< draft-ietf-bier-lsr-ethernet-extensions-00.txt   draft-ietf-bier-lsr-ethernet-extensions-01.txt >
Internet Engineering Task Force S. Dhanaraj, Ed. Internet Engineering Task Force S. Dhanaraj, Ed.
Internet-Draft Huawei Internet-Draft Huawei
Updates: 8296 (if approved) IJ. Wijnands Updates: 8296 (if approved) IJ. Wijnands
Intended status: Standards Track P. Psenak Intended status: Standards Track P. Psenak
Expires: November 14, 2019 Cisco Systems, Inc. Expires: January 9, 2020 Cisco Systems, Inc.
Z. Zhang Z. Zhang
Juniper Networks. Juniper Networks.
G. Yan G. Yan
J. Xie J. Xie
Huawei Huawei
May 13, 2019 July 08, 2019
LSR Extensions for BIER over Ethernet LSR Extensions for BIER over Ethernet
draft-ietf-bier-lsr-ethernet-extensions-00 draft-ietf-bier-lsr-ethernet-extensions-01
Abstract Abstract
Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER) [RFC8279] is an architecture Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER) is an architecture that
that provides multicast forwarding through a "BIER domain" without provides multicast forwarding through a "BIER domain" without
requiring intermediate routers to maintain multicast related per-flow requiring intermediate routers to maintain multicast related per-flow
state. BIER can be supported in MPLS and non-MPLS networks. The state. BIER can be supported in MPLS and non-MPLS networks.
common BIER header format and encapsulation for MPLS and non-MPLS
networks is specified in [RFC8296].
This document specifies the required extensions to the IS-IS This document specifies the required extensions to the IS-IS, OSPFv2
[RFC1195] and OSPFv2 [RFC2328] protocol for supporting BIER in non- and OSPFv3 protocols for supporting BIER in non-MPLS networks using
MPLS networks using BIER in Ethernet encapsulation. BIER in Ethernet encapsulation.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on November 14, 2019. This Internet-Draft will expire on January 9, 2020.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 2, line 27 skipping to change at page 2, line 27
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3. Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. IS-IS BIER Ethernet Encapsulation Sub-sub TLV . . . . . . 5 3.1. IS-IS BIER Ethernet Encapsulation Sub-sub TLV . . . . . . 5
3.2. OSPFv2 BIER Ethernet Encapsulation Sub-TLV . . . . . . . 6 3.2. OSPFv2 BIER Ethernet Encapsulation Sub-TLV . . . . . . . 7
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.3. OSPFv3 BIER Ethernet Encapsulation Sub-TLV . . . . . . . 8
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.1. IS-IS sub-sub-TLVs for BIER Info sub-TLV Registry . . . . 8 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.2. OSPFv2 Extended Prefix TLV Sub-TLVs Registry . . . . . . 8 5.1. IS-IS sub-sub-TLVs for BIER Info sub-TLV Registry . . . . 10
6. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5.2. OSPFv2 Extended Prefix TLV Sub-TLVs Registry . . . . . . 10
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5.3. OSPFv3 Extended LSA Sub-TLVs Registry . . . . . . . . . . 11
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER) [RFC8279] is an architecture Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER) [RFC8279] is an architecture
that provides multicast forwarding through a "BIER domain" without that provides multicast forwarding through a "BIER domain" without
requiring intermediate routers to maintain multicast related per-flow requiring intermediate routers to maintain multicast related per-flow
state. BIER can be supported in MPLS and non-MPLS networks. state. BIER can be supported in MPLS and non-MPLS networks.
[RFC8296] specifies a common BIER header format for both MPLS and [RFC8296] specifies a common BIER header format for both MPLS and
non-MPLS networks, though the first 20-bits of the BIER header non-MPLS networks, though the first 20-bits of the BIER header
(referred as BIFT-id) is a "MPLS Label" in case of MPLS networks and (referred as BIFT-id) is a "MPLS Label" in case of MPLS networks and
is a "domain-wide-unique-value" representing the combination of SD- is a "domain-wide-unique-value" representing the combination of SD-
BSL-SI in case of non-MPLS networks. BSL-SI in case of non-MPLS networks.
