draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-app-specific-attr-01.txt		draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-app-specific-attr-02.txt
	Inter-Domain Routing K. Talaulikar		Inter-Domain Routing K. Talaulikar
	Internet-Draft P. Psenak		Internet-Draft P. Psenak
	Intended status: Standards Track Cisco Systems		Intended status: Standards Track Cisco Systems
	Expires: May 19, 2020 J. Tantsura		Expires: November 19, 2020 J. Tantsura
	Apstra		Apstra
	November 16, 2019		May 18, 2020
	Application Specific Attributes Advertisement with BGP Link-State		Application Specific Attributes Advertisement with BGP Link-State
	draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-app-specific-attr-01		draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-app-specific-attr-02
	Abstract		Abstract
	Various link attributes have been defined in link-state routing		Various link attributes have been defined in link-state routing
	protocols like OSPF and IS-IS in the context of the MPLS Traffic		protocols like OSPF and IS-IS in the context of the MPLS Traffic
	Engineering (TE) and GMPLS. BGP Link-State (BGP-LS) extensions have		Engineering (TE) and GMPLS. BGP Link-State (BGP-LS) extensions have
	been defined to distribute these attributes along with other topology		been defined to distribute these attributes along with other topology
	information from these link-state routing protocols. Many of these		information from these link-state routing protocols. Many of these
	link attributes can be used for applications other than MPLS TE or		link attributes can be used for applications other than MPLS TE or
	GMPLS.		GMPLS.
	Extensions to link-state routing protocols have been defined for such		Extensions to link-state routing protocols have been defined for such
	link attributes which enable distribution of their application		link attributes which enable distribution of their application
	specific values. This document defines extensions to BGP-LS address-		specific values. This document defines extensions to BGP-LS address-
	family to enable advertisement of these application specific		family to enable advertisement of these application specific
	attributes as a part of the topology information from the network.		attributes as a part of the topology information from the network.
	Requirements Language
	The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
	"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
	"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
	14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
	capitals, as shown here.
	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 May 19, 2020.		This Internet-Draft will expire on November 19, 2020.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the		Copyright (c) 2020 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
	carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect		carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
	to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must		to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
	include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of		include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
	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
			1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	2. Application Specific Link Attributes TLV . . . . . . . . . . 3		2. Application Specific Link Attributes TLV . . . . . . . . . . 3
	3. Application Specific Link Attributes . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		3. Application Specific Link Attributes . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	4. Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		4. Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	5. Deployment Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9		5. Deployment Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
	6. Backward Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9		6. Backward Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
	7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	8. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		8. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	8.1. Operational Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		8.1. Operational Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	8.2. Management Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		8.2. Management Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	skipping to change at page 3, line 44 ¶		skipping to change at page 3, line 39 ¶
	like end to end traffic engineering (TE) using RSVP-TE or SR based		like end to end traffic engineering (TE) using RSVP-TE or SR based
	mechanisms. A similar challenge to what was describe above is hence		mechanisms. A similar challenge to what was describe above is hence
	also faced by such centralized computation entities.		also faced by such centralized computation entities.
	There is thus a need for BGP-LS extensions to also report link		There is thus a need for BGP-LS extensions to also report link
	attributes on a per application basis on the same lines as introduced		attributes on a per application basis on the same lines as introduced
	in the link-state routing protocols. This document defines these		in the link-state routing protocols. This document defines these
	BGP-LS extensions and also covers the backward compatibility issues		BGP-LS extensions and also covers the backward compatibility issues
	related to existing BGP-LS deployments.		related to existing BGP-LS deployments.
			1.1. Requirements Language
			The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
			"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
			"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
			14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
			capitals, as shown here.
