[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 RFC 5543

Network Working Group              Hamid Ould-Brahim (Nortel Networks)
Internet Draft                             Don Fedyk (Nortel Networks)
Expiration Date: March 2009           Yakov Rekhter (Juniper Networks)
Intended Status: Proposed Standard


                   BGP Traffic Engineering Attribute

              draft-ietf-softwire-bgp-te-attribute-03.txt


Status of this Memo

   By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
   applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
   have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
   aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
   Drafts.

   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".

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.


Abstract

   This document defines a new BGP attribute, Traffic Engineering
   attribute, than enables BGP to carry Traffic Engineering information.

   The scope and applicability of this attribute currently excludes its
   use for non-VPN reachability information.









Fedyk, Ould-Brahim, Rekhter                                   [Page 1]

Internet Draft draft-ietf-softwire-bgp-te-attribute-03.txtSeptember 2008


1. Specification of Requirements

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].


2. Introduction

   In certain cases (e.g., L1VPN [RFC5195]) it may be useful to augment
   VPN reachability information carried in BGP with the Traffic
   Engineering information.

   This document defines a new BGP attribute, Traffic Engineering
   attribute, than enables BGP [RFC4271] to carry Traffic Engineering
   information.

   Section 4 of [RFC5195] describes one possible usage of this
   attribute.

   The scope and applicability of this attribute currently excludes its
   use for non-VPN reachability information.

   Procedures for modifying the Traffic Engineering attribute, when re-
   advertising a route that carries such attribute are outside the scope
   of this document.


3. Traffic Engineering Attribute

   Traffic Engineering attribute is an optional non-transitive BGP
   attribute.

   The information carried in this attribute is identical to what is
   carried in the Interface Switching Capability Descriptor, as
   specified in [RFC4203], [RFC4205].

   The attribute contains one or more of the following:

       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
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      | Switching Cap |   Encoding    |           Reserved            |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                  Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 0              |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                  Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 1              |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+



Fedyk, Ould-Brahim, Rekhter                                   [Page 2]

Internet Draft draft-ietf-softwire-bgp-te-attribute-03.txtSeptember 2008


      |                  Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 2              |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                  Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 3              |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                  Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 4              |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                  Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 5              |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                  Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 6              |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                  Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 7              |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |        Switching Capability-specific information              |
      |                  (variable)                                   |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   The Switching Capability (Switching Cap) field contains one of the
   values specified in Section 3.1.1 of [RFC3471].

   The Encoding field contains one of the values specified in Section
   3.1.1 of [RFC3471].

   The Reserved field SHOULD be set to 0 on transmit and MUST be ignored
   on receive.

   Maximum LSP Bandwidth is encoded as a list of eight 4 octet fields in
   the IEEE floating point format [IEEE], with priority 0 first and
   priority 7 last.  The units are bytes (not bits!) per second.

   The content of the Switching Capability specific information field
   depends on the value of the Switching Capability field.

   When the Switching Capability field is PSC-1, PSC-2, PSC-3, or PSC-4,
   the Switching Capability specific information field includes Minimum
   LSP Bandwidth and Interface MTU.

       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
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                  Minimum LSP Bandwidth                        |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |           Interface MTU       |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   The Minimum LSP Bandwidth is encoded in a 4 octet field in the IEEE
   floating point format.  The units are bytes (not bits!) per second.
   The Interface MTU is encoded as a 2 octet integer.




Fedyk, Ould-Brahim, Rekhter                                   [Page 3]

Internet Draft draft-ietf-softwire-bgp-te-attribute-03.txtSeptember 2008


   When the Switching Capability field is L2SC, there is no Switching
   Capability specific information field present.

   When the Switching Capability field is TDM, the Switching Capability
   specific information field includes Minimum LSP Bandwidth and an
   indication of whether the interface supports Standard or Arbitrary
   SONET/SDH.