[I-D.ietf-bier-non-mpls-bift-encoding] specifies two optional ways of [I-D.ietf-bier-non-mpls-bift-encoding] specifies two optional ways of
statically assigning domain-wide-unique mapping between BIFT-IDs and statically assigning domain-wide-unique mapping between BIFT-id's and
SD-BSL-SI combination. SD-BSL-SI combination.
However, BIER architecture [RFC8279] does NOT require domain-wide- However, BIER architecture [RFC8279] does not require domain-wide-
unique BIFT-IDs to be used (even for non-MPLS encapsulation). As unique BIFT-id's to be used (even for non-MPLS encapsulation). As
discussed in [I-D.zzhang-bier-rift], the BIFT-ID in case of non-MPLS discussed in [I-D.zzhang-bier-rift], the BIFT-id in case of non-MPLS
encapsulation can also just be a local 20-bit opaque value and encapsulation can also just be a local 20-bit opaque value and
signaled just like in MPLS case. signaled just like in MPLS case. This doucment updates section
2.2.1.1 of [RFC8296] that the BIFT-id for a SD-BSL-SI in case of non-
MPLS encapsulation need not be unique through out the BIER domain.
In such a case when the BIFT-id is not unique, the BIFT-id in the
packet is expected to change as the packet travels.
As an example, suppose a particular BIER domain contains a SD (SD 0), As an example, suppose a particular BIER domain contains a SD (SD 0),
supports two BSLs (256 and 512), and contains 1024 BFRs. A BFR that supports two BSLs (256 and 512), and contains 1024 BFRs. A BFR that
is provisioned for above SD, and that supports both BSLs, could is provisioned for above SD, and that supports both BSLs, could
advertise the following set of BIFT-id's: advertise the following set of BIFT-id's:
BIFT-id 1: corresponding to SD 0, BSL 256, SI 0. BIFT-id 1: corresponding to SD 0, BSL 256, SI 0.
BIFT-id 2: corresponding to SD 0, BSL 256, SI 1. BIFT-id 2: corresponding to SD 0, BSL 256, SI 1.
BIFT-id 3: corresponding to SD 0, BSL 256, SI 2. BIFT-id 3: corresponding to SD 0, BSL 256, SI 2.
BIFT-id 4: corresponding to SD 0, BSL 256, SI 3. BIFT-id 4: corresponding to SD 0, BSL 256, SI 3.
BIFT-id 5: corresponding to SD 0, BSL 512, SI 0. BIFT-id 5: corresponding to SD 0, BSL 512, SI 0.
BIFT-id 6: corresponding to SD 0, BSL 512, SI 1. BIFT-id 6: corresponding to SD 0, BSL 512, SI 1.
Notice that the example uses ranges of continuous BIFT-ids: Notice that the example uses ranges of continuous BIFT-id's:
BIFT-id range [1 to 4] correspond to <SD 0, BSL 256>. The first BIFT-id range [1 to 4] correspond to <SD 0, BSL 256>. The first
BIFT-id in the range correspond to SI=0, the second correspond to BIFT-id in the range correspond to SI=0, the second correspond to
SI=1, and so on. SI=1, and so on.
BIFT-id range [5 to 6] correspond to <SD 0, BSL 512>. The first BIFT-id range [5 to 6] correspond to <SD 0, BSL 512>. The first
BIFT-id in the range correspond to SI=0, the second correspond to BIFT-id in the range correspond to SI=0, the second correspond to
SI=1. SI=1.
Strictly speaking, using contiguous range is not required, but it is Strictly speaking, using contiguous range is not required, but it is
done for the purpose of simplified signaling similar to MPLS label done for the purpose of simplified signaling similar to MPLS label
blocks (notice that locally assigning BIFT-ID ranges requires no blocks (notice that locally assigning BIFT-id ranges requires no
manual processing just like in the case of MPLS label block manual processing just like in the case of MPLS label block
allocation). allocation).
