Inter-Domain Routing S. Previdi Internet-Draft Huawei Technologies Intended status: Standards Track K.TalaulikarTalaulikar, Ed. Expires:April 25,September 9, 2019 C. Filsfils Cisco Systems, Inc. H. Gredler RtBrick Inc. M. Chen Huawei TechnologiesOctober 22, 2018March 8, 2019 BGP Link-State extensions for Segment Routingdraft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext-11draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext-12 Abstract Segment Routing (SR) allows for a flexible definition of end-to-end paths by encoding paths as sequences of topological sub-paths, called "segments". These segments are advertised by routing protocols e.g. by the link state routing protocols (IS-IS, OSPFv2 and OSPFv3) within IGP topologies. This draft defines extensions to the BGP Link-state address-family in order to carry segment routing information via BGP. 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 inRFC 2119 [RFC2119].BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here. Status of This Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." This Internet-Draft will expire onApril 25,September 9, 2019. Copyright Notice Copyright (c)20182019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. BGP-LS Extensions for Segment Routing . . . . . . . . . . . .54 2.1. Node Attributes TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.1.1. SID/Label Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .65 2.1.2.SR-CapabilitiesSR Capabilities TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .76 2.1.3.SR-AlgorithmSR Algorithm TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .87 2.1.4. SR Local Block TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2.1.5. SRMS Preference TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 2.2. Link Attribute TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 2.2.1. Adjacency SID TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1110 2.2.2. LAN Adjacency SID TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 2.2.3. L2 Bundle Member Attribute TLV . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . 1314 2.3. Prefix Attribute TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1415 2.3.1.Prefix-SIDPrefix SID TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1516 2.3.2. Prefix Attribute Flags TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . .1617 2.3.3. Source Router Identifier (Source Router-ID) TLV . . .1718 2.3.4. Range TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1719 2.4. Equivalent IS-IS Segment Routing TLVs/Sub-TLVs . . . . .1921 2.5. Equivalent OSPFv2/OSPFv3 Segment Routing TLVs/Sub-TLVs .20 3. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .214.3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21 4.1.23 3.1. TLV/Sub-TLV Code Points Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . .21 5.23 4. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22 6.24 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23 7.25 6. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23 8.26 7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24 9.26 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24 9.1.26 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24 9.2.26 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25 9.3. URIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2628 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2829 1. Introduction Segment Routing (SR) allows for a flexible definition of end-to-end paths by combining sub-paths called "segments". A segment can represent any instruction, topological or service-based. A segment can have a local semantic to an SR node or global within a domain. Within IGP topologies an SR path is encoded as a sequence of topological sub-paths, called "IGP segments". These segments are advertised by the link-state routing protocols (IS-IS, OSPFv2 and OSPFv3).Two types of[RFC8402] defines the Link-State IGP segmentsare defined, Prefix segments- Prefix, Node, Anycast and Adjacency segments. Prefix segments, by default, represent an ECMP-aware shortest-path to a prefix, as per the state of the IGP topology. Adjacency segments represent a hop over a specific adjacency between two nodes in the IGP. A prefix segment is typically a multi-hop path while an adjacency segment, in most of the cases, is a one-hop path.[RFC8402].Node and Anycast Segments are variations of the Prefix Segment with their specific characteristics. When Segment Routing is enabled inaan IGP domain, segments are advertised in the form of Segment Identifiers (SIDs). The IGP link- state routing protocols have been extended to advertise SIDs and other SR-related information. IGP extensions are described in: IS-IS [I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions], OSPFv2 [I-D.ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions] and OSPFv3 [I-D.ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions]. Using these extensions, Segment Routing can be enabled within an IGP domain.+------------+ | Consumer | +------------+ ^ | v +-------------------+ | BGP Speaker | +-----------+ | (Route-Reflector) | | Consumer | +-------------------+ +-----------+ ^ ^ ^ ^ | | | | +---------------+ | +-------------------+ | | | | | v v v v +-----------+ +-----------+ +-----------+ | BGP | | BGP | | BGP | | Speaker | | Speaker | . . . | Speaker | +-----------+ +-----------+ +-----------+ ^ ^ ^ | | | IGP IGP IGP Figure 1: Link State info collectionSegment Routing (SR) allows advertisement of single or multi-hop paths. The flooding scope for the IGP extensions for Segment routing is IGP area-wide. Consequently, the contents of a Link State Database (LSDB) or a Traffic Engineering Database (TED) has the scope of an IGP area and therefore, by using the IGP alone it is not enough to construct segments across multiple IGP Area or AS boundaries. In order to address the need for applications that require topological visibility across IGP areas, or even across Autonomous Systems (AS), the BGP-LS address-family/sub-address-family have been defined to allow BGP to carry Link-State information. The BGP Network Layer Reachability Information (NLRI) encoding format for BGP-LS and a new BGP Path Attribute called the BGP-LS attribute are defined in [RFC7752]. The identifying key of each Link-State object, namely a node, link, or prefix, is encoded in the NLRI and the properties of the object are encoded in the BGP-LS attribute.Figure 1 describes a typical deployment scenario. In each IGP area,+------------+ | Consumer | +------------+ ^ | v +-------------------+ | BGP Speaker | +-----------+ | (Route-Reflector) | | Consumer | +-------------------+ +-----------+ ^ ^ ^ ^ | | | | +---------------+ | +-------------------+ | | | | | v v v v +-----------+ +-----------+ +-----------+ | BGP | | BGP | | BGP | | Speaker | | Speaker | . . . | Speaker | +-----------+ +-----------+ +-----------+ ^ ^ ^ | | | IGP IGP IGP Figure 1: Link State info collection Figure 1 describes a typical deployment scenario. In each IGP area, one or more nodes are configured with BGP-LS. These BGP speakers form an IBGP mesh by connecting to one or more route-reflectors. This way, all BGP speakers (specifically the route-reflectors) obtain Link-State information from all IGP areas (and from other ASes from EBGP peers). An external component connects