< draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp-15.txt   draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp-16.txt >
Networking Working Group L. Ginsberg, Ed. Networking Working Group L. Ginsberg, Ed.
Internet-Draft Cisco Systems, Inc. Internet-Draft Cisco Systems, Inc.
Intended status: Standards Track S. Previdi Intended status: Standards Track S. Previdi
Expires: June 3, 2019 Q. Wu Expires: June 16, 2019 Q. Wu
Huawei Huawei
J. Tantsura J. Tantsura
Apstra, Inc. Apstra, Inc.
C. Filsfils C. Filsfils
Cisco Systems, Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc.
November 30, 2018 December 13, 2018
BGP-LS Advertisement of IGP Traffic Engineering Performance Metric BGP-LS Advertisement of IGP Traffic Engineering Performance Metric
Extensions Extensions
draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp-15 draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp-16
Abstract Abstract
This document defines new BGP-LS TLVs in order to carry the IGP This document defines new BGP-LS TLVs in order to carry the IGP
Traffic Engineering Extensions defined in the IS-IS and OSPF Traffic Engineering Extensions defined in the IS-IS and OSPF
protocols. protocols.
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
skipping to change at page 1, line 39 skipping to change at page 1, line 39
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 June 3, 2019. This Internet-Draft will expire on June 16, 2019.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2018 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 3, line 34 skipping to change at page 3, line 34
2.1. Unidirectional Link Delay TLV 2.1. Unidirectional Link Delay TLV
This TLV advertises the average link delay between two directly This TLV advertises the average link delay between two directly
connected IGP link-state neighbors. The semantics of the value field connected IGP link-state neighbors. The semantics of the value field
in the TLV are described in [I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis] and in the TLV are described in [I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis] and
[RFC7471]. [RFC7471].
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|A| RESERVED | Delay | |A| RESERVED | Delay |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
where: where:
Figure 1 Figure 1
Type: 1114 Type: 1114
skipping to change at page 4, line 10 skipping to change at page 4, line 10
2.2. Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay TLV 2.2. Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay TLV
This sub-TLV advertises the minimum and maximum delay values between This sub-TLV advertises the minimum and maximum delay values between
two directly connected IGP link-state neighbors. The semantics of two directly connected IGP link-state neighbors. The semantics of
the value field in the TLV are described in the value field in the TLV are described in
[I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis] and [RFC7471]. [I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis] and [RFC7471].
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|A| RESERVED | Min Delay | |A| RESERVED | Min Delay |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| RESERVED | Max Delay | | RESERVED | Max Delay |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
where: where:
Figure 2 Figure 2
skipping to change at page 4, line 35 skipping to change at page 4, line 35
2.3. Unidirectional Delay Variation TLV 2.3. Unidirectional Delay Variation TLV
This sub-TLV advertises the average link delay variation between two This sub-TLV advertises the average link delay variation between two
directly connected IGP link-state neighbors. The semantics of the directly connected IGP link-state neighbors. The semantics of the
value field in the TLV are described in value field in the TLV are described in
[I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis] and [RFC7471]. [I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis] and [RFC7471].
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| RESERVED | Delay Variation | | RESERVED | Delay Variation |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
where: where:
Figure 3 Figure 3
Type: 1116 Type: 1116
skipping to change at page 5, line 15 skipping to change at page 5, line 15
2.4. Unidirectional Link Loss TLV 2.4. Unidirectional Link Loss TLV
This sub-TLV advertises the loss (as a packet percentage) between two This sub-TLV advertises the loss (as a packet percentage) between two
directly connected IGP link-state neighbors. The semantics of the directly connected IGP link-state neighbors. The semantics of the
value field in the TLV are described in value field in the TLV are described in
[I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis] and [RFC7471]. [I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis] and [RFC7471].
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|A| RESERVED | Link Loss | |A| RESERVED | Link Loss |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
where: where:
Type:1117 Type:1117
Length: 4. Length: 4.
