draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp-10.txt   draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp-11.txt 
Networking Working Group L. Ginsberg, Ed. Networking Working Group L. Ginsberg, Ed.
Internet-Draft S. Previdi Internet-Draft S. Previdi
Intended status: Standards Track Cisco Systems, Inc. Intended status: Standards Track Cisco Systems, Inc.
Expires: September 22, 2018 Q. Wu Expires: March 22, 2019 Q. Wu
Huawei Huawei
J. Tantsura J. Tantsura
Individual Individual
C. Filsfils C. Filsfils
Cisco Systems, Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc.
March 21, 2018 September 18, 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-10 draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp-11
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 IS-IS and OSPF protocols. Traffic Engineering Extensions defined in IS-IS and OSPF protocols.
Requirements Language 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", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
In this document, these words will appear with that interpretation capitals, as shown here.
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 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 September 22, 2018. This Internet-Draft will expire on March 22, 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 2, line 39 skipping to change at page 2, line 39
3.5. Unidirectional Residual Bandwidth TLV . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.5. Unidirectional Residual Bandwidth TLV . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.6. Unidirectional Available Bandwidth TLV . . . . . . . . . 5 3.6. Unidirectional Available Bandwidth TLV . . . . . . . . . 5
3.7. Unidirectional Utilized Bandwidth TLV . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.7. Unidirectional Utilized Bandwidth TLV . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
BGP-LS ([RFC7752]) defines NLRI and attributes in order to carry BGP-LS ([RFC7752]) defines NLRI and attributes in order to carry
link-state information. New BGP-LS Link-Attribute TLVs are required link-state information. New BGP-LS Link-Attribute TLVs are required
in order to carry the Traffic Engineering Metric Extensions defined in order to carry the Traffic Engineering Metric Extensions defined
in [RFC7810] and [RFC7471]. in [RFC7810] and [RFC7471].
2. Link Attribute TLVs for TE Metric Extensions 2. Link Attribute TLVs for TE Metric Extensions
skipping to change at page 8, line 35 skipping to change at page 8, line 35
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>.
[RFC7810] Previdi, S., Ed., Giacalone, S., Ward, D., Drake, J., and [RFC7810] Previdi, S., Ed., Giacalone, S., Ward, D., Drake, J., and
Q. Wu, "IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions", Q. Wu, "IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions",
RFC 7810, DOI 10.17487/RFC7810, May 2016, RFC 7810, DOI 10.17487/RFC7810, May 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7810>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7810>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
8.2. Informative References 8.2. Informative References
[RFC4272] Murphy, S., "BGP Security Vulnerabilities Analysis", [RFC4272] Murphy, S., "BGP Security Vulnerabilities Analysis",
RFC 4272, DOI 10.17487/RFC4272, January 2006, RFC 4272, DOI 10.17487/RFC4272, January 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4272>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4272>.
[RFC6952] Jethanandani, M., Patel, K., and L. Zheng, "Analysis of [RFC6952] Jethanandani, M., Patel, K., and L. Zheng, "Analysis of
BGP, LDP, PCEP, and MSDP Issues According to the Keying BGP, LDP, PCEP, and MSDP Issues According to the Keying
and Authentication for Routing Protocols (KARP) Design and Authentication for Routing Protocols (KARP) Design
Guide", RFC 6952, DOI 10.17487/RFC6952, May 2013, Guide", RFC 6952, DOI 10.17487/RFC6952, May 2013,
 End of changes. 7 change blocks. 
11 lines changed or deleted 13 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/