draft-ietf-idr-eag-distribution-15.txt   draft-ietf-idr-eag-distribution-16.txt 
IDR Working Group Z. Wang IDR Working Group J. Tantsura
Internet-Draft Q. Wu Internet-Draft Juniper Networks
Intended status: Standards Track Huawei Intended status: Standards Track Z. Wang
Expires: September 10, 2021 J. Tantsura Expires: October 20, 2021 Q. Wu
Juniper Networks Huawei
K. Talaulikar K. Talaulikar
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
March 9, 2021 April 18, 2021
Distribution of Traffic Engineering Extended Admin Groups using BGP-LS Distribution of Traffic Engineering Extended Administrative Groups using
draft-ietf-idr-eag-distribution-15 BGP-LS
draft-ietf-idr-eag-distribution-16
Abstract Abstract
Administrative groups are link attributes (commonly referred to as Administrative groups are link attributes advertised used for traffic
"colors" or "link colors") advertised by link state protocols (e.g. engineering. This document defines an extension to BGP-LS for
ISIS or OSPF) and used for traffic engineering. These administrative advertisement of extended administrative groups (EAGs).
groups were initially defined as 32 bit masks. As network usage
grew, these 32 bit masks were found to constrain traffic engineering.
Therefore, link state protocols (ISIS, OSPF) were expanded to
advertise a variable length administrative group.This document
defines an extension to BGP-LS for advertisement of extended
administrative groups (EAGs) to allow to support a number of
administrative groups greater than 32, as defined in [RFC7308].
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
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 10, 2021. This Internet-Draft will expire on October 20, 2021.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2021 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
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Advertising Extended Administrative Groups in BGP-LS . . . . 3 2. Advertising Extended Administrative Group in BGP-LS . . . . . 2
3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
Administrative groups (commonly referred to as "colors" or "link Administrative groups (commonly referred to as "colors" or "link
colors") are link attributes that are advertised by link state colors") are link attributes that are advertised by link state
protocols like IS-IS [RFC5305], OSPFv2 [RFC3630] and OSPFv3 [RFC5329] protocols like IS-IS [RFC1195], OSPFv2 [RFC2328] and OSPFv3
for traffic engineering use-cases. The BGP-LS advertisement of the [RFC5340]. The BGP-LS advertisement of the originally defined (non-
originally defined (non-extended) administrative groups is encoded extended) administrative groups is encoded using the Administrative
using the Administrative Group (color) TLV 1088 as defined in Group (color) TLV 1088 as defined in [RFC7752].
[RFC7752].
These administrative groups are defined as a fixed-length 32-bit These administrative groups are defined as a fixed-length 32-bit
bitmask. As networks grew and more use-cases were introduced, the bitmask. As networks grew and more use-cases were introduced, the
32-bit length was found to be constraining and hence extended 32-bit length was found to be constraining and hence extended
administrative groups (EAG) were introduced in the IS-IS and OSPFv2 administrative groups (EAG) were introduced in [RFC7308].
link state routing protocols [RFC7308].
This document specifies an extension to BGP-LS for advertisement of This document specifies an extension to BGP-LS for advertisement of
the extended administrative groups. the extended administrative groups.
1.1. Requirements Language 1.1. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here. capitals, as shown here.
2. Advertising Extended Administrative Groups in BGP-LS 2. Advertising Extended Administrative Group in BGP-LS
This document defines an extension that enable BGP-LS speakers to This document defines an extension that enable BGP-LS speakers to
signal the EAG of links in a network to a BGP-LS consumer of network signal the EAG of links in a network to a BGP-LS consumer of network
topology such as a centralized controller. The centralized topology such as a centralized controller. The centralized
controller can leverage this information in traffic engineering controller can leverage this information in traffic engineering
computations and other use-cases. When a BGP-LS speaker is computations and other use-cases. When a BGP-LS speaker is
originating the topology learnt via link-state routing protocols like originating the topology learnt via link-state routing protocols like
OSPF or IS-IS, the EAG information of the links is sourced from the OSPF or IS-IS, the EAG information of the links is sourced from the
underlying extensions as defined in [RFC7308]. The BGP-LS speaker underlying extensions as defined in [RFC7308].
may also advertise the EAG information for the local links of a node
when not running any link-state IGP protocol e.g. when running BGP as
the only routing protocol.
