idnits 2.17.1 draft-previdi-idr-bgpls-te-metric-extensions-01.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 doesn't use any RFC 2119 keywords, yet seems to have RFC 2119 boilerplate text. -- The document date (March 1, 2016) is 2970 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) No issues found here. Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 1 comment (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Networking Working Group S. Previdi, Ed. 3 Internet-Draft Cisco Systems, Inc. 4 Intended status: Standards Track Q. Wu 5 Expires: September 2, 2016 Huawei 6 H. Gredler 7 S. Ray 8 Individual 9 J. Tantsura 10 Ericsson 11 C. Filsfils 12 L. Ginsberg 13 Cisco Systems, Inc. 14 March 1, 2016 16 BGP-LS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions 17 draft-previdi-idr-bgpls-te-metric-extensions-01 19 Abstract 21 This document defines new BGP-LS TLVs in order to carry the IGP 22 Traffic Engineering Extensions defined in IS-IS and OSPF protocols. 24 Requirements Language 26 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 27 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 28 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. 30 In this document, these words will appear with that interpretation 31 only when in ALL CAPS. Lower case uses of these words are not to be 32 interpreted as carrying RFC-2119 significance. 34 Status of This Memo 36 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 37 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 39 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 40 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 41 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 42 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 44 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 45 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 46 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 47 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 48 This Internet-Draft will expire on September 2, 2016. 50 Copyright Notice 52 Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 53 document authors. All rights reserved. 55 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 56 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 57 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 58 publication of this document. Please review these documents 59 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 60 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 61 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 62 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 63 described in the Simplified BSD License. 65 Table of Contents 67 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 68 2. Link Attribute TLVs for TE Metric Extensions . . . . . . . . 3 69 3. TLV Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 70 3.1. Unidirectional Link Delay TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 71 3.2. Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay TLV . . . . . . . . . . 4 72 3.3. Unidirectional Delay Variation TLV . . . . . . . . . . . 4 73 3.4. Unidirectional Link Loss TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 74 3.5. Unidirectional Residual Bandwidth TLV . . . . . . . . . . 5 75 3.6. Unidirectional Available Bandwidth TLV . . . . . . . . . 5 76 3.7. Unidirectional Utilized Bandwidth TLV . . . . . . . . . . 6 77 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 78 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 79 6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 80 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 81 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 82 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 83 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 85 1. Introduction 87 BGP-LS ([I-D.ietf-idr-ls-distribution]) defines NLRI and attributes 88 in order to carry link-state information. New BGP-LS Link-Attribute 89 TLVs are required in order to carry the Traffic Engineering Metric 90 Extensions defined in [I-D.ietf-isis-te-metric-extensions] and 91 [RFC7471]. 93 2. Link Attribute TLVs for TE Metric Extensions 95 The following new Link Attribute TLVs are defined: 97 TLV Type Value 98 -------------------------------------------------------- 99 1104 (Suggested) Unidirectional Link Delay 101 1105 (Suggested) Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay 103 1106 (Suggested) Unidirectional Delay Variation 105 1107 (Suggested) Unidirectional Packet Loss 107 1108 (Suggested) Unidirectional Residual Bandwidth 109 1109 (Suggested) Unidirectional Available Bandwidth 111 1110 (Suggested) Unidirectional Bandwidth Utilization 113 3. TLV Details 115 3.1. Unidirectional Link Delay TLV 117 This TLV advertises the average link delay between two directly 118 connected IGP link-state neighbors. The semantic of the TLV is 119 described in [I-D.ietf-isis-te-metric-extensions] and [RFC7471]. 121 0 1 2 3 122 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 1 123 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 124 | Type | Length | 125 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 126 |A| RESERVED | Delay | 127 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 129 where: 131 Figure 1 133 Type: TBA (suggested value: 1104). 135 Length: 4. 137 3.2. Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay TLV 139 This sub-TLV advertises the minimum and maximum delay values between 140 two directly connected IGP link-state neighbors. The semantic of the 141 TLV is described in [I-D.ietf-isis-te-metric-extensions] and 142 [RFC7471]. 144 0 1 2 3 145 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 1 146 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 147 | Type | Length | 148 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 149 |A| RESERVED | Min Delay | 150 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 151 | RESERVED | Max Delay | 152 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 154 where: 156 Figure 2 158 Type: TBA (suggested value: 1105). 160 Length: 8. 162 3.3. Unidirectional Delay Variation TLV 164 This sub-TLV advertises the average link delay variation between two 165 directly connected IGP link-state neighbors. The semantic of the TLV 166 is described in [I-D.ietf-isis-te-metric-extensions] and [RFC7471]. 168 0 1 2 3 169 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 1 170 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 171 | Type | Length | 172 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 173 | RESERVED | Delay Variation | 174 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 176 where: 178 Figure 3 180 Type: TBA (suggested value: 1106). 