draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-app-specific-attr-01.txt   draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-app-specific-attr-02.txt 
Inter-Domain Routing K. Talaulikar Inter-Domain Routing K. Talaulikar
Internet-Draft P. Psenak Internet-Draft P. Psenak
Intended status: Standards Track Cisco Systems Intended status: Standards Track Cisco Systems
Expires: May 19, 2020 J. Tantsura Expires: November 19, 2020 J. Tantsura
Apstra Apstra
November 16, 2019 May 18, 2020
Application Specific Attributes Advertisement with BGP Link-State Application Specific Attributes Advertisement with BGP Link-State
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-app-specific-attr-01 draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-app-specific-attr-02
Abstract Abstract
Various link attributes have been defined in link-state routing Various link attributes have been defined in link-state routing
protocols like OSPF and IS-IS in the context of the MPLS Traffic protocols like OSPF and IS-IS in the context of the MPLS Traffic
Engineering (TE) and GMPLS. BGP Link-State (BGP-LS) extensions have Engineering (TE) and GMPLS. BGP Link-State (BGP-LS) extensions have
been defined to distribute these attributes along with other topology been defined to distribute these attributes along with other topology
information from these link-state routing protocols. Many of these information from these link-state routing protocols. Many of these
link attributes can be used for applications other than MPLS TE or link attributes can be used for applications other than MPLS TE or
GMPLS. GMPLS.
Extensions to link-state routing protocols have been defined for such Extensions to link-state routing protocols have been defined for such
link attributes which enable distribution of their application link attributes which enable distribution of their application
specific values. This document defines extensions to BGP-LS address- specific values. This document defines extensions to BGP-LS address-
family to enable advertisement of these application specific family to enable advertisement of these application specific
attributes as a part of the topology information from the network. attributes as a part of the topology information from the network.
Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on May 19, 2020. This Internet-Draft will expire on November 19, 2020.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Application Specific Link Attributes TLV . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Application Specific Link Attributes TLV . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Application Specific Link Attributes . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3. Application Specific Link Attributes . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4. Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. Deployment Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5. Deployment Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. Backward Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6. Backward Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 8. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8.1. Operational Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 8.1. Operational Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8.2. Management Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 8.2. Management Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
skipping to change at page 3, line 44 skipping to change at page 3, line 39
like end to end traffic engineering (TE) using RSVP-TE or SR based like end to end traffic engineering (TE) using RSVP-TE or SR based
mechanisms. A similar challenge to what was describe above is hence mechanisms. A similar challenge to what was describe above is hence
also faced by such centralized computation entities. also faced by such centralized computation entities.
There is thus a need for BGP-LS extensions to also report link There is thus a need for BGP-LS extensions to also report link
attributes on a per application basis on the same lines as introduced attributes on a per application basis on the same lines as introduced
in the link-state routing protocols. This document defines these in the link-state routing protocols. This document defines these
BGP-LS extensions and also covers the backward compatibility issues BGP-LS extensions and also covers the backward compatibility issues
related to existing BGP-LS deployments. related to existing BGP-LS deployments.
1.1. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
2. Application Specific Link Attributes TLV 2. Application Specific Link Attributes TLV
The BGP-LS [RFC7752] specifies the Link NLRI for advertisement of The BGP-LS [RFC7752] specifies the Link NLRI for advertisement of
links and their attributes using the BGP-LS Attribute. The links and their attributes using the BGP-LS Attribute. The
Application Specific Link Attributes (ASLA) TLV is a new optional Application Specific Link Attributes (ASLA) TLV is a new optional
top-level BGP-LS Attribute TLV that is introduced for Link NLRIs. It top-level BGP-LS Attribute TLV that is introduced for Link NLRIs. It
is defined such that it may act as a container for certain existing is defined such that it may act as a container for certain existing
and future link attributes that require to be defined in an and future link attributes that require to be defined in an
application specific scope. application specific scope.
skipping to change at page 4, line 17 skipping to change at page 4, line 21
[I-D.ietf-ospf-te-link-attr-reuse] and [I-D.ietf-isis-te-app] [I-D.ietf-ospf-te-link-attr-reuse] and [I-D.ietf-isis-te-app]
respectively. respectively.