to the route-reflector to obtain this information (perhaps moderated by a policy regarding what information is or isn't advertised to the externalcomponent).component) as described in [RFC7752]. This document describes extensions to BGP-LS to advertise the SR information. An external component (e.g., a controller) then can collect SR information from across an SR domain (as described in [RFC8402]) and construct the end-to-end path (with its associated SIDs) that need to be applied to an incoming packet to achieve the desired end-to-end forwarding.Here theThe SR domainis defined as a single administrative domain thatmay be comprised of a single AS or multipleASes under consolidated global SID administration.ASes. 2. BGP-LS Extensions for Segment Routing This document defines SR extensions to BGP-LS and specifies the TLVs and sub-TLVs for advertising SR information within the BGP-LS Attribute. Section 2.4 and Section 2.5illustrateslists the equivalent TLVs and sub-TLVs in IS-IS, OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 protocols. BGP-LS [RFC7752] defines the BGP-LS NLRI that can be a Node NLRI, a Link NLRI or a Prefix NLRI. BGP-LS [RFC7752] defines the TLVs that map link-state information to BGP-LS NLRI within the BGP-LS Attribute. This document adds additional BGP-LS Attribute TLVs in order to encode SR information. It does not introduce any changes to the encoding of the BGP-LS NLRIs.Some of the TLVs defined in this document contain fields (e.g. flags) whose semantics need to be interpreted accordingly to the respective underlying IS-IS, OSPFv2 or OSPFv3 protocol. The receiver of the BGP-LS update for any of the NLRIs MUST check the Protocol-ID of the NLRI and refer to the underlying protocol specification in order to parse such fields. The individual field descriptions in the sub- sections below point to the relevant underlying protocol specifications for such fields.2.1. Node Attributes TLVs The following Node Attribute TLVs are defined:+-----------------+----------+---------------++------+-----------------+---------------+ |DescriptionType |LengthDescription | Section |+-----------------+----------+---------------++------+-----------------+---------------+ |SID/Label1161 |variableSID/Label | Section 2.1.1 | | 1034 | SR Capabilities |variable |Section 2.1.2 | | 1035 | SR Algorithm |variable |Section 2.1.3 | | 1036 | SR Local Block |variable |Section 2.1.4 | | 1037 | SRMS Preference |variable |Section 2.1.5 |+-----------------+----------+---------------++------+-----------------+---------------+ Table 1: Node Attribute TLVs These TLVscan ONLYshould only be added to the BGP-LS Attribute associated with the Node NLRI describing the IGP node thatoriginatesis originating the correspondingunderlyingIGPTLV/ sub-TLVTLV/sub-TLV described below. 2.1.1. SID/Label Sub-TLV The SID/Label TLV is used as a sub-TLV by theSR-CapabilitiesSR Capabilities (Section 2.1.2) andSRLBSegment Routing Local Block (SRLB) (Section 2.1.4) TLVs and has the following format: 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | SID/Label (variable) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+where:Figure 2: SID/Label sub-TLV Format Where: Type:TBD, see Section 4.1161 Length:Variable,Either 3 or4.4 depending whether the value is encoded as a label or an index/SID. SID/Label: If length is set to 3, then the 20 rightmost bits represent a label (the total TLV size is 7). If length is set to 4, then the value represents a 32 bit SID (the total TLV size is 8). 2.1.2. SR Capabilities TLV Thereceiving router MUST ignore the SID/Label sub-TLV if the length is other then 3 or 4. 2.1.2. SR-Capabilities TLV The SR-CapabilitiesSR Capabilities TLV is used in order to advertise the node's SR Capabilities including its Segment Routing Global Base (SRGB) range(s). In the case of IS-IS, the capabilities also include the IPv4 and IPv6 support for the SR-MPLS forwarding plane. This information is derived from the protocol specific advertisements. o IS-IS, as defined by theSR-CapabilitiesSR Capabilities sub-TLV in [I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions]. o OSPFv2/OSPFv3, as defined by the SID/Label Range TLV in [I-D.ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions] and [I-D.ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions]. The SR Capabilities TLV has the following format: 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Flags | Reserved | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Range Size | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ // SID/Label sub-TLV (variable) // +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 3: SR Capabilities TLV Format Where: Type:TBD, see Section 4.1034 Length: Variable. Minimum length is 12. Flags: 1 octet of flags as defined in[I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions].[I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions] for IS-IS. The flags are not currently defined for OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 and SHOULD be set to 0 and MUST be ignored on receipt. Reserved: 1 octet that SHOULD be set to 0 and MUST be ignored on receipt. One or more entries, each of which have the following format: Range Size: 3 octet with a non-zero value indicating the number of labels in the range. SID/Label sub-TLV (as defined in Section 2.1.1) which encodes the first label in the range. Since the SID/Label sub-TLV is used to indicate the first label of the SRGB range, only label encoding is valid under the SR Capabilities TLV. 2.1.3.SR-AlgorithmSR Algorithm TLV TheSR-AlgorithmSR Algorithm TLV is used in order to advertise the SR Algorithms supported by the node. This information is derived from the protocol specific advertisements. o IS-IS, as defined by theSR-AlgorithmSR Algorithm sub-TLV in [I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions]. o OSPFv2/OSPFv3, as defined by theSR-AlgorithmSR Algorithm TLV in [I-D.ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions] and [I-D.ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions]. TheSR-AlgorithmSR Algorithm TLV has the following format: 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Algorithm 1 | Algorithm... | Algorithm N | | +- -+ | | + +where:Figure 4: SR Algorithm TLV Format Where: Type:TBD, see Section 4.1035 Length: Variable. Minimum length is 1 and maximum can be 256. Algorithm: 1 octet identifying the algorithm. 2.1.4. SR Local Block TLV The SR Local Block (SRLB) TLV contains the range(s) of labels the node has reserved for local SIDs. Local SIDs are used, e.g., in IGP (IS-IS, OSPF) for Adjacency-SIDs, and may also be allocated by components other than IGP protocols. As an example, an application or a controller may instruct a node to allocate a specific local SID. Therefore, in order for such applications or controllers to know the range of local SIDs available, it is required that the node advertises its SRLB. This information is derived from the protocol specific advertisements. o IS-IS, as defined by the SR Local Block sub-TLV in [I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions]. o OSPFv2/OSPFv3, as defined by the SR Local Block TLV in [I-D.ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions] and [I-D.ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions]. The SRLB TLV has the following format: 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Flags | Reserved | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Range Size | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ // SID/Label sub-TLV (variable) // +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 5: SRLB TLV Format Where: Type:TBD, see Section 4.1036 Length: Variable. Minimum length is 12. Flags: 1 octet of flags. None are defined at this stage. Reserved: 1 octet that SHOULD be set to 0 and MUST be ignored on receipt. One or more entries, each of which have the following format: Range Size: 3 octet value indicating the number of labels in the range. SID/Label sub-TLV (as defined in Section 2.1.1) which encodes the first label in the range. Since the SID/Label sub-TLV is used to indicate the first label of the SRLB range, only label encoding is valid under the SR Local Block TLV. 2.1.5. SRMS Preference TLV The Segment Routing Mapping Server (SRMS) Preference TLV is used in order to associate a preference with SRMS advertisements from a particular source. [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop] specifies the SRMS functionality along with SRMS preference of the node advertising the SRMS Prefix-to-SID Mapping ranges. This information is derived from the protocol specific advertisements. o IS-IS, as defined by the SRMS Preference sub-TLV in [I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions]. o OSPFv2/OSPFv3, as defined by the SRMS Preference TLV in [I-D.ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions] and [I-D.ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions]. The SRMS Preference TLV has the following format: 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Preference | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 6: SRMS Preference TLV Format Where: Type:TBD, see Section 4.1037 Length: 1. Preference: 1 octet. Unsigned 8 bit SRMS preference. The use of the SRMS Preference TLV is defined in [I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions], [I-D.ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions] and [I-D.ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions]. 2.2. Link Attribute TLVs The following Link Attribute TLVs are are defined:+----------------------------------------+----------+---------------++------+-----------------------+---------------+ |DescriptionType |LengthDescription | Section |+----------------------------------------+----------+---------------++------+-----------------------+---------------+ |Adjacency Segment Identifier (Adj-SID)1099 |variableAdjacency SID TLV | Section 2.2.1 | |TLV | | |1100 | LAN AdjacencySegment Identifier (Adj- | variableSID TLV | Section 2.2.2 | |SID) TLV | | |1172 | L2 Bundle Member TLV |variable |Section 2.2.3 |+----------------------------------------+----------+---------------++------+-----------------------+---------------+ Table 2: Link Attribute TLVs These TLVscan ONLYshould only be added to the BGP-LS Attribute associated with the Link NLRIwhose localdescribing the link of the IGP nodeoriginatesthat is originating the correspondingunderlyingIGP TLV/sub-TLV described below.For a LAN, normally a node only announces its adjacency to the IS-IS pseudo-node (or the equivalent OSPF Designated and Backup Designated Routers)[I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions].2.2.1. Adjacency SID TLV TheLANAdjacencySegmentSID TLVallows a node to announce adjacenciesis used in order toall other nodes attachedadvertise information related tothe LANan Adjacency SID. This information is originated as ina single instanceAdj-SID sub-TLV ofthe BGP-LS Link NLRI. Without this TLV, the corresponding BGP-LS link NLRI would need to be originated for each additional adjacency in order to advertise the SR TLVs for these neighbor adjacencies. 2.2.1. Adjacency SID TLV The Adjacency SID (Adj-SID) TLV hasIS-IS [I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions], OSPFv2 [I-D.ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions] and OSPFv3 [I-D.ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions]. The Adjacency SID TLV has the following format: 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Flags | Weight | Reserved | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | SID/Label/Index (variable) | +---------------------------------------------------------------+where:Figure 7: Adjacency SID TLV Format Where: Type:TBD, see Section 4.1099 Length: Variable, 7 or 8 depending on Label or Index encoding of the SID Flags. 1 octetfield of followingvalue which sould be parsed as: * IS-IS Adj-SID flagsasare defined in [I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions] section 2.2.1. * OSPFv2 Adj-SID flags are defined in[I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions],[I-D.ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions]and [I-D.ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions].section 6.1. * OSPFv3 Adj-SID flags are defined in [I-D.ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions] section 7.1. Weight: Weight used for load-balancing purposes. Reserved: 2 octets that SHOULD be set to 0 and MUST be ignored on receipt. SID/Index/Label: * IS-IS: Label or index valuedepending on the flags settingas defined in [I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions],[I-D.ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions]* OSPFv2: Label or index value as defined in [I-D.ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions], * OSPFv3: Label or index value as defined in [I-D.ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions], The Flags and, as an extension, the SID/Index/Label fields of this TLV need to be interpreted accordingly to the respective underlying IS-IS, OSPFv2 or OSPFv3 protocol. The consumer of the BGP-LS interested in this TLV information MUST check the Protocol-ID of the BGP-LS Link NLRI and[I-D.ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions].refer to the underlying protocol specification in order to parse these fields. 2.2.2. LAN Adjacency SID TLV For a LAN, normally a node only announces its adjacency to the IS-IS pseudo-node (or the equivalent OSPF Designated and Backup Designated Routers). The LAN Adjacency Segment TLV allows a node to announce adjacencies to all other nodes attached to the LAN in a single instance of the BGP-LS Link NLRI. Without this TLV, the corresponding BGP-LS link NLRI would need to be originated for each additional adjacency in order to advertise the SR TLVs for these neighbor adjacencies. This information is originated as in LAN Adj-SID sub-TLV of IS-IS [I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions], OSPFv2 [I-D.ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions] and OSPFv3 [I-D.ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions]. The LAN Adjacency SID(LAN-Adj-SID-SID)TLV has the following format: 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Flags | Weight | Reserved | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | OSPF Neighbor ID / IS-IS System-ID | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | SID/Label/Index (variable) | +---------------------------------------------------------------+where:Figure 8: LAN Adjacency SID TLV Format Where: Type:TBD, see Section 4.1100 Length: Variable. For IS-IS it would be 13 or 14 depending on Label or Index encoding of the SID. For OSPF it would be 11 or 12 depending on Label or Index encoding of the SID. Flags. 