Networking Working Group                                L. Ginsberg, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                       Cisco Systems, Inc.
Intended status: Standards Track                              S. Previdi
Expires: April 24, June 3, 2019                                              Q. Wu
                                                                  Huawei
                                                             J. Tantsura
                                                            Apstra, Inc.
                                                             C. Filsfils
                                                     Cisco Systems, Inc.
                                                        October 21,
                                                       November 30, 2018

   BGP-LS Advertisement of IGP Traffic Engineering Performance Metric
                               Extensions
                      draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp-14
                      draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp-15

Abstract

   This document defines new BGP-LS TLVs in order to carry the IGP
   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

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on April 24, June 3, 2019.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Link Attribute TLVs for TE Metric Extensions  . . . . . . . .   2
   3.  TLV Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     3.1.
     2.1.  Unidirectional Link Delay TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     3.2.
     2.2.  Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay TLV . . . . . . . . . .   3
     3.3.
     2.3.  Unidirectional Delay Variation TLV  . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.4.
     2.4.  Unidirectional Link Loss TLV  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.5.   5
     2.5.  Unidirectional Residual Bandwidth TLV . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.6.
     2.6.  Unidirectional Available Bandwidth TLV  . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.7.
     2.7.  Unidirectional Utilized Bandwidth TLV . . . . . . . . . .   6
   4.
   3.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   5.
   4.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   6.
   5.  Contributors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   7.
   6.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   8.
   7.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     8.1.
     7.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     8.2.
     7.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9   8

1.  Introduction

   BGP-LS ([RFC7752]) defines NLRI and attributes in order to carry
   link-state information.  New BGP-LS Link-Attribute TLVs are required
   in order to carry the Traffic Engineering Metric Extensions defined
   in [RFC7810] [I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis] and [RFC7471].

2.  Link Attribute TLVs for TE Metric Extensions

   The following new Link Attribute TLVs are defined:

    TLV Name
   ------------------------------------------ code-point                 Value
   --------------------------------------------------------
    1114              Unidirectional Link Delay

    1115              Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay

    1116              Unidirectional Delay Variation

    1117              Unidirectional Link Loss

    1118              Unidirectional Residual Bandwidth

    1119              Unidirectional Available Bandwidth

    1120              Unidirectional Bandwidth Utilization

3.

   TLV Details

3.1. formats are described in detail in the following sub-sections.
   TLV formats follow the rules defined in [RFC7752].

2.1.  Unidirectional Link Delay TLV

   This TLV advertises the average link delay between two directly
   connected IGP link-state neighbors.  The semantic semantics of the value field
   in the TLV is are described in [RFC7810] [I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis] and
   [RFC7471].

    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   |                   Delay                       |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   where:

                                 Figure 1

   Type: 1114

   Length: 4.

3.2.

2.2.  Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay TLV

   This sub-TLV advertises the minimum and maximum delay values between
   two directly connected IGP link-state neighbors.  The semantic semantics of
   the value field in the TLV is are described in [RFC7810]
   [I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis] and [RFC7471].

    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                   |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   where:

                                 Figure 2

   Type: 1115

   Length: 8.

3.3.

2.3.  Unidirectional Delay Variation TLV

   This sub-TLV advertises the average link delay variation between two
   directly connected IGP link-state neighbors.  The semantic semantics of the
   value field in the TLV
   is are described in [RFC7810]
   [I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis] and [RFC7471].

    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                |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |  RESERVED     |               Delay Variation                 |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   where:

                                 Figure 3

   Type: 1116

   Length: 4.

3.4.

2.4.  Unidirectional Link Loss TLV

   This sub-TLV advertises the loss (as a packet percentage) between two
   directly connected IGP link-state neighbors.  The semantic semantics of the
   value field in the TLV
   is are described in [RFC7810]
   [I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis] and [RFC7471].

    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                    |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   where:

   Type:1117

   Length: 4.

3.5.

