draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp-14.txt		draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp-15.txt
	Networking Working Group L. Ginsberg, Ed.		Networking Working Group L. Ginsberg, Ed.
	Internet-Draft Cisco Systems, Inc.		Internet-Draft Cisco Systems, Inc.
	Intended status: Standards Track S. Previdi		Intended status: Standards Track S. Previdi
	Expires: April 24, 2019 Q. Wu		Expires: June 3, 2019 Q. Wu
	Huawei		Huawei
	J. Tantsura		J. Tantsura
	Apstra, Inc.		Apstra, Inc.
	C. Filsfils		C. Filsfils
	Cisco Systems, Inc.		Cisco Systems, Inc.
	October 21, 2018		November 30, 2018
	BGP-LS Advertisement of IGP Traffic Engineering Performance Metric		BGP-LS Advertisement of IGP Traffic Engineering Performance Metric
	Extensions		Extensions
	draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp-14		draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp-15
	Abstract		Abstract
	This document defines new BGP-LS TLVs in order to carry the IGP		This document defines new BGP-LS TLVs in order to carry the IGP
	Traffic Engineering Extensions defined in IS-IS and OSPF protocols.		Traffic Engineering Extensions defined in the IS-IS and OSPF
			protocols.
	Requirements Language
	The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
	"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
	"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
	14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
	capitals, as shown here.
	Status of This Memo		Status of This Memo
	This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the		This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
	provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.		provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
	Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering		Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
	Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute		Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
	working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-		working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
	Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.		Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
	Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months		Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
	and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any		and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
	time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference		time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
	material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."		material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
	This Internet-Draft will expire on April 24, 2019.		This Internet-Draft will expire on June 3, 2019.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the		Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
	document authors. All rights reserved.		document authors. All rights reserved.
	This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal		This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
	Provisions Relating to IETF Documents		Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
	(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of		(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
	publication of this document. Please review these documents		publication of this document. Please review these documents
	carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect		carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
	to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must		to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
	include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of		include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
	the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as		the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
	described in the Simplified BSD License.		described in the Simplified BSD License.
	Table of Contents		Table of Contents
	1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2		1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
	2. Link Attribute TLVs for TE Metric Extensions . . . . . . . . 2		2. Link Attribute TLVs for TE Metric Extensions . . . . . . . . 2
	3. TLV Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		2.1. Unidirectional Link Delay TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	3.1. Unidirectional Link Delay TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		2.2. Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay TLV . . . . . . . . . . 3
	3.2. Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay TLV . . . . . . . . . . 3		2.3. Unidirectional Delay Variation TLV . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	3.3. Unidirectional Delay Variation TLV . . . . . . . . . . . 4		2.4. Unidirectional Link Loss TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	3.4. Unidirectional Link Loss TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		2.5. Unidirectional Residual Bandwidth TLV . . . . . . . . . . 5
	3.5. Unidirectional Residual Bandwidth TLV . . . . . . . . . . 5		2.6. Unidirectional Available Bandwidth TLV . . . . . . . . . 5
	3.6. Unidirectional Available Bandwidth TLV . . . . . . . . . 5		2.7. Unidirectional Utilized Bandwidth TLV . . . . . . . . . . 6
	3.7. Unidirectional Utilized Bandwidth TLV . . . . . . . . . . 6		3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		5. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	6. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8		7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8		7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8		7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8		Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
	1. Introduction		1. Introduction
	BGP-LS ([RFC7752]) defines NLRI and attributes in order to carry		BGP-LS ([RFC7752]) defines NLRI and attributes in order to carry
	link-state information. New BGP-LS Link-Attribute TLVs are required		link-state information. New BGP-LS Link-Attribute TLVs are required
	in order to carry the Traffic Engineering Metric Extensions defined		in order to carry the Traffic Engineering Metric Extensions defined
	in [RFC7810] and [RFC7471].		in [I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis] and [RFC7471].
