Skip to main content

BGP-LS Extensions for IS-IS Flood Reflection
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-isis-flood-reflection-02

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (idr WG)
Authors Jordan Head , Tony Przygienda
Last updated 2022-11-30
Replaces draft-head-idr-bgp-ls-isis-fr
RFC stream Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats
Additional resources Mailing list discussion
Stream WG state WG Document
Document shepherd (None)
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Consensus boilerplate Unknown
Telechat date (None)
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-isis-flood-reflection-02
Inter-Domain Routing                                        J. Head, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                             T. Przygienda
Intended status: Experimental                           Juniper Networks
Expires: 3 June 2023                                    30 November 2022

              BGP-LS Extensions for IS-IS Flood Reflection
             draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-isis-flood-reflection-02

Abstract

   IS-IS Flood Reflection is a mechanism that allows flat, single-area
   IS-IS topologies to scale beyond their traditional limitations.

   This document defines new BGP-LS (BGP Link-State) TLVs in order to
   carry IS-IS Flood Reflection information.

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
   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 3 June 2023.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2022 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 Revised BSD License text as
   described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
   provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.

Head & Przygienda          Expires 3 June 2023                  [Page 1]
Internet-Draft       BGP-LS Extensions for IS-IS FR        November 2022

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     1.1.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  BGP-LS Extensions for IS-IS Flood Reflection  . . . . . . . .   2
     2.1.  IS-IS Flood Reflection TLV  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Design Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   4.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     4.1.  Requested TLV Entries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   6.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   7.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     7.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5

1.  Introduction

   IS-IS Flood Reflection [IS-IS-FR] is a mechanism that allows flat,
   single-area IS-IS topologies to scale beyond their existing
   limitations.

   Flood Reflection topologies are broken into clusters.  The
   participating nodes must convey their unique Cluster ID signifying
   their membership in a particular topology as well as their role (e.g.
   Flood Reflector or Client).

   BGP Link-State RFC7752 [RFC7752] defines mechanisms to advertise
   information about the underlying IGP in BGP NLRI to an external
   entity (e.g. a controller).  A new BGP-LS TLV is required in order to
   describe IS-IS Flood Reflection node and link details.  This document
   defines that TLV.

1.1.  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.

2.  BGP-LS Extensions for IS-IS Flood Reflection

   Controllers may need to compute traffic engineered paths across Flood
   Reflection clusters.  This requires that they be aware of Flood
   Reflection state (be it operational or configured), such as Cluster
   ID, C-bit (which indicates Flood Reflector or Client), and any
   applicable sub-TLVs.

Head & Przygienda          Expires 3 June 2023                  [Page 2]
Internet-Draft       BGP-LS Extensions for IS-IS FR        November 2022

   The IS-IS Flood Reflection TLV can be advertised in BGP-LS as either
   a Node attribute or a Link attribute.  When describing a node, values
   are derived from the IS-IS Flood Reflection Discovery Sub-TLV.  When
   describing a link, values are derived from the IS-IS Adjacency Sub-
   TLV.  The semantics of any fields within the TLV/sub-TLVs are
   described in [IS-IS-FR].

   This document defines the following BGP-LS TLVs for use with IS-IS
   Flood Reflection.

      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
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |             Type              |             Length            |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |C|  RESERVED   |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                  Flood Reflection Cluster ID                  |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                          Sub-TLVs ...                         |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                    Figure 1: IS-IS Flood Reflection TLV

2.1.  IS-IS Flood Reflection TLV

   This section defines a BGP-LS Attribute that corresponds to IS-IS
   Flood Reflection TLVs/sub-TLVs as described in [IS-IS-FR]

   where:

      *Type:*  TBD

      *Length:*  variable

3.  Design Considerations

   It is typical that a BGP-LS extension mirror its IGP counterpart.
   IS-IS Flood Reflection [IS-IS-FR] defines an optional "Flood
   Reflection Discovery Tunnel Type Sub-Sub-TLV" that is capable of
   facilitating the creation of "L1 Shortcuts" between nodes in a Flood
   Reflection cluster.  This document intentionally excludes a BGP-LS
   extension of this capability for the following reasons.