The EAG of a link is encoded in a new Link Attribute TLV [RFC7752] The EAG of a link is encoded in a new Link Attribute TLV [RFC7752]
using the following format: using the following format:
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length | | Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Extended Administrative Groups (variable) // | Extended Administrative Group (variable) //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: Extended Administrative Groups TLV Format Figure 1: Extended Administrative Group TLV Format
Where: Where:
o Type: 1173 o Type: 1173
o Length: variable length which represents the total length of the o Length: variable length which represents the total length of the
value field. The length value MUST be multiple of 4. If the value field in octets. The length value MUST be multiple of 4.
length is not a multiple of 4, the TLV MUST be considered If the length is not a multiple of 4, the TLV MUST be considered
malformed. malformed.
o Value: one or more sets of 32-bit bitmasks that indicate the o Value: one or more sets of 32-bit bitmasks that indicate the
administrative groups (colors) that are enabled on the link when administrative groups (colors) that are enabled on the link when
those specific bits are set. those specific bits are set.
The EAG TLV is an optional TLV. The originally defined AG TLV 1108
and the EAG TLV 1173 defined in this document MAY be advertised
together. The semantics of the EAG and the backward compatibility
aspects of EAG with respect to the AG are handled as described in the
Backward Compatibility section of [RFC7308], namely - If a node
advertises both AG and EAG, then the first 32 bits of the EAG MUST be
identical to the advertised AG.
3. IANA Considerations 3. IANA Considerations
This document requests assigning a code-point from the registry "BGP- This document requests assigning a code-point from the registry "BGP-
LS Node Descriptor, Link Descriptor, Prefix Descriptor, and Attribute LS Node Descriptor, Link Descriptor, Prefix Descriptor, and Attribute
TLVs" based on table below. Early allocation for these code-points TLVs" based on table below. Early allocation for these code-points
have been done by IANA. have been done by IANA.
+------------+-------------------------------+-------------------+ +------------+-------------------------------+-------------------+
| Code Point | Description | IS-IS TLV/Sub-TLV | | Code Point | Description | IS-IS TLV/Sub-TLV |
+------------+-------------------------------+-------------------+ +------------+-------------------------------+-------------------+
| 1173 | Extended Administrative Group | 22/14 | | 1173 | Extended Administrative Group | 22/14 |
+------------+-------------------------------+-------------------+ +------------+-------------------------------+-------------------+
4. Security Considerations 4. Security Considerations
The extensions in this document advertise same administrative group The procedures and protocol extensions defined in this document do
information specified via [RFC7752] but as a larger/extended value not affect the BGP security model. See the "Security Considerations"
and hence does not introduce security issues beyond those discussed section of [RFC4271] for a discussion of BGP security. Also, refer
in [RFC7752] and [I-D.ietf-idr-rfc7752bis]. to [RFC4272] and [RFC6952] for analyses of security issues for BGP.
Security considerations for acquiring and distributing BGP-LS
information are discussed in [RFC7752]. The TLV introduced in this
document is used to propagate the EAG extensions defined in
[RFC7308]. It is assumed that the IGP instances originating this TLV
will support all the required security (as described in [RFC7308]) in
order to prevent any security issues when propagating the TLVs into
BGP-LS. The advertisement of the link attribute information defined
in this document presents no significant additional risk beyond that
associated with the existing link attribute information already
supported in [RFC7752].