Processing and forwarding of BIER packets requires special software Processing and forwarding of BIER packets requires special software
and hardware capabilities. The BFRs supporting a BIER encapsulation and hardware capabilities. The BFRs supporting a BIER encapsulation
type MUST advertise this capability (along with the other required type MUST advertise this capability (along with the other required
parameters specific to the encapsulation) to the other routers in parameters specific to the encapsulation) to the other routers in
BIER domain. This advertisement, for example, will enable the other BIER domain. This advertisement, for example, will enable the other
BFRs in the BIER domain in deciding, whether to include or exclude BFRs in the BIER domain in deciding, whether to include or exclude
the advertising router from the BAR and/or IPA algorithm while the advertising router from the BAR and/or IPA algorithm while
computing the multicast path for a specific encapsulation type. computing the multicast path for a specific encapsulation type.
[RFC8401] and [RFC8444] specifies the required extensions to the IS- [RFC8401], [RFC8444] and [I-D.ietf-bier-ospfv3-extensions] specifies
IS [RFC1195] and OSPFv2 [RFC2328] protocol respectively for the the required extensions to the IS-IS [RFC1195], OSPFv2 [RFC2328] and
distribution of BIER sub-domain information including the Sub-sub-TLV OSPFv3 [RFC8362] protocols respectively for the distribution of BIER
required to support BIER in MPLS encapsulation for MPLS networks. sub-domain information including the Sub-sub-TLV required to support
BIER in MPLS encapsulation for MPLS networks.
This document specifies the required extensions to the IS-IS This document specifies the required extensions to the IS-IS
[RFC1195] and OSPFv2 [RFC2328] protocol for supporting BIER using [RFC1195], OSPFv2 [RFC2328] and OSPFv3 [RFC8362] protocols for
BIER in Ethernet encapsulation with dynamically and locally assigned supporting BIER using BIER in Ethernet encapsulation with dynamically
BIFT-IDs. and locally assigned BIFT-id's.
Support for other encapsulation types are outside the scope of this Support for other encapsulation types are outside the scope of this
document. document.
2. Terminology 2. Terminology
Some of the terminology specified in [RFC8279] is replicated here and Some of the terminology specified in [RFC8279] is replicated here and
extended by necessary definitions: extended by necessary definitions:
BIER: Bit Index Explicit Replication BIER: Bit Index Explicit Replication
skipping to change at page 5, line 5 skipping to change at page 5, line 8
BIFT: Bit Index Forwarding Table used to forward the BIER packets in BIFT: Bit Index Forwarding Table used to forward the BIER packets in
a domain. a domain.
BAR: BIER Algorithm. Used to calculate underlay nexthops BAR: BIER Algorithm. Used to calculate underlay nexthops
as defined by the BAR value. as defined by the BAR value.
IPA: IGP Algorithm. May be used to modify, enhance or replace the IPA: IGP Algorithm. May be used to modify, enhance or replace the
calculation of underlay paths as defined by the BAR value calculation of underlay paths as defined by the BAR value
SD: BIER sub-domain
2.1. Requirements Language 2.1. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here. capitals, as shown here.
3. Specification 3. Specification
skipping to change at page 6, line 13 skipping to change at page 6, line 15
TLV, the BIER Info sub-TLV MUST be ignored. TLV, the BIER Info sub-TLV MUST be ignored.
0 1 2 3 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 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 | | Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Max SI |BS Len | BIFT-id | | Max SI |BS Len | BIFT-id |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type: 2 (suggested value - To be assigned by IANA). Type: TBD1 (To be assigned by IANA).
