draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp-02.txt   draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp-03.txt 
IDR Working Group Q. Wu Networking Working Group S. Previdi, Ed.
Internet-Draft Huawei Internet-Draft Cisco Systems, Inc.
Intended status: Standards Track S. Previdi Intended status: Standards Track Q. Wu
Expires: July 8, 2015 Cisco Expires: November 12, 2016 Huawei
H. Gredler H. Gredler
Juniper
S. Ray S. Ray
Cisco
J. Tantsura J. Tantsura
Ericsson Individual
January 4, 2015 C. Filsfils
L. Ginsberg
Cisco Systems, Inc.
May 11, 2016
BGP attribute for North-Bound Distribution of Traffic Engineering (TE) BGP-LS Advertisement of IGP Traffic Engineering Performance Metric
performance Metrics Extensions
draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp-02 draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp-03
Abstract Abstract
In order to populate network performance information like link This document defines new BGP-LS TLVs in order to carry the IGP
latency, latency variation, packet loss and bandwidth into Traffic Traffic Engineering Extensions defined in IS-IS and OSPF protocols.
Engineering Database(TED) and ALTO server, this document describes
extensions to BGP protocol, that can be used to distribute network Requirements Language
performance information (such as link delay, delay variation, packet
loss, residual bandwidth, available bandwidth and utilized bandwidth 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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
In this document, these words will appear with that interpretation
only when in ALL CAPS. Lower case uses of these words are not to be
interpreted as carrying RFC-2119 significance.
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 http://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 12, 2016.
This Internet-Draft will expire on July 8, 2015.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2016 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 (http://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
2. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Link Attribute TLVs for TE Metric Extensions . . . . . . . . 3
3. Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. TLV Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1. MPLS-TE with H-PCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3.1. Unidirectional Link Delay TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.2. ALTO Server Network API . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.2. Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay TLV . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Carrying TE Performance information in BGP . . . . . . . . . 5 3.3. Unidirectional Delay Variation TLV . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. Attribute TLV Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.4. Unidirectional Link Loss TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.5. Unidirectional Residual Bandwidth TLV . . . . . . . . . . 5
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.6. Unidirectional Available Bandwidth TLV . . . . . . . . . 5
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.7. Unidirectional Utilized Bandwidth TLV . . . . . . . . . . 6
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Appendix A. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
A.1. draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp-00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
A.2. draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp-02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
As specified in [RFC4655],a Path Computation Element (PCE) is an BGP-LS ([RFC7752]) defines NLRI and attributes in order to carry
entity that is capable of computing a network path or route based on link-state information. New BGP-LS Link-Attribute TLVs are required
a network graph, and of applying computational constraints during the in order to carry the Traffic Engineering Metric Extensions defined
computation. In order to compute an end to end path, the PCE needs in [RFC7810] and [RFC7471].
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 Network 2. Link Attribute TLVs for TE Metric Extensions
performance or QoS requirements such as latency, limited bandwidth,
packet loss, and jitter, for real traffic are all critical factors
that must be taken into account in the end to end path computation
and selection ([I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-service-aware])which enable
optimizing resource usage and degrading gracefully during period of
heavy load .
In order to populate network performance information like link The following new Link Attribute TLVs are defined:
latency, latency variation, packet loss and bandwidth 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,
available bandwidth, and utilized bandwidth). The network
performance information can be distributed in the same way as link
state information distribution,i.e., either directly or via a peer
BGP speaker (see figure 1 of [I.D-ietf-idr-ls-distribution]).
2. Conventions used in this document TLV Type Value
--------------------------------------------------------
1104 (Suggested) Unidirectional Link Delay
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 1105 (Suggested) Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC2119 [RFC2119].
3. Use Cases 1106 (Suggested) Unidirectional Delay Variation
3.1. MPLS-TE with H-PCE 1107 (Suggested) Unidirectional Packet Loss
For inter-AS path computation the Hierarchical PCE (H-PCE) [RFC6805] 1108 (Suggested) Unidirectional Residual Bandwidth
may be used to compute the optimal sequence of domains. Within the
H-PCE architecture, the child PCE communicates domain connectivity
information to the parent PCE, and the parent PCE will use this
information to compute a multi-domain path based on the optimal TE
links between domains [I.D-ietf-pce-hierarchy-extensions] for the
end-to-end path.
