draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp-18.txt   rfc8571.txt 
Networking Working Group L. Ginsberg, Ed. Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) L. Ginsberg, Ed.
Internet-Draft Cisco Systems, Inc. Request for Comments: 8571 Cisco Systems, Inc.
Intended status: Standards Track S. Previdi Category: Standards Track S. Previdi
Expires: June 23, 2019 Q. Wu ISSN: 2070-1721 Q. Wu
Huawei Huawei
J. Tantsura J. Tantsura
Apstra, Inc. Apstra, Inc.
C. Filsfils C. Filsfils
Cisco Systems, Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc.
December 20, 2018 March 2019
BGP-LS Advertisement of IGP Traffic Engineering Performance Metric BGP - Link State (BGP-LS) Advertisement of
Extensions IGP Traffic Engineering Performance Metric Extensions
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 - Link State (BGP-LS) TLVs in order to
Traffic Engineering Metric Extensions defined in the IS-IS and OSPF carry the IGP Traffic Engineering Metric Extensions defined in the
protocols. IS-IS and OSPF protocols.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This is an Internet Standards Track document.
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 This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference received public review and has been approved for publication by the
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.
This Internet-Draft will expire on June 23, 2019. Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8571.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2019 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 ....................3
2.1. Unidirectional Link Delay TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.1. Unidirectional Link Delay TLV ..............................3
2.2. Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay TLV . . . . . . . . . . 4 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 . . . . . . . . . 6 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.8. Mappings to IGP Source Sub-TLVs ............................7
3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3. Security Considerations .........................................7
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4. IANA Considerations .............................................8
5. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5. References ......................................................8
6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5.1. Normative References .......................................8
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5.2. Informative References .....................................9
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Acknowledgements ...................................................9
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Contributors .......................................................9
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Authors' Addresses ................................................10
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
BGP-LS ([RFC7752]) defines NLRI and attributes in order to carry BGP - Link State (BGP-LS) [RFC7752] defines Network Layer
link-state information. New BGP-LS Link-Attribute TLVs are required Reachability Information (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 order to carry the Traffic Engineering Metric Extensions defined
in [I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis] and [RFC7471]. in [RFC8570] 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 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 Utilized Bandwidth 1120 Unidirectional Utilized Bandwidth
TLV formats are described in detail in the following sub-sections. TLV formats are described in detail in the following subsections.
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 and values of the
in the TLV are described in [I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis] and fields in the TLV are described in [RFC8570] 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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1 Figure 1
where: 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 TLV advertises the minimum and maximum delay values between two
two directly connected IGP link-state neighbors. The semantics of directly connected IGP link-state neighbors. The semantics and
the value field in the TLV are described in values of the fields in the TLV are described in [RFC8570] and
[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 | Min Delay | |A| RESERVED | Min Delay |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| RESERVED | Max Delay | | RESERVED | Max Delay |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2 Figure 2
where: 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 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 and
value field in the TLV are described in values of the fields in the TLV are described in [RFC8570] and
[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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| RESERVED | Delay Variation | | RESERVED | Delay Variation |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3 Figure 3
where: where:
Type: 1116 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 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 and
value field in the TLV are described in values of the fields in the TLV are described in [RFC8570] and
[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 | Link Loss | |A| RESERVED | Link Loss |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 4 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 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 and values of the
in the TLV are described in [I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis] and fields in the TLV are described in [RFC8570] 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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Residual Bandwidth | | Residual Bandwidth |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 5 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 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 and values of the
in the TLV are described in [I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis] and fields in the TLV are described in [RFC8570] 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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Available Bandwidth | | Available Bandwidth |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 6 Figure 6
where: 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 TLV advertises the bandwidth utilization between two directly
directly connected IGP link-state neighbors. The semantics of the connected IGP link-state neighbors. The semantics and values of the
value field in the TLV are described in fields in the TLV are described in [RFC8570] 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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 7 Figure 7
where: where:
Type: 1120 Type: 1120
Length: 4.
2.8. Mappings to IGP Source sub-TLVs Length: 4
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 [RFC8570].
[I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis] .
