draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd-00.txt   draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd-01.txt 
IDR Working Group J. Tantsura IDR Working Group J. Tantsura
Internet-Draft Individual Internet-Draft Individual
Intended status: Standards Track U. Chunduri Intended status: Standards Track U. Chunduri
Expires: January 18, 2018 Huawei Technologies Expires: April 18, 2018 Huawei Technologies
G. Mirsky G. Mirsky
ZTE Corp. ZTE Corp.
S. Sivabalan S. Sivabalan
Cisco Cisco
July 17, 2017 October 15, 2017
Signaling Maximum SID Depth using Border Gateway Protocol Link-State Signaling Maximum SID Depth using Border Gateway Protocol Link-State
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd-00 draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd-01
Abstract Abstract
This document proposes a way to signal Maximum SID Depth (MSD) This document proposes a way to signal Maximum SID Depth (MSD)
supported by a node at node and/or link granularity by a BGP-LS supported by a node at node and/or link granularity by a BGP-LS
speaker. In a Segment Routing (SR) enabled network a centralized speaker. In a Segment Routing (SR) enabled network a centralized
controller that programs SR tunnels needs to know the MSD supported controller that programs SR tunnels needs to know the MSD supported
by the head-end at node and/or link granularity to push the SID stack by the head-end at node and/or link granularity to push the SID stack
of an appropriate depth. MSD is relevant to the head-end of a SR of an appropriate depth. MSD is relevant to the head-end of a SR
tunnel or Binding-SID anchor node where Binding-SID expansions might tunnel or Binding-SID anchor node where Binding-SID expansions might
result in creation of a new SID stack. result in creation of a new SID stack.
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 http://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 January 18, 2018. This Internet-Draft will expire on April 18, 2018.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2017 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
(http://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
skipping to change at page 4, line 21 skipping to change at page 4, line 21
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Sub-Type and Value ... | Sub-Type and Value ...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ... +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ...
Figure 1: Node attribute format Figure 1: Node attribute format
Type : A 2-octet field specifiying code-point of the new TLV type. Type : A 2-octet field specifiying code-point of the new TLV type.
Code-point:(to be assigned by IANA) from BGP-LS Node Descriptor, Link Code-point:(TBD1) from BGP-LS Node Descriptor, Link Descriptor,
Descriptor, Prefix Descriptor, and Attribute TLVs registry Prefix Descriptor, and Attribute TLVs registry
Length: A 2-octet field that indicates the length of the value Length: A 2-octet field that indicates the length of the value
portion portion
Sub-Type and value fields are as defined in corresponding OSPF Sub-Type and value fields are as defined in corresponding OSPF
[I-D.ietf-ospf-segment-routing-msd] and IS-IS [I-D.ietf-ospf-segment-routing-msd] and IS-IS
[I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd] extensions. [I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd] extensions.
4. MSD supported on a link 4. MSD supported on a link
skipping to change at page 4, line 47 skipping to change at page 4, line 47
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Sub-Type and Value ... | Sub-Type and Value ...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ... +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ...
Figure 2: Link attribute format Figure 2: Link attribute format
Type : A 2-octet field specifiying code-point of the new TLV type. Type : A 2-octet field specifiying code-point of the new TLV type.
Code-point:(to be assigned by IANA) from BGP-LS Node Descriptor, Link Code-point:(TBD2) from BGP-LS Node Descriptor, Link Descriptor,
Descriptor, Prefix Descriptor, and Attribute TLVs registry Prefix Descriptor, and Attribute TLVs registry
Length: A 2-octet field that indicates the length of the value Length: A 2-octet field that indicates the length of the value
portion portion
Sub-Type and value fields are as defined in corresponding OSPF Sub-Type and value fields are as defined in corresponding OSPF
[I-D.ietf-ospf-segment-routing-msd] and IS-IS [I-D.ietf-ospf-segment-routing-msd] and IS-IS
[I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd] extensions. [I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd] extensions.