	2. Application Specific Link Attributes TLV		2. Application Specific Link Attributes TLV
	The BGP-LS [RFC7752] specifies the Link NLRI for advertisement of		The BGP-LS [RFC7752] specifies the Link NLRI for advertisement of
	links and their attributes using the BGP-LS Attribute. The		links and their attributes using the BGP-LS Attribute. The
	Application Specific Link Attributes (ASLA) TLV is a new optional		Application Specific Link Attributes (ASLA) TLV is a new optional
	top-level BGP-LS Attribute TLV that is introduced for Link NLRIs. It		top-level BGP-LS Attribute TLV that is introduced for Link NLRIs. It
	is defined such that it may act as a container for certain existing		is defined such that it may act as a container for certain existing
	and future link attributes that require to be defined in an		and future link attributes that require to be defined in an
	application specific scope.		application specific scope.
	skipping to change at page 4, line 17 ¶		skipping to change at page 4, line 21 ¶
	[I-D.ietf-ospf-te-link-attr-reuse] and [I-D.ietf-isis-te-app]		[I-D.ietf-ospf-te-link-attr-reuse] and [I-D.ietf-isis-te-app]
	respectively.		respectively.
	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 |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| SABML | UDABML | Reserved |		| SABML | UDABML | Reserved |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| Standard Application Bit-Mask (variable) //		| Standard Application Identifier Bit Mask (variable) //
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| User Defined Application Bit-Mask (variable) //		| User Defined Application Identifier Bit Mask (variable) //
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| Link Attribute sub-TLVs //		| Link Attribute sub-TLVs //
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	Figure 1: Application Specific Link Attributes TLV		Figure 1: Application Specific Link Attributes TLV
	where:		where:
	o Type: 1122		o Type: 1122
	o Length: variable.		o Length: variable.
	o SABML : 1 octet value carrying the Standard Application Bit-Mask		o SABML : Standard Application Identifier Bit Mask Length in octets.
	Length in multiples of 4 octets. If the Standard Application Bit-		The values MUST be 0, 4 or 8. If the Standard Application
	Mask is not present, the SABML MUST be set to 0.		Identifier Bit Mask is not present, the SABML MUST be set to 0.
	o UDABML : 1 octet value carrying the User Defined Application Bit-		o UDABML : User Defined Application Identifier Bit Mask Length in
	Mask Length in multiples of 4 octets. If the User Defined		octets. The values MUST be 0, 4 or 8. If the User Defined
	Application Bit-Mask is not present, the UDABML MUST be set to 0.		Application Identifier Bit-Mask is not present, the UDABML MUST be
			set to 0.
	o Standard Application Bit-Mask : variable size in multiple of 4		o Standard Application Identifier Bit-Mask : of size 0, 4 or 8
	octets and optional set of bits, where each bit represents a		octets as indicated by SABML. Optional set of bits, where each
	single standard application. The bits are defined in the IANA		bit represents a single standard application. The bits are
	"IGP Parameters" registries under the "Link Attribute		defined in the IANA "IGP Parameters" registries under the "Link
	Applications" registry [I-D.ietf-isis-te-app].		Attribute Applications" registry [I-D.ietf-isis-te-app].
	o User Defined Application Bit-Mask : variable size in multiple of 4		o User Defined Application Identifier Bit-Mask : of size 0, 4 or 8
	octets and optional set of bits, where each bit represents a		octets as indicated by UDABML. Optional set of bits, where each
	single user defined application. The bits are not managed or		bit represents a single user defined application. The bits are
	assigned by IANA or any other standards body and are left to		not managed or assigned by IANA or any other standards body and
	implementation specifics.		are left to implementation specifics.
	o sub-TLVs : BGP-LS Attribute TLVs corresponding to the Link NLRI		o sub-TLVs : BGP-LS Attribute TLVs corresponding to the Link NLRI
	that are application specific (as specified in Section 3) are		that are application specific (as specified in Section 3) are
	included as sub-TLVs of the ASLA TLV		included as sub-TLVs of the ASLA TLV
	An ASLA TLV with both the SABML and UDABML set to 0 (i.e. without any		An ASLA TLV with both the SABML and UDABML set to 0 (i.e. without any
	application specific bitmasks) indicate that the link attribute sub-		application identifier bitmasks) indicates that the link attribute
	TLVs that it encloses are applicable for all applications.		sub-TLVs that it encloses are applicable for all applications.
