--- 1/draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp-17.txt 2018-12-20 10:13:14.200731142 -0800 +++ 2/draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp-18.txt 2018-12-20 10:13:14.224731720 -0800 @@ -1,48 +1,48 @@ Networking Working Group L. Ginsberg, Ed. Internet-Draft Cisco Systems, Inc. Intended status: Standards Track S. Previdi -Expires: June 17, 2019 Q. Wu +Expires: June 23, 2019 Q. Wu Huawei J. Tantsura Apstra, Inc. C. Filsfils Cisco Systems, Inc. - December 14, 2018 + December 20, 2018 BGP-LS Advertisement of IGP Traffic Engineering Performance Metric Extensions - draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp-17 + draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp-18 Abstract 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. 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 https://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 June 17, 2019. + This Internet-Draft will expire on June 23, 2019. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2018 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 (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents @@ -50,33 +50,33 @@ 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. Link Attribute TLVs for TE Metric Extensions . . . . . . . . 2 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 2.4. Unidirectional Link Loss 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 - 2.8. Mappings to IGP Source sub-TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 + 2.8. Mappings to IGP Source sub-TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 + 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 - 6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 - 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 - 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 + 6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 + 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 + 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 1. Introduction 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 [I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis] and [RFC7471]. @@ -91,44 +91,44 @@ 1115 Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay 1116 Unidirectional Delay Variation 1117 Unidirectional Link Loss 1118 Unidirectional Residual 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 follow the rules defined in [RFC7752]. 2.1. Unidirectional Link Delay TLV This TLV advertises the average link delay between two directly connected IGP link-state neighbors. The semantics of 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 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 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - where: - Figure 1 + where: + Type: 1114 Length: 4. 2.2. Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay TLV This sub-TLV advertises the minimum and maximum delay values between two directly connected IGP link-state neighbors. The semantics of the value field in the TLV are described in [I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis] and [RFC7471]. @@ -136,66 +136,67 @@ 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 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - where: - Figure 2 + where: + Type: 1115 Length: 8. 2.3. Unidirectional Delay Variation TLV This sub-TLV advertises the average link delay variation between two directly connected IGP link-state neighbors. The semantics of 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 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 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - where: - Figure 3 - Type: 1116 + where: + Type: 1116 Length: 4. 2.4. Unidirectional Link Loss TLV This sub-TLV advertises the loss (as a packet percentage) between two directly connected IGP link-state neighbors. The semantics of 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 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 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + Figure 4 + where: Type:1117 Length: 4. 2.5. Unidirectional Residual Bandwidth TLV This sub-TLV advertises the residual bandwidth between two directly connected IGP link-state neighbors. The semantics of the value field @@ -203,24 +204,25 @@ [RFC7471]. 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 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + Figure 5 + where: Type: 1118 - Length: 4. 2.6. Unidirectional Available Bandwidth TLV This sub-TLV advertises the available bandwidth between two directly connected IGP link-state neighbors. The semantics of the value field in the TLV are described in [I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis] and [RFC7471]. 0 1 2 3 @@ -224,49 +226,48 @@ [RFC7471]. 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 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - where: + Figure 6 - Figure 4 + where: Type: 1119 Length: 4. 2.7. Unidirectional Utilized Bandwidth TLV This sub-TLV advertises the bandwidth utilization between two directly connected IGP link-state neighbors. The semantics of 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 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 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - where: + Figure 7 - Figure 5 + where: Type: 1120 - Length: 4. 2.8. Mappings to IGP Source sub-TLVs This section documents the mappings between the Link Attribute TLVs defined in this document and the corresponding advertisements sourced by the IGPs. For OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 the advertisements are defined in [RFC7471] . For IS-IS the advertisements are defined in @@ -281,23 +282,25 @@ | Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay | 34 | 28 | +---------------------------------------+----------+----------------+ | Unidirectional Delay Variation | 35 | 29 | +---------------------------------------+----------+----------------+ | Unidirectional Link Loss | 36 | 30 | +---------------------------------------+----------+----------------+ | Unidirectional Residual Bandwidth | 37 | 31 | +---------------------------------------+----------+----------------+ | Unidirectional Available Bandwidth | 38 | 32 | +---------------------------------------+----------+----------------+ - | Unidirectional Bandwidth Utilization | 39 | 33 | + | Unidirectional Utilized Bandwidth | 39 | 33 | +---------------------------------------+----------+----------------+ + Figure 8 + 3. Security Considerations 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. Security considerations for acquiring and distributing BGP-LS information are discussed in [RFC7752]. The TLVs introduced in this document are used to propagate IGP @@ -325,21 +328,21 @@ 1115 Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay 1116 Unidirectional Delay Variation 1117 Unidirectional Link Loss 1118 Unidirectional Residual Bandwidth 1119 Unidirectional Available Bandwidth - 1120 Unidirectional Bandwidth Utilization + 1120 Unidirectional Utilized Bandwidth 5. Contributors The following people have substantially contributed to this document and should be considered co-authors: Saikat Ray Individual Email: raysaikat@gmail.com @@ -351,22 +354,22 @@ The authors wish to acknowledge comments from Ketan Talaulikar. 7. References 7.1. Normative References [I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis] Ginsberg, L., Previdi, S., Giacalone, S., Ward, D., Drake, J., and Q. Wu, "IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric - Extensions", draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis-03 (work in - progress), November 2018. + Extensions", draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis-04 (work in + progress), December 2018. [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,