draft-ietf-isis-te-app-12.txt   draft-ietf-isis-te-app-13.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: September 22, 2020 S. Previdi Expires: November 19, 2020 S. Previdi
Huawei Huawei
W. Henderickx W. Henderickx
Nokia Nokia
J. Drake J. Drake
Juniper Networks Juniper Networks
March 21, 2020 May 18, 2020
IS-IS TE Attributes per application IS-IS TE Attributes per application
draft-ietf-isis-te-app-12 draft-ietf-isis-te-app-13
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.,
Segment Routing Traffic Engineering, Loop Free Alternate) have been Segment Routing Traffic Engineering, Loop Free Alternate) have been
defined which also make use of the link attribute advertisements. In defined which also make use of the link attribute advertisements. In
cases where multiple applications wish to make use of these link cases where multiple applications wish to make use of these link
attributes the current advertisements do not support application attributes the current advertisements do not support application
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 September 22, 2020. This Internet-Draft will expire on November 19, 2020.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2020 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 10, line 35 skipping to change at page 10, line 35
4.2.3. Considerations for Extended TE Metrics 4.2.3. Considerations for Extended TE Metrics
[RFC8570] defines a number of dynamic performance metrics associated [RFC8570] defines a number of dynamic performance metrics associated
with a link. It is conceivable that such metrics could be measured with a link. It is conceivable that such metrics could be measured
specific to traffic associated with a specific application. specific to traffic associated with a specific application.
Therefore this document includes support for advertising these link Therefore this document includes support for advertising these link
attributes specific to a given application. However, in practice it attributes specific to a given application. However, in practice it
may well be more practical to have these metrics reflect the may well be more practical to have these metrics reflect the
performance of all traffic on the link regardless of application. In performance of all traffic on the link regardless of application. In
such cases, advertisements for these attributes will be associated such cases, advertisements for these attributes will be associated
with all of the applications utilizing that link. with all of the applications utilizing that link. This can be done
either by explicitly specifying the applications in the Application
Identifier Bit Mask or by using a zero length Application Identifier
Bit Mask.
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 [RFC5307] given link. Although similar in functionality to TLV 138 [RFC5307]
and TLV 139 [RFC6119], a single TLV provides support for IPv4, IPv6, and TLV 139 [RFC6119], a single TLV provides support for IPv4, IPv6,
and unnumbered identifiers for a link. Unlike TLVs 138/139, it and unnumbered identifiers for a link. Unlike TLVs 138/139, it
utilizes sub-TLVs to encode the link identifiers in order to provide utilizes sub-TLVs to encode the link identifiers in order to provide
the flexible formatting required to support multiple link identifier the flexible formatting required to support multiple link identifier
types. types.
skipping to change at page 20, line 28 skipping to change at page 20, line 28
[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>.
10.2. Informative References 10.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy] [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy]
Filsfils, C., Sivabalan, S., Voyer, D., Bogdanov, A., and Filsfils, C., Sivabalan, S., Voyer, D., Bogdanov, A., and
P. Mattes, "Segment Routing Policy Architecture", draft- P. Mattes, "Segment Routing Policy Architecture", draft-
ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy-06 (work in progress), ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy-07 (work in progress),
December 2019. May 2020.
[RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V., [RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.,
and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
Tunnels", RFC 3209, DOI 10.17487/RFC3209, December 2001, Tunnels", RFC 3209, DOI 10.17487/RFC3209, December 2001,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3209>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3209>.
[RFC5286] Atlas, A., Ed. and A. Zinin, Ed., "Basic Specification for [RFC5286] Atlas, A., Ed. and A. Zinin, Ed., "Basic Specification for
IP Fast Reroute: Loop-Free Alternates", RFC 5286, IP Fast Reroute: Loop-Free Alternates", RFC 5286,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5286, September 2008, DOI 10.17487/RFC5286, September 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5286>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5286>.
 End of changes. 6 change blocks. 
7 lines changed or deleted 10 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/