The following figure demonstrates how a parent PCE may obtain TE 1109 (Suggested) Unidirectional Available Bandwidth
performance information beyond that contained in the LINK_STATE
attributes [I.D-ietf-idr-ls-distribution] using the mechanism
described in this document.
+----------+ +---------+ 1110 (Suggested) Unidirectional Bandwidth Utilization
| ----- | | 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. TLV Details
3.2. ALTO Server Network API 3.1. Unidirectional Link Delay TLV
The ALTO Server can aggregate information from multiple systems to This TLV advertises the average link delay between two directly
provide an abstract and unified view that can be more useful to connected IGP link-state neighbors. The semantic of the TLV is
applications. described in [RFC7810] and [RFC7471].
The following figure shows how an ALTO Server can get TE performance 0 1 2 3
information from the underlying network beyond that contained in the 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
LINK_STATE attributes [I.D-ietf-idr-ls-distribution] using the +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
mechanism described in this document. | Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|A| RESERVED | Delay |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
+--------+ where:
| Client |<--+
+--------+ |
| ALTO +--------+ BGP with +---------+
+--------+ | Protocol | ALTO | TE Performance | BGP |
| Client |<--+------------| Server |<----------------| Speaker |
+--------+ | | | NLR | |
| +--------+ +---------+
+--------+ |
| Client |<--+
+--------+
Figure 2: ALTO Server using network performance information
4. Carrying TE Performance information in BGP Figure 1
This document proposes new BGP TE performance TLVs that can be Type: TBA (suggested value: 1104).
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 Length: 4.
TLVs which allow the BGP-LS attribute to be readily extended. This
document proposes seven additional TLVs as its attributes:
Type Value 3.2. Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay TLV
TBD1 Unidirectional Link Delay This sub-TLV advertises the minimum and maximum delay values between
two directly connected IGP link-state neighbors. The semantic of the
TLV is described in [RFC7810] and [RFC7471].
TBD2 Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay 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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|A| RESERVED | Min Delay |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| RESERVED | Max Delay |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
TBD3 Unidirectional Delay Variation where:
TBD4 Unidirectional Packet Loss Figure 2
TBD5 Unidirectional Residual Bandwidth Type: TBA (suggested value: 1105).
TBD6 Unidirectional Available Bandwidth Length: 8.
TBD7 Unidirectional Utilized Bandwidth 3.3. Unidirectional Delay Variation TLV
As can be seen in the list above, the TLVs described in this document This sub-TLV advertises the average link delay variation between two
carry different types of network performance information. Some of directly connected IGP link-state neighbors. The semantic of the TLV
these TLVs include a bit called the Anomalous (or "A") bit at the is described in [RFC7810] and [RFC7471].
left-most bit after length field of each TLV defined in figure 4 of
[[I.D-ietf-idr-ls-distribution]]. The other bits in the first octets
after length field of each TLV is reserved for future use. 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 exceeds configurable maximum 0 1 2 3
thresholds, a TLV with the A bit set is advertised. These TLVs could 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
be used by the receiving BGP peer to determine whether to redirect +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
failing traffic to a backup path, or whether to calculate an entirely | Type | Length |
new path. If link performance improves later and falls below a +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
configurable value, that TLV can be re- advertised with the Anomalous | RESERVED | Delay Variation |
bit cleared. In this case, a receiving BGP peer 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 TLV cannot be where:
used for failover purposes. The A bit was intentionally omitted from
some TLVs to help mitigate oscillations.
Consistent with existing ISIS TE specifications [ISIS-TE-METRIC], the Figure 3
bandwidth advertisements, the delay and delay variation
advertisements, packet loss defined in this document MUST be encoded
in the same unit as one defined in IS-IS Extended IS Reachability
sub-TLVs [ISIS-TE-METRIC]. All values (except residual bandwidth)
MUST be obtained by a filter that is reasonably representative of an
average or calculated as rolling averages where the averaging period
MUST be a configurable period of time. The measurement interval, any
filter coefficients, and any advertisement intervals MUST be
configurable per sub-TLV in the same way as ones defined in section 5
of [ISIS-TE-METRIC].
5. Attribute TLV Details Type: TBA (suggested value: 1106).
Link attribute TLVs defined in section 3.2.2 of [I-D.ietf-idr-ls- Length: 4.
