draft-ietf-isis-te-app-08.txt   draft-ietf-isis-te-app-09.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: April 19, 2020 S. Previdi Expires: May 2, 2020 S. Previdi
Huawei Huawei
W. Henderickx W. Henderickx
Nokia Nokia
J. Drake J. Drake
Juniper Networks Juniper Networks
October 17, 2019 October 30, 2019
IS-IS TE Attributes per application IS-IS TE Attributes per application
draft-ietf-isis-te-app-08 draft-ietf-isis-te-app-09
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. Since the have been defined and are used in RSVP-TE deployments. Since the
original RSVP-TE use case was defined, additional applications (e.g., original RSVP-TE use case was defined, additional applications (e.g.,
SRTE, LFA) have been defined which also make use of the link SRTE, LFA) have been defined which also make use of the link
attribute advertisements. In cases where multiple applications wish attribute advertisements. In cases where multiple applications wish
to make use of these link attributes the current advertisements do to make use of these link attributes the current advertisements do
not support application specific values for a given attribute nor do not support application specific values for a given attribute nor do
skipping to change at page 2, line 12 skipping to change at page 2, line 12
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 April 19, 2020. This Internet-Draft will expire on May 2, 2020.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 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
skipping to change at page 2, line 40 skipping to change at page 2, line 40
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Requirements Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Requirements Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Legacy Advertisements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. Legacy Advertisements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Legacy sub-TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.1. Legacy sub-TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. Legacy SRLG Advertisements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.2. Legacy SRLG Advertisements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Advertising Application Specific Link Attributes . . . . . . 5 4. Advertising Application Specific Link Attributes . . . . . . 5
4.1. Application Identifier Bit Mask . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.1. Application Identifier Bit Mask . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2. Application Specific Link Attributes sub-TLV . . . . . . 8 4.2. Application Specific Link Attributes sub-TLV . . . . . . 8
4.2.1. Special Considerations for Maximum Link Bandwidth . . 9 4.2.1. Special Considerations for Maximum Link Bandwidth . . 9
4.2.2. Special Considerations for Unreserved Bandwidth . . . 9 4.2.2. Special Considerations for Reservable/Unreserved
Bandwidth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.3. Application Specific SRLG TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.3. Application Specific SRLG TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5. Deployment Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5. Deployment Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.1. Use of Legacy Advertisements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 5.1. Use of Legacy Advertisements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.2. Use of Zero Length Application Identifier Bit Masks . . . 11 5.2. Use of Zero Length Application Identifier Bit Masks . . . 11
6. Attribute Advertisements and Enablement . . . . . . . . . . . 12 6. Attribute Advertisements and Enablement . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7. Interoperability, Backwards Compatibility and Migration 7. Interoperability, Backwards Compatibility and Migration
Concerns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Concerns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7.1. Multiple Applications: Common Attributes with RSVP-TE . 13 7.1. Multiple Applications: Common Attributes with RSVP-TE . 13
7.2. Multiple Applications: All Attributes Not Shared w RSVP- 7.2. Multiple Applications: All Attributes Not Shared w RSVP-
TE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 TE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7.3. Use of Application Specific Advertisements for RSVP-TE . 14
7.3. Use of Application Specific Advertisements for RSVP-TE . 14
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
skipping to change at page 9, line 34 skipping to change at page 9, line 34
value for that link. value for that link.
It is also possible to advertise the same value for a given link It is also possible to advertise the same value for a given link
multiple times with disjoint sets of applications specified in the multiple times with disjoint sets of applications specified in the
Application Identifier Bit Mask. This is less efficient but still Application Identifier Bit Mask. This is less efficient but still
valid. valid.
If different values for Maximum Link Bandwidth for a given link are If different values for Maximum Link Bandwidth for a given link are
advertised, all values MUST be ignored. advertised, all values MUST be ignored.
4.2.2. Special Considerations for Unreserved Bandwidth 4.2.2. Special Considerations for Reservable/Unreserved Bandwidth
Unreserved bandwidth is an attribute specific to RSVP. When Maximum Reservable Link Bandwidth and Unreserved Bandwidth are
advertised using the Application Specific Link Attributes sub-TLV, attributes specific to RSVP. When advertised using the Application
bits other than the RSVP-TE(R-bit) MUST NOT be set in the Application Specific Link Attributes sub-TLV, bits other than the RSVP-TE(R-bit)
Identifier Bit Mask. If an advertisement of Unreserved Bandwidth is MUST NOT be set in the Application Identifier Bit Mask. If an
received with bits other than the RSVP-TE bit set, the advertisement advertisement of Maximum Reservable Link Bandwidth or Unreserved
MUST be ignored. Bandwidth is received with bits other than the RSVP-TE bit set, the
advertisement MUST be ignored.
4.3. Application Specific SRLG TLV 4.3. Application Specific SRLG TLV
A new TLV is defined to advertise application specific SRLGs for a A new TLV is defined to advertise application specific SRLGs for a
given link. Although similar in functionality to TLV 138 (defined by given link. Although similar in functionality to TLV 138 (defined by
[RFC5307]) and TLV 139 (defined by [RFC6119], a single TLV provides [RFC5307]) and TLV 139 (defined by [RFC6119], a single TLV provides
support for IPv4, IPv6, and unnumbered identifiers for a link. support for IPv4, IPv6, and unnumbered identifiers for a link.
Unlike TLVs 138/139, it utilizes sub-TLVs to encode the link Unlike TLVs 138/139, it utilizes sub-TLVs to encode the link
identifiers in order to provide the flexible formatting required to identifiers in order to provide the flexible formatting required to
support multiple link identifier types. support multiple link identifier types.
skipping to change at page 17, line 35 skipping to change at page 17, line 35
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>. May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC8570] Ginsberg, L., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Giacalone, S., Ward, [RFC8570] Ginsberg, L., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Giacalone, S., Ward,
D., Drake, J., and Q. Wu, "IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) D., Drake, J., and Q. Wu, "IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE)
Metric Extensions", RFC 8570, DOI 10.17487/RFC8570, March Metric Extensions", RFC 8570, DOI 10.17487/RFC8570, March
2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8570>. 2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8570>.
11.2. Informative References 11.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy] [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy]
Filsfils, C., Sivabalan, S., daniel.voyer@bell.ca, d., Filsfils, C., Sivabalan, S., Voyer, D., Bogdanov, A., and
bogdanov@google.com, b., and P. Mattes, "Segment Routing P. Mattes, "Segment Routing Policy Architecture", draft-
Policy Architecture", draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing- ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy-03 (work in progress),
policy-03 (work in progress), May 2019. May 2019.
[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
2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7855>. 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7855>.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Les Ginsberg Les Ginsberg
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
 End of changes. 10 change blocks. 
17 lines changed or deleted 19 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/