draft-ietf-isis-te-app-04.txt   draft-ietf-isis-te-app-05.txt 
Networking Working Group L. Ginsberg Networking Working Group L. Ginsberg
Internet-Draft P. Psenak Internet-Draft P. Psenak
Intended status: Standards Track Cisco Systems Intended status: Standards Track Cisco Systems
Expires: October 29, 2018 S. Previdi Expires: April 20, 2019 S. Previdi
Huawei Huawei
W. Henderickx W. Henderickx
Nokia Nokia
J. Drake J. Drake
Juniper Networks Juniper Networks
April 27, 2018 October 17, 2018
IS-IS TE Attributes per application IS-IS TE Attributes per application
draft-ietf-isis-te-app-04.txt draft-ietf-isis-te-app-05.txt
Abstract Abstract
Existing traffic engineering related link attribute advertisements Existing traffic engineering related link attribute advertisements
have been defined and are used in RSVP-TE deployments. In cases have been defined and are used in RSVP-TE deployments. In cases
where multiple applications wish to make use of these link attributes where multiple applications wish to make use of these link attributes
the current advertisements do not support application specific values the current advertisements do not support application specific values
for a given attribute nor do they support indication of which for a given attribute nor do they support indication of which
applications are using the advertised value for a given link. applications are using the advertised value for a given link.
skipping to change at page 2, line 10 skipping to change at page 2, line 10
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 October 29, 2018. This Internet-Draft will expire on April 20, 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 5, line 13 skipping to change at page 5, line 13
3.1. Legacy sub-TLVs 3.1. Legacy sub-TLVs
Sub-TLVs for TLVs 22, 23, 141, 222, and 223 Sub-TLVs for TLVs 22, 23, 141, 222, and 223
Code Point/Attribute Name Code Point/Attribute Name
-------------------------- --------------------------
3 Administrative group (color) 3 Administrative group (color)
9 Maximum link bandwidth 9 Maximum link bandwidth
10 Maximum reservable link bandwidth 10 Maximum reservable link bandwidth
11 Unreserved bandwidth 11 Unreserved bandwidth
14 Extended Administrative Group 14 Extended Administrative Group
18 TE Default Metric
33 Unidirectional Link Delay 33 Unidirectional Link Delay
34 Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay 34 Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay
35 Unidirectional Delay Variation 35 Unidirectional Delay Variation
36 Unidirectional Link Loss 36 Unidirectional Link Loss
37 Unidirectional Residual Bandwidth 37 Unidirectional Residual Bandwidth
38 Unidirectional Available Bandwidth 38 Unidirectional Available Bandwidth
39 Unidirectional Utilized Bandwidth 39 Unidirectional Utilized Bandwidth
3.2. Legacy SRLG Advertisements 3.2. Legacy SRLG Advertisements
skipping to change at page 14, line 15 skipping to change at page 14, line 15
Type Description Type Description
--------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------
0-2 Unassigned 0-2 Unassigned
3 Administrative group (color) 3 Administrative group (color)
4-8 Unassigned 4-8 Unassigned
9 Maximum link bandwidth 9 Maximum link bandwidth
10 Maximum reservable link bandwidth 10 Maximum reservable link bandwidth
11 Unreserved bandwidth 11 Unreserved bandwidth
12-13 Unassigned 12-13 Unassigned
14 Extended Administrative Group 14 Extended Administrative Group
15-32 Unassigned 15-17 Unassigned
18 TE Default Metric
19-32 Unassigned
33 Unidirectional Link Delay 33 Unidirectional Link Delay
34 Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay 34 Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay
35 Unidirectional Delay Variation 35 Unidirectional Delay Variation
36 Unidirectional Link Loss 36 Unidirectional Link Loss
37 Unidirectional Residual Bandwidth 37 Unidirectional Residual Bandwidth
38 Unidirectional Available Bandwidth 38 Unidirectional Available Bandwidth
39 Unidirectional Utilized Bandwidth 39 Unidirectional Utilized Bandwidth
40-255 Unassigned 40-255 Unassigned
This document requests a new IANA registry be created to control the This document requests a new IANA registry be created, under the
assignment of application bit identifiers. The suggested name of the category of "Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) Parameters", to control
new registry is "Link Attribute Applications". The registration the assignment of application bit identifiers. The suggested name of
procedure is "Expert Review" as defined in [RFC8126]. The following the new registry is "Link Attribute Applications". The registration
assignments are made by this document: policy for this registry is "Standards Action" ([RFC8126] and
[RFC7120]). The following assignments are made by this document:
Bit # Name Bit # Name
--------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------
0 RSVP-TE (R-bit) 0 RSVP-TE (R-bit)
1 Segment Routing Traffic Engineering (S-bit) 1 Segment Routing Traffic Engineering (S-bit)
2 Loop Free Alternate (F-bit) 2 Loop Free Alternate (F-bit)
3 Flex Algorithm (X-bit) 3 Flex Algorithm (X-bit)
This document requests a new IANA registry be created to control the This document requests a new IANA registry be created to control the
assignment of sub-TLV types for the application specific SRLG TLV. assignment of sub-TLV types for the application specific SRLG TLV.