	2. Link Attribute TLVs for TE Metric Extensions		2. Link Attribute TLVs for TE Metric Extensions
	The following new Link Attribute TLVs are defined:		The following new Link Attribute TLVs are defined:
	TLV Name		TLV code-point Value
	------------------------------------------		--------------------------------------------------------
	Unidirectional Link Delay		1114 Unidirectional Link Delay
	Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay		1115 Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay
	Unidirectional Delay Variation		1116 Unidirectional Delay Variation
	Unidirectional Link Loss		1117 Unidirectional Link Loss
	Unidirectional Residual Bandwidth		1118 Unidirectional Residual Bandwidth
	Unidirectional Available Bandwidth		1119 Unidirectional Available Bandwidth
	Unidirectional Bandwidth Utilization		1120 Unidirectional Bandwidth Utilization
	3. TLV Details		TLV formats are described in detail in the following sub-sections.
			TLV formats follow the rules defined in [RFC7752].
	3.1. Unidirectional Link Delay TLV		2.1. Unidirectional Link Delay TLV
	This TLV advertises the average link delay between two directly		This TLV advertises the average link delay between two directly
	connected IGP link-state neighbors. The semantic of the TLV is		connected IGP link-state neighbors. The semantics of the value field
	described in [RFC7810] and [RFC7471].		in the TLV are described in [I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis] and
			[RFC7471].
	0 1 2 3		0 1 2 3
	0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1		0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| Type | Length |		| Type | Length |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	|A| RESERVED | Delay |		|A| RESERVED | Delay |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	where:		where:
	Figure 1		Figure 1
	Type: 1114		Type: 1114
	Length: 4.		Length: 4.
	3.2. Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay TLV		2.2. Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay TLV
	This sub-TLV advertises the minimum and maximum delay values between		This sub-TLV advertises the minimum and maximum delay values between
	two directly connected IGP link-state neighbors. The semantic of the		two directly connected IGP link-state neighbors. The semantics of
	TLV is described in [RFC7810] and [RFC7471].		the value field in the TLV are described in
			[I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis] and [RFC7471].
	0 1 2 3		0 1 2 3
	0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1		0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| Type | Length |		| Type | Length |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	|A| RESERVED | Min Delay |		|A| RESERVED | Min Delay |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| RESERVED | Max Delay |		| RESERVED | Max Delay |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	where:		where:
	Figure 2		Figure 2
	Type: 1115		Type: 1115
	Length: 8.		Length: 8.
	3.3. Unidirectional Delay Variation TLV		2.3. Unidirectional Delay Variation TLV
	This sub-TLV advertises the average link delay variation between two		This sub-TLV advertises the average link delay variation between two
	directly connected IGP link-state neighbors. The semantic of the TLV		directly connected IGP link-state neighbors. The semantics of the
	is described in [RFC7810] and [RFC7471].		value field in the TLV are described in
			[I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis] and [RFC7471].
	0 1 2 3		0 1 2 3
	0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1		0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| Type | Length |		| Type | Length |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| RESERVED | Delay Variation |		| RESERVED | Delay Variation |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	where:		where:
	Figure 3		Figure 3
	Type: 1116		Type: 1116
	Length: 4.		Length: 4.
	3.4. Unidirectional Link Loss TLV		2.4. Unidirectional Link Loss TLV
	This sub-TLV advertises the loss (as a packet percentage) between two		This sub-TLV advertises the loss (as a packet percentage) between two
	directly connected IGP link-state neighbors. The semantic of the TLV		directly connected IGP link-state neighbors. The semantics of the
	is described in [RFC7810] and [RFC7471].		value field in the TLV are described in
			[I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis] and [RFC7471].
	0 1 2 3		0 1 2 3
	0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1		0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| Type | Length |		| Type | Length |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	|A| RESERVED | Link Loss |		|A| RESERVED | Link Loss |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	where:		where:
	Type:1117		Type:1117
	Length: 4.		Length: 4.
	3.5. Unidirectional Residual Bandwidth TLV		2.5. Unidirectional Residual Bandwidth TLV
	This sub-TLV advertises the residual bandwidth between two directly		This sub-TLV advertises the residual bandwidth between two directly
	connected IGP link-state neighbors. The semantic of the TLV is		connected IGP link-state neighbors. The semantics of the value field
	described in [RFC7810] and [RFC7471].		in the TLV are described in [I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis] and
			[RFC7471].
