--- 1/draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp-02.txt 2016-05-11 13:16:02.629007003 -0700 +++ 2/draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp-03.txt 2016-05-11 13:16:02.649007508 -0700 @@ -1,413 +1,396 @@ -IDR Working Group Q. Wu -Internet-Draft Huawei -Intended status: Standards Track S. Previdi -Expires: July 8, 2015 Cisco +Networking Working Group S. Previdi, Ed. +Internet-Draft Cisco Systems, Inc. +Intended status: Standards Track Q. Wu +Expires: November 12, 2016 Huawei H. Gredler - Juniper S. Ray - Cisco J. Tantsura - Ericsson - January 4, 2015 + Individual + C. Filsfils + L. Ginsberg + Cisco Systems, Inc. + May 11, 2016 - BGP attribute for North-Bound Distribution of Traffic Engineering (TE) - performance Metrics - draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp-02 + BGP-LS Advertisement of IGP Traffic Engineering Performance Metric + Extensions + draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp-03 Abstract - In order to populate network performance information like link - latency, latency variation, packet loss and bandwidth into Traffic - Engineering Database(TED) and ALTO server, this document describes - extensions to BGP protocol, that can be used to distribute network - performance information (such as link delay, delay variation, packet - loss, residual bandwidth, available bandwidth and utilized bandwidth - ). + This document defines new BGP-LS TLVs in order to carry the IGP + Traffic Engineering Extensions defined in IS-IS and OSPF protocols. + +Requirements Language + + The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", + "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this + document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. + + In this document, these words will appear with that interpretation + only when in ALL CAPS. Lower case uses of these words are not to be + interpreted as carrying RFC-2119 significance. 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 http://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 on July 8, 2015. + This Internet-Draft will expire on November 12, 2016. Copyright Notice - Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the + Copyright (c) 2016 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. 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 - 2. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 3. Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 3.1. MPLS-TE with H-PCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 3.2. ALTO Server Network API . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 4. Carrying TE Performance information in BGP . . . . . . . . . 5 - 5. Attribute TLV Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - 6. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 - 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 - 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 - Appendix A. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 - A.1. draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp-00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 - A.2. draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp-02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 - Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 + 2. Link Attribute TLVs for TE Metric Extensions . . . . . . . . 3 + 3. TLV Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 + 3.1. Unidirectional Link Delay TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 + 3.2. Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay TLV . . . . . . . . . . 4 + 3.3. Unidirectional Delay Variation TLV . . . . . . . . . . . 4 + 3.4. Unidirectional Link Loss TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 + 3.5. Unidirectional Residual Bandwidth TLV . . . . . . . . . . 5 + 3.6. Unidirectional Available Bandwidth TLV . . . . . . . . . 5 + 3.7. Unidirectional Utilized Bandwidth TLV . . . . . . . . . . 6 + 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 + 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 + 6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 + 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 + 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 + 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 + Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 1. Introduction - As specified in [RFC4655],a Path Computation Element (PCE) is an - entity that is capable of computing a network path or route based on - a network graph, and of applying computational constraints during the - computation. In order to compute an end to end path, the PCE needs - to have a unified view of the overall topology[I-D.ietf-pce-pcep- - service-aware]. [I.D-ietf-idr-ls-distribution] describes a mechanism - by which links