution-07.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 date (September 10, 2018) is 2048 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) == Missing Reference: 'I-D.ietf-idr-ls-distribution' is mentioned on line 106, but not defined ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 7752 (Obsoleted by RFC 9552) Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 1 comment (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 IDR Working Group Z. Wang 3 Internet-Draft Q. Wu 4 Intended status: Standards Track Huawei 5 Expires: March 14, 2019 J. Tantsura 6 Nuage Networks 7 September 10, 2018 9 Distribution of MPLS-TE Extended admin Group Using BGP 10 draft-ietf-idr-eag-distribution-07 12 Abstract 14 As MPLS-TE network grows, administrative Groups advertised as a 15 fixed-length 32-bit Bitmask is quite constraining. "Extended 16 Administrative Group" IGP TE extensions sub-TLV is introduced to 17 provide for additional administrative groups (link colors) beyond the 18 current limit of 32. This document describes extensions to BGP 19 protocol, that can be used to distribute extended administrative 20 groups in MPLS-TE. 22 Status of This Memo 24 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 25 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 27 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 28 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 29 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 30 Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 32 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 33 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 34 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 35 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 37 This Internet-Draft will expire on March 14, 2019. 39 Copyright Notice 41 Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 42 document authors. All rights reserved. 44 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 45 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 46 (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 47 publication of this document. Please review these documents 48 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 49 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 50 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 51 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 52 described in the Simplified BSD License. 54 Table of Contents 56 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 57 2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 58 3. Carrying Extended Administrative Groups in BGP . . . . . . . 3 59 3.1. AG and EAG coexistence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 60 3.2. Desire for unadvertised EAG bits . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 61 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 62 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 63 6. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 64 7. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 65 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 67 1. Introduction 69 MPLS-TE advertises 32 administrative groups (commonly referred to as 70 "colors" or "link colors") using the Administrative Group sub-TLV of 71 the Link TLV defined in OSPFv2 (RFC3630), OSPFv3 (RFC5329) and ISIS 72 (RFC5305). 74 As MPLS-TE network grows, administrative Groups advertised as a 75 fixed-length 32-bit Bitmask is quite constraining. "Extended 76 Administrative Group" IGP TE extensions sub-TLV defined in [RFC7308] 77 is introduced to provide for additional administrative groups (link 78 colors) beyond the current limit of 32. 80 This document proposes new BGP Link attribute TLVs that can be 81 announced as attribute in the BGP-LS attribute (defined in [I.D-ietf- 82 idr-ls-distribution]) to distribute extended administrative groups in 83 MPLS-TE. 85 2. Requirements Language 87 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 88 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and 89 "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 90 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all 91 capitals, as shown here. 93 3. Carrying Extended Administrative Groups in BGP 95 This document proposes one new BGP link attribute TLVs that can be 96 announced as attribute in the BGP-LS attribute (defined in [I.D-ietf- 97 idr-ls-distribution]) to distribute extended administrative groups. 98 The extensions in this document build on the ones provided in BGP-LS 99 [RFC7752] and BGP-4 [RFC4271]. 101 BGP-LS attribute defined in [RFC7752] has nested TLVs which allow the 102 BGP-LS attribute to be readily extended. Link attribute TLVs defined 103 in section 3.2.2 of [I-D.ietf-idr-ls-distribution]are TLVs that may 104 be encoded in the BGP-LS attribute with a link NLRI. Each 'Link 105 Attribute' is a Type/Length/ Value (TLV) triplet formatted as defined 106 in Section 3.1 of [I-D.ietf-idr-ls-distribution]. 108 This document proposes one new TLV as a link attribute: 110 Type Value 112 TBD1 Extended Administrative Group (EAG) 114 The EAG TLV is used in addition to the Administrative Groups when a 115 node wants to advertise more than 32 colors for a link. The EAG TLV 116 is optional. The format and semantics of the 'value' fields in EAG 117 TLVs correspond to the format and semantics of value fields in IGP 118 extension sub-TLVs, defined in [RFC7308]. 120 +------------+---------------------+--------------+-----------------+ 121 | TLV Code | Description | IS-IS | Defined in: | 122 | Point | | TLV/Sub-TLV | | 123 +------------+---------------------+--------------+-----------------+ 124 | TBD1 | Extended | 22/14 | [RFC7308] | 125 | |Admininstrative Group| | | 126 +------------+---------------------+--------------+-----------------+ 128 Table 1: 'EAG' Link Attribute TLV 130 3.1. AG and EAG coexistence 132 Similar to section 2.3.1 of [RFC7308],if a BGP speaker advertises 133 both AG and EAG then AG and EAG should be dealt with in the same way 134 as AG and EAG carried in the Extended Administrative Group (EAG) sub- 135 TLV [RFC7308] for both OSPF [RFC3630] and ISIS [RFC5305]. 137 3.2. Desire for unadvertised EAG bits 139 Unlike AGs, EAGs are advertised as any non-zero-length-bit Bitmask. 140 the EAG length may be longer for some links than for others. Similar 141 to section 2.3.2 of [RFC7308], if a BGP peer wants to only use links 142 where the specific bits of an EAG is set to 1 but the specific bits 143 of this EAG is not advertised, then the implementation SHOULD process 144 these desire and unadvertised EAG bits in accordance with rule 145 defined in section 2.3.2 of [RFC7308]. 147 4. Security Considerations 149 This document does not introduce security issues beyond those 150 discussed in [RFC7752] and [RFC4271]. 152 5. IANA Considerations 154 This document requests assigning code-points from the registry "BGP- 155 LS Node Descriptor, Link Descriptor, Prefix Descriptor, and Attribute 156 TLVs" for the new Link Attribute TLVs defined in the table above: 158 6. Acknowledgments 160 The authors gratefully acknowledge the review made by Eric Osborne. 162 7. Normative References 164 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 165 Requirement Levels", March 1997. 167 [RFC3630] Katz, D., Yeung, D., and K. Kompella, "Traffic Engineering 168 (TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC 3630, September 169 2003. 171 [RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., "A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", 172 RFC 4271, January 2006. 174 [RFC5305] Li, T. and H. Smit, "IS-IS Extensions for Traffic 175 Engineering", RFC 5305, October 2008. 177 [RFC7308] Osborne, E., "Extended Administrative Groups in MPLS-TE", 178 ID RFC7308, July 2014. 180 [RFC7752] Gredler, H., "North-Bound Distribution of Link-State and 181 TE Information using BGP", RFC 7752, March 2016. 183 [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 184 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 185 May 2017, . 187 Authors' Addresses 189 Zitao Wang 190 Huawei 191 101 Software Avenue, Yuhua District 192 Nanjing, Jiangsu 210012 193 China 195 Email: wangzitao@huawei.com 197 Qin Wu 198 Huawei 199 101 Software Avenue, Yuhua District 200 Nanjing, Jiangsu 210012 201 China 203 Email: bill.wu@huawei.com 205 Jeff Tantsura 206 Nuage Networks 208 Email: jefftant.ietf@gmail.com