draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp-17.txt		draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp-18.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 17, 2019 Q. Wu		Expires: June 23, 2019 Q. Wu
	Huawei		Huawei
	J. Tantsura		J. Tantsura
	Apstra, Inc.		Apstra, Inc.
	C. Filsfils		C. Filsfils
	Cisco Systems, Inc.		Cisco Systems, Inc.
	December 14, 2018		December 20, 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-17		draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp-18
	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 Metric 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
	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 June 17, 2019.		This Internet-Draft will expire on June 23, 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 2, line 15 ¶		skipping to change at page 2, line 15 ¶
	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
	2.1. Unidirectional Link Delay TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		2.1. Unidirectional Link Delay TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	2.2. Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay TLV . . . . . . . . . . 3		2.2. Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay TLV . . . . . . . . . . 4
	2.3. Unidirectional Delay Variation TLV . . . . . . . . . . . 4		2.3. Unidirectional Delay Variation TLV . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	2.4. Unidirectional Link Loss TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		2.4. Unidirectional Link Loss TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	2.5. Unidirectional Residual Bandwidth TLV . . . . . . . . . . 5		2.5. Unidirectional Residual Bandwidth TLV . . . . . . . . . . 5
	2.6. Unidirectional Available Bandwidth TLV . . . . . . . . . 5		2.6. Unidirectional Available Bandwidth TLV . . . . . . . . . 6
	2.7. Unidirectional Utilized Bandwidth TLV . . . . . . . . . . 6		2.7. Unidirectional Utilized Bandwidth TLV . . . . . . . . . . 6
	2.8. Mappings to IGP Source sub-TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		2.8. Mappings to IGP Source sub-TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	5. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8		5. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8		6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
	7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8		7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
	7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8		7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
	7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9		7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
	Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9		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 [I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis] and [RFC7471].		in [I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis] and [RFC7471].
	skipping to change at page 3, line 19 ¶		skipping to change at page 3, line 19 ¶
	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 Utilized Bandwidth
	TLV formats are described in detail in the following sub-sections.		TLV formats are described in detail in the following sub-sections.
	TLV formats follow the rules defined in [RFC7752].		TLV formats follow the rules defined in [RFC7752].
	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:
	Figure 1		Figure 1
			where:
	Type: 1114		Type: 1114
	Length: 4.		Length: 4.
	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].
	skipping to change at page 4, line 17 ¶		skipping to change at page 4, line 22 ¶
	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:
	Figure 2		Figure 2
			where:
	Type: 1115		Type: 1115
	Length: 8.		Length: 8.
	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:
	Figure 3		Figure 3
	Type: 1116		where:
			Type: 1116
	Length: 4.		Length: 4.
	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 |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
			Figure 4
	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
	skipping to change at page 5, line 41 ¶		skipping to change at page 5, line 44 ¶
	[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 |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
			Figure 5
	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
	skipping to change at page 6, line 13 ¶		skipping to change at page 6, line 21 ¶
	[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:		Figure 6
	Figure 4		where:
	Type: 1119		Type: 1119
	Length: 4.		Length: 4.
	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:		Figure 7
	Figure 5		where:
	Type: 1120		Type: 1120
	Length: 4.		Length: 4.
	2.8. Mappings to IGP Source sub-TLVs		2.8. Mappings to IGP Source sub-TLVs
	This section documents the mappings between the Link Attribute TLVs		This section documents the mappings between the Link Attribute TLVs
	defined in this document and the corresponding advertisements sourced		defined in this document and the corresponding advertisements sourced
	by the IGPs.		by the IGPs.
	For OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 the advertisements are defined in [RFC7471] .		For OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 the advertisements are defined in [RFC7471] .
	For IS-IS the advertisements are defined in		For IS-IS the advertisements are defined in
	skipping to change at page 7, line 21 ¶		skipping to change at page 7, line 32 ¶
	| Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay | 34 | 28 |		| Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay | 34 | 28 |
	+---------------------------------------+----------+----------------+		+---------------------------------------+----------+----------------+
	| Unidirectional Delay Variation | 35 | 29 |		| Unidirectional Delay Variation | 35 | 29 |
	+---------------------------------------+----------+----------------+		+---------------------------------------+----------+----------------+
	| Unidirectional Link Loss | 36 | 30 |		| Unidirectional Link Loss | 36 | 30 |
	+---------------------------------------+----------+----------------+		+---------------------------------------+----------+----------------+
	| Unidirectional Residual Bandwidth | 37 | 31 |		| Unidirectional Residual Bandwidth | 37 | 31 |
	+---------------------------------------+----------+----------------+		+---------------------------------------+----------+----------------+
	| Unidirectional Available Bandwidth | 38 | 32 |		| Unidirectional Available Bandwidth | 38 | 32 |
	+---------------------------------------+----------+----------------+		+---------------------------------------+----------+----------------+
	| Unidirectional Bandwidth Utilization | 39 | 33 |		| Unidirectional Utilized Bandwidth | 39 | 33 |
	+---------------------------------------+----------+----------------+		+---------------------------------------+----------+----------------+
			Figure 8
	3. 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
	skipping to change at page 8, line 19 ¶		skipping to change at page 8, line 32 ¶
	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 Utilized Bandwidth
	5. 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
	skipping to change at page 8, line 45 ¶		skipping to change at page 9, line 16 ¶
	The authors wish to acknowledge comments from Ketan Talaulikar.		The authors wish to acknowledge comments from Ketan Talaulikar.
	7. References		7. References
	7.1. Normative References		7.1. Normative References
	[I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis]		[I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis]
	Ginsberg, L., Previdi, S., Giacalone, S., Ward, D., Drake,		Ginsberg, L., Previdi, S., Giacalone, S., Ward, D., Drake,
	J., and Q. Wu, "IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric		J., and Q. Wu, "IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric
	Extensions", draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis-03 (work in		Extensions", draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis-04 (work in
	progress), November 2018.		progress), December 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,
End of changes. 30 change blocks.
	30 lines changed or deleted		33 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/