draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp-17.txt   draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp-18.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: June 17, 2019 Q. Wu Expires: June 23, 2019 Q. Wu
Huawei Huawei
J. Tantsura J. Tantsura
Apstra, Inc. Apstra, Inc.
C. Filsfils C. Filsfils
Cisco Systems, Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc.
December 14, 2018 December 20, 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-17 draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp-18
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 the IS-IS and OSPF Traffic Engineering Metric Extensions defined in the IS-IS and OSPF
protocols. protocols.
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 June 17, 2019. This Internet-Draft will expire on June 23, 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 15 skipping to change at page 2, line 15
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
2.1. Unidirectional Link Delay TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.1. Unidirectional Link Delay TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay TLV . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.2. Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay TLV . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.3. Unidirectional Delay Variation TLV . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.3. Unidirectional Delay Variation TLV . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.4. Unidirectional Link Loss TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.4. Unidirectional Link Loss TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.5. Unidirectional Residual Bandwidth TLV . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.5. Unidirectional Residual Bandwidth TLV . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.6. Unidirectional Available Bandwidth TLV . . . . . . . . . 5 2.6. Unidirectional Available Bandwidth TLV . . . . . . . . . 6
2.7. Unidirectional Utilized Bandwidth TLV . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.7. Unidirectional Utilized Bandwidth TLV . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.8. Mappings to IGP Source sub-TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.8. Mappings to IGP Source sub-TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 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 [I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis] and [RFC7471]. in [I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis] and [RFC7471].
skipping to change at page 3, line 19 skipping to change at page 3, line 19
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 Utilized Bandwidth
TLV formats are described in detail in the following sub-sections. TLV formats are described in detail in the following sub-sections.
TLV formats follow the rules defined in [RFC7752]. TLV formats follow the rules defined in [RFC7752].
2.1. 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 semantics of the value field connected IGP link-state neighbors. The semantics of the value field
in the TLV are described in [I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis] and in the TLV are described in [I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis] and
[RFC7471]. [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:
Figure 1 Figure 1
where:
Type: 1114 Type: 1114
Length: 4. Length: 4.
2.2. 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 semantics of two directly connected IGP link-state neighbors. The semantics of
the value field in the TLV are described in the value field in the TLV are described in
[I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis] and [RFC7471]. [I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis] and [RFC7471].
skipping to change at page 4, line 17 skipping to change at page 4, line 22
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:
Figure 2 Figure 2
where:
Type: 1115 Type: 1115
Length: 8. Length: 8.
2.3. 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 semantics of the directly connected IGP link-state neighbors. The semantics of the
value field in the TLV are described in value field in the TLV are described in
[I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis] and [RFC7471]. [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:
Figure 3 Figure 3
Type: 1116 where:
Type: 1116
Length: 4. Length: 4.
2.4. 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 semantics of the directly connected IGP link-state neighbors. The semantics of the
value field in the TLV are described in value field in the TLV are described in
[I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis] and [RFC7471]. [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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 4
where: where:
Type:1117 Type:1117
Length: 4. Length: 4.
2.5. 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 semantics of the value field connected IGP link-state neighbors. The semantics of the value field
skipping to change at page 5, line 41 skipping to change at page 5, line 44
[RFC7471]. [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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 5
where: where:
Type: 1118 Type: 1118
Length: 4. Length: 4.
2.6. 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 semantics of the value field connected IGP link-state neighbors. The semantics of the value field
in the TLV are described in [I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis] and in the TLV are described in [I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis] and
[RFC7471]. [RFC7471].
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
skipping to change at page 6, line 13 skipping to change at page 6, line 21
[RFC7471]. [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: Figure 6
Figure 4 where:
Type: 1119 Type: 1119
Length: 4. Length: 4.
2.7. 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 semantics of the directly connected IGP link-state neighbors. The semantics of the
value field in the TLV are described in value field in the TLV are described in
[I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis] and [RFC7471]. [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: Figure 7
Figure 5 where:
Type: 1120 Type: 1120
Length: 4. Length: 4.
2.8. Mappings to IGP Source sub-TLVs 2.8. Mappings to IGP Source sub-TLVs
This section documents the mappings between the Link Attribute TLVs This section documents the mappings between the Link Attribute TLVs
defined in this document and the corresponding advertisements sourced defined in this document and the corresponding advertisements sourced
by the IGPs. by the IGPs.
For OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 the advertisements are defined in [RFC7471] . For OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 the advertisements are defined in [RFC7471] .
For IS-IS the advertisements are defined in For IS-IS the advertisements are defined in
skipping to change at page 7, line 21 skipping to change at page 7, line 32
| Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay | 34 | 28 | | Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay | 34 | 28 |
+---------------------------------------+----------+----------------+ +---------------------------------------+----------+----------------+
| Unidirectional Delay Variation | 35 | 29 | | Unidirectional Delay Variation | 35 | 29 |
+---------------------------------------+----------+----------------+ +---------------------------------------+----------+----------------+
| Unidirectional Link Loss | 36 | 30 | | Unidirectional Link Loss | 36 | 30 |
+---------------------------------------+----------+----------------+ +---------------------------------------+----------+----------------+
| Unidirectional Residual Bandwidth | 37 | 31 | | Unidirectional Residual Bandwidth | 37 | 31 |
+---------------------------------------+----------+----------------+ +---------------------------------------+----------+----------------+
| Unidirectional Available Bandwidth | 38 | 32 | | Unidirectional Available Bandwidth | 38 | 32 |
+---------------------------------------+----------+----------------+ +---------------------------------------+----------+----------------+
| Unidirectional Bandwidth Utilization | 39 | 33 | | Unidirectional Utilized Bandwidth | 39 | 33 |
+---------------------------------------+----------+----------------+ +---------------------------------------+----------+----------------+
Figure 8
3. 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
skipping to change at page 8, line 19 skipping to change at page 8, line 32
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 Utilized Bandwidth
5. 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
skipping to change at page 8, line 45 skipping to change at page 9, line 16
The authors wish to acknowledge comments from Ketan Talaulikar. The authors wish to acknowledge comments from Ketan Talaulikar.
7. References 7. References
7.1. Normative References 7.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis] [I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis]
Ginsberg, L., Previdi, S., Giacalone, S., Ward, D., Drake, Ginsberg, L., Previdi, S., Giacalone, S., Ward, D., Drake,
J., and Q. Wu, "IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric J., and Q. Wu, "IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric
Extensions", draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis-03 (work in Extensions", draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis-04 (work in
progress), November 2018. progress), December 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,
 End of changes. 30 change blocks. 
30 lines changed or deleted 33 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/