draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp-14.txt   draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp-15.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: April 24, 2019 Q. Wu Expires: June 3, 2019 Q. Wu
Huawei Huawei
J. Tantsura J. Tantsura
Apstra, Inc. Apstra, Inc.
C. Filsfils C. Filsfils
Cisco Systems, Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc.
October 21, 2018 November 30, 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-14 draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp-15
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 the IS-IS and OSPF
protocols.
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 April 24, 2019. This Internet-Draft will expire on June 3, 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
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. Link Attribute TLVs for TE Metric Extensions . . . . . . . . 2 2. Link Attribute TLVs for TE Metric Extensions . . . . . . . . 2
3. TLV Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.1. Unidirectional Link Delay TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1. Unidirectional Link Delay TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.2. Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay TLV . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.2. Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay TLV . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.3. Unidirectional Delay Variation TLV . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.3. Unidirectional Delay Variation TLV . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.4. Unidirectional Link Loss TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.4. Unidirectional Link Loss TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.5. Unidirectional Residual Bandwidth TLV . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.5. Unidirectional Residual Bandwidth TLV . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.6. Unidirectional Available Bandwidth TLV . . . . . . . . . 5
3.6. Unidirectional Available Bandwidth TLV . . . . . . . . . 5 2.7. Unidirectional Utilized Bandwidth TLV . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.7. Unidirectional Utilized Bandwidth TLV . . . . . . . . . . 6 3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 7.2. 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 [I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis] and [RFC7471].
2. Link Attribute TLVs for TE Metric Extensions 2. Link Attribute TLVs for TE Metric Extensions
The following new Link Attribute TLVs are defined: The following new Link Attribute TLVs are defined:
TLV Name TLV code-point Value
------------------------------------------ --------------------------------------------------------
Unidirectional Link Delay 1114 Unidirectional Link Delay
Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay 1115 Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay
Unidirectional Delay Variation 1116 Unidirectional Delay Variation
Unidirectional Link Loss 1117 Unidirectional Link Loss
Unidirectional Residual Bandwidth 1118 Unidirectional Residual Bandwidth
Unidirectional Available Bandwidth 1119 Unidirectional Available Bandwidth
Unidirectional Bandwidth Utilization 1120 Unidirectional Bandwidth Utilization
3. TLV Details TLV formats are described in detail in the following sub-sections.
TLV formats follow the rules defined in [RFC7752].
3.1. 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 semantic of the TLV is connected IGP link-state neighbors. The semantics of the value field
described in [RFC7810] and [RFC7471]. in the TLV are described in [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 | Delay | |A| RESERVED | Delay |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
where: where:
Figure 1 Figure 1
Type: 1114 Type: 1114
Length: 4. Length: 4.
3.2. 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 semantic of the two directly connected IGP link-state neighbors. The semantics of
TLV is described in [RFC7810] and [RFC7471]. the value field in the TLV are described in
[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
Type: 1115 Type: 1115
Length: 8. Length: 8.
3.3. 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 semantic of the TLV directly connected IGP link-state neighbors. The semantics of the
is described in [RFC7810] and [RFC7471]. value field in the TLV are described in
[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
Length: 4. Length: 4.
3.4. 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 semantic of the TLV directly connected IGP link-state neighbors. The semantics of the
is described in [RFC7810] and [RFC7471]. value field in the TLV are described in
[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.
3.5. 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 semantic of the TLV is connected IGP link-state neighbors. The semantics of the value field
described in [RFC7810] and [RFC7471]. in the TLV are described in [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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Residual Bandwidth | | Residual Bandwidth |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
where: where:
Type: 1118 Type: 1118
Length: 4. Length: 4.
3.6. 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 semantic of the TLV is connected IGP link-state neighbors. The semantics of the value field
described in [RFC7810] and [RFC7471]. in the TLV are described in [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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Available Bandwidth | | Available Bandwidth |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
where: where:
Figure 4 Figure 4
Type: 1119 Type: 1119
Length: 4. Length: 4.