   For example, shortcuts could be point-to-point IS-IS tunnels or be
   encapsulated by other means.  In deployments where the tunnels are
   IS-IS based, no additional BGP-LS extension is required as the
   existing BGP-LS extensions for IS-IS will suffice.

Head & Przygienda          Expires 3 June 2023                  [Page 3]
Internet-Draft       BGP-LS Extensions for IS-IS FR        November 2022

   However, for deployments where tunnels are encapsulated by other
   means it is not desirable for BGP-LS to carry that information as it
   is tunnel state and not IGP state.  Other existing or new BGP-LS
   extensions that correspond to the particular tunnel type should be
   used to fulfill any BGP-LS requirements.

4.  IANA Considerations

   This section requests the following values from the "BGP-LS Node
   Descriptor, Link Descriptor, Prefix Descriptor, and Attribute TLVs"
   registry for the following TLVs:

4.1.  Requested TLV Entries

   +=======+=============+================================+===========+
   | TLV   | Description | IS-IS TLV/Sub-TLV              | Reference |
   | Code  |             |                                |           |
   | Point |             |                                |           |
   +=======+=============+================================+===========+
   | TBD   | IS-IS Flood | (22|23|25|141|222|223|242)/161 | This      |
   |       | Reflection  |                                | document. |
   +-------+-------------+--------------------------------+-----------+

                      Table 1: Requested TLV Entries

5.  Security Considerations

   Procedures and protocol extensions defined in this document do not
   affect the BGP security model.  See the "Security Considerations"
   section of [RFC4271] for a discussion of BGP security.  Also, refer
   to [RFC4272] and [RFC6952] for analyses of BGP security issues.
   Security considerations for acquiring and distributing BGP-LS
   information are discussed in [RFC7752].

   The TLVs introduced in this document are used to propagate IS-IS
   Flood Reflection TLVs defined in [IS-IS-FR].  These TLVs represent
   IS-IS Flood Reflection state and are therefore assumed to support
   any/all of the required security and authentication mechanisms as
   described in [IS-IS-FR] to prevent any security issues when
   propagating the TLVs into BGP-LS.

6.  Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to thank Ketan Talaulikar for several
   iterations of review and practical suggestions.

7.  References

Head & Przygienda          Expires 3 June 2023                  [Page 4]
Internet-Draft       BGP-LS Extensions for IS-IS FR        November 2022

7.1.  Normative References

   [IS-IS-FR] Przygienda, T., Bowers, C., Lee, Y., Sharma, A., and R.
              White, "IS-IS Flood Reflection", October 2021,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-lsr-
              isis-flood-reflection>.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC4271]  Rekhter, Y., Li, T., and S. Hares, "A Border Gateway
              Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", January 2006,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4271>.

   [RFC4272]  Murphy, S., "BGP Security Vulnerabilities Analysis",
              January 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4272>.

   [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", May 2013,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6952>.

   [RFC7752]  Gredler, H., Medved, J., Previdi, S., Farrel, A., and S.
              Ray, "North-Bound Distribution of Link-State and Traffic
              Engineering (TE) Information Using BGP", March 2016,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7752>.

   [RFC8126]  Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
              Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", June
              2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

Authors' Addresses

   Jordan Head (editor)
   Juniper Networks
   1137 Innovation Way
   Sunnyvale, CA
   United States of America
   Email: jhead@juniper.net

Head & Przygienda          Expires 3 June 2023                  [Page 5]
Internet-Draft       BGP-LS Extensions for IS-IS FR        November 2022

   Tony Przygienda
   Juniper Networks
   1137 Innovation Way
   Sunnyvale, CA
   United States of America
   Email: prz@juniper.net

Head & Przygienda          Expires 3 June 2023                  [Page 6]