Flexible Algorithm Definition Advertisement with BGP Link-State
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-flex-algo-01
Inter-Domain Routing K. Talaulikar
Internet-Draft P. Psenak
Intended status: Standards Track Cisco Systems
Expires: January 9, 2020 S. Zandi
G. Dawra
LinkedIn
July 8, 2019
Flexible Algorithm Definition Advertisement with BGP Link-State
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-flex-algo-01
Abstract
Flexible Algorithm is a solution that allows routing protocols (viz.
OSPF and IS-IS) to compute paths over a network based on user-defined
(and hence, flexible) constraints and metrics. The computation is
performed by routers participating in the specific network in a
distribute manner using a Flex Algorithm definition. This definition
provisioned on one or more routers and propagated (viz. OSPF and IS-
IS flooding) through the network.
BGP Link-State (BGP-LS) enables the collection of various topology
information from the network. This draft defines extensions to BGP-
LS address-family to advertise the Flexible Algorithm Definition as a
part of the topology information from the network.
Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
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
Talaulikar, et al. Expires January 9, 2020 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft BGP-LS Extensions for Flex Algo July 2019
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 January 9, 2020.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 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
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. BGP-LS Extensions for Flex Algo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Flexible Algorithm Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Flex Algo Exclude Any Affinity . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2. Flex Algo Include Any Affinity . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.3. Flex Algo Include All Affinity . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.4. Flex Algo Definition Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4. Flex Algorithm Prefix Metric . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.1. Operational Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.2. Management Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1. Introduction
IGP protocols (OSPF and IS-IS) traditionally compute best paths over
the network based on the IGP metric assigned to the links. Many
network deployments use RSVP-TE [RFC3209] based or Segment Routing
(SR) Policy [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy] based solutions
to enforce traffic over a path that is computed using different
Talaulikar, et al. Expires January 9, 2020 [Page 2]
Show full document text