idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-idr-eag-distribution-19.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 (June 4, 2021) is 1029 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: December 6, 2021 Q. Wu 6 Huawei 7 K. Talaulikar 8 Cisco Systems 9 June 4, 2021 11 Distribution of Traffic Engineering Extended Administrative Groups using 12 BGP-LS 13 draft-ietf-idr-eag-distribution-19 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 December 6, 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. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 60 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 61 6. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 62 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 63 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 64 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 65 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 67 1. Introduction 69 Administrative groups (commonly referred to as "colors" or "link 70 colors") are link attributes that are advertised by link state 71 protocols like IS-IS [RFC1195], OSPFv2 [RFC2328] and OSPFv3 72 [RFC5340]. The BGP-LS advertisement of the originally defined (non- 73 extended) administrative groups is encoded using the Administrative 74 Group (color) TLV 1088 as defined in [RFC7752]. 76 These administrative groups are defined as a fixed-length 32-bit 77 bitmask. As networks grew and more use-cases were introduced, the 78 32-bit length was found to be constraining and hence extended 79 administrative groups (EAG) were introduced in [RFC7308]. 81 The EAG TLV (Section 2) is not a replacement for the Administrative 82 Group (color) TLV; as explained in [RFC7308] both values can coexist. 83 It is out of scope for this document to specify the behavior of the 84 BGP-LS consumer [RFC7752]. 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 Group in BGP-LS 99 This document defines an extension that enables 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]. 108 The EAG of a link is encoded in a new Link Attribute TLV [RFC7752] 109 using the following format: 111 0 1 2 3 112 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 1 113 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 114 | Type | Length | 115 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 116 | Extended Administrative Group (variable) // 117 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 119 Figure 1: Extended Administrative Group TLV Format 121 Where: 123 o Type: 1173 125 o Length: variable length which represents the total length of the 126 value field in octets. The length value MUST be a multiple of 4. 127 If the length is not a multiple of 4, the TLV MUST be considered 128 malformed. 130 o Value: one or more sets of 32-bit bitmasks that indicate the 131 administrative groups (colors) that are enabled on the link when 132 those specific bits are set. 134 3. IANA Considerations 136 This document requests assigning a code-point from the registry "BGP- 137 LS Node Descriptor, Link Descriptor, Prefix Descriptor, and Attribute 138 TLVs" based on table below. Early allocation for these code-points 139 have been done by IANA. 141 +------------+-------------------------------+-------------------+ 142 | Code Point | Description | IS-IS TLV/Sub-TLV | 143 +------------+-------------------------------+-------------------+ 144 | 1173 | Extended Administrative Group | 22/14 | 145 +------------+-------------------------------+-------------------+ 147 4. Manageability Considerations 149 The new protocol extensions introduced in this document augment the 150 existing IGP topology information that is distributed via [RFC7752]. 151 Procedures and protocol extensions defined in this document do not 152 affect the BGP protocol operations and management other than as 153 discussed in the Manageability Considerations section of [RFC7752]. 154 Specifically, the malformed attribute tests for syntactic checks in 155 the Fault Management section of [RFC7752] now encompass the new BGP- 156 LS Attribute TLV defined in this document. The semantic or content 157 checking for the TLV specified in this document and its association 158 with the BGP-LS NLRI types or its BGP-LS Attribute is left to the 159 consumer of the BGP-LS information (e.g. an application or a 160 controller) and not the BGP protocol. 162 A consumer of the BGP-LS information retrieves this information over 163 a BGP-LS session (refer Section 1 and 2 of [RFC7752]). 