[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 03 draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp

IDR Working Group                                                  Q. Wu
Internet-Draft                                                   D. Wang
Intended status: Standards Track                                  Huawei
Expires: January 30, 2014                                  July 29, 2013


 BGP attribute for North-Bound Distribution of Traffic Engineering (TE)
                           performance Metric
                       draft-wu-idr-te-pm-bgp-01

Abstract

   In order to populate network performance information like link
   latency, latency variation and packet loss into Traffic Engineering
   Database(TED) and ALTO server, this document describes extensions to
   BGP protocol, that can be used to distribute network performance
   information (such as link delay, delay variation, packet loss,
   residual bandwidth, and available bandwidth, link utilization,
   channel throughput).

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."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on January 30, 2014.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2013 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



Wu & Wang               Expires January 30, 2014                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft           BGP for TE performance                July 2013


   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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Conventions used in this document  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   3.  Use Cases  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     3.1.  MPLS-TE with PCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     3.2.  ALTO Server Network API  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   4.  Carrying TE Performance information in BGP . . . . . . . . . .  7
   5.  Attribute TLV Details  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     5.1.  Link Utilization TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     5.2.  Channel Throughput TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   6.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   7.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   8.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     8.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     8.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15





























Wu & Wang               Expires January 30, 2014                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft           BGP for TE performance                July 2013


1.  Introduction

   As specified in [RFC4655],a Path Computation Element (PCE) is an
   entity that is capable of computing a network path or route based on
   a network graph, and of applying computational constraints during the
   computation In order to compute an end to end path, the PCE needs to
   have a unified view of the overall topology[I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-
   service-aware].  [I.D-ietf-idr-ls- distribution] describes a
   mechanism by which links state and traffic engineering information
   can be collected from networks and shared with external components
   using the BGP routing protocol.  This mechanism can be used by both
   PCE and ALTO server to gather information about the topologies and
   capabilities of the network.

   With the growth of network virtualization technology, the needs for
   inter-connection between various overlay technologies (e.g.
   Enterprise BGP/MPLS IP VPNs) in the Wide Area Network (WAN) become
   important.  The Network performance or QoS requirements such as
   latency, limited bandwidth, packet loss, and jitter, are all critical
   factors that must be taken into account in the end to end path
   computation ([I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-service-aware])and selection to
   establish segment overlay tunnel between overlay nodes and stitch
   them together to compute end to end path.

   In order to populate network performance information like link
   latency, latency variation and packet loss into TED and ALTO server,
   this document describes extensions to BGP protocol, that can be used
   to distribute network performance information (such as link delay,
   delay variation, packet loss, residual bandwidth, and available
   bandwidth,link utilization, channel throughput).





















Wu & Wang               Expires January 30, 2014                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft           BGP for TE performance                July 2013


2.  Conventions used in this document

   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 RFC2119 [RFC2119].














































Wu & Wang               Expires January 30, 2014                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft           BGP for TE performance                July 2013


3.  Use Cases

3.1.  MPLS-TE with PCE

   The following figure shows how a PCE can get its TE performance
   information beyond that contained in the LINK_STATE attributes [I.D-
   ietf-idr-ls-distribution] using the mechanism described in this
   document.

                  +----------+                           +---------+
                  |  -----   |                           |   BGP   |
                  | | TED |<-+-------------------------->| Speaker |
                  |  -----   |   TED synchronization     |         |
                  |    |     |        mechanism:         +---------+
                  |    |     | BGP with TE performance
                  |    v     |        NLRI
                  |  -----   |
                  | | PCE |  |
                  |  -----   |
                  +----------+
                       ^
                       | Request/
                       | Response
                       v
         Service  +----------+   Signaling  +----------+
         Request  | Head-End |   Protocol   | Adjacent |
         -------->|  Node    |<------------>|   Node   |
                  +----------+              +----------+

       Figure 1: External PCE node using a TED synchronization mechanism

3.2.  ALTO Server Network API

   The following figure shows how an ALTO Server can get TE performance
   information from the underlying network beyond that contained in the
   LINK_STATE attributes [I.D-ietf-idr-ls-distribution] using the
   mechanism described in this document.














Wu & Wang               Expires January 30, 2014                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft           BGP for TE performance                July 2013


   +--------+
   | Client |<--+
   +--------+   |
                |    ALTO    +--------+     BGP with    +---------+
   +--------+   |  Protocol  |  ALTO  |  TE Performance |   BGP   |
   | Client |<--+------------| Server |<----------------| Speaker |
   +--------+   |            |        |      NLR        |         |
                |            +--------+                 +---------+
   +--------+   |
   | Client |<--+
   +--------+
     Figure 2: ALTO Server using network performance information







































Wu & Wang               Expires January 30, 2014                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft           BGP for TE performance                July 2013


4.  Carrying TE Performance information in BGP

   This document proposes new BGP TE performance TLVs that can be
   announced as attribute in the BGP-LS attribute (defined in [I.D-ietf-
   idr- ls-distribution]) to distribute network performance information.
   The extensions in this document build on the ones provided in BGP-LS
   [I.D -ietf-idr-ls-distribution] and BGP-4 [RFC4271].