3.7. 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 semantic of the TLV directly connected IGP link-state neighbors. The semantics of the
is described in [RFC7810] and [RFC7471]. value field in the TLV are described in
[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
Length: 4. Length: 4.
4. Security Considerations 3. Security Considerations
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 ([RFC7810] and [RFC7471].) These TLVs represent defined information ([I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis] and [RFC7471].)
the state and resources availability of the IGP link. The IGP These TLVs represent the state and resources availability of the IGP
instances originating these TLVs are assumed to have all the required link. The IGP instances originating these TLVs are assumed to have
security and authentication mechanism (as described in [RFC7810] and all the required security and authentication mechanism (as described
[RFC7471]) in order to prevent any security issue when propagating in [I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis] and [RFC7471]) in order to prevent
the TLVs into BGP-LS. The advertisement of the link attribute any security issue when propagating the TLVs into BGP-LS. The
information defined in this document presents no additional risk advertisement of the link attribute information defined in this
beyond that associated with the existing set of link attribute document presents no additional risk beyond that associated with the
information already supported in [RFC7752]. existing set of link attribute information already supported in
[RFC7752].
5. IANA Considerations 4. IANA Considerations
This document requests assigning code-points from the registry "BGP- IANA has made temporary assignments in the registry "BGP-LS Node
LS Node Descriptor, Link Descriptor, Prefix Descriptor, and Attribute Descriptor, Link Descriptor, Prefix Descriptor, and Attribute TLVs"
TLVs" for the new Link Attribute TLVs defined in the table below: for the new Link Attribute TLVs defined in the table below:
TLV code-point Value TLV code-point Value
-------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------
1114 Unidirectional Link Delay 1114 Unidirectional Link Delay
1115 Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay 1115 Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay
1116 Unidirectional Delay Variation 1116 Unidirectional Delay Variation
1117 Unidirectional Link Loss 1117 Unidirectional Link Loss
1118 Unidirectional Residual Bandwidth 1118 Unidirectional Residual Bandwidth
1119 Unidirectional Available Bandwidth 1119 Unidirectional Available Bandwidth
1120 Unidirectional Bandwidth Utilization 1120 Unidirectional Bandwidth Utilization
6. Contributors 5. Contributors
The following people have substantially contributed to this document The following people have substantially contributed to this document
and should be considered co-authors: and should be considered co-authors:
Saikat Ray Saikat Ray
Individual Individual
Email: raysaikat@gmail.com Email: raysaikat@gmail.com
Hannes Gredler Hannes Gredler
RtBrick Inc. RtBrick Inc.
Email: hannes@rtbrick.com Email: hannes@rtbrick.com
7. Acknowledgements 6. Acknowledgements
The authors wish to acknowledge comments from Ketan Talaulikar. The authors wish to acknowledge comments from Ketan Talaulikar.
8. References 7. References
8.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 7.1. Normative References
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A [I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis]
Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, Ginsberg, L., Previdi, S., Giacalone, S., Ward, D., Drake,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006, J., and Q. Wu, "IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4271>. Extensions", draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis-03 (work in
progress), November 2018.
[RFC7471] Giacalone, S., Ward, D., Drake, J., Atlas, A., and S. [RFC7471] Giacalone, S., Ward, D., Drake, J., Atlas, A., and S.
Previdi, "OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Previdi, "OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric
Extensions", RFC 7471, DOI 10.17487/RFC7471, March 2015, Extensions", RFC 7471, DOI 10.17487/RFC7471, March 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7471>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7471>.
[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>.
[RFC7810] Previdi, S., Ed., Giacalone, S., Ward, D., Drake, J., and 7.2. Informative References
Q. Wu, "IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions",
RFC 7810, DOI 10.17487/RFC7810, May 2016,
<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 [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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4271>.
[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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6952>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6952>.
 End of changes. 40 change blocks. 
97 lines changed or deleted 90 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/