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/