	0 1 2 3		0 1 2 3
	0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1		0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| Type | Length |		| Type | Length |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| Residual Bandwidth |		| Residual Bandwidth |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	where:		where:
	Type: 1118		Type: 1118
	Length: 4.		Length: 4.
	3.6. Unidirectional Available Bandwidth TLV		2.6. Unidirectional Available Bandwidth TLV
	This sub-TLV advertises the available bandwidth between two directly		This sub-TLV advertises the available bandwidth between two directly
	connected IGP link-state neighbors. The semantic of the TLV is		connected IGP link-state neighbors. The semantics of the value field
	described in [RFC7810] and [RFC7471].		in the TLV are described in [I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis] and
			[RFC7471].
	0 1 2 3		0 1 2 3
	0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1		0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| Type | Length |		| Type | Length |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| Available Bandwidth |		| Available Bandwidth |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	where:		where:
	Figure 4		Figure 4
	Type: 1119		Type: 1119
	Length: 4.		Length: 4.
	3.7. Unidirectional Utilized Bandwidth TLV		2.7. Unidirectional Utilized Bandwidth TLV
	This sub-TLV advertises the bandwidth utilization between two		This sub-TLV advertises the bandwidth utilization between two
	directly connected IGP link-state neighbors. The semantic of the TLV		directly connected IGP link-state neighbors. The semantics of the
	is described in [RFC7810] and [RFC7471].		value field in the TLV are described in
			[I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis] and [RFC7471].
	0 1 2 3		0 1 2 3
	0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1		0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| Type | Length |		| Type | Length |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| Utilized Bandwidth |		| Utilized Bandwidth |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	where:		where:
	Figure 5		Figure 5
	Type: 1120		Type: 1120
	Length: 4.		Length: 4.
	4. Security Considerations		3. Security Considerations
	Procedures and protocol extensions defined in this document do not		Procedures and protocol extensions defined in this document do not
	affect the BGP security model. See the 'Security Considerations'		affect the BGP security model. See the 'Security Considerations'
	section of [RFC4271] for a discussion of BGP security. Also refer to		section of [RFC4271] for a discussion of BGP security. Also refer to
	[RFC4272] and [RFC6952] for analysis of security issues for BGP.		[RFC4272] and [RFC6952] for analysis of security issues for BGP.
	Security considerations for acquiring and distributing BGP-LS		Security considerations for acquiring and distributing BGP-LS
	information are discussed in [RFC7752].		information are discussed in [RFC7752].
	The TLVs introduced in this document are used to propagate IGP		The TLVs introduced in this document are used to propagate IGP
	defined information ([RFC7810] and [RFC7471].) These TLVs represent		defined information ([I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis] and [RFC7471].)
	the state and resources availability of the IGP link. The IGP		These TLVs represent the state and resources availability of the IGP
	instances originating these TLVs are assumed to have all the required		link. The IGP instances originating these TLVs are assumed to have
	security and authentication mechanism (as described in [RFC7810] and		all the required security and authentication mechanism (as described
	[RFC7471]) in order to prevent any security issue when propagating		in [I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis] and [RFC7471]) in order to prevent
	the TLVs into BGP-LS. The advertisement of the link attribute		any security issue when propagating the TLVs into BGP-LS. The
	information defined in this document presents no additional risk		advertisement of the link attribute information defined in this
	beyond that associated with the existing set of link attribute		document presents no additional risk beyond that associated with the
	information already supported in [RFC7752].		existing set of link attribute information already supported in
			[RFC7752].