1 octetfield of followingvalue which sould be parsed as: * IS-IS LAN Adj-SID flagsasare defined in [I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions] section 2.2.2. * OSPFv2 LAN Adj-SID flags are defined in[I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions],[I-D.ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions]and [I-D.ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions].section 6.2. * OSPFv3 LAN Adj-SID flags are defined in [I-D.ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions] section 7.3. Weight: Weight used for load-balancing purposes. Reserved: 2 octets that SHOULD be set to 0 and MUST be ignored on receipt. Neighbor ID: 6 octets for IS-IS for the System-ID and 4 octets for OSPF for the OSPF Router-ID of the neighbor. SID/Index/Label: * IS-IS: Label or index valuedepending on the flags settingas defined in [I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions],[I-D.ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions]* OSPFv2: Label or index value as defined in [I-D.ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions], * OSPFv3: Label or index value as defined in [I-D.ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions], The Neighbor ID, Flags and, as an extension, the SID/Index/Label fields of this TLV need to be interpreted accordingly to the respective underlying IS-IS, OSPFv2 or OSPFv3 protocol. The consumer of the BGP-LS interested in this TLV information MUST check the Protocol-ID of the BGP-LS Link NLRI and[I-D.ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions].refer to the underlying protocol specification in order to parse these fields. 2.2.3. L2 Bundle Member Attribute TLV The L2 Bundle Member Attribute TLV identifies an L2 Bundle Member link which in turn is associated with a parent L3 link. The L3 link is described by the Link NLRI defined in [RFC7752] and the L2 Bundle Member Attribute TLV is associated with the Link NLRI. The TLV MAY include sub-TLVs which describe attributes associated with the bundle member. The identified bundle member represents a unidirectional path from the originating router to the neighbor specified in the parent L3 Link. Multiple L2 Bundle Member Attribute TLVs MAY be associated with a Link NLRI. This information is originated as in L2 Bundle Member Attributes TLV of IS-IS [I-D.ietf-isis-l2bundles]. The equivalent functionality has not been specified as yet for OSPF. The L2 Bundle Member Attribute TLV has the following format: 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | L2 Bundle Member Descriptor | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ // Link attribute sub-TLVs(variable) // +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+where:Figure 9: L2 Bundle Member Attributes TLV Format Where: Type:TBD, see Section 4.1172 Length: Variable. L2 Bundle Member Descriptor: A Link Local Identifier as defined in [RFC4202]. Link attributes for L2 Bundle Member Links are advertised as sub-TLVs of theL2BundleL2 Bundle Member Attribute TLV. The sub-TLVs are identical to existing BGP-LS TLVs as identified in the table below. +-----------+----------------------------+--------------------------+ | TLV Code | Description | Reference Document | | Point | | | +-----------+----------------------------+--------------------------+ | 1088 | Administrative group | [RFC7752] | | | (color) | | | 1089 | Maximum link bandwidth | [RFC7752] | | 1090 | Max. reservable link | [RFC7752] | | | bandwidth | | | 1091 | Unreserved bandwidth | [RFC7752] | | 1092 | TE default metric | [RFC7752] | | 1093 | Link protection type | [RFC7752] | | 1099 | Adjacency Segment | Section 2.2.1 | | | Identifier (Adj-SID) TLV | | | 1100 | LAN Adjacency Segment | Section 2.2.2 | | | Identifier (Adj-SID) TLV | | | 1114 | Unidirectional link delay | [I-D.ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp] | | 1115 | Min/Max Unidirectional | [I-D.ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp] | | | link delay | | | 1116 | Unidirectional Delay | [I-D.ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp] | | | Variation | | | 1117 | Unidirectional packet loss | [I-D.ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp] | | 1118 | Unidirectional residual | [I-D.ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp] | | | bandwidth | | | 1119 | Unidirectional available | [I-D.ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp] | | | bandwidth | | | 1120 | Unidirectional bandwidth | [I-D.ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp] | | | utilization | | +-----------+----------------------------+--------------------------+ Table 3: BGP-LS Attribute TLVs also used as sub-TLVs of L2 Bundle Member Attribute TLV 2.3. Prefix Attribute TLVs The following Prefix Attribute TLVs are defined:+------------------------+----------+---------------++------+------------------------+---------------+ |DescriptionType |LengthDescription | Section |+------------------------+----------+---------------++------+------------------------+---------------+ | 1158 | Prefix SID |variable |Section 2.3.1 | |Range1159 |variableRange | Section 2.3.4 | | 1170 | Prefix Attribute Flags |variable |Section 2.3.2 | | 1171 | Source Router-ID |variable |Section 2.3.3 |+------------------------+----------+---------------++------+------------------------+---------------+ Table 4: Prefix Attribute TLVs These TLVscan ONLYshould only be added to the BGP-LS Attribute associated with the Prefix NLRIwhose localdescribing the prefix of the IGP nodeoriginatesthat is originating the correspondingunderlyingIGP TLV/sub-TLV described below. 2.3.1.Prefix-SIDPrefix SID TLV ThePrefix-SIDPrefix SID TLV is used in order to advertise information related to aPrefix-SID.Prefix SID. This information is originatedin: o IS-IS,asdefined by the Prefix-SID TLVin[I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions]. o OSPFv2 and OSPFv3, as defined by thePrefix-SIDTLV insub-TLV of IS-IS [I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions], OSPFv2 [I-D.ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions] and[I-D.ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions] respectively.OSPFv3 [I-D.ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions]. ThePrefix-SIDPrefix SID TLV has the following format: 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Flags | Algorithm | Reserved | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | SID/Index/Label (variable) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+where:Figure 10: Prefix SID TLV Format Where: Type:TBD, see Section 4.1158 Length: Variable, 7 or 8 depending on Label or Index encoding of the SID Flags: 1 octet value which sould be parsed as: * IS-ISPrefix-SIDPrefix SID flags are defined in [I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions] section 2.1. * OSPFv2Prefix-SIDPrefix SID flags are defined in [I-D.ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions] section 5. * OSPFv3Prefix-SIDPrefix SID flags are defined in [I-D.ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions] section 5. Algorithm: 1 octet value identify the algorithm. Reserved: 2 octets that SHOULD be set to 0 and MUST be ignored on receipt. SID/Index/Label: * IS-IS: Label or index value as defined in [I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions], * OSPFv2: Label or index value as defined in [I-D.ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions], * OSPFv3: Label or index value as defined in [I-D.ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions], The Flags and, as an extension, the SID/Index/Label fields of this TLV need to be interpreted accordingly to the respective underlying IS-IS, OSPFv2 or OSPFv3 protocol. The consumer of the BGP-LS interested in this TLV information MUST check the Protocol-ID of the BGP-LS Prefix NLRI and refer to the underlying protocol specification in order to parse these fields. 2.3.2. Prefix Attribute Flags TLV The Prefix Attribute Flags TLV carries IPv4/IPv6 prefix attribute flags information. These flags are defined for OSPFv2 in [RFC7684], for OSPFv3 in [RFC5340] and for IS-IS in [RFC7794]. The Prefix Attribute Flags TLV has the following format: 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ // Flags (variable) // +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+where:Figure 11: Prefix Attribute Flags TLV Format Where: Type:TBD, see Section 4.1170 Length: variable. Flags: a variable length flag field (according to the length field). Flags are routing protocol specific and are to be parsed as below: * IS-IS flagsarecorrespond to the IPv4/IPv6 Extended Reachability Attribute Flags defined in [RFC7794] * OSPFv2 flagsarecorrespond to the Flags field of the OSPFv2 Extended Prefix TLV defined in [RFC7684] * OSPFv3 flags map to the Prefix Options field defined in[RFC7794][RFC5340] and extended via [RFC8362] The Flags field of this TLV need to be interpreted accordingly to the respective underlying IS-IS, OSPFv2 or OSPFv3 protocol. The consumer of the BGP-LS interested in this TLV information MUST check the Protocol-ID of the BGP-LS Prefix NLRI and refer to the underlying protocol specification in order to parse this field. 2.3.3. Source Router Identifier (Source Router-ID) TLV The Source Router-ID TLV contains the IPv4 or IPv6 Router-ID of the originator of the Prefix. For IS-IS protocol this is as defined in[RFC7794]. The Source[RFC7794] IPv4 or IPv6 Router-IDTLV may be used to carryof the originating router. For OSPF protocol, this is as defined in [I-D.ietf-lsr-ospf-prefix-originator] and is a 32 bit OSPF Router-ID of theprefix originator.originating router.. The Source Router-ID TLV has the following format: 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ // 4 or 6 octet Router-ID // +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+where:Figure 12: Source Router-ID TLV Format Where: Type:TBD, see Section 4.1171 Length: 4 or16. IPv4/IPv6 Address:16 in case of IS-IS and 4octetin case of OSPF. Router-ID: the IPv4addressor16 octetIPv6address.Router-ID in case of IS-IS and the OSPF Router-ID in the case of OSPF. 2.3.4. Range TLV The range TLV is used in order to advertise a range of prefix-to-SID mappings as part of the Segment Routing Mapping Server (SRMS) functionality [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop], as defined in the respective underlying IGP SR extensions [I-D.ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions], [I-D.ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions] and [I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions].The Prefix-NLRI to whichA consumer of theRange TLV is attachedBGP-LS information MUSTbeNOT mis-interpret a Prefix NLRI, that been advertised with a Range TLV associated with it on account of an SRMS prefix-to-SID mapping in the underlying IGP, as anon-routingnormal routing prefixwhere no(i.e. prefix reachability) unless there is also an IGP metric TLV (TLV 1095)is attached.attached to it. The format of the Range TLV is as follows: 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Flags | Reserved | Range Size | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ // sub-TLVs // +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+where:Figure2:13: Range TLVformatFormat Where: Type:TBD, see Section 4.1159 Length:variableVariable, 11 or 12 depending on Label or Index encoding of the SID Flags: as defined in [I-D.ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions], [I-D.ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions] and [I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions]. Reserved: 1 octet that SHOULD be set to 0 and MUST be ignored on receipt. Range Size: 2 octets as defined in [I-D.ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions]. The Flags field of this TLV need to be interpreted accordingly to the respective underlying IS-IS, OSPFv2 or OSPFv3 protocol. The consumer of the BGP-LS interested in this TLV information MUST check the Protocol-ID of the BGP-LS Prefix NLRI and refer to the underlying protocol specification in order to parse this field. Within the Range TLV, the prefix-to-SID mappings are advertised using sub-TLVs as below: Range TLV Prefix-SID TLV (used as a sub-TLV in this context)where:Where: o The Range TLV is defined in Section 2.3.4. o The Prefix-SID TLV (used as sub-TLV in this context) is defined in Section 2.3.1. The following sub-sections describe the procedures for mapping of information from the underlying IGP protocols into the Range TLV. 2.3.4.1. Advertisement Procedure for OSPF The OSPFv2/OSPFv3 Extended Prefix Range TLV is encoded in the Range TLV. The flags of the Range TLV have the semantic mapped to the definition in [I-D.ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions] section 4 or [I-D.ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions] section 4. Then the prefix-to-SID mapping from the OSPF Prefix SID sub-TLV is encoded using the BGP-LS Prefix-SID TLV as defined in Section 2.3.1 with the flags set according to the definition in [I-D.ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions] section 5 or [I-D.ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions] section 5. 2.3.4.2. Advertisement Procedure for IS-IS The IS-IS SID/Label Binding TLV, when used to signal mapping server label bindings, is encoded in the Range TLV. The flags of the Range TLV have the sematic mapped to the definition in [I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions] section 2.4.1. Then the prefix-to-SID mappings from the IS-IS Prefix SID sub-TLV is encoded using the BGP-LS Prefix-SID TLV as defined in Section 2.3.1 with the flags set according to the definition in [I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions] section 2.4.4.1. 2.4. Equivalent IS-IS Segment Routing TLVs/Sub-TLVs This section illustrate the IS-IS Segment Routing Extensions TLVs and sub-TLVs mapped to the ones defined in this document. The following table, illustrates for each BGP-LS TLV, its equivalence in IS-IS.