state and traffic engineering information can be - collected from networks and shared with external components using the - BGP routing protocol. This mechanism can be used by both PCE and - ALTO server to gather information about the topologies and - capabilities of the network. + BGP-LS ([RFC7752]) defines NLRI and attributes in order to carry + link-state information. New BGP-LS Link-Attribute TLVs are required + in order to carry the Traffic Engineering Metric Extensions defined + in [RFC7810] and [RFC7471]. - With the growth of network virtualization technology, the Network - performance or QoS requirements such as latency, limited bandwidth, - packet loss, and jitter, for real traffic are all critical factors - that must be taken into account in the end to end path computation - and selection ([I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-service-aware])which enable - optimizing resource usage and degrading gracefully during period of - heavy load . +2. Link Attribute TLVs for TE Metric Extensions - In order to populate network performance information like link - latency, latency variation, packet loss and bandwidth into TED and - ALTO server, this document describes extensions to BGP protocol, that - can be used to distribute network performance information (such as - link delay, delay variation, packet loss, residual bandwidth, - available bandwidth, and utilized bandwidth). The network - performance information can be distributed in the same way as link - state information distribution,i.e., either directly or via a peer - BGP speaker (see figure 1 of [I.D-ietf-idr-ls-distribution]). + The following new Link Attribute TLVs are defined: -2. Conventions used in this document + TLV Type Value + -------------------------------------------------------- + 1104 (Suggested) Unidirectional Link Delay - The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", - "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this - document are to be interpreted as described in RFC2119 [RFC2119]. + 1105 (Suggested) Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay -3. Use Cases + 1106 (Suggested) Unidirectional Delay Variation -3.1. MPLS-TE with H-PCE + 1107 (Suggested) Unidirectional Packet Loss - For inter-AS path computation the Hierarchical PCE (H-PCE) [RFC6805] - may be used to compute the optimal sequence of domains. Within the - H-PCE architecture, the child PCE communicates domain connectivity - information to the parent PCE, and the parent PCE will use this - information to compute a multi-domain path based on the optimal TE - links between domains [I.D-ietf-pce-hierarchy-extensions] for the - end-to-end path. + 1108 (Suggested) Unidirectional Residual Bandwidth - The following figure demonstrates how a parent PCE may obtain TE - performance information beyond that contained in the LINK_STATE - attributes [I.D-ietf-idr-ls-distribution] using the mechanism - described in this document. + 1109 (Suggested) Unidirectional Available Bandwidth - +----------+ +---------+ - | ----- | | BGP | - | | TED |<-+-------------------------->| Speaker | - | ----- | TED synchronization | | - | | | mechanism: +---------+ - | | | BGP with TE performance - | v | NLRI - | ----- | - | | PCE | | - | ----- | - +----------+ - ^ - | Request/ - | Response - v - Service +----------+ Signaling +----------+ - Request | Head-End | Protocol | Adjacent | - -------->| Node |<------------>| Node | - +----------+ +----------+ + 1110 (Suggested) Unidirectional Bandwidth Utilization - Figure 1: External PCE node using a TED synchronization mechanism +3. TLV Details -3.2. ALTO Server Network API +3.1. Unidirectional Link Delay TLV - The ALTO Server can aggregate information from multiple systems to - provide an abstract and unified view that can be more useful to - applications. + This TLV advertises the average link delay between two directly + connected IGP link-state neighbors. The semantic of the TLV is + described in [RFC7810] and [RFC7471]. - The following figure shows how an ALTO Server can get TE performance - information from the underlying network beyond that contained in the - LINK_STATE attributes [I.D-ietf-idr-ls-distribution] using the - mechanism described in this document. + 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 | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + |A| RESERVED | Delay | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - +--------+ - | Client |<--+ - +--------+ | - | ALTO +--------+ BGP with +---------+ - +--------+ | Protocol | ALTO | TE Performance | BGP | - | Client |<--+------------| Server |<----------------| Speaker | - +--------+ | | | NLR | | - | +--------+ +---------+ - +--------+ | - | Client |<--+ - +--------+ - Figure 2: ALTO Server using network performance information + where: -4. Carrying TE Performance information in BGP + Figure 1 - This document proposes new BGP TE performance TLVs that can be - announced as attribute in the BGP-LS attribute (defined in [I.D-ietf- - idr-ls-distribution]) to distribute network performance information. - The extensions in this document build on the ones provided in BGP-LS - [I.D-ietf-idr-ls-distribution] and BGP-4 [RFC4271]. + Type: TBA (suggested value: 1104). - BGP-LS attribute defined in [I.D-ietf-idr-ls-distribution] has nested - TLVs which allow the BGP-LS attribute to be readily extended. This - document proposes seven additional TLVs as its attributes: + Length: 4. - Type Value +3.2. Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay TLV - TBD1 Unidirectional Link Delay + This sub-TLV advertises the minimum and maximum delay values between + two directly connected IGP link-state neighbors. The semantic of the + TLV is described in [RFC7810] and [RFC7471]. - TBD2 Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay + 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 | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + |A| RESERVED | Min Delay | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | RESERVED | Max Delay | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - TBD3 Unidirectional Delay Variation + where: - TBD4 Unidirectional Packet Loss + Figure 2 - TBD5 Unidirectional Residual Bandwidth + Type: TBA (suggested value: 1105). - TBD6 Unidirectional Available Bandwidth + Length: 8. - TBD7 Unidirectional Utilized Bandwidth +3.3. Unidirectional Delay Variation TLV - As can be seen in the list above, the TLVs described in this document - carry different types of network performance information. Some of - these TLVs include a bit called the Anomalous (or "A") bit at the - left-most bit after length field of each TLV defined in figure 4 of - [[I.D-ietf-idr-ls-distribution]]. The other bits in the first octets - after length field of each TLV is reserved for future use. When the - A bit is clear (or when the TLV does not include an A bit), the TLV - describes steady state link performance. This information could - conceivably be used to construct a steady state performance topology - for initial tunnel path computation, or to verify alternative - failover paths. + This sub-TLV advertises the average link delay variation between two + directly connected IGP link-state neighbors. The semantic of the TLV + is described in [RFC7810] and [RFC7471]. - When network performance downgrades and exceeds configurable maximum - thresholds, a TLV with the A bit set is advertised. These TLVs could - be used by the receiving BGP peer to determine whether to redirect - failing traffic to a backup path, or whether to calculate an entirely - new path. If link performance improves later and falls below a - configurable value, that TLV can be re- advertised with the Anomalous - bit cleared. In this case, a receiving BGP peer can conceivably do - whatever re-optimization (or failback) it wishes to do (including - nothing). + 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 | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | RESERVED | Delay Variation | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - Note that when a TLV does not include the A bit, that TLV cannot be - used for failover purposes. The A bit was intentionally omitted from - some TLVs to help mitigate oscillations. + where: - Consistent with existing ISIS TE specifications [ISIS-TE-METRIC], the - bandwidth advertisements, the delay and delay variation - advertisements, packet loss defined in this document MUST be encoded - in the same unit as one defined in IS-IS Extended IS Reachability - sub-TLVs [ISIS-TE-METRIC]. All values (except residual bandwidth) - MUST be obtained by a filter that is reasonably representative of an - average or calculated as rolling averages where the averaging period - MUST be a configurable period of time. The measurement interval, any - filter coefficients, and any advertisement intervals MUST be - configurable per sub-TLV in the same way as ones defined in section 5 - of [ISIS-TE-METRIC]. + Figure 3 -5. Attribute TLV Details + Type: TBA (suggested value: 1106). - Link attribute TLVs defined in section 3.2.2 of [I-D.ietf-idr-ls- - distribution]are TLVs that may be encoded in the BGP-LS attribute - with a link NLRI. Each 'Link Attribute' is a Type/Length/ Value - (TLV) triplet formatted as defined in Section 3.1 of [I-D.ietf-idr- - ls-distribution]. The format and semantics of the 'value' fields in - 'Link Attribute' TLVs correspond to the format and semantics of value - fields in IS-IS Extended IS Reachability sub-TLVs, defined in - [RFC5305]. Although the encodings for 'Link