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

Versions: (draft-wu-idr-te-pm-bgp) 00 01 02 03 04 05

Networking Working Group                                 S. Previdi, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                       Cisco Systems, Inc.
Intended status: Standards Track                                   Q. Wu
Expires: October 26, 2017                                         Huawei
                                                              H. Gredler
                                                                  S. Ray
                                                             J. Tantsura
                                                              Individual
                                                             C. Filsfils
                                                             L. Ginsberg
                                                     Cisco Systems, Inc.
                                                          April 24, 2017


   BGP-LS Advertisement of IGP Traffic Engineering Performance Metric
                               Extensions
                      draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp-05

Abstract

   This document defines new BGP-LS TLVs in order to carry the IGP
   Traffic Engineering Extensions defined in IS-IS and OSPF protocols.

Requirements Language

   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].

   In this document, these words will appear with that interpretation
   only when in ALL CAPS.  Lower case uses of these words are not to be
   interpreted as carrying RFC-2119 significance.

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 http://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."




Previdi, et al.         Expires October 26, 2017                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft BGP-LS Advertisement of Performance Metric     April 2017


   This Internet-Draft will expire on October 26, 2017.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2017 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
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   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  . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  TLV Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     3.1.  Unidirectional Link Delay TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     3.2.  Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay TLV . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.3.  Unidirectional Delay Variation TLV  . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.4.  Unidirectional Link Loss TLV  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.5.  Unidirectional Residual Bandwidth TLV . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.6.  Unidirectional Available Bandwidth TLV  . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.7.  Unidirectional Utilized Bandwidth TLV . . . . . . . . . .   6
   4.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   5.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   6.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   7.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     7.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     7.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8

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 [RFC7810] and [RFC7471].








Previdi, et al.         Expires October 26, 2017                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft BGP-LS Advertisement of Performance Metric     April 2017


2.  Link Attribute TLVs for TE Metric Extensions

   The following new Link Attribute TLVs are defined:

      TLV Type                   Value
   --------------------------------------------------------
    1104 (Suggested)  Unidirectional Link Delay

    1105 (Suggested)  Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay

    1106 (Suggested)  Unidirectional Delay Variation

    1107 (Suggested)  Unidirectional Packet Loss

    1108 (Suggested)  Unidirectional Residual Bandwidth

    1109 (Suggested)  Unidirectional Available Bandwidth

    1110 (Suggested)  Unidirectional Bandwidth Utilization

3.  TLV Details

3.1.  Unidirectional Link Delay TLV

   This TLV advertises the average link delay between two directly
   connected IGP link-state neighbors.  The semantic of the TLV is
   described in [RFC7810] 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

   Type: TBA (suggested value: 1104).

   Length: 4.








Previdi, et al.         Expires October 26, 2017                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft BGP-LS Advertisement of Performance Metric     April 2017


3.2.  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 semantic of the
   TLV is described in [RFC7810] 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                   |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   where:

                                 Figure 2

   Type: TBA (suggested value: 1105).

   Length: 8.

3.3.  Unidirectional Delay Variation TLV

   This sub-TLV advertises the average link delay variation between two
   directly connected IGP link-state neighbors.  The semantic of the TLV
   is described in [RFC7810] 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: TBA (suggested value: 1106).

   Length: 4.






Previdi, et al.         Expires October 26, 2017                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft BGP-LS Advertisement of Performance Metric     April 2017


3.4.  Unidirectional Link Loss TLV

   This sub-TLV advertises the loss (as a packet percentage) between two
   directly connected IGP link-state neighbors.  The semantic of the TLV
   is described in [RFC7810] 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                    |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   where:

   Type: TBA (suggested value: 1107).

   Length: 4.

3.5.  Unidirectional Residual Bandwidth TLV

   This sub-TLV advertises the residual bandwidth between two directly
   connected IGP link-state neighbors.  The semantic of the TLV is
   described in [RFC7810] 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                   |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   where:

   Type: TBA (suggested value: 1108).

   Length: 4.

3.6.  Unidirectional Available Bandwidth TLV

   This sub-TLV advertises the available bandwidth between two directly
   connected IGP link-state neighbors.  The semantic of the TLV is
   described in [RFC7810] and [RFC7471].






Previdi, et al.         Expires October 26, 2017                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft BGP-LS Advertisement of Performance Metric     April 2017


    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 4

   Type: TBA (suggested value: 1109).

   Length: 4.

3.7.  Unidirectional Utilized Bandwidth TLV

   This sub-TLV advertises the bandwidth utilization between two
   directly connected IGP link-state neighbors.  The semantic of the TLV
   is described in [RFC7810] 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 5

   Type: TBA (suggested value: 1110).

   Length: 4.

4.  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.

   The TLVs introduced in this document are used to propagate IGP
   defined information ([RFC7810] and [RFC7471].)  These TLVs represent
   the state and resources availability of the IGP link.  The IGP



Previdi, et al.         Expires October 26, 2017                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft BGP-LS Advertisement of Performance Metric     April 2017


   instances originating these TLVs are assumed to have all the required
   security and authentication mechanism (as described in [RFC7810] and
   [RFC7471]) in order to prevent any security issue when propagating
   the TLVs into BGP-LS.

5.  IANA Considerations

   This document requests assigning code-points from the registry "BGP-
   LS Node Descriptor, Link Descriptor, Prefix Descriptor, and Attribute
   TLVs" for the new Link Attribute TLVs deefined in the table here
   below:

    TLV code-point                 Value
   --------------------------------------------------------
    1104 (Suggested)  Unidirectional Link Delay

    1105 (Suggested)  Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay

    1106 (Suggested)  Unidirectional Delay Variation

    1107 (Suggested)  Unidirectional Packet Loss

    1108 (Suggested)  Unidirectional Residual Bandwidth

    1109 (Suggested)  Unidirectional Available Bandwidth

    1110 (Suggested)  Unidirectional Bandwidth Utilization

6.  Acknowledgements

   TBD

7.  References

7.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [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,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4271>.






Previdi, et al.         Expires October 26, 2017                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft BGP-LS Advertisement of Performance Metric     April 2017


   [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,
              <http://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,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7752>.

   [RFC7810]  Previdi, S., Ed., Giacalone, S., Ward, D., Drake, J., and
              Q. Wu, "IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions",
              RFC 7810, DOI 10.17487/RFC7810, May 2016,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7810>.

7.2.  Informative References

   [RFC4272]  Murphy, S., "BGP Security Vulnerabilities Analysis",
              RFC 4272, DOI 10.17487/RFC4272, January 2006,
              <http://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,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6952>.

Authors' Addresses

   Stefano Previdi (editor)
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   Via Del Serafico 200
   Rome  00191
   IT

   Email: sprevidi@cisco.com


   Qin Wu
   Huawei
   101 Software Avenue, Yuhua District
   Nanjing, Jiangsu  210012
   China

   Email: bill.wu@huawei.com





Previdi, et al.         Expires October 26, 2017                [Page 8]


Internet-Draft BGP-LS Advertisement of Performance Metric     April 2017


   Hannes Gredler
   Individual
   AT

   Email: hannes@gredler.at


   Saikat Ray
   Individual
   US

   Email: raysaikat@gmail.com


   Jeff Tantsura
   Individual
   US

   Email: jefftant@gmail.com


   Clarence Filsfils
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   Brussels
   BE

   Email: cfilsfil@cisco.com


   Les Ginsberg
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   US

   Email: ginsberg@cisco.com

















Previdi, et al.         Expires October 26, 2017                [Page 9]

Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.121, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/