draft-ietf-softwire-bgp-te-attribute-03.txt   draft-ietf-softwire-bgp-te-attribute-04.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: March 2009 Yakov Rekhter (Juniper Networks) Expiration Date: June 2009 Yakov Rekhter (Juniper Networks)
Intended Status: Proposed Standard Intended Status: Proposed Standard
BGP Traffic Engineering Attribute BGP Traffic Engineering Attribute
draft-ietf-softwire-bgp-te-attribute-03.txt draft-ietf-softwire-bgp-te-attribute-04.txt
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
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.
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
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts. Drafts.
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".
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
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.
Copyright (c) 2008 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
(http://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.
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, that enables BGP to carry Traffic Engineering information.
The scope and applicability of this attribute currently excludes its The scope and applicability of this attribute currently excludes its
use for non-VPN reachability information. use for non-VPN reachability information.
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 [RFC5195]) it may be useful to augment In certain cases (e.g., L1VPN [RFC5195]) it may be useful to augment
VPN reachability information carried in BGP with the Traffic VPN reachability information carried in BGP with the Traffic
Engineering information. Engineering information.
This document defines a new BGP attribute, Traffic Engineering This document defines a new BGP attribute, Traffic Engineering
attribute, than enables BGP [RFC4271] to carry Traffic Engineering attribute, that enables BGP [RFC4271] to carry Traffic Engineering
information. information.
Section 4 of [RFC5195] describes one possible usage of this Section 4 of [RFC5195] describes one possible usage of this
attribute. attribute.
The scope and applicability of this attribute currently excludes its The scope and applicability of this attribute currently excludes its
use for non-VPN reachability information. use for non-VPN reachability information.
Procedures for modifying the Traffic Engineering attribute, when re- Procedures for modifying the Traffic Engineering attribute, when re-
advertising a route that carries such attribute are outside the scope advertising a route that carries such attribute are outside the scope
of this document. of this document.
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], [RFC5307].
The attribute contains one or more of the following: The attribute contains one or more of the following:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Switching Cap | Encoding | Reserved | | Switching Cap | Encoding | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 0 | | Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 0 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
skipping to change at page 4, line 39 skipping to change at line 177
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.
Constructing the Traffic Engineering Attribute when aggregating Constructing the Traffic Engineering Attribute when aggregating
routes with identical Traffic Engineering attributes follows routes with identical Traffic Engineering attributes follows the
procedure of [RFC4201]. procedure of [RFC4201].
5. Implication on scalability 5. Implication on scalability
Use of Traffic Engineering Attribute does not increase the number of The use of the Traffic Engineering Attribute does not increase the
routes, but may increase the number of BGP Update messages required number of routes, but may increase the number of BGP Update messages
to distribute the routes depending on whether these routes share the required to distribute the routes depending on whether these routes
same BGP Traffic Engineering attribute or not (see below). share the same BGP Traffic Engineering attribute or not (see below).
When the routes differ in other than the Traffic Engineering When the routes differ in other than the Traffic Engineering
Attribute (e.g., differ in the set of Route Targets, and/or Attribute (e.g., differ in the set of Route Targets, and/or
NEXT_HOP), use of Traffic Engineering Attribute has no impact on the NEXT_HOP), use of Traffic Engineering Attribute has no impact on the
number of BGP Update messages required to carry the routes. There is number of BGP Update messages required to carry the routes. There is
also no impact when routes share all other attribute information and also no impact when routes share all other attribute information and
have an aggregated or identical Traffic Engineering Attribute. When have an aggregated or identical Traffic Engineering Attribute. When
routes share all other attribute information and have different routes share all other attribute information and have different
Traffic Engineering Attributes, routes must be distributed in per- Traffic Engineering Attributes, routes must be distributed in per-
route BGP Update messages rather than a single message. route BGP Update messages rather than a single message.
6. IANA Considerations 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.
7. 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. currently inherent in BGP. BGP security considerations are discussed
in RFC 4271
8. Intellectual Property Statement
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
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
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-
ipr@ietf.org.
9. Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
10. Acknowledgements 8. 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.
11. Normative References 9. Normative References
[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.
[RFC4201] Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., Berger, L., "Link Bundling in [RFC4201] Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., Berger, L., "Link Bundling in
MPLS Traffic Engineering (TE)", RFC 4201, October 2005<P> MPLS Traffic Engineering (TE)", RFC 4201, October 2005<P>
[RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., T. Li, Hares, S., "A Border Gateway Protocol 4 [RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., T. Li, Hares, S., "A Border Gateway Protocol 4
(BGP-4)", RFC4271, January 2006. (BGP-4)", RFC4271, January 2006.
[RFC3471] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching [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).
12. Non-Normative References 10. 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 [RFC5307] 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)", RFC5307, October 2005
[RFC5195] Ould-Brahim, H., Fedyk, D., Rekhter, Y., "BGP-Based Auto- [RFC5195] Ould-Brahim, H., Fedyk, D., Rekhter, Y., "BGP-Based Auto-
13. Author Information 11. 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. 17 change blocks. 
60 lines changed or deleted 30 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/