Length: 4 Length: 4
Max SI: A 1 octet field encoding the Maximum Set Identifier Max SI: A 1 octet field encoding the Maximum Set Identifier
(Section 1 of [RFC8279]) used in the encapsulation for this BIER (Section 1 of [RFC8279]) used in the encapsulation for this BIER
subdomain for this BitString length. The first BIFT-id is for SI=0, subdomain for this BitString length. The first BIFT-id is for SI=0,
the second BIFT-id is for SI=1, etc. If the BIFT-id associated with the second BIFT-id is for SI=1, etc. If the BIFT-id associated with
the Maximum Set Identifier exceeds the 20-bit range, the sub-sub-TLV the Maximum Set Identifier exceeds the 20-bit range, the sub-sub-TLV
MUST be ignored. MUST be ignored.
Local BitString Length (BS Len): A 4 bit field encoding the Local BitString Length (BS Len): A 4 bit field encoding the
bitstring length (as per [RFC8296]) supported for the encapsulation. bitstring length (as per [RFC8296]) supported for the encapsulation.
BIFT-id: A 20 bit field encoding the first BIFT-id of the BIFT-id BIFT-id: A 20 bit field encoding the first BIFT-id of the BIFT-id
range. range.
The "BIFT-id range" is the set of 20-bit values beginning with the The "BIFT-id range" is the set of 20-bit values beginning with the
BIFT-id and ending with (BIFT-id + (Max SI)). A unique BIFT-id range BIFT-id and ending with (BIFT-id + (Max SI)). These BIFT-id's are
is allocated for each BitString length and sub-domain-id. These BIFT- used for BIER forwarding as described in [RFC8279] and [RFC8296].
id's are used for BIER forwarding as described in [RFC8279] and
[RFC8296].
The size of the BIFT-id range is determined by the number of SI's The size of the BIFT-id range is determined by the number of SI's
(Section 1 of [RFC8279]) that are used in the network. Each SI maps (Section 1 of [RFC8279]) that are used in the network. Each SI maps
to a single BIFT-id in the BIFT-id range: the first BIFT-id is for to a single BIFT-id in the BIFT-id range: the first BIFT-id is for
SI=0, the second BIFT-id is for SI=1, etc. SI=0, the second BIFT-id is for SI=1, etc.
If the BIFT-id associated with the Maximum Set Identifier exceeds If the BIFT-id associated with the Maximum Set Identifier exceeds
the 20-bit range, the BIER Ethernet Encapsulation Sub-sub-TLV the 20-bit range, the BIER Ethernet Encapsulation Sub-sub-TLV
containing the error MUST be ignored. containing the error MUST be ignored.
BIFT-id ranges within all the BIER Ethernet Encapsulation sub-sub-
TLVs advertised by the same BFR MUST NOT overlap. If the overlap is
detected, the advertising router MUST be treated as if it did not
advertise any BIER Ethernet encapsulation sub-sub-TLVs. However the
BIFT-id ranges may overlap across different encapsulation types and is
allowed. As an example, the BIFT-id value in the Ethernet
encapsulation sub-sub-TLV may overlap with the Label value in the
Label range in BIER MPLS encapsulation sub-sub-TLV ([RFC8401] and is
allowed.
3.2. OSPFv2 BIER Ethernet Encapsulation Sub-TLV 3.2. OSPFv2 BIER Ethernet Encapsulation Sub-TLV
BIER Sub-TLV defined in [RFC8444] is used to advertise the sub-domain BIER Sub-TLV defined in [RFC8444] is used to advertise the sub-domain
id, and other associated parameters of the sub-domain like BFR-id, id, and other associated parameters of the sub-domain like BFR-id,
MT, BAR, IPA. MT, BAR, IPA.
This document introduces new Sub-TLV under BIER Sub-TLV to advertise This document introduces new Sub-TLV under BIER Sub-TLV to advertise
the ethernet encapsulation capability and other associated parameters the ethernet encapsulation capability and other associated parameters
of the encapsulation. of the encapsulation.
skipping to change at page 7, line 32 skipping to change at page 7, line 40
0 1 2 3 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 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 | | Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Max SI | BIFT-id | | Max SI | BIFT-id |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|BS Len | Reserved | |BS Len | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type: 11 (suggested value - To be assigned by IANA). Type: TBD2 (To be assigned by IANA).
