draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp-15.txt		draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp-16.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: June 3, 2019 Q. Wu		Expires: June 16, 2019 Q. Wu
	Huawei		Huawei
	J. Tantsura		J. Tantsura
	Apstra, Inc.		Apstra, Inc.
	C. Filsfils		C. Filsfils
	Cisco Systems, Inc.		Cisco Systems, Inc.
	November 30, 2018		December 13, 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-15		draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp-16
	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 the IS-IS and OSPF		Traffic Engineering Extensions defined in the IS-IS and OSPF
	protocols.		protocols.
	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
	skipping to change at page 1, line 39 ¶		skipping to change at page 1, line 39 ¶
	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 June 3, 2019.		This Internet-Draft will expire on June 16, 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
	skipping to change at page 3, line 34 ¶		skipping to change at page 3, line 34 ¶
	2.1. 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 semantics of the value field		connected IGP link-state neighbors. The semantics of the value field
	in the TLV are described in [I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis] and		in the TLV are described in [I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis] and
	[RFC7471].		[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
	skipping to change at page 4, line 10 ¶		skipping to change at page 4, line 10 ¶
	2.2. 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 semantics of		two directly connected IGP link-state neighbors. The semantics of
	the value field in the TLV are described in		the value field in the TLV are described in
	[I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis] and [RFC7471].		[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
	skipping to change at page 4, line 35 ¶		skipping to change at page 4, line 35 ¶
	2.3. 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 semantics of the		directly connected IGP link-state neighbors. The semantics of the
	value field in the TLV are described in		value field in the TLV are described in
	[I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis] and [RFC7471].		[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
	skipping to change at page 5, line 15 ¶		skipping to change at page 5, line 15 ¶
	2.4. 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 semantics of the		directly connected IGP link-state neighbors. The semantics of the
	value field in the TLV are described in		value field in the TLV are described in
	[I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis] and [RFC7471].		[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.
	2.5. 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 semantics of the value field		connected IGP link-state neighbors. The semantics of the value field
	in the TLV are described in [I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis] and		in the TLV are described in [I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis] and
	[RFC7471].		[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.
	2.6. 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 semantics of the value field		connected IGP link-state neighbors. The semantics of the value field
	in the TLV are described in [I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis] and		in the TLV are described in [I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis] and
	[RFC7471].		[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
	skipping to change at page 6, line 31 ¶		skipping to change at page 6, line 31 ¶
	2.7. 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 semantics of the		directly connected IGP link-state neighbors. The semantics of the
	value field in the TLV are described in		value field in the TLV are described in
	[I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis] and [RFC7471].		[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
	skipping to change at page 7, line 7 ¶		skipping to change at page 7, line 7 ¶
	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 ([I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis] and [RFC7471].)		defined information ([I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis] and [RFC7471].)
	These TLVs represent the state and resources availability of the IGP		These TLVs represent the state and resource availability of the IGP
	link. The IGP instances originating these TLVs are assumed to have		link. The IGP instances originating these TLVs are assumed to
	all the required security and authentication mechanism (as described		support all the required security and authentication mechanisms (as
	in [I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis] and [RFC7471]) in order to prevent		described in [I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis] and [RFC7471]) in order
	any security issue when propagating the TLVs into BGP-LS. The		to prevent any security issue when propagating the TLVs into BGP-LS.
	advertisement of the link attribute information defined in this		The advertisement of the link attribute information defined in this
	document presents no additional risk beyond that associated with the		document presents no additional risk beyond that associated with the
	existing set of link attribute information already supported in		existing set of link attribute information already supported in
	[RFC7752].		[RFC7752].
	4. IANA Considerations		4. IANA Considerations
	IANA has made temporary assignments in the registry "BGP-LS Node		IANA has made temporary assignments in the registry "BGP-LS Node
	Descriptor, Link Descriptor, Prefix Descriptor, and Attribute TLVs"		Descriptor, Link Descriptor, Prefix Descriptor, and Attribute TLVs"
	for the new Link Attribute TLVs defined in the table below:		for the new Link Attribute TLVs defined in the table below:
End of changes. 12 change blocks.
	17 lines changed or deleted		17 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/