+---------------------------------------+----------+----------------+ | Description+------------+------------+-----------------------------------------+ |LengthDescriptio | IS-ISTLV/sub-TLV | Reference | | n | /sub-TLV |TLV|+---------------------------------------+----------+----------------++------------+------------+-----------------------------------------+ | SRCapabilities | variableCapabil | 2[1]| draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing- | | ities | | extensions section-3.1 | | SR | 19 | draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing- | | Algorithm | | extensions section-3.2 | | SR Local | 22 | draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing- | | Block | | extensions section-3.3 | | SRMS | 19 | draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing- | | Preference | | extensions section-3.2 | | Adjacency | 31 | draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing- | | SID | | extensions section-2.2.1 | | LAN | 32 | draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing- | | Adjacency | | extensions section-2.2.2 | |SR AlgorithmSID |variable|19 [2]| |SR Local BlockPrefix SID |variable3 |22 [3]draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing- | |SRMS Preference|1|19 [4]extensions section-2.1 | |Adjacency Segment Identifier (Adj-Range |variable149 |31 [5]draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing- | |SID)| | extensions section-2.4 | |LAN Adjacency Segment IdentifierSID/Label |variable1 |32 [6]draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing- | |(LAN-Adj-SID)| | extensions section-2.3 | | PrefixSID|variable4 |3 [7]RFC7794 section-2.1 | |RangeAttribute |variable|149 [8]| |SID/Label TLVFlags |variable|1 [9]| |Prefix Attribute FlagsSource |variable11/12 |4 [10]RFC7794 section-2.2 | |Source Router IDRouter-ID |variable|11/12 [11]| | L2 Bundle | 25 | draft-ietf-isis-l2bundles section-2 | | MemberTLV|variable|25 [12]|+---------------------------------------+----------+----------------+| Attributes | | | +------------+------------+-----------------------------------------+ Table 5: IS-IS Segment Routing Extensions TLVs/Sub-TLVs 2.5. Equivalent OSPFv2/OSPFv3 Segment Routing TLVs/Sub-TLVs This section illustrate the OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 Segment Routing Extensions TLVs and sub-TLVs mapped to the ones defined in this document. The following table, illustrates for each BGP-LS TLV, its equivalence in OSPFv2 and OSPFv3.+-------------------------------------+----------+------------------+ | Description+------------+------------+-----------------------------------------+ |LengthDescriptio | OSPFv2TLV/sub-TLV | Reference | | n |TLV/sub-TLV |+-------------------------------------+----------+------------------+|SR Capabilities+------------+------------+-----------------------------------------+ |variableSR Capabil | 9[13]| draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing- | | ities | | extensions section-3.2 | | SR | 8 | draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing- | | Algorithm |variable|8 [14]extensions section-3.1 | | SR Local | 14 | draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing- | | Block |variable|14 [15]extensions section-3.3 | | SRMS | 15 | draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing- | | Preference |1|15 [16]extensions section-3.4 | | AdjacencySegment Identifier (Adj- | variable| 2[17]| draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing- |SID)| SID | | extensions section-6.1 | | LAN | 3 | draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing- | | AdjacencySegment Identifier|variable|3 [18]extensions section-6.2 | |(Adj-SID)SID | | | | Prefix SID |variable |2[19]| draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing- |Range|variable| | extensions section-5 | | Range | 2[20]| draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing- |SID/Label TLV|variable| | extensions section-4 | | SID/Label | 1[21]| draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing- | | | | extensions section-2.1 | | Prefix | 4 | RFC7684 section-2.1 | | Attribute | | | | Flags |variable|4 [22]|+-------------------------------------+----------+------------------+| Source | TBD | draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-prefix-originator | | Router-ID | | section-4 | +------------+------------+-----------------------------------------+ Table 6:OSPFOSPFv2 Segment Routing Extensions TLVs/Sub-TLVs+-------------------------------------+----------+------------------++-----------+------------+------------------------------------------+ | Descripti | OSPFv3 TLV | Reference | | on | /sub-TLV | | +-----------+------------+------------------------------------------+ | SR Capabi | 9 | draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing- | | lities | | extensions section-3.2 | | SR | 8 | draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing- | | Algorithm | | extensions section-3.1 | | SR Local | 14 | draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing- | | Block | | extensions section-3.3 | | SRMS Pref | 15 | draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing- | | erence | | extensions section-3.4 | | Adjacency | 5 | draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing- | | SID | | extensions section-6.1 |Description|LengthLAN |OSPFv3 TLV/sub-6 | draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing- | | Adjacency |TLV|+-------------------------------------+----------+------------------+extensions section-6.2 |SR Capabilities|variableSID |9 [23]| |SR Algorithm|variablePrefix |8 [24]4 | draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing- |SR Local Block|variableSID |14 [25]| extensions section-5 |SRMS Preference|1Range |15 [26]9 | draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing- |Adjacency Segment Identifier (Adj-|variable|5 [27]| extensions section-4 |SID)| SID/Label | 7 | draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing- |LAN Adjacency Segment Identifier|variable|6 [28]| extensions section-2.1 |(Adj-SID)| Prefix | 4 | RFC8362 section-3.1 |Prefix SID|variableAttribute |4 [29]| |Range|variableFlags |9 [30]| |SID/Label TLV|variableSource |7 [31]TBD | draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-prefix-originator |Prefix Attribute Flags|variableRouter-ID |4 [32]|+-------------------------------------+----------+------------------+section-4 | +-----------+------------+------------------------------------------+ Table 7: OSPFv3 Segment Routing Extensions TLVs/Sub-TLVs 3.Implementation Status Note to RFC Editor: Please remove this section prior to publication, as well as the reference to RFC 7942. This section records the status of known implementations of the protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of this Internet-Draft, and is based on a proposal described in [RFC7942]. The description of implementations in this section is intended to assist the IETF in its decision processes in progressing drafts to RFCs. Please note that the listingIANA Considerations Early allocation ofany individual implementation here does not imply endorsement by the IETF. Furthermore, no effortcodepoints has beenspent to verify the information presented here that was supplieddone byIETF contributors. This is not intended as, and must not be construed to be, a catalog of available implementations or their features. Readers are advised to note that other implementations may exist. According to [RFC7942], "this will allow reviewers and working groups to assign due consideration to documents that have the benefit of running code, which may serve as evidence of valuable experimentation and feedback that have made the implemented protocols more mature. It is up to the individual working groups to use this information as they see fit". Several early implementations exist and will be reported in detail in a forthcoming version of this document. For purposes of early interoperability testing, when no FCFS code point was available, implementations have made use of the values described in Table 8. It will ease implementation interoperability and deployment if the value could be preserved also due to the large amount of codepoints this draft requires. However, when IANA-assigned values are available, implementations will be updated to use them. 4.IANAConsiderations Thisfor this documentrequests assigning code-pointsfrom the registry"BGP- LS"BGP-LS Node Descriptor, Link Descriptor, Prefix Descriptor, and Attribute TLVs" based ontableTable 8. The column "IS-IS TLV/Sub-TLV" defined in the registry does not require any value and should be left empty.4.1.3.1. TLV/Sub-TLV Code Points Summary This section contains the global table of all TLVs/sub-TLVs defined in this document.