BGP-LS Extensions for Inter-AS Topology Retrieval
draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-inter-as-topology-ext-46

Approval announcement
Draft of message to be sent after approval:

Announcement

From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-inter-as-topology-ext@ietf.org, gunter@vandevelde.cc, idr-chairs@ietf.org, idr@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org, shares@ndzh.com
Subject: Protocol Action: 'BGP-LS Extensions for Inter-AS Topology Retrieval' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-inter-as-topology-ext-46.txt)

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'BGP-LS Extensions for Inter-AS Topology Retrieval'
  (draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-inter-as-topology-ext-46.txt) as Proposed Standard

This document is the product of the Inter-Domain Routing Working Group.

The IESG contact persons are Gunter Van de Velde, Jim Guichard and Ketan
Talaulikar.

A URL of this Internet-Draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-inter-as-topology-ext/

Ballot Text

Technical Summary

   This document specifies the procedure for distributing Border Gateway
   Protocol-Link State (BGP-LS) key parameters for inter-domain links
   between two Autonomous Systems (ASes).  It defines a new type within
   the BGP-LS Network Layer Reachability Information (NLRI) for an
   inter-AS Link, as well as three new type-length-values (TLVs) for the
   BGP-LS inter-AS Link descriptor.  These BGP-LS extensions enable
   Software-Defined Networking (SDN) controllers to retrieve network
   topology across inter-AS environments.

   These extensions and procedures allow network operators to collect
   inter-domain interconnect information and automatically compute the
   end-to-end network topology using information provided by the BGP-LS
   protocol.

Working Group Summary

   Was there anything in the WG process that is worth noting?
   For example, was there controversy about particular points 
   or were there decisions where the consensus was
   particularly rough? 

There was controversy over the addition of section 8, but the additional time
on the list resolved the issue.

Document Quality

   Are there existing implementations of the protocol?  Have a 
   significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
   implement the specification?  Are there any reviewers that
   merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
   e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
   conclusion that the document had no substantive issues?  If
   there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type, or other Expert Review,
   what was its course (briefly)?  In the case of a Media Type
   Review, on what date was the request posted?

two implementations:
H3C - based on H3C Comware,V700R001B75D112. Maturity level:Demo
Network controller R&D team(based on FRR, version 7.4) from China Telecom
See the implementation report at:
https://wiki.ietf.org/group/idr/implementations/draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-inter-as-topology-ext
Note: Section 8 does not have any implementations.

Personnel

   The Document Shepherd for this document is Susan Hares. The Responsible
   Area Director is Gunter Van de Velde.

RFC Editor Note