--- 1/draft-ietf-isis-te-app-04.txt 2018-10-17 18:13:08.548318401 -0700 +++ 2/draft-ietf-isis-te-app-05.txt 2018-10-17 18:13:08.584319274 -0700 @@ -1,24 +1,24 @@ Networking Working Group L. Ginsberg Internet-Draft P. Psenak Intended status: Standards Track Cisco Systems -Expires: October 29, 2018 S. Previdi +Expires: April 20, 2019 S. Previdi Huawei W. Henderickx Nokia J. Drake Juniper Networks - April 27, 2018 + October 17, 2018 IS-IS TE Attributes per application - draft-ietf-isis-te-app-04.txt + draft-ietf-isis-te-app-05.txt Abstract Existing traffic engineering related link attribute advertisements have been defined and are used in RSVP-TE deployments. In cases where multiple applications wish to make use of these link attributes the current advertisements do not support application specific values for a given attribute nor do they support indication of which applications are using the advertised value for a given link. @@ -44,21 +44,21 @@ 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 October 29, 2018. + This Internet-Draft will expire on April 20, 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 @@ -178,20 +178,21 @@ 3.1. Legacy sub-TLVs Sub-TLVs for TLVs 22, 23, 141, 222, and 223 Code Point/Attribute Name -------------------------- 3 Administrative group (color) 9 Maximum link bandwidth 10 Maximum reservable link bandwidth 11 Unreserved bandwidth 14 Extended Administrative Group + 18 TE Default Metric 33 Unidirectional Link Delay 34 Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay 35 Unidirectional Delay Variation 36 Unidirectional Link Loss 37 Unidirectional Residual Bandwidth 38 Unidirectional Available Bandwidth 39 Unidirectional Utilized Bandwidth 3.2. Legacy SRLG Advertisements @@ -586,35 +587,38 @@ Type Description --------------------------------------------------------- 0-2 Unassigned 3 Administrative group (color) 4-8 Unassigned 9 Maximum link bandwidth 10 Maximum reservable link bandwidth 11 Unreserved bandwidth 12-13 Unassigned 14 Extended Administrative Group - 15-32 Unassigned + 15-17 Unassigned + 18 TE Default Metric + 19-32 Unassigned 33 Unidirectional Link Delay 34 Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay 35 Unidirectional Delay Variation 36 Unidirectional Link Loss 37 Unidirectional Residual Bandwidth 38 Unidirectional Available Bandwidth 39 Unidirectional Utilized Bandwidth 40-255 Unassigned - This document requests a new IANA registry be created to control the - assignment of application bit identifiers. The suggested name of the - new registry is "Link Attribute Applications". The registration - procedure is "Expert Review" as defined in [RFC8126]. The following - assignments are made by this document: + This document requests a new IANA registry be created, under the + category of "Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) Parameters", to control + the assignment of application bit identifiers. The suggested name of + the new registry is "Link Attribute Applications". The registration + policy for this registry is "Standards Action" ([RFC8126] and + [RFC7120]). The following assignments are made by this document: Bit # Name --------------------------------------------------------- 0 RSVP-TE (R-bit) 1 Segment Routing Traffic Engineering (S-bit) 2 Loop Free Alternate (F-bit) 3 Flex Algorithm (X-bit) This document requests a new IANA registry be created to control the assignment of sub-TLV types for the application specific SRLG TLV. @@ -669,44 +673,48 @@ [RFC5310] Bhatia, M., Manral, V., Li, T., Atkinson, R., White, R., and M. Fanto, "IS-IS Generic Cryptographic Authentication", RFC 5310, DOI 10.17487/RFC5310, February 2009, . [RFC6119] Harrison, J., Berger, J., and M. Bartlett, "IPv6 Traffic Engineering in IS-IS", RFC 6119, DOI 10.17487/RFC6119, February 2011, . + [RFC7120] Cotton, M., "Early IANA Allocation of Standards Track Code + Points", BCP 100, RFC 7120, DOI 10.17487/RFC7120, January + 2014, . + [RFC7810] Previdi, S., 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, . [RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017, . [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, May 2017, . 11.2. Informative References [I-D.filsfils-spring-segment-routing-policy] - Filsfils, C., Sivabalan, S., Raza, K., Liste, J., Clad, - F., Talaulikar, K., Ali, Z., Hegde, S., + Filsfils, C., Sivabalan, S., Hegde, S., daniel.voyer@bell.ca, d., Lin, S., bogdanov@google.com, b., Krol, P., Horneffer, M., Steinberg, D., Decraene, B., - Litkowski, S., and P. Mattes, "Segment Routing Policy for - Traffic Engineering", draft-filsfils-spring-segment- - routing-policy-05 (work in progress), February 2018. + Litkowski, S., Mattes, P., Ali, Z., Talaulikar, K., Liste, + J., Clad, F., and K. Raza, "Segment Routing Policy + Architecture", draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing- + policy-06 (work in progress), May 2018. [I-D.hegdeppsenak-isis-sr-flex-algo] Psenak, P., Hegde, S., Filsfils, C., and A. Gulko, "ISIS Segment Routing Flexible Algorithm", draft-hegdeppsenak- isis-sr-flex-algo-02 (work in progress), February 2018. [RFC7855] Previdi, S., Ed., Filsfils, C., Ed., Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., Horneffer, M., and R. Shakir, "Source Packet Routing in Networking (SPRING) Problem Statement and Requirements", RFC 7855, DOI 10.17487/RFC7855, May