draft-ietf-softwire-bgp-te-attribute-01.txt   draft-ietf-softwire-bgp-te-attribute-02.txt 
Network Working Group Hamid Ould-Brahim (Nortel Networks) Network Working Group Hamid Ould-Brahim (Nortel Networks)
Internet Draft Don Fedyk (Nortel Networks) Internet Draft Don Fedyk (Nortel Networks)
Expiration Date: February 2009 Yakov Rekhter (Juniper Networks) Expiration Date: March 2009 Yakov Rekhter (Juniper Networks)
Intended Status: Proposed Standard Intended Status: Proposed Standard
Traffic Engineering Attribute Traffic Engineering Attribute
draft-ietf-softwire-bgp-te-attribute-01.txt draft-ietf-softwire-bgp-te-attribute-02.txt
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
skipping to change at page 2, line 5 skipping to change at page 1, line 40
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
Abstract Abstract
This document defines a new BGP attribute, Traffic Engineering This document defines a new BGP attribute, Traffic Engineering
attribute, than enables BGP to carry Traffic Engineering information. attribute, than enables BGP to carry Traffic Engineering information.
The scope and applicability of this attribute currently excludes its
use for non-VPN deployment scenarios.
1. Specification of Requirements 1. Specification of Requirements
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
2. Introduction 2. Introduction
In certain cases (e.g., L1VPN [L1VPN]) it may be useful to augment In certain cases (e.g., L1VPN [RFC5195]) it may be useful to augment
reachability information carried in BGP with the Traffic Engineering reachability information carried in BGP with the Traffic Engineering
information. information.
This document defines a new BGP attribute, Traffic Engineering This document defines a new BGP attribute, Traffic Engineering
attribute, than enables BGP [BGP-4] to carry Traffic Engineering attribute, than enables BGP [RFC4271] to carry Traffic Engineering
information. information.
Section 4 of [RFC5195] describes one possible usage of this
attribute.
The scope and applicability of this attribute currently excludes its
use for non-VPN deployment scenarios.
3. Traffic Engineering Attribute 3. Traffic Engineering Attribute
Traffic Engineering attribute is an optional non-transitive BGP Traffic Engineering attribute is an optional non-transitive BGP
attribute. attribute.
The information carried in this attribute is identical to what is The information carried in this attribute is identical to what is
carried in the Interface Switching Capability Descriptor, as carried in the Interface Switching Capability Descriptor, as
specified in [RFC4203], [RFC4205]. specified in [RFC4203], [RFC4205].
The attribute contains one or more of the following: The attribute contains one or more of the following:
skipping to change at page 3, line 11 skipping to change at page 3, line 17
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 6 | | Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 6 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 7 | | Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 7 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Switching Capability-specific information | | Switching Capability-specific information |
| (variable) | | (variable) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The Switching Capability (Switching Cap) field contains one of the The Switching Capability (Switching Cap) field contains one of the
values specified in Section 3.1.1 of [GMPLS-SIG]. values specified in Section 3.1.1 of [RFC3471].
The Encoding field contains one of the values specified in Section The Encoding field contains one of the values specified in Section
3.1.1 of [GMPLS-SIG]. 3.1.1 of [RFC3471].
The Reserved field SHOULD be set to 0 on transmit and MUST be ignored The Reserved field SHOULD be set to 0 on transmit and MUST be ignored
on receive. on receive.
Maximum LSP Bandwidth is encoded as a list of eight 4 octet fields in Maximum LSP Bandwidth is encoded as a list of eight 4 octet fields in
the IEEE floating point format [IEEE], with priority 0 first and the IEEE floating point format [IEEE], with priority 0 first and
priority 7 last. The units are bytes (not bits!) per second. priority 7 last. The units are bytes (not bits!) per second.
The content of the Switching Capability specific information field The content of the Switching Capability specific information field
depends on the value of the Switching Capability field. depends on the value of the Switching Capability field.
skipping to change at page 4, line 27 skipping to change at page 4, line 33
When the Switching Capability field is LSC, there is no Switching When the Switching Capability field is LSC, there is no Switching
Capability specific information field present. Capability specific information field present.