165 5. Security Considerations 167 The procedures and protocol extensions defined in this document do 168 not affect the BGP security model. See the "Security Considerations" 169 section of [RFC4271] for a discussion of BGP security. This document 170 only introduces a new Attribute TLV and any syntactic error in it 171 would result in the BGP-LS Attribute being discarded [RFC7752]. 172 Also, refer to [RFC4272] and [RFC6952] for analyses of security 173 issues for BGP. Security considerations for acquiring and 174 distributing BGP-LS information are discussed in [RFC7752]. The TLV 175 introduced in this document is used to propagate the EAG extensions 176 defined in [RFC7308]. It is assumed that the IGP instances 177 originating this TLV will support any required security mechanisms 178 for OSPF and IS-IS, in order to prevent any security issues when 179 propagating the Sub-TLVs into BGP-LS. 181 Security concerns for OSPF are addressed in [RFC7474], [RFC4552] and 182 [RFC7166]. Further security analysis for OSPF protocol is done in 183 [RFC6863]. 185 Security considerations for IS-IS are specified by [RFC5304]. 187 The advertisement of the link attribute information defined in this 188 document presents no significant additional risk beyond that 189 associated with the existing link attribute information already 190 supported in [RFC7752]. 192 6. Acknowledgments 194 The authors would like to thank Eric Osborne, Les Ginsberg, Tim 195 Chown, Ben Niven-Jenkins and Alvaro Retana for their reviews and 196 valuable comments. 198 7. References 200 7.1. Normative References 202 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 203 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 204 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 205 . 207 [RFC7308] Osborne, E., "Extended Administrative Groups in MPLS 208 Traffic Engineering (MPLS-TE)", RFC 7308, 209 DOI 10.17487/RFC7308, July 2014, 210 . 212 [RFC7752] Gredler, H., Ed., Medved, J., Previdi, S., Farrel, A., and 213 S. Ray, "North-Bound Distribution of Link-State and 214 Traffic Engineering (TE) Information Using BGP", RFC 7752, 215 DOI 10.17487/RFC7752, March 2016, 216 . 218 [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 219 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 220 May 2017, . 222 7.2. Informative References 224 [RFC1195] Callon, R., "Use of OSI IS-IS for routing in TCP/IP and 225 dual environments", RFC 1195, DOI 10.17487/RFC1195, 226 December 1990, . 228 [RFC2328] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328, 229 DOI 10.17487/RFC2328, April 1998, 230 . 232 [RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A 233 Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, 234 DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006, 235 . 237 [RFC4272] Murphy, S., "BGP Security Vulnerabilities Analysis", 238 RFC 4272, DOI 10.17487/RFC4272, January 2006, 239 . 241 [RFC4552] Gupta, M. and N. Melam, "Authentication/Confidentiality 242 for OSPFv3", RFC 4552, DOI 10.17487/RFC4552, June 2006, 243 . 245 [RFC5304] Li, T. and R. Atkinson, "IS-IS Cryptographic 246 Authentication", RFC 5304, DOI 10.17487/RFC5304, October 247 2008, . 249 [RFC5340] Coltun, R., Ferguson, D., Moy, J., and A. Lindem, "OSPF 250 for IPv6", RFC 5340, DOI 10.17487/RFC5340, July 2008, 251 . 253 [RFC6863] Hartman, S. and D. Zhang, "Analysis of OSPF Security 254 According to the Keying and Authentication for Routing 255 Protocols (KARP) Design Guide", RFC 6863, 256 DOI 10.17487/RFC6863, March 2013, 257 . 259 [RFC6952] Jethanandani, M., Patel, K., and L. Zheng, "Analysis of 260 BGP, LDP, PCEP, and MSDP Issues According to the Keying 261 and Authentication for Routing Protocols (KARP) Design 262 Guide", RFC 6952, DOI 10.17487/RFC6952, May 2013, 263 . 265 [RFC7166] Bhatia, M., Manral, V., and A. Lindem, "Supporting 266 Authentication Trailer for OSPFv3", RFC 7166, 267 DOI 10.17487/RFC7166, March 2014, 268 . 270 [RFC7474] Bhatia, M., Hartman, S., Zhang, D., and A. Lindem, Ed., 271 "Security Extension for OSPFv2 When Using Manual Key 272 Management", RFC 7474, DOI 10.17487/RFC7474, April 2015, 273 . 275 Authors' Addresses 276 Jeff Tantsura 277 Juniper Networks 279 Email: jefftant.ietf@gmail.com 281 Zitao Wang 282 Huawei 283 101 Software Avenue, Yuhua District 284 Nanjing, Jiangsu 210012 285 China 287 Email: wangzitao@huawei.com 289 Qin Wu 290 Huawei 291 101 Software Avenue, Yuhua District 292 Nanjing, Jiangsu 210012 293 China 295 Email: bill.wu@huawei.com 297 Ketan Talaulikar 298 Cisco Systems 300 Email: ketant@cisco.com