idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-idr-eag-distribution-14.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 : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The abstract seems to contain references ([RFC7308]), 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 (February 17, 2021) is 1156 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(See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Outdated reference: A later version (-17) exists of draft-ietf-idr-rfc7752bis-05 ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 7752 (Obsoleted by RFC 9552) Summary: 2 errors (**), 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: August 21, 2021 J. Tantsura 6 Juniper Networks 7 K. Talaulikar 8 Cisco Systems 9 February 17, 2021 11 Distribution of Traffic Engineering Extended Admin Groups using BGP-LS 12 draft-ietf-idr-eag-distribution-14 14 Abstract 16 Administrative groups are link attributes (commonly referred to as 17 "colors" or "link colors") advertised by link state protocols (e.g. 18 ISIS or OSPF) and used for traffic engineering. These administrative 19 groups were initially defined as 32 bit masks. As network usage 20 grew, these 32 bit masks were found to constrain traffic engineering. 21 Therefore, link state protocols (ISIS, OSPF) were expanded to 22 advertise a variable length administrative group.This document 23 defines an extension to BGP-LS for advertisement of extended 24 administrative groups (EAGs) to allow to support a number of 25 administrative groups greater than 32, as defined in [RFC7308]. 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 August 21, 2021. 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 1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 63 2. Advertising Extended Administrative Groups in BGP-LS . . . . 3 64 3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 65 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 66 5. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 67 6. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 68 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 70 1. Introduction 72 Administrative groups (commonly referred to as "colors" or "link 73 colors") are link attributes that are advertised by link state 74 protocols like IS-IS [RFC5305], OSPFv2 [RFC3630] and OSPFv3 [RFC5329] 75 for traffic engineering use-cases. The BGP-LS advertisement of the 76 originally defined (non-extended) administrative groups is encoded 77 using the Administrative Group (color) TLV 1088 as defined in 78 [RFC7752]. 80 These administrative groups are defined as a fixed-length 32-bit 81 bitmask. As networks grew and more use-cases were introduced, the 82 32-bit length was found to be constraining and hence extended 83 administrative groups (EAG) were introduced in the IS-IS and OSPFv2 84 link state routing protocols [RFC7308]. 86 This document specifies an extension to BGP-LS for advertisement of 87 the extended administrative groups. 89 1.1. Requirements Language 91 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 92 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and 93 "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 94 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all 95 capitals, as shown here. 97 2. Advertising Extended Administrative Groups in BGP-LS 99 This document defines an extension that enable BGP-LS speakers to 100 signal the EAG of links in a network to a BGP-LS consumer of network 101 topology such as a centralized controller. The centralized 102 controller can leverage this information in traffic engineering 103 computations and other use-cases. When a BGP-LS speaker is 104 originating the topology learnt via link-state routing protocols like 105 OSPF or IS-IS, the EAG information of the links is sourced from the 106 underlying extensions as defined in [RFC7308]. The BGP-LS speaker 107 may also advertise the EAG information for the local links of a node 108 when not running any link-state IGP protocol e.g. when running BGP as 109 the only routing protocol. 111 The EAG of a link is encoded in a new Link Attribute TLV [RFC7752] 112 using the following format: 114 0 1 2 3 115 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 1 116 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 117 | Type | Length | 118 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 119 | Extended Administrative Groups (variable) // 120 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 122 Figure 1: Extended Administrative Groups TLV Format 124 Where: 126 o Type: 1173 128 o Length: variable length which represents the total length of the 129 value field. The length value must MUST be multiple of 4. If the 130 length is not a multiple of 4, the TLV must be considered 131 malformed. 133 o Value: one or more sets of 32-bit bitmasks that indicate the 134 administrative groups (colors) that are enable on the link when 135 those specific bits are set. 137 The EAG TLV is an optional TLV. The originally defined AG TLV 1108 138 and the EAG TLV 1173 defined in this document MAY be advertised 139 together. The semantics of the EAG and the backward compatibility 140 aspects of EAG with respect to the AG are handled as described in the 141 Backward Compatibility section of [RFC7308], namely - If a node 142 advertises both AG and EAG, then the first 32 bits of the EAG MUST be 143 identical to the advertised AG. 145 3. IANA Considerations 147 This document requests assigning a code-point from the registry "BGP- 148 LS Node Descriptor, Link Descriptor, Prefix Descriptor, and Attribute 149 TLVs" based on table below. Early allocation for these code-points 150 have been done by IANA. 152 +------------+-------------------------------+-------------------+ 153 | Code Point | Description | IS-IS TLV/Sub-TLV | 154 +------------+-------------------------------+-------------------+ 155 | 1173 | Extended Administrative Group | 22/14 | 156 +------------+-------------------------------+-------------------+ 158 4. Security Considerations 160 The extensions in this document advertise same administrative group 161 information specified via [RFC7752] but as a larger/extended value 162 and hence does not introduce security issues beyond those discussed 163 in [RFC7752] and [I-D.ietf-idr-rfc7752bis]. 165 5. Acknowledgments 167 The authors gratefully acknowledge the review by Eric Osborne and Les 168 Ginsberg. 170 6. Normative References 172 [I-D.ietf-idr-rfc7752bis] 173 Talaulikar, K., "Distribution of Link-State and Traffic 174 Engineering Information Using BGP", draft-ietf-idr- 175 rfc7752bis-05 (work in progress), November 2020. 177 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 178 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 179 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 180 . 182 [RFC3630] Katz, D., Kompella, K., and D. Yeung, "Traffic Engineering 183 (TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC 3630, 184 DOI 10.17487/RFC3630, September 2003, 185 . 187 [RFC5305] Li, T. and H. Smit, "IS-IS Extensions for Traffic 188 Engineering", RFC 5305, DOI 10.17487/RFC5305, October 189 2008, . 191 [RFC5329] Ishiguro, K., Manral, V., Davey, A., and A. Lindem, Ed., 192 "Traffic Engineering Extensions to OSPF Version 3", 193 RFC 5329, DOI 10.17487/RFC5329, September 2008, 194 . 196 [RFC7308] Osborne, E., "Extended Administrative Groups in MPLS 197 Traffic Engineering (MPLS-TE)", RFC 7308, 198 DOI 10.17487/RFC7308, July 2014, 199 . 201 [RFC7752] Gredler, H., Ed., Medved, J., Previdi, S., Farrel, A., and 202 S. Ray, "North-Bound Distribution of Link-State and 203 Traffic Engineering (TE) Information Using BGP", RFC 7752, 204 DOI 10.17487/RFC7752, March 2016, 205 . 207 [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 208 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 209 May 2017, . 211 Authors' Addresses 213 Zitao Wang 214 Huawei 215 101 Software Avenue, Yuhua District 216 Nanjing, Jiangsu 210012 217 China 219 Email: wangzitao@huawei.com 221 Qin Wu 222 Huawei 223 101 Software Avenue, Yuhua District 224 Nanjing, Jiangsu 210012 225 China 227 Email: bill.wu@huawei.com 229 Jeff Tantsura 230 Juniper Networks 232 Email: jefftant.ietf@gmail.com 233 Ketan Talaulikar 234 Cisco Systems 236 Email: ketant@cisco.com