	The ASLA TLV and its sub-TLVs can only be added to the BGP-LS		The ASLA TLV and its sub-TLVs can only be added to the BGP-LS
	Attribute associated with the Link NLRI of the node that originates		Attribute associated with the Link NLRI of the node that originates
	the underlying IGP link attribute TLVs/sub-TLVs. The procedures for		the underlying IGP link attribute TLVs/sub-TLVs. The procedures for
	originating link attributes in the ASLA TLV from underlying IGPs is		originating link attributes in the ASLA TLV from underlying IGPs is
	specified in Section 4.		specified in Section 4.
	When the node is not running any of the IGPs but running a protocol		When the node is not running any of the IGPs but running a protocol
	like BGP, then the link attributes for the node's local links MAY be		like BGP, then the link attributes for the node's local links MAY be
	originated as part of the BGP-LS Attribute using the ASLA TLV and its		originated as part of the BGP-LS Attribute using the ASLA TLV and its
	skipping to change at page 11, line 17 ¶		skipping to change at page 11, line 17 ¶
	The authors would like to thank Les Ginsberg, Baalajee S and Amalesh		The authors would like to thank Les Ginsberg, Baalajee S and Amalesh
	Maity for their review and feedback on this document.		Maity for their review and feedback on this document.
	11. References		11. References
	11.1. Normative References		11.1. Normative References
	[I-D.ietf-isis-te-app]		[I-D.ietf-isis-te-app]
	Ginsberg, L., Psenak, P., Previdi, S., Henderickx, W., and		Ginsberg, L., Psenak, P., Previdi, S., Henderickx, W., and
	J. Drake, "IS-IS TE Attributes per application", draft-		J. Drake, "IS-IS TE Attributes per application", draft-
	ietf-isis-te-app-09 (work in progress), October 2019.		ietf-isis-te-app-12 (work in progress), March 2020.
	[I-D.ietf-ospf-te-link-attr-reuse]		[I-D.ietf-ospf-te-link-attr-reuse]
	Psenak, P., Ginsberg, L., Henderickx, W., Tantsura, J.,		Psenak, P., Ginsberg, L., Henderickx, W., Tantsura, J.,
	and J. Drake, "OSPF Link Traffic Engineering Attribute		and J. Drake, "OSPF Link Traffic Engineering Attribute
	Reuse", draft-ietf-ospf-te-link-attr-reuse-10 (work in		Reuse", draft-ietf-ospf-te-link-attr-reuse-11 (work in
	progress), October 2019.		progress), May 2020.
	[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate		[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
	Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,		Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,		DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
	[RFC7752] Gredler, H., Ed., Medved, J., Previdi, S., Farrel, A., and		[RFC7752] Gredler, H., Ed., Medved, J., Previdi, S., Farrel, A., and
	S. Ray, "North-Bound Distribution of Link-State and		S. Ray, "North-Bound Distribution of Link-State and
	Traffic Engineering (TE) Information Using BGP", RFC 7752,		Traffic Engineering (TE) Information Using BGP", RFC 7752,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC7752, March 2016,		DOI 10.17487/RFC7752, March 2016,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7752>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7752>.
	[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>.
	11.2. Informative References		11.2. Informative References
	[I-D.ietf-idr-eag-distribution]		[I-D.ietf-idr-eag-distribution]
	Wang, Z., WU, Q., and J. Tantsura, "Distribution of MPLS-		Wang, Z., WU, Q., Tantsura, J., and K. Talaulikar,
	TE Extended admin Group Using BGP", draft-ietf-idr-eag-		"Distribution of Traffic Engineering Extended Admin Groups
	distribution-09 (work in progress), October 2019.		using BGP-LS", draft-ietf-idr-eag-distribution-12 (work in
			progress), May 2020.
	[I-D.ietf-lsr-flex-algo]		[I-D.ietf-lsr-flex-algo]
	Psenak, P., Hegde, S., Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., and		Psenak, P., Hegde, S., Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., and
	A. Gulko, "IGP Flexible Algorithm", draft-ietf-lsr-flex-		A. Gulko, "IGP Flexible Algorithm", draft-ietf-lsr-flex-
	algo-04 (work in progress), September 2019.		algo-07 (work in progress), April 2020.
	[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,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC2328, April 1998,		DOI 10.17487/RFC2328, April 1998,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2328>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2328>.
	[RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.,		[RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.,
End of changes. 19 change blocks.
	40 lines changed or deleted		43 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/