   BGP-LS attribute defined in [I.D-ietf-idr-ls-distribution] has nested
   TLVs which allow the BGP-LS attribute to be readily extended.  This
   document proposes seven additional TLVs as its attributes:

      Type            Value

      TBD1        Unidirectional Link Delay

      TBD2        Unidirectional Delay Variation

      TBD3        Unidirectional Packet Loss

      TBD4        Unidirectional Residual Bandwidth

      TBD5        Unidirectional Available Bandwidth

      TBD6        Link Utilization

      TBD7        Channel Throughput

   As can be seen in the list above, the TLVs described in this document
   carry different types of network performance information.  Many (but
   not all) of the TLVs include a bit called the Anomalous (or "A") bit.
   When the A bit is clear (or when the TLV does not include an A bit),
   the TLV describes steady state link performance.  This information
   could conceivably be used to construct a steady state performance
   topology for initial tunnel path computation, or to verify
   alternative failover paths.

   When network performance downgrades and falls below configurable
   link-local thresholds a TLV with the A bit set is advertised.  These
   TLVs could be used by the receiving node to determine whether to
   redirect failing traffic to a backup path, or whether to calculate an
   entirely new path.  If link performance improves later and exceeds a
   configurable minimum value (i.e.,threshold), that TLV can be re-
   advertised with the Anomalous bit cleared.  In this case, a receiving
   node can conceivably do whatever re-optimization (or failback) it
   wishes to do (including nothing).

   Note that when a TLV does not include the A bit, that sub-TLV cannot



Wu & Wang               Expires January 30, 2014                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft           BGP for TE performance                July 2013


   be used for failover purposes.  The A bit was intentionally omitted
   from some TLVs to help mitigate oscillations.

   Consistent with existing ISIS TE specifications [RFC5305][ISIS-TE-
   METRIC], the bandwidth advertisements defined in this document MUST
   be encoded as IEEE floating point values.  The delay and delay
   variation advertisements defined in this draft MUST be encoded as
   integer values.  Delay values MUST be quantified in units of
   microseconds, packet loss MUST be quantified as a percentage of
   packets sent, and bandwidth MUST be sent as bytes per second.  All
   values (except residual bandwidth) MUST be calculated as rolling
   averages where the averaging period MUST be a configurable period of
   time.






































Wu & Wang               Expires January 30, 2014                [Page 8]


Internet-Draft           BGP for TE performance                July 2013


5.  Attribute TLV Details

   Link attribute TLVs defined in section 3.2.2 of [I-D. ietf-idr-ls-
   distribution]are TLVs that may be encoded in the BGP-LS attribute
   with a link NLRI.  Each 'Link Attribute' is a Type/Length/ Value
   (TLV) triplet formatted as defined in Section 3.1 of [I-D.ietf- idr-
   ls-distribution].  The format and semantics of the 'value' fields in
   some 'Link Attribute' TLVs correspond to the format and semantics of
   value fields in IS-IS Extended IS Reachability sub-TLVs, defined in
   [RFC5305].  Although the encodings for 'Link Attribute' TLVs were
   originally defined for IS-IS, the TLVs can carry data sourced either
   by IS-IS or OSPF.

   The following 'Link Attribute' TLVs are valid in the LINK_STATE
   attribute:

   +------------+---------------------+--------------+-----------------+
   |  TLV Code  | Description         |     IS-IS    | Defined in:     |
   |    Point   |                     |  TLV/Sub-TLV |                 |
   +------------+---------------------+--------------+-----------------+
   |    xxxx    | Unidirectional      |    22/xx     | [ISIS-TE]/4.1   |
   |            | Link Delay          |              |                 |
   |            |                     |              |                 |
   |    xxxx    | Min/Max Unidirection|    22/xx     | [ISIS-TE]/4.2   |
   |            | Link Delay          |              |                 |
   |            |                     |              |                 |
   |    xxxx    | Unidirectional      |    22/xx     | [ISIS-TE]/4.3   |
   |            | Delay Variation     |              |                 |
   |            |                     |              |                 |
   |    xxxx    | Unidirectional      |    22/xx     | [ISIS-TE]/4.4   |
   |            | Link Loss           |              |                 |
   |            |                     |              |                 |
   |    xxxx    | Unidirectional      |    22/xx     | [ISIS-TE]/4.5   |
   |            |Residual Bandwidth   |              |                 |
   |            |                     |              |                 |
   |    xxxx    | Unidirectional      |    22/xx     | [ISIS-TE]/4.6   |
   |            |Available Bandwidth  |              |                 |
   |            |                     |              |                 |
   |    xxxx    | Link Utilization    |    ----      |  section 5.1    |
   |            |                     |              |                 |
   |    xxxx    | Channel Throughput  |    ----      |  section 5.2    |
   +------------+---------------------+--------------+-----------------+