4. Implication on aggregation 4. Implication on aggregation
Routes that carry the Traffic Engineering Attribute have additional Routes that carry the Traffic Engineering Attribute have additional
semantics that could affect traffic forwarding behavior. Therefore, semantics that could affect traffic forwarding behavior. Therefore,
such routes SHALL NOT be aggregated unless they share identical such routes SHALL NOT be aggregated unless they share identical
Traffic Engineering Attributes. Traffic Engineering Attributes.
5. IANA Considerations Constructing the Traffic Engineering Attribute when aggregating
routes with identical Traffic Engineering attributes follows
procedure of [RFC4201].
5. Implication on scalability
Use of Traffic Engineering Attribute does not increase the number of
routes, but may increase the number of BGP Update messages required
to distribute the routes depending on whether these routes share the
same BGP Traffic Engineering attribute or not (see below).
When the routes differ in other than the Traffic Engineering
Attribute (e.g., differ in the set of Route Targets, and/or
NEXT_HOP), use of Traffic Engineering Attribute has no impact on the
number of BGP Update messages required to carry the routes. There is
also no impact when routes share all other attribute information and
have an aggregated or identical Traffic Engineering Attribute. When
routes share all other attribute information and have different
Traffic Engineering Attributes, routes must be distributed in per-
route BGP Update messages rather than a single message.
6. IANA Considerations
This document defines a new BGP attribute. This attribute is optional This document defines a new BGP attribute. This attribute is optional
and non-transitive. and non-transitive.
6. Security Considerations 7. Security Considerations
This extension to BGP does not change the underlying security issues This extension to BGP does not change the underlying security issues
inherent in the existing BGP. inherent in the existing BGP.
7. Intellectual Property Statement 8. Intellectual Property Statement
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
skipping to change at page 5, line 29 skipping to change at page 6, line 5
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr. http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf- this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-
ipr@ietf.org. ipr@ietf.org.
8. Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008). 9. Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights. retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
9. Acknowledgements 10. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank John Scudder and Jeffrey Haas for The authors would like to thank John Scudder and Jeffrey Haas for
their review and comments. their review and comments.
10. Normative References 11. Normative References
[BGP-4] Rekhter, Y., T. Li, Hares, S., "A Border Gateway Protocol 4
(BGP-4)", RFC4271, January 2006.
[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, March 1997. Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[GMPLS-SIG] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching [RFC4201] Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., Berger, L., "Link Bundling in
MPLS Traffic Engineering (TE)", RFC 4201, October 2005<P>
[RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., T. Li, Hares, S., "A Border Gateway Protocol 4
(BGP-4)", RFC4271, January 2006.
[RFC3471] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC 3471, January 2003. (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC 3471, January 2003.
[IEEE] IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Binary Floating-Point Arithmetic", [IEEE] IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Binary Floating-Point Arithmetic",
Standard 754-1985, 1985 (ISBN 1-5593-7653-8). Standard 754-1985, 1985 (ISBN 1-5593-7653-8).
11. Non-Normative References 12. Non-Normative References
[RFC4203] Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., "OSPF Extensions in Support of [RFC4203] Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., "OSPF Extensions in Support of
Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)", RFC4203, October Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)", RFC4203, October
2005 2005
[RFC4205] Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., "Intermediate System to [RFC4205] Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., "Intermediate System to
Intermediate System (IS-IS) Extensions in Support of Generalized Intermediate System (IS-IS) Extensions in Support of Generalized
Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)", RFC4205, October 2005 Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)", RFC4205, October 2005
[L1VPN] Fedyk, D., Ould-Brahim, H., Rekhter, Y., "BGP-based Auto- [RFC5195] Ould-Brahim, H., Fedyk, D., Rekhter, Y., "BGP-Based Auto-
Discovery for L1VPNs", draft-ietf-l1vpn-bgp-auto-discovery, work in
progress
12. Author Information 13. Author Information
Hamid Ould-Brahim Hamid Ould-Brahim
Nortel Networks Nortel Networks
Email: hbrahim@nortel.com Email: hbrahim@nortel.com
Don Fedyk Don Fedyk
Nortel Networks Nortel Networks
Email: dwfedyk@nortel.com Email: dwfedyk@nortel.com
Yakov Rekhter Yakov Rekhter
 End of changes. 18 change blocks. 
21 lines changed or deleted 52 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.35. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/