Attribute' TLVs were - originally defined for IS-IS, the TLVs can carry data sourced either - by IS-IS or OSPF. + Length: 4. - The following 'Link Attribute' TLVs are valid in the LINK_STATE - attribute: +3.4. Unidirectional Link Loss TLV - +------------+---------------------+--------------+-----------------+ - | TLV Code | Description | IS-IS | Defined in: | - | Point | | TLV/Sub-TLV | | - +------------+---------------------+--------------+-----------------+ - | xxxx | Unidirectional | 22/xx | [ISIS-TE- | - | | Link Delay | | METRIC]/4.1 | - | | | | | - | xxxx | Min/Max Unidirection| 22/xx | [ISIS-TE- | - | | Link Delay | | METRIC]/4.2 | - | | | | | - | xxxx | Unidirectional | 22/xx | [ISIS-TE- | - | | Delay Variation | | METRIC]/4.3 | - | | | | | - | xxxx | Unidirectional | 22/xx | [ISIS-TE- | - | | Link Loss | | METRIC]/4.4 | - | | | | | - | xxxx | Unidirectional | 22/xx | [ISIS-TE- | - | |Residual Bandwidth | | METRIC]/4.5 | - | | | | | - | xxxx | Unidirectional | 22/xx | [ISIS-TE- | - | |Available Bandwidth | | METRIC]/4.6 | - | | | | | - | xxxx | Unidirectional | 22/xx | [ISIS-TE- | - | |Utilized Bandwidth | | METRIC]/4.7 | - +------------+---------------------+--------------+-----------------+ + This sub-TLV advertises the loss (as a packet percentage) between two + directly connected IGP link-state neighbors. The semantic of the TLV + is described in [RFC7810] and [RFC7471]. - Table 1: Link Attribute TLVs + 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 | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + |A| RESERVED | Link Loss | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ -6. Manageability Considerations + where: - Manageability Considerations described in section 6.2 of [I-D.ietf- - idr-ls-distribution] can be applied to Traffic Engineering (TE) - performance Metrics as well. + Type: TBA (suggested value: 1107). -7. Security Considerations + Length: 4. - This document does not introduce security issues beyond those - discussed in [I.D-ietf-idr-ls-distribution] and [RFC4271]. +3.5. Unidirectional Residual Bandwidth TLV -8. IANA Considerations + This sub-TLV advertises the residual bandwidth between two directly + connected IGP link-state neighbors. The semantic of the TLV is + described in [RFC7810] and [RFC7471]. - IANA maintains the registry for the TLVs. BGP TE Performance TLV - will require one new type code per TLV defined in this document. + 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 | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Residual Bandwidth | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ -9. References + where: -9.1. Normative References + Type: TBA (suggested value: 1108). - [I-D.ietf-idr-ls-distribution] - Gredler, H., "North-Bound Distribution of Link-State and - TE Information using BGP", ID draft-ietf-idr-ls- - distribution-07, November 2014. + Length: 4. - [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-service-aware] - Dhruv, D., "Extensions to the Path Computation Element - Communication Protocol (PCEP) to compute service aware - Label Switched Path (LSP)", ID draft-ietf-pce-pcep- - service-aware-06, December 2014. +3.6. Unidirectional Available Bandwidth TLV - [ISIS-TE-METRIC] - Giacalone, S., "ISIS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric - Extensions", ID draft-ietf-isis-te-metric-extensions-04, - October 2014. + This sub-TLV advertises the available bandwidth between two directly + connected IGP link-state neighbors. The semantic of the TLV is + described in [RFC7810] and [RFC7471]. - [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate - Requirement Levels", March 1997. + 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 | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Available Bandwidth | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - [RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., "A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC - 4271, January 2006. + where: - [RFC5305] Li, T., "IS-IS Extensions for Traffic Engineering", RFC - 5305, October 2008. + Figure 4 -9.2. Informative References + Type: TBA (suggested value: 1109). - [ALTO] Yang, Y., "ALTO Protocol", ID - http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-alto-protocol-16, - May 2013. + Length: 4. - [I.D-ietf-pce-hierarchy-extensions] - Zhang, F., Zhao, Q., Gonzalez de Dios, O., Casellas, R., - and D. King, "Extensions to Path Computation Element - Communication Protocol (PCEP) for Hierarchical Path - Computation Elements (PCE)", ID draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy- - extensions-01, February 2014. +3.7. Unidirectional Utilized Bandwidth TLV - [RFC4655] Farrel, A., "A Path Computation Element (PCE)-Based - Architecture", RFC 4655, August 2006. + This sub-TLV