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
'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 3.4. Unidirectional Link Loss TLV
attribute:
+------------+---------------------+--------------+-----------------+ This sub-TLV advertises the loss (as a packet percentage) between two
| TLV Code | Description | IS-IS | Defined in: | directly connected IGP link-state neighbors. The semantic of the TLV
| Point | | TLV/Sub-TLV | | is described in [RFC7810] and [RFC7471].
+------------+---------------------+--------------+-----------------+
| xxxx | Unidirectional | 22/xx | [ISIS-TE- |
| | Link Delay | | METRIC]/4.1 |
| | | | |
| xxxx | Min/Max Unidirection| 22/xx | [ISIS-TE- |
| | Link Delay | | METRIC]/4.2 |
| | | | |
| xxxx | Unidirectional | 22/xx | [ISIS-TE- |
| | Delay Variation | | METRIC]/4.3 |
| | | | |
| xxxx | Unidirectional | 22/xx | [ISIS-TE- |
| | Link Loss | | METRIC]/4.4 |
| | | | |
| xxxx | Unidirectional | 22/xx | [ISIS-TE- |
| |Residual Bandwidth | | METRIC]/4.5 |
| | | | |
| xxxx | Unidirectional | 22/xx | [ISIS-TE- |
| |Available Bandwidth | | METRIC]/4.6 |
| | | | |
| xxxx | Unidirectional | 22/xx | [ISIS-TE- |
| |Utilized Bandwidth | | METRIC]/4.7 |
+------------+---------------------+--------------+-----------------+
Table 1: Link Attribute TLVs 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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|A| RESERVED | Link Loss |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
6. Manageability Considerations where:
Manageability Considerations described in section 6.2 of [I-D.ietf- Type: TBA (suggested value: 1107).
idr-ls-distribution] can be applied to Traffic Engineering (TE)
performance Metrics as well.
7. Security Considerations Length: 4.
This document does not introduce security issues beyond those 3.5. Unidirectional Residual Bandwidth TLV
discussed in [I.D-ietf-idr-ls-distribution] and [RFC4271].
8. IANA Considerations This sub-TLV advertises the residual bandwidth between two directly
connected IGP link-state neighbors. The semantic of the TLV is
described in [RFC7810] and [RFC7471].
IANA maintains the registry for the TLVs. BGP TE Performance TLV 0 1 2 3
will require one new type code per TLV defined in this document. 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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Residual Bandwidth |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
9. References where:
9.1. Normative References Type: TBA (suggested value: 1108).
[I-D.ietf-idr-ls-distribution] Length: 4.
Gredler, H., "North-Bound Distribution of Link-State and
TE Information using BGP", ID draft-ietf-idr-ls-
distribution-07, November 2014.
[I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-service-aware] 3.6. Unidirectional Available Bandwidth TLV
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-06, December 2014.
[ISIS-TE-METRIC] This sub-TLV advertises the available bandwidth between two directly
Giacalone, S., "ISIS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric connected IGP link-state neighbors. The semantic of the TLV is
Extensions", ID draft-ietf-isis-te-metric-extensions-04, described in [RFC7810] and [RFC7471].
October 2014.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 0 1 2 3
Requirement Levels", March 1997. 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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Available Bandwidth |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
[RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., "A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC where:
4271, January 2006.
[RFC5305] Li, T., "IS-IS Extensions for Traffic Engineering", RFC Figure 4
5305, October 2008.
9.2. Informative References Type: TBA (suggested value: 1109).
[ALTO] Yang, Y., "ALTO Protocol", ID Length: 4.
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-alto-protocol-16,
May 2013.
[I.D-ietf-pce-hierarchy-extensions] 3.7. Unidirectional Utilized Bandwidth TLV
Zhang, F., Zhao, Q., Gonzalez de Dios, O., Casellas, R.,
and D. King, "Extensions to Path Computation Element
Communication Protocol (PCEP) for Hierarchical Path
Computation Elements (PCE)", ID draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-
extensions-01, February 2014.
[RFC4655] Farrel, A., "A Path Computation Element (PCE)-Based This sub-TLV advertises the bandwidth utilization between two
Architecture", RFC 4655, August 2006. directly connected IGP link-state neighbors. The semantic of the TLV
is described in [RFC7810] and [RFC7471].
Appendix A. Change Log 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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Utilized Bandwidth |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Note to the RFC-Editor: please remove this section prior to where:
publication as an RFC.