                       Table 1: Link Attribute TLVs







Wu & Wang               Expires January 30, 2014                [Page 9]


Internet-Draft           BGP for TE performance                July 2013


5.1.  Link Utilization TLV

   This TLV advertises the average link utilization between two directly
   connected IS-IS neighbors.  The link utilization advertised by this
   sub-TLV MUST be the utilization percentage per interval from the
   local neighbor to the remote one.  The format of this sub-TLV is
   shown in the following diagram:
    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 2
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                Type              |                  Length    |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                          Link Utilization                     |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

        where:

      Type: TBA

      Length: 4

      Link Utilization.  This 24-bit field carries the average
      link untilization over a configurable interval. A commonly
      used time interval is 5 minutes, and this interval has been
      sufficient to support network operations and design for some
      time. link utilization can be calculated by counting the
      IP-layer (or other layer) octets received over a time interval
      and dividing by the theoretical maximum number of octets that
      could have been delivered in the same interval(see section6.4
      of [RFC6703]). If there is no value to send (unmeasured and
      not statically specified), then the sub-TLV should not be sent
      or be withdrawn.

5.2.  Channel Throughput TLV

   This TLV advertises the average Channel Throughput between two
   directly connected IS-IS neighbors.  The channel throughput
   advertised by this sub-TLV MUST be the throughput between the local
   neighbor and the remote one.  The format of this sub-TLV is shown in
   the following diagram:











Wu & Wang               Expires January 30, 2014               [Page 10]


Internet-Draft           BGP for TE performance                July 2013


    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 2
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                Type              |            Length          |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                          Throughput Offered                   |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                          Throughput Delivered                 |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


      where:

      Type: TBA

      Length: 8

      Throughput offered:  This 24-bit field carries the average
      throughput offered over a configurable interval. Throughput
      offered can be calculated by counting the number of
      units successfully transmitted in the interval
      (See section 2.3 of [RFC6374)). If there is no value to
      send (unmeasured and not statically specified), then
      the sub-TLV should not be sent or be withdrawn.

   Throughput delivered:  This 24-bit field carries the average
      throughput delivered over a configurable interval.
      Throughput delivered can be calculated by counting the
      number of units successfully received in the interval
      (See section 2.3 of [RFC6374)). If there is no value
      to send (unmeasured and not statically specified),
      then the sub-TLV should not be sent or be withdrawn.



















Wu & Wang               Expires January 30, 2014               [Page 11]


Internet-Draft           BGP for TE performance                July 2013


6.  Security Considerations

   This document does not introduce security issues beyond those
   discussed in [I.D-ietf-idr-ls-distribution] and [RFC4271].















































Wu & Wang               Expires January 30, 2014               [Page 12]


Internet-Draft           BGP for TE performance                July 2013


7.  IANA Considerations

   IANA maintains the registry for the TLVs.  BGP TE Performance TLV
   will require one new type code per TLV defined in this document.















































Wu & Wang               Expires January 30, 2014               [Page 13]


Internet-Draft           BGP for TE performance                July 2013


8.  References

8.1.  Normative References

   [I-D.ietf-idr-ls-distribution]
              Gredler, H., "North-Bound Distribution of Link-State and
              TE Information using BGP",
              ID draft-ietf-idr-ls-distribution-03, May 2013.

   [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-service-aware]
              Dhruv, D., "Extensions to the Path Computation Element
              Communication Protocol (PCEP) to compute service aware
              Label Switched Path (LSP)",
              ID draft-ietf-pce-pcep-service-aware-01, July 2013.

   [ISIS-TE-METRIC]
              Giacalone, S., "ISIS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric
              Extensions", ID draft-ietf-isis-te-metric-extensions-00,
              June 2013.

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

   [RFC4271]  Rekhter, Y., "A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)",
              RFC 4271, January 2006.

   [RFC5305]  Li, T., "IS-IS Extensions for Traffic Engineering",
              RFC 5305, October 2008.

8.2.  Informative References

   [ALTO]     Yang, Y., "ALTO Protocol",
              ID http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-alto-protocol-16,
              May 2013.

   [RFC4655]  Farrel, A., "A Path Computation Element (PCE)-Based
              Architecture", RFC 4655, August 2006.














Wu & Wang               Expires January 30, 2014               [Page 14]


Internet-Draft           BGP for TE performance                July 2013


Authors' Addresses

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

   Email: sunseawq@huawei.com


   Danhua Wang
   Huawei
   101 Software Avenue, Yuhua District
   Nanjing, Jiangsu  210012
   China

   Email: wangdanhua@huawei.com

































Wu & Wang               Expires January 30, 2014               [Page 15]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129c, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/