5. IANA Considerations 5. IANA Considerations
This document requests IANA to assign 2 new code-points from the BGP- We request IANA assign code points from the registry BGP-LS Node
LS Node Descriptor, Link Descriptor, Prefix Descriptor, and Attribute Descriptor, Link Descriptor, Prefix Descriptor, and Attribute TLVs,
TLVs registry as specified in sections 3 and 4. as follows: TLV Code Point Description IS-IS TLV/Sub-TLV Reference
TBD1 Node MSD 242/23 (this document) TBD2 Link MSD
(22,23,25,141,222,223)/15 (this document)
6. Security Considerations 6. Security Considerations
This document does not introduce security issues beyond those This document does not introduce security issues beyond those
discussed in [RFC7752] discussed in [RFC7752]
7. Acknowledgements 7. Acknowledgements
We like to thank Nikos Triantafillis, Stephane Litkowski and Bruno We like to thank Nikos Triantafillis, Stephane Litkowski and Bruno
Decraene for their reviews and valuable comments. Decraene for their reviews and valuable comments.
skipping to change at page 5, line 43 skipping to change at page 5, line 45
[I-D.ietf-ospf-segment-routing-msd] [I-D.ietf-ospf-segment-routing-msd]
Tantsura, J., Chunduri, U., Aldrin, S., and P. Psenak, Tantsura, J., Chunduri, U., Aldrin, S., and P. Psenak,
"Signaling MSD (Maximum SID Depth) using OSPF", draft- "Signaling MSD (Maximum SID Depth) using OSPF", draft-
ietf-ospf-segment-routing-msd-05 (work in progress), June ietf-ospf-segment-routing-msd-05 (work in progress), June
2017. 2017.
[I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing] [I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing]
Sivabalan, S., Filsfils, C., Tantsura, J., Henderickx, W., Sivabalan, S., Filsfils, C., Tantsura, J., Henderickx, W.,
and J. Hardwick, "PCEP Extensions for Segment Routing", and J. Hardwick, "PCEP Extensions for Segment Routing",
draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-09 (work in progress), draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-10 (work in progress),
April 2017. October 2017.
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls] [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls]
Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Bashandy, A., Decraene, B., Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Bashandy, A., Decraene, B.,
Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment Routing with MPLS Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment Routing with MPLS
data plane", draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls-10 data plane", draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls-10
(work in progress), June 2017. (work in progress), June 2017.
[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,
<http://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,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7752>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7752>.
8.2. Informative References 8.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions] [I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions]
Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Bashandy, A., Gredler, H., Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Bashandy, A., Gredler, H.,
Litkowski, S., Decraene, B., and j. jefftant@gmail.com, Litkowski, S., Decraene, B., and j. jefftant@gmail.com,
"IS-IS Extensions for Segment Routing", draft-ietf-isis- "IS-IS Extensions for Segment Routing", draft-ietf-isis-
segment-routing-extensions-13 (work in progress), June segment-routing-extensions-13 (work in progress), June
2017. 2017.
[I-D.ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions] [I-D.ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions]
Psenak, P., Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Gredler, H., Psenak, P., Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Gredler, H.,
Shakir, R., Henderickx, W., and J. Tantsura, "OSPF Shakir, R., Henderickx, W., and J. Tantsura, "OSPF
Extensions for Segment Routing", draft-ietf-ospf-segment- Extensions for Segment Routing", draft-ietf-ospf-segment-
routing-extensions-17 (work in progress), June 2017. routing-extensions-19 (work in progress), August 2017.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Jeff Tantsura Jeff Tantsura
Individual Individual
Email: jefftant.ietf@gmail.com Email: jefftant.ietf@gmail.com
Uma Chunduri Uma Chunduri
Huawei Technologies Huawei Technologies
 End of changes. 13 change blocks. 
18 lines changed or deleted 20 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.45. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/