A.1. draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp-00 Figure 5
The following are the major changes compared to previous version Type: TBA (suggested value: 1110).
draft-wu-idr-te-pm-bgp-03:
o Update PCE case in section 3.1. Length: 4.
o Add some texts in section 1 and section 4 to clarify from where to 4. Security Considerations
distribute pm info and measurement interval and method.
A.2. draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp-02 Procedures and protocol extensions defined in this document do not
affect the BGP security model. See the 'Security Considerations'
section of [RFC4271] for a discussion of BGP security. Also refer to
[RFC4272] and [RFC6952] for analysis of security issues for BGP.
The following are the major changes compared to previous version The TLVs introduced in this document are used to propagate IGP
draft-wu-idr-te-pm-bgp-03: defined information ([RFC7810] and [RFC7471].) These TLVs represent
the state and resources availability of the IGP link. The IGP
instances originating these TLVs are assumed to have all the required
security and authentication mechanism (as described in [RFC7810] and
[RFC7471]) in order to prevent any security issue when propagating
the TLVs into BGP-LS.
o Some Editorial changes. 5. IANA Considerations
This document requests assigning code-points from the registry "BGP-
LS Node Descriptor, Link Descriptor, Prefix Descriptor, and Attribute
TLVs" for the new Link Attribute TLVs deefined in the table here
below:
TLV code-point Value
--------------------------------------------------------
1104 (Suggested) Unidirectional Link Delay
1105 (Suggested) Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay
1106 (Suggested) Unidirectional Delay Variation
1107 (Suggested) Unidirectional Packet Loss
1108 (Suggested) Unidirectional Residual Bandwidth
1109 (Suggested) Unidirectional Available Bandwidth
1110 (Suggested) Unidirectional Bandwidth Utilization
6. Acknowledgements
TBD
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A
Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4271>.
[RFC7471] Giacalone, S., Ward, D., Drake, J., Atlas, A., and S.
Previdi, "OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric
Extensions", RFC 7471, DOI 10.17487/RFC7471, March 2015,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7471>.
[RFC7752] Gredler, H., Ed., Medved, J., Previdi, S., Farrel, A., and
S. Ray, "North-Bound Distribution of Link-State and
Traffic Engineering (TE) Information Using BGP", RFC 7752,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7752, March 2016,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7752>.
[RFC7810] Previdi, S., Ed., Giacalone, S., Ward, D., Drake, J., and
Q. Wu, "IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions",
RFC 7810, DOI 10.17487/RFC7810, May 2016,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7810>.
7.2. Informative References
[RFC4272] Murphy, S., "BGP Security Vulnerabilities Analysis",
RFC 4272, DOI 10.17487/RFC4272, January 2006,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4272>.
[RFC6952] Jethanandani, M., Patel, K., and L. Zheng, "Analysis of
BGP, LDP, PCEP, and MSDP Issues According to the Keying
and Authentication for Routing Protocols (KARP) Design
Guide", RFC 6952, DOI 10.17487/RFC6952, May 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6952>.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Stefano Previdi (editor)
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Via Del Serafico 200
Rome 00191
IT
Email: sprevidi@cisco.com
Qin Wu Qin Wu
Huawei Huawei
101 Software Avenue, Yuhua District 101 Software Avenue, Yuhua District
Nanjing, Jiangsu 210012 Nanjing, Jiangsu 210012
China China
Email: bill.wu@huawei.com Email: bill.wu@huawei.com
Stefano Previdi
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Via Del Serafico 200
Rome 00191
Italy
Email: sprevidi@cisco.com
Hannes Gredler Hannes Gredler
Juniper Networks, Inc. Individual
1194 N. Mathilda Ave. AT
Sunnyvale, CA 94089
US
Email: hannes@juniper.net Email: hannes@gredler.at
Saikat Ray Saikat Ray
Cisco Systems, Inc. Individual
170, West Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA 95134
US US
Email: sairay@cisco.com Email: raysaikat@gmail.com
Jeff Tantsura Jeff Tantsura
Ericsson Individual
300 Holger Way
San Jose, CA 95134
US US
Email: jeff.tantsura@ericsson.com Email: jefftant@gmail.com
Clarence Filsfils
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Brussels
BE
Email: cfilsfil@cisco.com
Les Ginsberg
Cisco Systems, Inc.
US
Email: ginsberg@cisco.com
 End of changes. 79 change blocks. 
287 lines changed or deleted 257 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/