idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-idr-eag-distribution-17.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 (May 18, 2021) is 1074 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 J. Tantsura 3 Internet-Draft Juniper Networks 4 Intended status: Standards Track Z. Wang 5 Expires: November 19, 2021 Q. Wu 6 Huawei 7 K. Talaulikar 8 Cisco Systems 9 May 18, 2021 11 Distribution of Traffic Engineering Extended Administrative Groups using 12 BGP-LS 13 draft-ietf-idr-eag-distribution-17 15 Abstract 17 Administrative groups are link attributes used for traffic 18 engineering. This document defines an extension to BGP-LS for 19 advertisement of extended administrative groups (EAGs). 21 Status of This Memo 23 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 24 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 26 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 27 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 28 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 29 Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 31 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 32 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 33 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 34 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 36 This Internet-Draft will expire on November 19, 2021. 38 Copyright Notice 40 Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 41 document authors. All rights reserved. 43 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 44 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 45 (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 46 publication of this document. Please review these documents 47 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 48 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 49 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 50 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 51 described in the Simplified BSD License. 53 Table of Contents 55 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 56 1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 57 2. Advertising Extended Administrative Group in BGP-LS . . . . . 3 58 3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 59 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 60 5. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 61 6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 62 6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 63 6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 64 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 66 1. Introduction 68 Administrative groups (commonly referred to as "colors" or "link 69 colors") are link attributes that are advertised by link state 70 protocols like IS-IS [RFC1195], OSPFv2 [RFC2328] and OSPFv3 71 [RFC5340]. The BGP-LS advertisement of the originally defined (non- 72 extended) administrative groups is encoded using the Administrative 73 Group (color) TLV 1088 as defined in [RFC7752]. 75 These administrative groups are defined as a fixed-length 32-bit 76 bitmask. As networks grew and more use-cases were introduced, the 77 32-bit length was found to be constraining and hence extended 78 administrative groups (EAG) were introduced in [RFC7308]. 80 The EAG TLV (Section 2) is not a replacement for the Administrative 81 Group (color) TLV; as explained in [RFC7308] both values can coexist. 82 It is out of scope for this document to specify the behavior of the 83 BGP-LS consumer [RFC7752]. 85 This document specifies an extension to BGP-LS for advertisement of 86 the extended administrative groups. 88 1.1. Requirements Language 90 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 91 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and 92 "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 93 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all 94 capitals, as shown here. 96 2. Advertising Extended Administrative Group in BGP-LS 98 This document defines an extension that enables BGP-LS speakers to 99 signal the EAG of links in a network to a BGP-LS consumer of network 100 topology such as a centralized controller. The centralized 101 controller can leverage this information in traffic engineering 102 computations and other use-cases. When a BGP-LS speaker is 103 originating the topology learnt via link-state routing protocols like 104 OSPF or IS-IS, the EAG information of the links is sourced from the 105 underlying extensions as defined in [RFC7308]. 107 The EAG of a link is encoded in a new Link Attribute TLV [RFC7752] 108 using the following format: 110 0 1 2 3 111 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 1 112 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 113 | Type | Length | 114 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 115 | Extended Administrative Group (variable) // 116 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 118 Figure 1: Extended Administrative Group TLV Format 120 Where: 122 o Type: 1173 124 o Length: variable length which represents the total length of the 125 value field in octets. The length value MUST be a multiple of 4. 126 If the length is not a multiple of 4, the TLV MUST be considered 127 malformed. 129 o Value: one or more sets of 32-bit bitmasks that indicate the 130 administrative groups (colors) that are enabled on the link when 131 those specific bits are set. 133 3. IANA Considerations 135 This document requests assigning a code-point from the registry "BGP- 136 LS Node Descriptor, Link Descriptor, Prefix Descriptor, and Attribute 137 TLVs" based on table below. Early allocation for these code-points 138 have been done by IANA. 140 +------------+-------------------------------+-------------------+ 141 | Code Point | Description | IS-IS TLV/Sub-TLV | 142 +------------+-------------------------------+-------------------+ 143 | 1173 | Extended Administrative Group | 22/14 | 144 +------------+-------------------------------+-------------------+ 146 4. Security Considerations 148 The procedures and protocol extensions defined in this document do 149 not affect the BGP security model. See the "Security Considerations" 150 section of [RFC4271] for a discussion of BGP security. Also, refer 151 to [RFC4272] and [RFC6952] for analyses of security issues for BGP. 152 Security considerations for acquiring and distributing BGP-LS 153 information are discussed in [RFC7752]. The TLV introduced in this 154 document is used to propagate the EAG extensions defined in 155 [RFC7308]. It is assumed that the IGP instances originating this TLV 156 will support all the required security (as described in [RFC7308]) in 157 order to prevent any security issues when propagating the TLVs into 158 BGP-LS. The advertisement of the link attribute information defined 159 in this document presents no significant additional risk beyond that 160 associated with the existing link attribute information already 161 supported in [RFC7752]. 163 5. Acknowledgments 165 The authors would like to thank Eric Osborne, Les Ginsberg, Tim 166 Chown, Ben Niven-Jenkins and Alvaro Retana for their reviews and 167 valuable comments. 169 6. References 171 6.1. Normative References 173 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 174 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 175 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 176 . 178 [RFC7308] Osborne, E., "Extended Administrative Groups in MPLS 179 Traffic Engineering (MPLS-TE)", RFC 7308, 180 DOI 10.17487/RFC7308, July 2014, 181 . 183 [RFC7752] Gredler, H., Ed., Medved, J., Previdi, S., Farrel, A., and 184 S. Ray, "North-Bound Distribution of Link-State and 185 Traffic Engineering (TE) Information Using BGP", RFC 7752, 186 DOI 10.17487/RFC7752, March 2016, 187 . 189 [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 190 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 191 May 2017, . 193 6.2. Informative References 195 [RFC1195] Callon, R., "Use of OSI IS-IS for routing in TCP/IP and 196 dual environments", RFC 1195, DOI 10.17487/RFC1195, 197 December 1990, . 199 [RFC2328] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328, 200 DOI 10.17487/RFC2328, April 1998, 201 . 203 [RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A 204 Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, 205 DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006, 206 . 208 [RFC4272] Murphy, S., "BGP Security Vulnerabilities Analysis", 209 RFC 4272, DOI 10.17487/RFC4272, January 2006, 210 . 212 [RFC5340] Coltun, R., Ferguson, D., Moy, J., and A. Lindem, "OSPF 213 for IPv6", RFC 5340, DOI 10.17487/RFC5340, July 2008, 214 . 216 [RFC6952] Jethanandani, M., Patel, K., and L. Zheng, "Analysis of 217 BGP, LDP, PCEP, and MSDP Issues According to the Keying 218 and Authentication for Routing Protocols (KARP) Design 219 Guide", RFC 6952, DOI 10.17487/RFC6952, May 2013, 220 . 222 Authors' Addresses 224 Jeff Tantsura 225 Juniper Networks 227 Email: jefftant.ietf@gmail.com 228 Zitao Wang 229 Huawei 230 101 Software Avenue, Yuhua District 231 Nanjing, Jiangsu 210012 232 China 234 Email: wangzitao@huawei.com 236 Qin Wu 237 Huawei 238 101 Software Avenue, Yuhua District 239 Nanjing, Jiangsu 210012 240 China 242 Email: bill.wu@huawei.com 244 Ketan Talaulikar 245 Cisco Systems 247 Email: ketant@cisco.com