idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-idr-eag-distribution-10.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 (November 21, 2019) is 1619 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) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 7752 (Obsoleted by RFC 9552) Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 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: May 24, 2020 J. Tantsura 6 Apstra, Inc. 7 K. Talaulikar 8 Cisco Systems 9 November 21, 2019 11 Distribution of MPLS-TE Extended admin Group Using BGP-LS 12 draft-ietf-idr-eag-distribution-10 14 Abstract 16 Administrative groups (commonly referred to as "colors" or "link 17 colors") are link attributes that are advertised by link state 18 protocols like IS-IS (Intermediate System to Intermediate System) and 19 OSPF (Open Shortest Path First) and used for traffic engineering. 20 These administrative groups have initially been defined as a fixed- 21 length 32-bit bitmask. As networks grew and more use-cases were 22 introduced, the 32-bit length was found to be constraining and hence 23 extended administrative groups were introduced in the link state 24 protocols. The 32-bit administrative groups are already advertised 25 as link attributes in BGP-LS. This document introduces extensions to 26 BGP-LS (Border Gateway Protocol Link-State) for advertisement of the 27 extended administrative groups. 29 Status of This Memo 31 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 32 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 34 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 35 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 36 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 37 Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 39 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 40 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 41 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 42 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 44 This Internet-Draft will expire on May 24, 2020. 46 Copyright Notice 48 Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 49 document authors. All rights reserved. 51 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 52 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 53 (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 54 publication of this document. Please review these documents 55 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 56 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 57 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 58 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 59 described in the Simplified BSD License. 61 Table of Contents 63 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 64 1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 65 2. Advertising Extended Administrative Groups in BGP-LS . . . . 3 66 3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 67 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 68 5. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 69 6. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 70 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 72 1. Introduction 74 Administrative groups (commonly referred to as "colors" or "link 75 colors") are link attributes that are advertised by link state 76 protocols like IS-IS [RFC5305], OSPFv2 [RFC3630] and OSPFv3 [RFC5329] 77 for traffic engineering use-cases. The BGP-LS advertisement is 78 encoded using the Administrative Group (color) TLV 1088 as defined in 79 [RFC7752]. 81 These administrative groups are defined as a fixed-length 32-bit 82 bitmask. As networks grew and more use-cases were introduced, the 83 32-bit length was found to be constraining and hence extended 84 administrative groups (EAG) were introduced in the IS-IS and OSPFv2 85 link state routing protocols [RFC7308]. 87 This document specifies extensions to BGP-LS for advertisement of the 88 extended administrative groups. 90 1.1. Requirements Language 92 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 93 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and 94 "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 95 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all 96 capitals, as shown here. 98 2. Advertising Extended Administrative Groups in BGP-LS 100 This document defines extensions that enable BGP-LS speakers to 101 signal the EAG of links in a network to a BGP-LS consumer of network 102 topology such as a centralized controller. The centralized 103 controller can leverage this information in traffic engineering 104 computations and other use-cases. When a BGP-LS speaker is 105 originating the topology learnt via link-state routing protocols like 106 OSPF or IS-IS, the EAG information of the links is sourced from the 107 underlying extensions as defined in [RFC7308]. The BGP-LS speaker 108 may also advertise the EAG information for the local links of a node 109 when not running any link-state IGP protocol e.g. when running BGP as 110 the only routing protocol. 112 EAG of a link is encoded in a new Link Attribute TLV [RFC7752] using 113 the following format: 115 0 1 2 3 116 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 1 117 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 118 | Type | Length | 119 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 120 | Extended Administrative Groups (variable) // 121 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 123 Figure 1: Extended Administrative Groups TLV Format 125 Where: 127 o Type: 1173 129 o Length: variable (MUST be multiple of 4); represents the total 130 length of the value field in octets. 132 o Value : one or more sets of 32-bit bitmasks that indicate the 133 administrative groups (colors) that are enable on the link when 134 those specific bits are set. 136 The EAG TLV is an optional TLV. The existing AG TLV 108 and the EAG 137 TLV introduced in this document MAY be advertised together. The 138 semantics of the EAG and the backward compatibility aspects of EAG 139 with respect to the AG are handled as described in the Backward 140 Compatibility section of [RFC7308]. 142 3. IANA Considerations 144 This document requests assigning code-point from the registry "BGP-LS 145 Node Descriptor, Link Descriptor, Prefix Descriptor, and Attribute 146 TLVs" based on table below. Early allocation for these code-points 147 have been done by IANA. 149 +------------+-------------------------------+-------------------+ 150 | Code Point | Description | IS-IS TLV/Sub-TLV | 151 +------------+-------------------------------+-------------------+ 152 | 1173 | Extended Administrative Group | 22/14 | 153 +------------+-------------------------------+-------------------+ 155 4. Security Considerations 157 The extensions in this document advertise same administrative group 158 information specified via [RFC7752] but as a larger/extended value 159 and hence does not introduce security issues beyond those discussed 160 in [RFC7752]. 162 5. Acknowledgments 164 The authors gratefully acknowledge the review by Eric Osborne and Les 165 Ginsberg. 167 6. Normative References 169 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 170 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 171 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 172 . 174 [RFC3630] Katz, D., Kompella, K., and D. Yeung, "Traffic Engineering 175 (TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC 3630, 176 DOI 10.17487/RFC3630, September 2003, 177 . 179 [RFC5305] Li, T. and H. Smit, "IS-IS Extensions for Traffic 180 Engineering", RFC 5305, DOI 10.17487/RFC5305, October 181 2008, . 183 [RFC5329] Ishiguro, K., Manral, V., Davey, A., and A. Lindem, Ed., 184 "Traffic Engineering Extensions to OSPF Version 3", 185 RFC 5329, DOI 10.17487/RFC5329, September 2008, 186 . 188 [RFC7308] Osborne, E., "Extended Administrative Groups in MPLS 189 Traffic Engineering (MPLS-TE)", RFC 7308, 190 DOI 10.17487/RFC7308, July 2014, 191 . 193 [RFC7752] Gredler, H., Ed., Medved, J., Previdi, S., Farrel, A., and 194 S. Ray, "North-Bound Distribution of Link-State and 195 Traffic Engineering (TE) Information Using BGP", RFC 7752, 196 DOI 10.17487/RFC7752, March 2016, 197 . 199 [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 200 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 201 May 2017, . 203 Authors' Addresses 205 Zitao Wang 206 Huawei 207 101 Software Avenue, Yuhua District 208 Nanjing, Jiangsu 210012 209 China 211 Email: wangzitao@huawei.com 213 Qin Wu 214 Huawei 215 101 Software Avenue, Yuhua District 216 Nanjing, Jiangsu 210012 217 China 219 Email: bill.wu@huawei.com 221 Jeff Tantsura 222 Apstra, Inc. 224 Email: jefftant.ietf@gmail.com 225 Ketan Talaulikar 226 Cisco Systems 228 Email: ketant@cisco.com