Skip to main content

RIFT Key/Value Structure and Registry
draft-ietf-rift-kv-registry-04

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (rift WG)
Authors Jordan Head , Tony Przygienda
Last updated 2022-09-09
Replaces draft-head-rift-kv-registry
Stream Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats
Stream WG state WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up
Document shepherd Yuehua Wei
Shepherd write-up Show Last changed 2022-09-12
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Consensus boilerplate Unknown
Telechat date (None)
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to wei.yuehua@zte.com.cn
draft-ietf-rift-kv-registry-04
RIFT                                                        J. Head, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                             T. Przygienda
Intended status: Standards Track                        Juniper Networks
Expires: 13 March 2023                                  9 September 2022

                 RIFT Key/Value Structure and Registry
                     draft-ietf-rift-kv-registry-04

Abstract

   The RIFT (Routing in Fat-Trees) protocol allows for key/value pairs
   to be advertised within Key-Value Topology Information Elements (KV-
   TIEs).  The data contained within these KV-TIEs can be used for any
   imaginable purpose.  This document defines the various Key-Types
   (i.e.  Well-Known, OUI, and Experimental) and a method to structure
   corresponding values.

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 asdescribed 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
   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 13 March 2023.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2022 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

Head & Przygienda         Expires 13 March 2023                 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft       draft-ietf-rift-kv-registry-04       September 2022

   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.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Key Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     2.1.  Experimental Key-Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.2.  Well-Known Key-Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.3.  OUI Key-Type  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  Operational Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   4.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     4.1.  RIFT Key-Types  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
       4.1.1.  RIFT Key-Types Requested Entries  . . . . . . . . . .   6
     4.2.  RIFT Well-Known Key-Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
       4.2.1.  RIFT Well-Known Key-Types Requested Entries . . . . .   7
     4.3.  Expert Review Guidance  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   6.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   7.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   8.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9

1.  Introduction

   The Routing in Fat-Trees RIFT [RIFT] protocol allows for key/value
   pairs to be advertised within Key-Value Topology Information Elements
   (KV-TIEs).  There are no restrictions placed on the type of data that
   is contained in KV-TIEs nor what the data is used for.

   For example, it might be beneficial to advertise overlay protocol
   state from leaf nodes to the Top-of-Fabric (ToF) nodes.  This would
   make it possible to view critical state of a fabric-wide service from
   a single ToF node rather than retrieving and reconciling the same
   state from multiple leaf nodes.

2.  Key Structure

   This section describes the generic Key structure and semantics,
   Figure 1 further illustrates these components.

Head & Przygienda         Expires 13 March 2023                 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft       draft-ietf-rift-kv-registry-04       September 2022

      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
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |   Key-Type    |                Key Identifier                 |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                      Values (variable)                        |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                   Figure 1: Generic Key-Value Structure

   *where:*

      *Key-Type:*
         A 1-byte value that identifies the Key-Type.  It MUST be a
         reserved value from the RIFT Key-Type Registry that is defined
         later in this document.

         The range of valid values is 1 - 255 (2^8-1).

         0 is an illegal value and MUST NOT be allocated to or used by
         any implementation.  It MUST be ignored on receipt.

      *Key Identifier:*
         A 3-byte value that identifies the specific key and describes
         the structure of the contained values.

         The range of valid values is 1 - 16777215 (2^24-1).

         0 is an illegal value and MUST NOT be allocated to or used by
         any implementation.  It MUST be ignored on receipt.

      *Values:*
         A variable length value that contains data associated with the
         Key Identifier.  It SHOULD contain 1 or more elements.  Whether
         the collection of elements allows duplicates and/or is ordered
         is governed by the particular Key Identifier's specification.

2.1.  Experimental Key-Type

   This section reserves a value in the RIFT Key-Type Registry to
   indicate an Experimental Key-Type.

   As shown in Figure 2, the Key-Type will be used to identify the Key-
   Type as Experimental.  The Key Identifier will be used to identify
   the specific key and describe the structure of the contained values.

Head & Przygienda         Expires 13 March 2023                 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft       draft-ietf-rift-kv-registry-04       September 2022

      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
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |       1       |          Experimental Key Identifier          |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                 Experimental Values (variable)                |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                      Figure 2: Experimental Key-Type

2.2.  Well-Known Key-Type

   This section reserves a value in the RIFT Key-Type Registry to
   indicate Well-Known Key-Types that all implementations SHOULD
   support.

   As shown in Figure 3, the Key-Type will be used to identify the Key-
   Type as Well-Known.  The Key Identifier will be used to identify the
   specific key and describe the structure of the contained values.

      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
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |       2       |        Well-Known Key Identifier              |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                 Well-Known Values (variable)                  |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                       Figure 3: Well-Known Key-Type

2.3.  OUI Key-Type

   This section reserves a value in the RIFT Key-Type Registry to
   indicate an OUI (vendor-specific) Key-Type that any implementation
   MAY support.

   As shown in Figure 4, the Key-Type will be used to identify the Key-
   Type as OUI.  The Key Identifier MUST use the implementing
   organization's reserved OUI space to indicate the key and value
   structure.