2.5. Unidirectional Residual Bandwidth TLV 2.5. Unidirectional Residual Bandwidth TLV
This sub-TLV advertises the residual bandwidth between two directly This sub-TLV advertises the residual bandwidth between two directly
connected IGP link-state neighbors. The semantics of the value field connected IGP link-state neighbors. The semantics of the value field
in the TLV are described in [I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis] and in the TLV are described in [I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis] and
[RFC7471]. [RFC7471].
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Residual Bandwidth | | Residual Bandwidth |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
where: where:
Type: 1118 Type: 1118
Length: 4. Length: 4.
2.6. Unidirectional Available Bandwidth TLV 2.6. Unidirectional Available Bandwidth TLV
This sub-TLV advertises the available bandwidth between two directly This sub-TLV advertises the available bandwidth between two directly
connected IGP link-state neighbors. The semantics of the value field connected IGP link-state neighbors. The semantics of the value field
in the TLV are described in [I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis] and in the TLV are described in [I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis] and
[RFC7471]. [RFC7471].
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Available Bandwidth | | Available Bandwidth |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
where: where:
Figure 4 Figure 4
Type: 1119 Type: 1119
skipping to change at page 6, line 31 skipping to change at page 6, line 31
2.7. Unidirectional Utilized Bandwidth TLV 2.7. Unidirectional Utilized Bandwidth TLV
This sub-TLV advertises the bandwidth utilization between two This sub-TLV advertises the bandwidth utilization between two
directly connected IGP link-state neighbors. The semantics of the directly connected IGP link-state neighbors. The semantics of the
value field in the TLV are described in value field in the TLV are described in
[I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis] and [RFC7471]. [I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis] and [RFC7471].
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Utilized Bandwidth | | Utilized Bandwidth |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
where: where:
Figure 5 Figure 5
Type: 1120 Type: 1120
skipping to change at page 7, line 7 skipping to change at page 7, line 7
Procedures and protocol extensions defined in this document do not Procedures and protocol extensions defined in this document do not
affect the BGP security model. See the 'Security Considerations' affect the BGP security model. See the 'Security Considerations'
section of [RFC4271] for a discussion of BGP security. Also refer to section of [RFC4271] for a discussion of BGP security. Also refer to
[RFC4272] and [RFC6952] for analysis of security issues for BGP. [RFC4272] and [RFC6952] for analysis of security issues for BGP.
Security considerations for acquiring and distributing BGP-LS Security considerations for acquiring and distributing BGP-LS
information are discussed in [RFC7752]. information are discussed in [RFC7752].
The TLVs introduced in this document are used to propagate IGP The TLVs introduced in this document are used to propagate IGP
defined information ([I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis] and [RFC7471].) defined information ([I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis] and [RFC7471].)
These TLVs represent the state and resources availability of the IGP These TLVs represent the state and resource availability of the IGP
link. The IGP instances originating these TLVs are assumed to have link. The IGP instances originating these TLVs are assumed to
all the required security and authentication mechanism (as described support all the required security and authentication mechanisms (as
in [I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis] and [RFC7471]) in order to prevent described in [I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis] and [RFC7471]) in order
any security issue when propagating the TLVs into BGP-LS. The to prevent any security issue when propagating the TLVs into BGP-LS.
advertisement of the link attribute information defined in this The advertisement of the link attribute information defined in this
document presents no additional risk beyond that associated with the document presents no additional risk beyond that associated with the
existing set of link attribute information already supported in existing set of link attribute information already supported in
[RFC7752]. [RFC7752].
4. IANA Considerations 4. IANA Considerations
IANA has made temporary assignments in the registry "BGP-LS Node IANA has made temporary assignments in the registry "BGP-LS Node
Descriptor, Link Descriptor, Prefix Descriptor, and Attribute TLVs" Descriptor, Link Descriptor, Prefix Descriptor, and Attribute TLVs"
for the new Link Attribute TLVs defined in the table below: for the new Link Attribute TLVs defined in the table below:
 End of changes. 12 change blocks. 
17 lines changed or deleted 17 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/