BGP-LS Extensions for IS-IS Flood Reflection
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-isis-flood-reflection-01
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft whose latest revision state is "Active".
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Jordan Head , Tony Przygienda | ||
| Last updated | 2022-10-24 | ||
| Replaces | draft-head-idr-bgp-ls-isis-fr | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| 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-01
Inter-Domain Routing J. Head, Ed.
Internet-Draft T. Przygienda
Intended status: Experimental Juniper Networks
Expires: 27 April 2023 24 October 2022
BGP-LS Extensions for IS-IS Flood Reflection
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-isis-flood-reflection-01
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 27 April 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 27 April 2023 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft BGP-LS Extensions for IS-IS FR October 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. Suggested TLV Entries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
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 27 April 2023 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft BGP-LS Extensions for IS-IS FR October 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:* TBD1 (1047)
*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 27 April 2023 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft BGP-LS Extensions for IS-IS FR October 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 (suggested) values from the "BGP-
LS Node Descriptor, Link Descriptor, Prefix Descriptor, and Attribute
TLVs" registry for the following TLVs:
4.1. Suggested TLV Entries
+========+=============+================================+===========+
|TLV Code| Description | IS-IS TLV/Sub-TLV | Reference |
|Point | | | |
+========+=============+================================+===========+
|TBD1 | IS-IS Flood | (22|23|25|141|222|223|242)/161 | This |
|(1047) | Reflection | | document. |
+--------+-------------+--------------------------------+-----------+
Table 1: Suggested 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
7.1. Normative References
Head & Przygienda Expires 27 April 2023 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft BGP-LS Extensions for IS-IS FR October 2022
[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 27 April 2023 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft BGP-LS Extensions for IS-IS FR October 2022
Tony Przygienda
Juniper Networks
1137 Innovation Way
Sunnyvale, CA
United States of America
Email: prz@juniper.net
Head & Przygienda Expires 27 April 2023 [Page 6]