Length: 8 Length: 8
Max SI: A 1 octet field encoding the Maximum Set Identifier Max SI: A 1 octet field encoding the Maximum Set Identifier
(Section 1 of [RFC8279]) used in the encapsulation for this BIER (Section 1 of [RFC8279]) used in the encapsulation for this BIER
subdomain for this BitString length. The first BIFT-id is for SI=0, subdomain for this BitString length. The first BIFT-id is for SI=0,
the second BIFT-id is for SI=1, etc. If the BIFT-id associated with the second BIFT-id is for SI=1, etc. If the BIFT-id associated with
the Maximum Set Identifier exceeds the 20-bit range, the sub-sub-TLV the Maximum Set Identifier exceeds the 20-bit range, the sub-sub-TLV
MUST be ignored. MUST be ignored.
BIFT-id: A 3-octet field, where the 20 rightmost bits represent the BIFT-id: A 3-octet field, where the 20 rightmost bits represent the
first BIFT-id in the BIFT-id range. The 4 leftmost bits MUST be first BIFT-id in the BIFT-id range. The 4 leftmost bits MUST be
ignored. ignored.
The "BIFT-id range" is the set of 20-bit values beginning with the The "BIFT-id range" is the set of 20-bit values beginning with the
BIFT-id and ending with (BIFT-id + (Max SI)). A unique BIFT-id range BIFT-id and ending with (BIFT-id + (Max SI)). These BIFT-id's are
is allocated for each BitString length and sub-domain-id. These BIFT- used for BIER forwarding as described in [RFC8279] and [RFC8296].
id's are used for BIER forwarding as described in [RFC8279] and
[RFC8296].
The size of the BIFT-id range is determined by the number of SI's The size of the BIFT-id range is determined by the number of SI's
(Section 1 of [RFC8279]) that are used in the network. Each SI maps (Section 1 of [RFC8279]) that are used in the network. Each SI maps
to a single BIFT-id in the BIFT-id range: the first BIFT-id is for to a single BIFT-id in the BIFT-id range: the first BIFT-id is for
SI=0, the second BIFT-id is for SI=1, etc. SI=0, the second BIFT-id is for SI=1, etc.
If the BIFT-id associated with the Maximum Set Identifier exceeds If the BIFT-id associated with the Maximum Set Identifier exceeds
the 20-bit range, the BIER Ethernet Encapsulation Sub-sub-TLV the 20-bit range, the BIER Ethernet Encapsulation Sub-sub-TLV
containing the error MUST be ignored. containing the error MUST be ignored.
BIFT-id ranges within all the BIER Ethernet Encapsulation sub-sub-
TLVs advertised by the same BFR MUST NOT overlap. If the overlap is
detected, the advertising router MUST be treated as if it did not
advertise any BIER Ethernet encapsulation sub-sub-TLVs. However the
BIFT-id ranges may overlap across different encapsulation types and is
allowed. As an example, the BIFT-id value in the Ethernet
encapsulation sub-sub-TLV may overlap with the Label value in the
Label range in BIER MPLS encapsulation sub-sub-TLV ([RFC8444] and is
allowed.
Local BitString Length (BS Len): A 4 bit field encoding the
bitstring length (as per [RFC8296]) supported for the encapsulation.
Reserved: SHOULD be set to 0 on transmission and MUST be ignored on
reception.
3.3. OSPFv3 BIER Ethernet Encapsulation Sub-TLV
BIER Sub-TLV defined in [I-D.ietf-bier-ospfv3-extensions] is used to
advertise the sub-domain id, and other associated parameters of the
sub-domain like BFR-id, MT, BAR, IPA.
This document introduces new Sub-TLV under BIER Sub-TLV to advertise
the ethernet encapsulation capability and other associated parameters
of the encapsulation.
This Sub-TLV carries the information for the BIER Ethernet
encapsulation including the BitString length supported for a certain
<MT,SD> pair.