5. Acknowledgments 5. Acknowledgments
The authors gratefully acknowledge the review by Eric Osborne and Les The authors would like to thank Eric Osborne, Les Ginsberg, Tim
Ginsberg. Chown, Ben Niven-Jenkins and Alvaro Retana for their reviews and
valuable comments.
6. Normative References 6. References
[I-D.ietf-idr-rfc7752bis] 6.1. Normative References
Talaulikar, K., "Distribution of Link-State and Traffic
Engineering Information Using BGP", draft-ietf-idr-
rfc7752bis-05 (work in progress), November 2020.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC3630] Katz, D., Kompella, K., and D. Yeung, "Traffic Engineering
(TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC 3630,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3630, September 2003,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3630>.
[RFC5305] Li, T. and H. Smit, "IS-IS Extensions for Traffic
Engineering", RFC 5305, DOI 10.17487/RFC5305, October
2008, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5305>.
[RFC5329] Ishiguro, K., Manral, V., Davey, A., and A. Lindem, Ed.,
"Traffic Engineering Extensions to OSPF Version 3",
RFC 5329, DOI 10.17487/RFC5329, September 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5329>.
[RFC7308] Osborne, E., "Extended Administrative Groups in MPLS [RFC7308] Osborne, E., "Extended Administrative Groups in MPLS
Traffic Engineering (MPLS-TE)", RFC 7308, Traffic Engineering (MPLS-TE)", RFC 7308,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7308, July 2014, DOI 10.17487/RFC7308, July 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7308>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7308>.
[RFC7752] Gredler, H., Ed., Medved, J., Previdi, S., Farrel, A., and [RFC7752] Gredler, H., Ed., Medved, J., Previdi, S., Farrel, A., and
S. Ray, "North-Bound Distribution of Link-State and S. Ray, "North-Bound Distribution of Link-State and
Traffic Engineering (TE) Information Using BGP", RFC 7752, Traffic Engineering (TE) Information Using BGP", RFC 7752,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7752, March 2016, DOI 10.17487/RFC7752, March 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7752>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7752>.
[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>.
6.2. Informative References
[RFC1195] Callon, R., "Use of OSI IS-IS for routing in TCP/IP and
dual environments", RFC 1195, DOI 10.17487/RFC1195,
December 1990, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1195>.
[RFC2328] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2328, April 1998,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2328>.
[RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A
Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4271>.
[RFC4272] Murphy, S., "BGP Security Vulnerabilities Analysis",
RFC 4272, DOI 10.17487/RFC4272, January 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4272>.
[RFC5340] Coltun, R., Ferguson, D., Moy, J., and A. Lindem, "OSPF
for IPv6", RFC 5340, DOI 10.17487/RFC5340, July 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5340>.
[RFC6952] Jethanandani, M., Patel, K., and L. Zheng, "Analysis of
BGP, LDP, PCEP, and MSDP Issues According to the Keying
and Authentication for Routing Protocols (KARP) Design
Guide", RFC 6952, DOI 10.17487/RFC6952, May 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6952>.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Jeff Tantsura
Juniper Networks
Email: jefftant.ietf@gmail.com
Zitao Wang Zitao Wang
Huawei Huawei
101 Software Avenue, Yuhua District 101 Software Avenue, Yuhua District
Nanjing, Jiangsu 210012 Nanjing, Jiangsu 210012
China China
Email: wangzitao@huawei.com Email: wangzitao@huawei.com
Qin Wu Qin Wu
Huawei Huawei
101 Software Avenue, Yuhua District 101 Software Avenue, Yuhua District
Nanjing, Jiangsu 210012 Nanjing, Jiangsu 210012
China China
Email: bill.wu@huawei.com Email: bill.wu@huawei.com
Jeff Tantsura
Juniper Networks
Email: jefftant.ietf@gmail.com
Ketan Talaulikar Ketan Talaulikar
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
Email: ketant@cisco.com Email: ketant@cisco.com
 End of changes. 24 change blocks. 
76 lines changed or deleted 82 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/