       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
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                  Minimum LSP Bandwidth                        |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |   Indication  |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   The Minimum LSP Bandwidth is encoded in a 4 octet field in the IEEE
   floating point format.  The units are bytes (not bits!) per second.
   The indication of whether the interface supports Standard or
   Arbitrary SONET/SDH is encoded as 1 octet.  The value of this octet
   is 0 if the interface supports Standard SONET/SDH, and 1 if the
   interface supports Arbitrary SONET/SDH.

   When the Switching Capability field is LSC, there is no Switching
   Capability specific information field present.


4. Implication on aggregation

   Routes that carry the Traffic Engineering Attribute have additional
   semantics that could affect traffic forwarding behavior. Therefore,
   such routes SHALL NOT be aggregated unless they share identical
   Traffic Engineering Attributes.

   Constructing the Traffic Engineering Attribute when aggregating
   routes with identical Traffic Engineering attributes follows
   procedure of [RFC4201].














Fedyk, Ould-Brahim, Rekhter                                   [Page 4]

Internet Draft draft-ietf-softwire-bgp-te-attribute-03.txtSeptember 2008


5. Implication on scalability

   Use of Traffic Engineering Attribute does not increase the number of
   routes, but may increase the number of BGP Update messages required
   to distribute the routes depending on whether these routes share the
   same BGP Traffic Engineering attribute or not (see below).

   When the routes differ in other than the Traffic Engineering
   Attribute (e.g., differ in the set of Route Targets, and/or
   NEXT_HOP), use of Traffic Engineering Attribute has no impact on the
   number of BGP Update messages required to carry the routes.  There is
   also no impact when routes share all other attribute information and
   have an aggregated or identical Traffic Engineering Attribute.  When
   routes share all other attribute information and have different
   Traffic Engineering Attributes, routes must be distributed in per-
   route BGP Update messages rather than a single message.


6. IANA Considerations

   This document defines a new BGP attribute. This attribute is optional
   and non-transitive.


7. Security Considerations

   This extension to BGP does not change the underlying security issues
   inherent in the existing BGP.


8. Intellectual Property Statement

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
   pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
   this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
   might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
   made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information
   on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
   found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
   assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
   attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
   such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
   specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
   http://www.ietf.org/ipr.




Fedyk, Ould-Brahim, Rekhter                                   [Page 5]

Internet Draft draft-ietf-softwire-bgp-te-attribute-03.txtSeptember 2008


   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-
   ipr@ietf.org.


9.  Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).

   This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
   contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
   retain all their rights.

   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
   OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
   THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
   OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
   THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
   WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.


10. Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to thank John Scudder and Jeffrey Haas for
   their review and comments.


11. Normative References

   [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
   Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC4201] Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., Berger, L., "Link Bundling in
   MPLS Traffic Engineering (TE)", RFC 4201, October 2005<P>

   [RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., T. Li, Hares, S., "A Border Gateway Protocol 4
   (BGP-4)", RFC4271, January 2006.

   [RFC3471] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
   (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC 3471, January 2003.

   [IEEE] IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Binary Floating-Point Arithmetic",
   Standard 754-1985, 1985 (ISBN 1-5593-7653-8).







Fedyk, Ould-Brahim, Rekhter                                   [Page 6]

Internet Draft draft-ietf-softwire-bgp-te-attribute-03.txtSeptember 2008


12. Non-Normative References

   [RFC4203] Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., "OSPF Extensions in Support of
   Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)", RFC4203, October
   2005

   [RFC4205] Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., "Intermediate System to
   Intermediate System (IS-IS) Extensions in Support of Generalized
   Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)", RFC4205, October 2005

   [RFC5195] Ould-Brahim, H., Fedyk, D., Rekhter, Y., "BGP-Based Auto-
   Discovery for Layer-1 VPNs", RFC5195, June 2008


13. Author Information


   Hamid Ould-Brahim
   Nortel Networks
   Email: hbrahim@nortel.com

   Don Fedyk
   Nortel Networks
   Email: dwfedyk@nortel.com

   Yakov Rekhter
   Juniper Networks, Inc.
   email: yakov@juniper.com























Fedyk, Ould-Brahim, Rekhter                                   [Page 7]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.109, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/