It is advertised within the BIER Sub-TLV defined in
[I-D.ietf-bier-non-mpls-bift-encoding] which in-turn is carried
within the Intra-Area-Prefix TLV or Inter-Area-Prefix TLV in OSPFv2
Extended LSA TLV defined in [RFC8362].
This Sub-TLV MAY appear multiple times within a single BIER Sub-TLV.
If the same BitString length is repeated in multiple BIER Ethernet
encapsulation Sub-TLVs inside the same BIER Sub-TLV, the BIER Sub-TLV
MUST be ignored.
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Max SI | BIFT-id |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|BS Len | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type: TBD3 (To be assigned by IANA).
Length: 8
Max SI: A 1 octet field encoding the Maximum Set Identifier
(Section 1 of [RFC8279]) used in the encapsulation for this BIER
subdomain for this BitString length. The first BIFT-id is for SI=0,
the second BIFT-id is for SI=1, etc. If the BIFT-id associated with
the Maximum Set Identifier exceeds the 20-bit range, the sub-sub-TLV
MUST be ignored.
BIFT-id: A 3-octet field, where the 20 rightmost bits represent the
first BIFT-id in the BIFT-id range. The 4 leftmost bits MUST be
ignored.
The "BIFT-id range" is the set of 20-bit values beginning with the
BIFT-id and ending with (BIFT-id + (Max SI)). These BIFT-id's are
used for BIER forwarding as described in [RFC8279] and [RFC8296].
The size of the BIFT-id range is determined by the number of SI's
(Section 1 of [RFC8279]) that are used in the network. Each SI maps
to a single BIFT-id in the BIFT-id range: the first BIFT-id is for
SI=0, the second BIFT-id is for SI=1, etc.
If the BIFT-id associated with the Maximum Set Identifier exceeds
the 20-bit range, the BIER Ethernet Encapsulation Sub-sub-TLV
containing the error MUST be ignored.
BIFT-id ranges within all the BIER Ethernet Encapsulation sub-sub-
TLVs advertised by the same BFR MUST NOT overlap. If the overlap is
detected, the advertising router MUST be treated as if it did not
advertise any BIER Ethernet encapsulation sub-sub-TLVs. However the
BIFT-id ranges may overlap across different encapsulation types and is
allowed. As an example, the BIFT-id value in the Ethernet
encapsulation sub-sub-TLV may overlap with the Label value in the
Label range in BIER MPLS encapsulation sub-sub-TLV
([I-D.ietf-bier-non-mpls-bift-encoding] and is allowed.
Local BitString Length (BS Len): A 4 bit field encoding the Local BitString Length (BS Len): A 4 bit field encoding the
bitstring length (as per [RFC8296]) supported for the encapsulation. bitstring length (as per [RFC8296]) supported for the encapsulation.
Reserved: SHOULD be set to 0 on transmission and MUST be ignored on Reserved: SHOULD be set to 0 on transmission and MUST be ignored on
reception. reception.
4. Security Considerations 4. Security Considerations
Security concerns for IS-IS are addressed in [RFC5304] and [RFC5310] Security concerns for IS-IS are addressed in [RFC5304] and [RFC5310]
and the security concerns for IS-IS extensions for BIER are addressed and the security concerns for IS-IS extensions for BIER are addressed
skipping to change at page 8, line 43 skipping to change at page 10, line 44
for distributing the BIER sub-domain information in [RFC8444]. It for distributing the BIER sub-domain information in [RFC8444]. It
does not introduce any new security risks to OSPFv2. does not introduce any new security risks to OSPFv2.