182 Length: 4. 184 3.4. Unidirectional Link Loss TLV 186 This sub-TLV advertises the loss (as a packet percentage) between two 187 directly connected IGP link-state neighbors. The semantic of the TLV 188 is described in [I-D.ietf-isis-te-metric-extensions] and [RFC7471]. 190 0 1 2 3 191 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 1 192 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 193 | Type | Length | 194 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 195 |A| RESERVED | Link Loss | 196 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 198 where: 200 Type: TBA (suggested value: 1107). 202 Length: 4. 204 3.5. Unidirectional Residual Bandwidth TLV 206 This sub-TLV advertises the residual bandwidth between two directly 207 connected IGP link-state neighbors. The semantic of the TLV is 208 described in [I-D.ietf-isis-te-metric-extensions] and [RFC7471]. 210 0 1 2 3 211 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 1 212 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 213 | Type | Length | 214 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 215 | Residual Bandwidth | 216 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 218 where: 220 Type: TBA (suggested value: 1108). 222 Length: 4. 224 3.6. Unidirectional Available Bandwidth TLV 226 This sub-TLV advertises the available bandwidth between two directly 227 connected IGP link-state neighbors. The semantic of the TLV is 228 described in [I-D.ietf-isis-te-metric-extensions] and [RFC7471]. 230 0 1 2 3 231 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 1 232 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 233 | Type | Length | 234 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 235 | Available Bandwidth | 236 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 238 where: 240 Figure 4 242 Type: TBA (suggested value: 1109). 244 Length: 4. 246 3.7. Unidirectional Utilized Bandwidth TLV 248 This sub-TLV advertises the bandwidth utilization between two 249 directly connected IGP link-state neighbors. The semantic of the TLV 250 is described in [I-D.ietf-isis-te-metric-extensions] and [RFC7471]. 252 0 1 2 3 253 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 1 254 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 255 | Type | Length | 256 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 257 | Utilized Bandwidth | 258 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 260 where: 262 Figure 5 264 Type: TBA (suggested value: 1110). 266 Length: 4. 268 4. Security Considerations 270 Procedures and protocol extensions defined in this document do not 271 affect the BGP security model. See the 'Security Considerations' 272 section of [RFC4271] for a discussion of BGP security. Also refer to 273 [RFC4272] and [RFC6952] for analysis of security issues for BGP. 275 The TLVs introduced in this document are used to propagate IGP 276 defined information ([I-D.ietf-isis-te-metric-extensions] and 277 [RFC7471].) These TLVs represent the state and resources 278 availability of the IGP link. The IGP instances originating these 279 TLVs are assumed to have all the required security and authentication 280 mechanism (as described in [I-D.ietf-isis-te-metric-extensions] and 281 [RFC7471]) in order to prevent any security issue when propagating 282 the TLVs into BGP-LS. 284 5. IANA Considerations 286 This document requests assigning code-points from the registry "BGP- 287 LS Node Descriptor, Link Descriptor, Prefix Descriptor, and Attribute 288 TLVs" for the new Link Attribute TLVs deefined in the table here 289 below: 291 TLV code-point Value 292 -------------------------------------------------------- 293 1104 (Suggested) Unidirectional Link Delay 295 1105 (Suggested) Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay 297 1106 (Suggested) Unidirectional Delay Variation 299 1107 (Suggested) Unidirectional Packet Loss 301 1108 (Suggested) Unidirectional Residual Bandwidth 303 1109 (Suggested) Unidirectional Available Bandwidth 305 1110 (Suggested) Unidirectional Bandwidth Utilization 307 6. Acknowledgements 309 TBD 311 7. References 313 7.1. Normative References 315 [I-D.ietf-idr-ls-distribution] 316 Gredler, H., Medved, J., Previdi, S., Farrel, A., and S. 317 Ray, "North-Bound Distribution of Link-State and TE 318 Information using BGP", draft-ietf-idr-ls-distribution-13 319 (work in progress), October 2015. 321 [I-D.ietf-isis-te-metric-extensions] 322 Previdi, S., Giacalone, S., Ward, D., Drake, J., and W. 323 Wu, "IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions", 324 draft-ietf-isis-te-metric-extensions-11 (work in 325 progress), February 2016. 327 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 328 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 329 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 330 . 332 [RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A 333 Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, 334 DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006, 335 . 337 [RFC7471] Giacalone, S., Ward, D., Drake, J., Atlas, A., and S. 338 Previdi, "OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric 339 Extensions", RFC 7471, DOI 10.17487/RFC7471, March 2015, 340 . 342 7.2. Informative References 344 [RFC4272] Murphy, S., "BGP Security Vulnerabilities Analysis", 345 RFC 4272, DOI 10.17487/RFC4272, January 2006, 346 . 348 [RFC6952] Jethanandani, M., Patel, K., and L. Zheng, "Analysis of 349 BGP, LDP, PCEP, and MSDP Issues According to the Keying 350 and Authentication for Routing Protocols (KARP) Design 351 Guide", RFC 6952, DOI 10.17487/RFC6952, May 2013, 352 . 354 Authors' Addresses 356 Stefano Previdi (editor) 357 Cisco Systems, Inc. 358 Via Del Serafico 200 359 Rome 00191 360 IT 362 Email: sprevidi@cisco.com 364 Qin Wu 365 Huawei 366 101 Software Avenue, Yuhua District 367 Nanjing, Jiangsu 210012 368 China 370 Email: bill.wu@huawei.com 371 Hannes Gredler 372 Individual 373 AT 375 Email: hannes@gredler.at 377 Saikat Ray 378 Individual 379 US 381 Email: raysaikat@gmail.com 383 Jeff Tantsura 384 Ericsson 385 300 Holger Way 386 San Jose, CA 95134 387 US 389 Email: jeff.tantsura@ericsson.com 391 Clarence Filsfils 392 Cisco Systems, Inc. 393 Brussels 394 BE 396 Email: cfilsfil@cisco.com 398 Les Ginsberg 399 Cisco Systems, Inc. 400 US 402 Email: ginsberg@cisco.com