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
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 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length | | Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| SABML | UDABML | Reserved | | SABML | UDABML | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Standard Application Bit-Mask (variable) // | Standard Application Identifier Bit Mask (variable) //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| User Defined Application Bit-Mask (variable) // | User Defined Application Identifier Bit Mask (variable) //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Link Attribute sub-TLVs // | Link Attribute sub-TLVs //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: Application Specific Link Attributes TLV Figure 1: Application Specific Link Attributes TLV
where: where:
o Type: 1122 o Type: 1122
o Length: variable. o Length: variable.
o SABML : 1 octet value carrying the Standard Application Bit-Mask o SABML : Standard Application Identifier Bit Mask Length in octets.
Length in multiples of 4 octets. If the Standard Application Bit- The values MUST be 0, 4 or 8. If the Standard Application
Mask is not present, the SABML MUST be set to 0. Identifier Bit Mask is not present, the SABML MUST be set to 0.
o UDABML : 1 octet value carrying the User Defined Application Bit- o UDABML : User Defined Application Identifier Bit Mask Length in
Mask Length in multiples of 4 octets. If the User Defined octets. The values MUST be 0, 4 or 8. If the User Defined
Application Bit-Mask is not present, the UDABML MUST be set to 0. Application Identifier Bit-Mask is not present, the UDABML MUST be
set to 0.
o Standard Application Bit-Mask : variable size in multiple of 4 o Standard Application Identifier Bit-Mask : of size 0, 4 or 8
octets and optional set of bits, where each bit represents a octets as indicated by SABML. Optional set of bits, where each
single standard application. The bits are defined in the IANA bit represents a single standard application. The bits are
"IGP Parameters" registries under the "Link Attribute defined in the IANA "IGP Parameters" registries under the "Link
Applications" registry [I-D.ietf-isis-te-app]. Attribute Applications" registry [I-D.ietf-isis-te-app].
o User Defined Application Bit-Mask : variable size in multiple of 4 o User Defined Application Identifier Bit-Mask : of size 0, 4 or 8
octets and optional set of bits, where each bit represents a octets as indicated by UDABML. Optional set of bits, where each
single user defined application. The bits are not managed or bit represents a single user defined application. The bits are
assigned by IANA or any other standards body and are left to not managed or assigned by IANA or any other standards body and
implementation specifics. are left to implementation specifics.
o sub-TLVs : BGP-LS Attribute TLVs corresponding to the Link NLRI o sub-TLVs : BGP-LS Attribute TLVs corresponding to the Link NLRI
that are application specific (as specified in Section 3) are that are application specific (as specified in Section 3) are
included as sub-TLVs of the ASLA TLV included as sub-TLVs of the ASLA TLV
An ASLA TLV with both the SABML and UDABML set to 0 (i.e. without any An ASLA TLV with both the SABML and UDABML set to 0 (i.e. without any
application specific bitmasks) indicate that the link attribute sub- application identifier bitmasks) indicates that the link attribute
TLVs that it encloses are applicable for all applications. sub-TLVs that it encloses are applicable for all applications.
The ASLA TLV and its sub-TLVs can only be added to the BGP-LS The ASLA TLV and its sub-TLVs can only be added to the BGP-LS
Attribute associated with the Link NLRI of the node that originates Attribute associated with the Link NLRI of the node that originates
the underlying IGP link attribute TLVs/sub-TLVs. The procedures for the underlying IGP link attribute TLVs/sub-TLVs. The procedures for
originating link attributes in the ASLA TLV from underlying IGPs is originating link attributes in the ASLA TLV from underlying IGPs is
specified in Section 4. specified in Section 4.