2.5.  Unidirectional Residual Bandwidth TLV

   This sub-TLV advertises the residual bandwidth between two directly
   connected IGP link-state neighbors.  The semantic semantics of the value field
   in the TLV is are described in [RFC7810] [I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis] and
   [RFC7471].

    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                |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                          Residual Bandwidth                   |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   where:

   Type: 1118

   Length: 4.

3.6.

2.6.  Unidirectional Available Bandwidth TLV

   This sub-TLV advertises the available bandwidth between two directly
   connected IGP link-state neighbors.  The semantic semantics of the value field
   in the TLV is are described in [RFC7810] [I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis] and
   [RFC7471].

    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                |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                      Available Bandwidth                      |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   where:

                                 Figure 4

   Type: 1119

   Length: 4.

3.7.

2.7.  Unidirectional Utilized Bandwidth TLV

   This sub-TLV advertises the bandwidth utilization between two
   directly connected IGP link-state neighbors.  The semantic semantics of the
   value field in the TLV
   is are described in [RFC7810]
   [I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis] and [RFC7471].

    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                        |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   where:

                                 Figure 5

   Type: 1120

   Length: 4.

4.

3.  Security Considerations

   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.
   Security considerations for acquiring and distributing BGP-LS
   information are discussed in [RFC7752].

   The TLVs introduced in this document are used to propagate IGP
   defined information ([RFC7810] ([I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis] 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] [I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis] and [RFC7471]) in order to prevent
   any security issue when propagating the TLVs into BGP-LS.  The
   advertisement of the link attribute information defined in this
   document presents no additional risk beyond that associated with the
   existing set of link attribute information already supported in
   [RFC7752].

5.

4.  IANA Considerations

   This document requests assigning code-points from

   IANA has made temporary assignments in the registry "BGP-
   LS "BGP-LS Node
   Descriptor, Link Descriptor, Prefix Descriptor, and Attribute TLVs"
   for the new Link Attribute TLVs defined in the table below:

    TLV code-point                 Value
   --------------------------------------------------------
    1114              Unidirectional Link Delay

    1115              Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay

    1116              Unidirectional Delay Variation

    1117              Unidirectional Link Loss

    1118              Unidirectional Residual Bandwidth

    1119              Unidirectional Available Bandwidth

    1120              Unidirectional Bandwidth Utilization

6.

5.  Contributors

   The following people have substantially contributed to this document
   and should be considered co-authors:

   Saikat Ray
   Individual
   Email: raysaikat@gmail.com

   Hannes Gredler
   RtBrick Inc.
   Email: hannes@rtbrick.com

7.

6.  Acknowledgements

   The authors wish to acknowledge comments from Ketan Talaulikar.

8.

7.  References

8.1.

7.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner,

   [I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis]
              Ginsberg, L., Previdi, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              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., Giacalone, S., Ward, D., Drake,
              J., 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>. Q. Wu, "IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric
              Extensions", draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis-03 (work in
              progress), November 2018.

   [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,
              <https://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,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7752>.

   [RFC7810]  Previdi, S.,

7.2.  Informative References

   [RFC4271]  Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., 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,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7810>.

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, S. Hares, Ed., "A
              Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 8174, 4271,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

8.2.  Informative References 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4271>.

   [RFC4272]  Murphy, S., "BGP Security Vulnerabilities Analysis",
              RFC 4272, DOI 10.17487/RFC4272, January 2006,
              <https://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,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6952>.

Authors' Addresses
   Les Ginsberg (editor)
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   US

   Email: ginsberg@cisco.com

   Stefano Previdi
   Huawei
   IT

   Email: stefano@previdi.net

   Qin Wu
   Huawei
   101 Software Avenue, Yuhua District
   Nanjing, Jiangsu  210012
   China

   Email: bill.wu@huawei.com

   Jeff Tantsura
   Apstra, Inc.
   US

   Email: jefftant.ietf@gmail.com

   Clarence Filsfils
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   Brussels
   BE

   Email: cfilsfil@cisco.com