skipping to change at page 16, line 14 skipping to change at page 16, line 14
[RFC5310] Bhatia, M., Manral, V., Li, T., Atkinson, R., White, R., [RFC5310] Bhatia, M., Manral, V., Li, T., Atkinson, R., White, R.,
and M. Fanto, "IS-IS Generic Cryptographic and M. Fanto, "IS-IS Generic Cryptographic
Authentication", RFC 5310, DOI 10.17487/RFC5310, February Authentication", RFC 5310, DOI 10.17487/RFC5310, February
2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5310>. 2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5310>.
[RFC6119] Harrison, J., Berger, J., and M. Bartlett, "IPv6 Traffic [RFC6119] Harrison, J., Berger, J., and M. Bartlett, "IPv6 Traffic
Engineering in IS-IS", RFC 6119, DOI 10.17487/RFC6119, Engineering in IS-IS", RFC 6119, DOI 10.17487/RFC6119,
February 2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6119>. February 2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6119>.
[RFC7120] Cotton, M., "Early IANA Allocation of Standards Track Code
Points", BCP 100, RFC 7120, DOI 10.17487/RFC7120, January
2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7120>.
[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>.
[RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for [RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017, RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>. May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
11.2. Informative References 11.2. Informative References
[I-D.filsfils-spring-segment-routing-policy] [I-D.filsfils-spring-segment-routing-policy]
Filsfils, C., Sivabalan, S., Raza, K., Liste, J., Clad, Filsfils, C., Sivabalan, S., Hegde, S.,
F., Talaulikar, K., Ali, Z., Hegde, S.,
daniel.voyer@bell.ca, d., Lin, S., bogdanov@google.com, daniel.voyer@bell.ca, d., Lin, S., bogdanov@google.com,
b., Krol, P., Horneffer, M., Steinberg, D., Decraene, B., b., Krol, P., Horneffer, M., Steinberg, D., Decraene, B.,
Litkowski, S., and P. Mattes, "Segment Routing Policy for Litkowski, S., Mattes, P., Ali, Z., Talaulikar, K., Liste,
Traffic Engineering", draft-filsfils-spring-segment- J., Clad, F., and K. Raza, "Segment Routing Policy
routing-policy-05 (work in progress), February 2018. Architecture", draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-
policy-06 (work in progress), May 2018.
[I-D.hegdeppsenak-isis-sr-flex-algo] [I-D.hegdeppsenak-isis-sr-flex-algo]
Psenak, P., Hegde, S., Filsfils, C., and A. Gulko, "ISIS Psenak, P., Hegde, S., Filsfils, C., and A. Gulko, "ISIS
Segment Routing Flexible Algorithm", draft-hegdeppsenak- Segment Routing Flexible Algorithm", draft-hegdeppsenak-
isis-sr-flex-algo-02 (work in progress), February 2018. isis-sr-flex-algo-02 (work in progress), February 2018.
[RFC7855] Previdi, S., Ed., Filsfils, C., Ed., Decraene, B., [RFC7855] Previdi, S., Ed., Filsfils, C., Ed., Decraene, B.,
Litkowski, S., Horneffer, M., and R. Shakir, "Source Litkowski, S., Horneffer, M., and R. Shakir, "Source
Packet Routing in Networking (SPRING) Problem Statement Packet Routing in Networking (SPRING) Problem Statement
and Requirements", RFC 7855, DOI 10.17487/RFC7855, May and Requirements", RFC 7855, DOI 10.17487/RFC7855, May
 End of changes. 10 change blocks. 
15 lines changed or deleted 23 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/