When the node is not running any of the IGPs but running a protocol When the node is not running any of the IGPs but running a protocol
like BGP, then the link attributes for the node's local links MAY be like BGP, then the link attributes for the node's local links MAY be
originated as part of the BGP-LS Attribute using the ASLA TLV and its originated as part of the BGP-LS Attribute using the ASLA TLV and its
skipping to change at page 11, line 17 skipping to change at page 11, line 17
The authors would like to thank Les Ginsberg, Baalajee S and Amalesh The authors would like to thank Les Ginsberg, Baalajee S and Amalesh
Maity for their review and feedback on this document. Maity for their review and feedback on this document.
11. References 11. References
11.1. Normative References 11.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-isis-te-app] [I-D.ietf-isis-te-app]
Ginsberg, L., Psenak, P., Previdi, S., Henderickx, W., and Ginsberg, L., Psenak, P., Previdi, S., Henderickx, W., and
J. Drake, "IS-IS TE Attributes per application", draft- J. Drake, "IS-IS TE Attributes per application", draft-
ietf-isis-te-app-09 (work in progress), October 2019. ietf-isis-te-app-12 (work in progress), March 2020.
[I-D.ietf-ospf-te-link-attr-reuse] [I-D.ietf-ospf-te-link-attr-reuse]
Psenak, P., Ginsberg, L., Henderickx, W., Tantsura, J., Psenak, P., Ginsberg, L., Henderickx, W., Tantsura, J.,
and J. Drake, "OSPF Link Traffic Engineering Attribute and J. Drake, "OSPF Link Traffic Engineering Attribute
Reuse", draft-ietf-ospf-te-link-attr-reuse-10 (work in Reuse", draft-ietf-ospf-te-link-attr-reuse-11 (work in
progress), October 2019. progress), May 2020.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC7752] Gredler, H., Ed., Medved, J., Previdi, S., Farrel, A., and [RFC7752] Gredler, H., Ed., Medved, J., Previdi, S., Farrel, A., and
S. Ray, "North-Bound Distribution of Link-State and S. Ray, "North-Bound Distribution of Link-State and
Traffic Engineering (TE) Information Using BGP", RFC 7752, Traffic Engineering (TE) Information Using BGP", RFC 7752,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7752, March 2016, DOI 10.17487/RFC7752, March 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7752>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7752>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>. May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
11.2. Informative References 11.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-idr-eag-distribution] [I-D.ietf-idr-eag-distribution]
Wang, Z., WU, Q., and J. Tantsura, "Distribution of MPLS- Wang, Z., WU, Q., Tantsura, J., and K. Talaulikar,
TE Extended admin Group Using BGP", draft-ietf-idr-eag- "Distribution of Traffic Engineering Extended Admin Groups
distribution-09 (work in progress), October 2019. using BGP-LS", draft-ietf-idr-eag-distribution-12 (work in
progress), May 2020.
[I-D.ietf-lsr-flex-algo] [I-D.ietf-lsr-flex-algo]
Psenak, P., Hegde, S., Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., and Psenak, P., Hegde, S., Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., and
A. Gulko, "IGP Flexible Algorithm", draft-ietf-lsr-flex- A. Gulko, "IGP Flexible Algorithm", draft-ietf-lsr-flex-
algo-04 (work in progress), September 2019. algo-07 (work in progress), April 2020.
[RFC1195] Callon, R., "Use of OSI IS-IS for routing in TCP/IP and [RFC1195] Callon, R., "Use of OSI IS-IS for routing in TCP/IP and
dual environments", RFC 1195, DOI 10.17487/RFC1195, dual environments", RFC 1195, DOI 10.17487/RFC1195,
December 1990, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1195>. December 1990, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1195>.
[RFC2328] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328, [RFC2328] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2328, April 1998, DOI 10.17487/RFC2328, April 1998,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2328>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2328>.
[RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V., [RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.,
 End of changes. 19 change blocks. 
40 lines changed or deleted 43 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.47. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/