advertises the bandwidth utilization between two + directly connected IGP link-state neighbors. The semantic of the TLV + is described in [RFC7810] and [RFC7471]. -Appendix A. Change Log + 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 | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Utilized Bandwidth | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - Note to the RFC-Editor: please remove this section prior to - publication as an RFC. + where: -A.1. draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp-00 + Figure 5 - The following are the major changes compared to previous version - draft-wu-idr-te-pm-bgp-03: + Type: TBA (suggested value: 1110). - o Update PCE case in section 3.1. + Length: 4. - o Add some texts in section 1 and section 4 to clarify from where to - distribute pm info and measurement interval and method. +4. Security Considerations -A.2. draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp-02 + Procedures and protocol extensions defined in this document do not + affect the BGP security model. See the 'Security Considerations' + section of [RFC4271] for a discussion of BGP security. Also refer to + [RFC4272] and [RFC6952] for analysis of security issues for BGP. - The following are the major changes compared to previous version - draft-wu-idr-te-pm-bgp-03: + The TLVs introduced in this document are used to propagate IGP + defined information ([RFC7810] and [RFC7471].) These TLVs represent + the state and resources availability of the IGP link. The IGP + instances originating these TLVs are assumed to have all the required + security and authentication mechanism (as described in [RFC7810] and + [RFC7471]) in order to prevent any security issue when propagating + the TLVs into BGP-LS. - o Some Editorial changes. +5. IANA Considerations + + This document requests assigning code-points from the registry "BGP- + LS Node Descriptor, Link Descriptor, Prefix Descriptor, and Attribute + TLVs" for the new Link Attribute TLVs deefined in the table here + below: + + TLV code-point Value + -------------------------------------------------------- + 1104 (Suggested) Unidirectional Link Delay + + 1105 (Suggested) Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay + + 1106 (Suggested) Unidirectional Delay Variation + + 1107 (Suggested) Unidirectional Packet Loss + + 1108 (Suggested) Unidirectional Residual Bandwidth + + 1109 (Suggested) Unidirectional Available Bandwidth + + 1110 (Suggested) Unidirectional Bandwidth Utilization + +6. Acknowledgements + + TBD + +7. References + +7.1. Normative References + + [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate + Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, + DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, + . + + [RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A + Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, + DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006, + . + + [RFC7471] Giacalone, S., Ward, D., Drake, J., Atlas, A., and S. + Previdi, "OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric + Extensions", RFC 7471, DOI 10.17487/RFC7471, March 2015, + . + + [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, + . + + [RFC7810] Previdi, S., Ed., Giacalone, S., Ward, D., Drake, J., and + Q. Wu, "IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions", + RFC 7810, DOI 10.17487/RFC7810, May 2016, + . + +7.2. Informative References + + [RFC4272] Murphy, S., "BGP Security Vulnerabilities Analysis", + RFC 4272, DOI 10.17487/RFC4272, January 2006, + . + + [RFC6952] Jethanandani, M., Patel, K., and L. Zheng, "Analysis of + BGP, LDP, PCEP, and MSDP Issues According to the Keying + and Authentication for Routing Protocols (KARP) Design + Guide", RFC 6952, DOI 10.17487/RFC6952, May 2013, + . Authors' Addresses + Stefano Previdi (editor) + Cisco Systems, Inc. + Via Del Serafico 200 + Rome 00191 + IT + + Email: sprevidi@cisco.com + Qin Wu Huawei 101 Software Avenue, Yuhua District Nanjing, Jiangsu 210012 China Email: bill.wu@huawei.com - - Stefano Previdi - Cisco Systems, Inc. - Via Del Serafico 200 - Rome 00191 - Italy - - Email: sprevidi@cisco.com Hannes Gredler - Juniper Networks, Inc. - 1194 N. Mathilda Ave. - Sunnyvale, CA 94089 - US + Individual + AT - Email: hannes@juniper.net + Email: hannes@gredler.at Saikat Ray - Cisco Systems, Inc. - 170, West Tasman Drive - San Jose, CA 95134 + Individual US - Email: sairay@cisco.com + Email: raysaikat@gmail.com Jeff Tantsura - Ericsson - 300 Holger Way - San Jose, CA 95134 + Individual US - Email: jeff.tantsura@ericsson.com + Email: jefftant@gmail.com + + Clarence Filsfils + Cisco Systems, Inc. + Brussels + BE + + Email: cfilsfil@cisco.com + + Les Ginsberg + Cisco Systems, Inc. + US + + Email: ginsberg@cisco.com