+---------------------------------------+----------+----------------+ +---------------------------------------+----------+----------------+
| Attribute Name | IS-IS | OSPFv2/OSPFv3 | | Attribute Name | IS-IS | OSPFv2/OSPFv3 |
| | sub-TLV | sub-TLV | | | Sub-TLV | Sub-TLV |
+---------------------------------------+----------+----------------+ +---------------------------------------+----------+----------------+
| Unidirectional Link Delay | 33 | 27 | | Unidirectional Link Delay | 33 | 27 |
+---------------------------------------+----------+----------------+ +---------------------------------------+----------+----------------+
| 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 |
skipping to change at page 7, line 40 skipping to change at page 7, line 38
| Unidirectional Available Bandwidth | 38 | 32 | | Unidirectional Available Bandwidth | 38 | 32 |
+---------------------------------------+----------+----------------+ +---------------------------------------+----------+----------------+
| Unidirectional Utilized Bandwidth | 39 | 33 | | Unidirectional Utilized Bandwidth | 39 | 33 |
+---------------------------------------+----------+----------------+ +---------------------------------------+----------+----------------+
Figure 8 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
[RFC4272] and [RFC6952] for analysis of security issues for BGP. to [RFC4272] and [RFC6952] for analyses 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 the
defined information ([I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis] and [RFC7471].) Traffic Engineering Metric Extensions defined in [RFC8570] and
These TLVs represent the state and resource availability of the IGP [RFC7471]. These TLVs represent the state and resource availability
link. The IGP instances originating these TLVs are assumed to of the IGP link. It is assumed that the IGP instances originating
support all the required security and authentication mechanisms (as these TLVs will support all the required security and authentication
described in [I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis] and [RFC7471]) in order mechanisms (as described in [RFC8570] and [RFC7471]) in order to
to prevent any security issue when propagating the TLVs into BGP-LS. prevent any security issues when propagating the TLVs into BGP-LS.
The advertisement of the link attribute information defined in this The advertisement of the link attribute information defined in this
document presents no additional risk beyond that associated with the document presents no additional risk beyond that associated with the
existing set of link attribute information already supported in existing link attribute information already supported in [RFC7752].
[RFC7752].
4. IANA Considerations 4. IANA Considerations
IANA has made temporary assignments in the registry "BGP-LS Node IANA has made assignments in the "BGP-LS Node Descriptor, Link
Descriptor, Link Descriptor, Prefix Descriptor, and Attribute TLVs" Descriptor, Prefix Descriptor, and Attribute TLVs" registry for the
for the new Link Attribute TLVs defined in the table below: new Link Attribute TLVs as listed 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 Utilized Bandwidth
5. Contributors TLV Code Point Description
--------------------------------------------------------
1114 Unidirectional Link Delay
The following people have substantially contributed to this document 1115 Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay
and should be considered co-authors:
Saikat Ray 1116 Unidirectional Delay Variation
Individual
Email: raysaikat@gmail.com
Hannes Gredler 1117 Unidirectional Link Loss
RtBrick Inc.
Email: hannes@rtbrick.com
6. Acknowledgements 1118 Unidirectional Residual Bandwidth
The authors wish to acknowledge comments from Ketan Talaulikar. 1119 Unidirectional Available Bandwidth
7. References 1120 Unidirectional Utilized Bandwidth
7.1. Normative References 5. References
[I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis] 5.1. Normative References
Ginsberg, L., Previdi, S., Giacalone, S., Ward, D., Drake,
J., and Q. Wu, "IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric
Extensions", draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis-04 (work in
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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7752>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7752>.
7.2. Informative References [RFC8570] Ginsberg, L., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Giacalone, S., Ward,
D., Drake, J., and Q. Wu, "IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE)
Metric Extensions", RFC 8570, DOI 10.17487/RFC8570,
March 2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8570>.
5.2. Informative References
[RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A [RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A
Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006, DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4271>. <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>.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to acknowledge comments from Ketan Talaulikar.
Contributors
The following people have contributed substantially to this document
and should be considered coauthors:
Saikat Ray
Individual
Email: raysaikat@gmail.com
Hannes Gredler
RtBrick Inc.
Email: hannes@rtbrick.com
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Les Ginsberg (editor) Les Ginsberg (editor)
Cisco Systems, Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc.
US United States of America
Email: ginsberg@cisco.com Email: ginsberg@cisco.com
Stefano Previdi Stefano Previdi
Huawei Huawei
IT Italy
Email: stefano@previdi.net Email: stefano@previdi.net
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
Jeff Tantsura Jeff Tantsura
Apstra, Inc. Apstra, Inc.
US United States of America
Email: jefftant.ietf@gmail.com Email: jefftant.ietf@gmail.com
Clarence Filsfils Clarence Filsfils
Cisco Systems, Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc.
Brussels Brussels
BE Belgium
Email: cfilsfil@cisco.com Email: cfilsfil@cisco.com
 End of changes. 67 change blocks. 
206 lines changed or deleted 201 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/