5. IANA Considerations 5. IANA Considerations
The document requests new allocations from the IANA registries as The document requests new allocations from the IANA registries as
follows follows
5.1. IS-IS sub-sub-TLVs for BIER Info sub-TLV Registry 5.1. IS-IS sub-sub-TLVs for BIER Info sub-TLV Registry
BIER Ethernet Encapsulation sub-sub-TLV: 2 (suggested) BIER Ethernet Encapsulation sub-sub-TLV: TBD1 (suggested value 2)
5.2. OSPFv2 Extended Prefix TLV Sub-TLVs Registry 5.2. OSPFv2 Extended Prefix TLV Sub-TLVs Registry
BIER Ethernet Encapsulation Sub-TLV: 11 (suggested) BIER Ethernet Encapsulation Sub-TLV: TBD2 (suggested value 11)
5.3. OSPFv3 Extended LSA Sub-TLVs Registry
BIER Ethernet Encapsulation Sub-TLV: TBD3 (suggested value 11)
6. Acknowledgments 6. Acknowledgments
The author wants to thank Antonie Przygienda for his comments and The author wants to thank Antonie Przygienda for his comments and
suggestions. suggestions.
7. References 7. References
7.1. Normative References 7.1. Normative References
skipping to change at page 10, line 5 skipping to change at page 12, line 5
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8444>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8444>.
7.2. Informative References 7.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-bier-non-mpls-bift-encoding] [I-D.ietf-bier-non-mpls-bift-encoding]
Wijnands, I., Xu, X., and H. Bidgoli, "An Optional Wijnands, I., Xu, X., and H. Bidgoli, "An Optional
Encoding of the BIFT-id Field in the non-MPLS BIER Encoding of the BIFT-id Field in the non-MPLS BIER
Encapsulation", draft-ietf-bier-non-mpls-bift-encoding-01 Encapsulation", draft-ietf-bier-non-mpls-bift-encoding-01
(work in progress), October 2018. (work in progress), October 2018.
[I-D.ietf-bier-ospfv3-extensions]
Psenak, P., Kumar, N., and I. Wijnands, "OSPFv3 Extensions
for BIER", draft-ietf-bier-ospfv3-extensions-00 (work in
progress), May 2019.
[I-D.zzhang-bier-rift] [I-D.zzhang-bier-rift]
Zhang, Z., Ma, S., and Z. Zhang, "Supporting BIER with Zhang, Z., Ma, S., and Z. Zhang, "Supporting BIER with
RIFT", draft-zzhang-bier-rift-00 (work in progress), March RIFT", draft-zzhang-bier-rift-00 (work in progress), March
2018. 2018.
[RFC1195] Callon, R., "Use of OSI IS-IS for routing in TCP/IP and [RFC1195] Callon, R., "Use of OSI IS-IS for routing in TCP/IP and
dual environments", RFC 1195, DOI 10.17487/RFC1195, dual environments", RFC 1195, DOI 10.17487/RFC1195,
December 1990, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1195>. December 1990, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1195>.
[RFC2328] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328, [RFC2328] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328,
skipping to change at page 11, line 5 skipping to change at page 13, line 9
[RFC7684] Psenak, P., Gredler, H., Shakir, R., Henderickx, W., [RFC7684] Psenak, P., Gredler, H., Shakir, R., Henderickx, W.,
Tantsura, J., and A. Lindem, "OSPFv2 Prefix/Link Attribute Tantsura, J., and A. Lindem, "OSPFv2 Prefix/Link Attribute
Advertisement", RFC 7684, DOI 10.17487/RFC7684, November Advertisement", RFC 7684, DOI 10.17487/RFC7684, November
2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7684>. 2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7684>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>. May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC8362] Lindem, A., Roy, A., Goethals, D., Reddy Vallem, V., and
F. Baker, "OSPFv3 Link State Advertisement (LSA)
Extensibility", RFC 8362, DOI 10.17487/RFC8362, April
2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8362>.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Senthil Dhanaraj (editor) Senthil Dhanaraj (editor)
Huawei Huawei
Email: senthil.dhanaraj.ietf@gmail.com Email: senthil.dhanaraj.ietf@gmail.com
IJsbrand Wijnands IJsbrand Wijnands
Cisco Systems, Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc.
 End of changes. 26 change blocks. 
48 lines changed or deleted 163 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.47. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/