Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp
draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp
Networking Working Group L. Ginsberg, Ed.
Internet-Draft Cisco Systems, Inc.
Intended status: Standards Track S. Previdi
Expires: June 23, 2019 Q. Wu
Huawei
J. Tantsura
Apstra, Inc.
C. Filsfils
Cisco Systems, Inc.
December 20, 2018
BGP-LS Advertisement of IGP Traffic Engineering Performance Metric
Extensions
draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp-18
Abstract
This document defines new BGP-LS TLVs in order to carry the IGP
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 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
Ginsberg, et al. Expires June 23, 2019 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft BGP-LS Advertisement of Performance Metric December 2018
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. Link Attribute TLVs for TE Metric Extensions . . . . . . . . 2
2.1. 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 . . . . . . . . . 6
2.7. Unidirectional Utilized Bandwidth TLV . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.8. Mappings to IGP Source sub-TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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].
2. Link Attribute TLVs for TE Metric Extensions
The following new Link Attribute TLVs are defined:
Ginsberg, et al. Expires June 23, 2019 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft BGP-LS Advertisement of Performance Metric December 2018
TLV code-point Value
--------------------------------------------------------
1114 Unidirectional Link Delay
1115 Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay
1116 Unidirectional Delay Variation
1117 Unidirectional Link Loss
1118 Unidirectional Residual Bandwidth
1119 Unidirectional Available Bandwidth
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1
where:
Type: 1114
Length: 4.
Ginsberg, et al. Expires June 23, 2019 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft BGP-LS Advertisement of Performance Metric December 2018
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].
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3
where:
Type: 1116
Ginsberg, et al. Expires June 23, 2019 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft BGP-LS Advertisement of Performance Metric December 2018
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
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Residual Bandwidth |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 5
where:
Type: 1118
Ginsberg, et al. Expires June 23, 2019 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft BGP-LS Advertisement of Performance Metric December 2018
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
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 6
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 7
where:
Type: 1120
Ginsberg, et al. Expires June 23, 2019 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft BGP-LS Advertisement of Performance Metric December 2018
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
[I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis] .
+---------------------------------------+----------+----------------+
| Attribute Name | IS-IS | OSPFv2/OSPFv3 |
| | sub-TLV | sub-TLV |
+---------------------------------------+----------+----------------+
| Unidirectional Link Delay | 33 | 27 |
+---------------------------------------+----------+----------------+
| 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 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
defined information ([I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis] and [RFC7471].)
These TLVs represent the state and resource availability of the IGP
link. The IGP instances originating these TLVs are assumed to
Ginsberg, et al. Expires June 23, 2019 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft BGP-LS Advertisement of Performance Metric December 2018
support all the required security and authentication mechanisms (as
described in [I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis] and [RFC7471]) in order
to prevent any security issue when propagating the TLVs into BGP-LS.
The advertisement of the link attribute information defined in this
document presents no additional risk beyond that associated with the
existing set of link attribute information already supported in
[RFC7752].
4. IANA Considerations
IANA has made temporary assignments in the registry "BGP-LS Node
Descriptor, Link Descriptor, Prefix Descriptor, and Attribute TLVs"
for the new Link Attribute TLVs defined in the table below:
TLV code-point Value
--------------------------------------------------------
1114 Unidirectional Link Delay
1115 Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay
1116 Unidirectional Delay Variation
1117 Unidirectional Link Loss
1118 Unidirectional Residual Bandwidth
1119 Unidirectional Available Bandwidth
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
Hannes Gredler
RtBrick Inc.
Email: hannes@rtbrick.com
Ginsberg, et al. Expires June 23, 2019 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft BGP-LS Advertisement of Performance Metric December 2018
6. Acknowledgements
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-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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7471>.
[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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7752>.
7.2. 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",
RFC 4272, DOI 10.17487/RFC4272, January 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4272>.
[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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6952>.
Authors' Addresses
Ginsberg, et al. Expires June 23, 2019 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft BGP-LS Advertisement of Performance Metric December 2018
Les Ginsberg (editor)
Cisco Systems, Inc.
US
Email: ginsberg@cisco.com
Stefano Previdi
Huawei
IT
Email: stefano@previdi.net
Qin Wu
Huawei
101 Software Avenue, Yuhua District
Nanjing, Jiangsu 210012
China
Email: bill.wu@huawei.com
Jeff Tantsura
Apstra, Inc.
US
Email: jefftant.ietf@gmail.com
Clarence Filsfils
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Brussels
BE
Email: cfilsfil@cisco.com
Ginsberg, et al. Expires June 23, 2019 [Page 10]