	5. IANA Considerations		4. IANA Considerations
	This document requests assigning code-points from the registry "BGP-		IANA has made temporary assignments in the registry "BGP-LS Node
	LS Node Descriptor, Link Descriptor, Prefix Descriptor, and Attribute		Descriptor, Link Descriptor, Prefix Descriptor, and Attribute TLVs"
	TLVs" for the new Link Attribute TLVs defined in the table below:		for the new Link Attribute TLVs defined in the table below:
	TLV code-point Value		TLV code-point Value
	--------------------------------------------------------		--------------------------------------------------------
	1114 Unidirectional Link Delay		1114 Unidirectional Link Delay
	1115 Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay		1115 Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay
	1116 Unidirectional Delay Variation		1116 Unidirectional Delay Variation
	1117 Unidirectional Link Loss		1117 Unidirectional Link Loss
	1118 Unidirectional Residual Bandwidth		1118 Unidirectional Residual Bandwidth
	1119 Unidirectional Available Bandwidth		1119 Unidirectional Available Bandwidth
	1120 Unidirectional Bandwidth Utilization		1120 Unidirectional Bandwidth Utilization
	6. Contributors		5. Contributors
	The following people have substantially contributed to this document		The following people have substantially contributed to this document
	and should be considered co-authors:		and should be considered co-authors:
	Saikat Ray		Saikat Ray
	Individual		Individual
	Email: raysaikat@gmail.com		Email: raysaikat@gmail.com
	Hannes Gredler		Hannes Gredler
	RtBrick Inc.		RtBrick Inc.
	Email: hannes@rtbrick.com		Email: hannes@rtbrick.com
	7. Acknowledgements		6. Acknowledgements
	The authors wish to acknowledge comments from Ketan Talaulikar.		The authors wish to acknowledge comments from Ketan Talaulikar.
	8. References		7. References
	8.1. Normative References
	[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate		7.1. Normative References
	Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
	[RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A		[I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis]
	Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271,		Ginsberg, L., Previdi, S., Giacalone, S., Ward, D., Drake,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006,		J., and Q. Wu, "IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4271>.		Extensions", draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis-03 (work in
			progress), November 2018.
	[RFC7471] Giacalone, S., Ward, D., Drake, J., Atlas, A., and S.		[RFC7471] Giacalone, S., Ward, D., Drake, J., Atlas, A., and S.
	Previdi, "OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric		Previdi, "OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric
	Extensions", RFC 7471, DOI 10.17487/RFC7471, March 2015,		Extensions", RFC 7471, DOI 10.17487/RFC7471, March 2015,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7471>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7471>.
	[RFC7752] Gredler, H., Ed., Medved, J., Previdi, S., Farrel, A., and		[RFC7752] Gredler, H., Ed., Medved, J., Previdi, S., Farrel, A., and
	S. Ray, "North-Bound Distribution of Link-State and		S. Ray, "North-Bound Distribution of Link-State and
	Traffic Engineering (TE) Information Using BGP", RFC 7752,		Traffic Engineering (TE) Information Using BGP", RFC 7752,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC7752, March 2016,		DOI 10.17487/RFC7752, March 2016,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7752>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7752>.
	[RFC7810] Previdi, S., Ed., Giacalone, S., Ward, D., Drake, J., and		7.2. Informative References
	Q. Wu, "IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions",
	RFC 7810, DOI 10.17487/RFC7810, May 2016,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7810>.
	[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>.
	8.2. Informative References		[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,
			<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4271>.
	[RFC4272] Murphy, S., "BGP Security Vulnerabilities Analysis",		[RFC4272] Murphy, S., "BGP Security Vulnerabilities Analysis",
	RFC 4272, DOI 10.17487/RFC4272, January 2006,		RFC 4272, DOI 10.17487/RFC4272, January 2006,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4272>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4272>.
	[RFC6952] Jethanandani, M., Patel, K., and L. Zheng, "Analysis of		[RFC6952] Jethanandani, M., Patel, K., and L. Zheng, "Analysis of
	BGP, LDP, PCEP, and MSDP Issues According to the Keying		BGP, LDP, PCEP, and MSDP Issues According to the Keying
	and Authentication for Routing Protocols (KARP) Design		and Authentication for Routing Protocols (KARP) Design
	Guide", RFC 6952, DOI 10.17487/RFC6952, May 2013,		Guide", RFC 6952, DOI 10.17487/RFC6952, May 2013,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6952>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6952>.
End of changes. 40 change blocks.
	97 lines changed or deleted		90 lines changed or added
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.47. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/