+-------------+-------------------------------------+---------------++----------------+-----------------------------+---------------+ | TLV Code| Description | Reference | |Point | Description | Reference |+-------------+-------------------------------------+---------------++----------------+-----------------------------+---------------+ | 1034 | SR Capabilities | Section 2.1.2 | | 1035 | SR Algorithm | Section 2.1.3 | | 1036 | SR Local Block | Section 2.1.4 | | 1037 | SRMS Preference | Section 2.1.5 | | 1099 | AdjacencySegment Identifier (Adj-SID | Section 2.2.1 | || SID) TLV | | |1100 | LAN AdjacencySegment IdentifierSID | Section 2.2.2 | || (Adj-SID) TLV | | |1158 | Prefix SID | Section 2.3.1 | | 1159 | Range | Section 2.3.4 | | 1161 | SID/LabelTLV| Section 2.1.1 | | 1170 | Prefix Attribute Flags | Section 2.3.2 | | 1171 | Source Router-ID | Section 2.3.3 | | 1172 | L2 Bundle MemberTLVAttributes | Section 2.2.3 |+-------------+-------------------------------------+---------------++----------------+-----------------------------+---------------+ Table 8: Summary Table of TLV/Sub-TLV Codepoints5.4. Manageability Considerations This section is structured as recommended in [RFC5706]. The new protocol extensions introduced in this document augment the existing IGP topology information thatwasis distributed via [RFC7752]. Procedures and protocol extensions defined in this document do not affect the BGP protocol operations and management other than as discussed in the Manageability Considerations section of [RFC7752]. Specifically, the malformed attribute tests for syntactic checks in the Fault Management section of [RFC7752] now encompass the new BGP- LS Attribute TLVs defined in this document. The semantic or content checking for the TLVs specified in this document and their association with the BGP-LS NLRI types or their BGP-LS Attribute is left to the consumer of the BGP-LS information (e.g. an application or a controller) and not the BGP protocol. A consumer of the BGP-LS informationis retrievingretrieves this information from a BGP protocol component that is doing the signaling over aBGP- LSBGP-LS session, via some APIs or a data model (refer Section 1 and 2 of [RFC7752]). The handling of semantic or content errors by the consumer would be dictated by the nature of its application usage and hence is beyond the scope of this document. This document only introduces new Attribute TLVs andanany syntactic error in them would result in only that specific attribute being discarded with an error log. The SR information introduced in BGP-LS by this specification, may be used by BGP-LS consumer applications like a SR path computation engine (PCE) to learn the SR capabilities of the nodes in the topology and the mapping of SR segments to those nodes. This can enable the SR PCE to perform path computations based on SR for traffic engineering use-cases and to steer traffic on paths different from the underlying IGP based distributed best path computation. Errors in the encoding or decoding of the SR information may result in the unavailability of such information to the SR PCE or incorrect information being made available to it. This may result in the SR PCE not being able to perform the desired SR based optimization functionality or to perform it in an unexpected or inconsistent manner. The handling of such errors by applications like SR PCE may be implementation specific and out of scope of this document. The extensions, specified in this document, do not introduce any new configuration or monitoring aspects in BGP or BGP-LS other than as discussed in [RFC7752]. The manageability aspects of the underlying SR features are covered by [I-D.ietf-spring-sr-yang], [I-D.ietf-isis-sr-yang] and [I-D.ietf-ospf-sr-yang].6.5. Security Considerations The new protocol extensions introduced in this document augment the existing IGP topology information that was distributed via [RFC7752]. The Security Considerations section of [RFC7752] also applies to these extensions. The procedures and new TLVs defined in this document, by themselves, do not affect the BGP-LS security model discussed in [RFC7752]. BGP-LS SR extensions enable traffic engineering use-cases within the Segment Routing domain. SR operates within a trusted domain (refer Security Considerations section in [RFC8402] for more detail) and its security considerations also apply to BGP-LS sessions when carrying SR information.The SR traffic engineering policies using the SIDs advertised via BGP-LS are expected to be used entirely within this trusted SR domain (e.g. between multiple AS/domains within a single provider network). Therefore, precaution is necessary to ensure that the SR information collected via BGP-LS is limited to specific controllers or applications in a secure manner within this SR domain. The isolation of BGP-LS peering sessions is also required to ensure that BGP-LS topology information (including the newly added SR information) is not advertised to an external BGP peering session outside an administrative domain.7.6. Contributors The following people have substantially contributed to the editing of this document: Peter Psenak Cisco Systems Email: ppsenak@cisco.com Les Ginsberg Cisco Systems Email: ginsberg@cisco.com Acee Lindem Cisco Systems Email: acee@cisco.com Saikat Ray Individual Email: raysaikat@gmail.com Jeff Tantsura Apstra Inc. Email: jefftant.ietf@gmail.com8.7. Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank Jeffrey Haas, AijunWang andWang, Robert Raszuk and Susan Hares for their review of this document and their comments.9.The authors would also like to thank Alvaro Retana for his extensive review and comments which helped correct issues and improve the document. 8. References9.1.8.1. Normative References [I-D.ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp] Ginsberg, L., Previdi, S., Wu, Q., Tantsura, J., and C. Filsfils, "BGP-LS Advertisement of IGP Traffic Engineering Performance Metric Extensions", draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp-14bgp-18 (work in progress),OctoberDecember 2018. [I-D.ietf-isis-l2bundles] Ginsberg, L., Bashandy, A., Filsfils, C., Nanduri, M., and E. Aries, "Advertising L2 Bundle Member Link Attributes in IS-IS", draft-ietf-isis-l2bundles-07 (work in progress), May 2017. [I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions] Previdi, S., Ginsberg, L., Filsfils, C., Bashandy, A., Gredler, H.,Litkowski, S., Decraene, B.,andJ. Tantsura,B. Decraene, "IS-IS Extensions for Segment Routing",draft-ietf-isis- segment-routing-extensions-19draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing- extensions-22 (work in progress),JulyDecember 2018. [I-D.ietf-lsr-ospf-prefix-originator] Wang, A., Lindem, A., Dong, J., Talaulikar, K., and P. Psenak, "OSPF Extension for Prefix Originator", draft- ietf-lsr-ospf-prefix-originator-00 (work in progress), February 2019. [I-D.ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions] Psenak, P. and S. Previdi, "OSPFv3 Extensions for Segment Routing", draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions-16extensions-23 (work in progress),October 2018.January 2019. [I-D.ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions] Psenak, P., Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Gredler, H., Shakir, R., Henderickx, W., and J. Tantsura, "OSPF Extensions for Segment Routing", draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions-25routing-extensions-27 (work in progress),AprilDecember 2018. [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. [RFC4202] Kompella, K., Ed. and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "Routing Extensions in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)", RFC 4202, DOI 10.17487/RFC4202, October 2005, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4202>. [RFC5340] Coltun, R., Ferguson, D., Moy, J., and A. Lindem, "OSPF for IPv6", RFC 5340, DOI 10.17487/RFC5340, July 2008, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5340>. [RFC7684] Psenak, P., Gredler, H., Shakir, R., Henderickx, W., Tantsura, J., and A. Lindem, "OSPFv2 Prefix/Link Attribute Advertisement", RFC 7684, DOI 10.17487/RFC7684, November 2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7684>. [RFC7752] Gredler, H., Ed., Medved, J., Previdi, S., Farrel, A., and S. Ray, "North-Bound Distribution of Link-State and Traffic Engineering (TE) Information Using BGP", RFC 7752, DOI 10.17487/RFC7752, March 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7752>. [RFC7794] Ginsberg, L., Ed., Decraene, B., Previdi, S., Xu, X., and U. Chunduri, "IS-IS Prefix Attributes for Extended IPv4 and IPv6 Reachability", RFC 7794, DOI 10.17487/RFC7794, March 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7794>. [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>. [RFC8362] Lindem, A., Roy, A., Goethals, D., Reddy Vallem, V., and F. Baker, "OSPFv3 Link State Advertisement (LSA) Extensibility", RFC 8362, DOI 10.17487/RFC8362, April 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8362>.9.2.8.2. Informative References [I-D.ietf-isis-sr-yang] Litkowski, S., Qu, Y., Sarkar, P., Chen, I., and J. Tantsura, "YANG Data Model for IS-IS Segment Routing", draft-ietf-isis-sr-yang-04 (work in progress), June 2018. [I-D.ietf-ospf-sr-yang] Yeung, D., Qu, Y., Zhang, Z., Chen, I., and A. Lindem,"Yang"YANG Data Model for OSPF SR (Segment Routing) Protocol",draft-ietf-ospf-sr-yang-05draft-ietf-ospf-sr-yang-07 (work in progress),July 2018.March 2019. [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop] Bashandy, A., Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Decraene, B., and S. Litkowski, "Segment Routing interworking with LDP", draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop-15 (work in progress), September 2018. [I-D.ietf-spring-sr-yang] Litkowski, S., Qu, Y., Lindem, A., Sarkar, P., and J. Tantsura, "YANG Data Model for Segment Routing",draft-ietf-spring-sr- yang-09draft- ietf-spring-sr-yang-12 (work in progress),June 2018.February 2019. [RFC5706] Harrington, D., "Guidelines for Considering Operations and Management of New Protocols and Protocol Extensions", RFC 5706, DOI 10.17487/RFC5706, November 2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5706>.[RFC7942] Sheffer, Y. and A. Farrel, "Improving Awareness of Running Code: The Implementation Status Section", BCP 205, RFC 7942, DOI 10.17487/RFC7942, July 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7942>.[RFC8402] Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Ginsberg, L., Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment Routing Architecture", RFC 8402, DOI 10.17487/RFC8402, July 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8402>.9.3. URIs [1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing- extensions-16#section-3.1 [2] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing- extensions-16#section-3.2 [3] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing- extensions-16#section-3.3 [4] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing- extensions-05#section-3.2 [5] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing- extensions-16#section-2.2.1 [6] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing- extensions-16#section-2.2.2 [7] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing- extensions-16#section-2.1 [8] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing- extensions-16#section-2.4 [9] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing- extensions-16#section-2.3 [10] http://tools.ietf.org/html/RFC7794 [11] http://tools.ietf.org/html/RFC7794 [12] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-isis-l2bundles-07 [13] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing- extensions-25#section-3.2 [14] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing- extensions-25#section-3.1 [15] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing- extensions-25#section-3.3 [16] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing- extensions-25#section-3.4 [17] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing- extensions-25#section-6.1 [18] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing- extensions-25#section-6.2 [19] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing- extensions-25#section-5 [20] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing- extensions-25#section-4 [21] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing- extensions-25#section-2.1 [22] http://tools.ietf.org/html/RFC7684#section-2.1 [23] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment- routing-extensions-12#section-3.2 [24] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment- routing-extensions-12#section-3.1 [25] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment- routing-extensions-12#section-3.3 [26] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment- routing-extensions-12#section-3.4 [27] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment- routing-extensions-12#section-6.1 [28] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment- routing-extensions-12#section-6.2 [29] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment- routing-extensions-12#section-5 [30] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment- routing-extensions-12#section-4 [31] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment- routing-extensions-12#section-2.1 [32] http://tools.ietf.org/html/RFC8362#section-3.1Authors' Addresses Stefano Previdi Huawei Technologies Rome Italy Email: stefano@previdi.net Ketan Talaulikar (editor) Cisco Systems, Inc. India Email: ketant@cisco.com Clarence Filsfils Cisco Systems, Inc. Brussels Belgium Email: cfilsfil@cisco.com Hannes Gredler RtBrick Inc. Email: hannes@rtbrick.com Mach(Guoyi) Chen Huawei Technologies Huawei Building, No. 156 Beiqing Rd. Beijing 100095 China Email: mach.chen@huawei.com