Head & Przygienda         Expires 13 March 2023                 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft       draft-ietf-rift-kv-registry-04       September 2022

      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
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |       3       |              OUI Key Identifier               |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |               Vendor Specific Values (variable)               |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                           Figure 4: OUI Key-Type

3.  Operational Considerations

   While no restrictions are placed on Key-Value data or what it is used
   for, it is RECOMMENDED that a serialized Thrift [THRIFT] model be
   used for simpler interoperability.  [RIFT-AUTO-EVPN] is an example of
   this type of implementation.

   Key-Value elements SHOULD NOT be used to carry topology information
   used by RIFT itself to perform distributed computations.

   In cases where KV-TIEs are flooded from north to south, policies
   SHOULD be implemented in order to avoid network-wide flooding.

   For networks with more than one ToF node, it is RECOMMENDED that
   those ToF nodes contain identical KV-TIE information when being
   distributed from north to south.  RIFT [RIFT] requires that only one
   KV-TIE is selected when identical keys are received from multiple
   northbound neighbors.  If this is not considered then the tie-
   breaking rules may cause a node to select a suboptimal KV-TIE.
   Consider a case where failure conditions cause the ToF nodes to
   become split-brained.  While the Key-Type and Key Identifier will be
   identical, the value(s) contained within may differ.  The node(s)
   receiving these differing KV-TIEs will select the one from the ToF
   node with the highest System ID, potentially leading to unintended
   effects.

4.  IANA Considerations

   Per [RFC8126], IANA is requested to create two new registries under
   the top-level "RIFT" category:

   *  RIFT Key-Types

   *  RIFT Well-Known Key-Types

   The following sections detail each registry's individual requirements
   and suggested values.

Head & Przygienda         Expires 13 March 2023                 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft       draft-ietf-rift-kv-registry-04       September 2022

   Experts reviewing requests for new values to either registry MUST
   consider the items in the Expert Review Guidance (Section 4.3)
   section.

4.1.  RIFT Key-Types

   This section requests that IANA create and help govern the following
   registry:

      *Registry Name:*
         RIFT Key-Types

      *Registration Procedures:*
         Expert Review

      *Description:*
         Key-Type registry for the RIFT protocol.

      *Reference:*
         This document.

4.1.1.  RIFT Key-Types Requested Entries

   This section requests that IANA register the following suggested
   values to the "RIFT Key-Types" registry.

   +=======+==============+=============================+===========+
   | Value | Key-Type     | Description                 | Status/   |
   |       |              |                             | Reference |
   +=======+==============+=============================+===========+
   | 0     | Illegal      | Not allowed.                | This      |
   |       |              |                             | document  |
   +-------+--------------+-----------------------------+-----------+
   | 1     | Experimental | Indicates that the Key-Type | This      |
   |       |              | is Experimental.            | document. |
   +-------+--------------+-----------------------------+-----------+
   | 2     | Well-Known   | Indicates that the Key-Type | This      |
   |       |              | is Well-Known.              | document. |
   +-------+--------------+-----------------------------+-----------+
   | 3     | OUI          | Indicates that the Key-Type | This      |
   |       |              | is OUI (vendor specific).   | document. |
   +-------+--------------+-----------------------------+-----------+

                                Table 1

Head & Przygienda         Expires 13 March 2023                 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft       draft-ietf-rift-kv-registry-04       September 2022

4.2.  RIFT Well-Known Key-Types

   This section requests that IANA create and help govern the following
   registry:

      *Registry Name:*
         RIFT Well-Known Key-Types

      *Registration Procedures:*
         Expert Review

      *Description:*
         Well-Known Key-Types registry for the RIFT protocol.

      *Reference:*
         This document.

4.2.1.  RIFT Well-Known Key-Types Requested Entries

   This section requests that IANA register the following suggested
   values to the "RIFT Well-Known Key-Types" Registry.

   +=======+================+================+==================+
   | Value | Key-Identifier | Description    | Status/Reference |
   +=======+================+================+==================+
   | 0     | Illegal        | Not allowed.   | This document.   |
   +-------+----------------+----------------+------------------+
   | 1     | MAC/IP Binding | To be defined. | To be defined.   |
   +-------+----------------+----------------+------------------+
   | 2     | FAM Security   | To be defined. | To be defined.   |
   |       | Roll-Over Key  |                |                  |
   +-------+----------------+----------------+------------------+

                              Table 2

4.3.  Expert Review Guidance

   Experts reviewing requests for values from the "RIFT Key-Types"
   registry or the "RIFT Well-Known Key-Types" registry are responsible
   for the following:

   1.  Determining the existence of a specification that clearly defines
       the purpose supporting the request and MUST contain all required
       fields for given registry.

       The document MUST also be permenent and publically available.

Head & Przygienda         Expires 13 March 2023                 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft       draft-ietf-rift-kv-registry-04       September 2022

   2.  Ensuring that any requests are made available to the RIFT working
       group for review should the work originate from outside of the
       RIFT Working Group.

   3.  Ensuring that any work produce outside of the IETF does not
       conflict with any work that is already published or actively
       pursuing being published.

5.  Security Considerations

   This document introduces no new security concerns to RIFT or other
   specifications referenced in this document given that the Key-Value
   TIEs are already extensively secured by the RIFT [RIFT] protocol
   specification itself.

6.  Acknowledgements

   To be provided.

7.  Normative References

   [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>.

   [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>.

   [RIFT]     Przygienda, T., Sharma, A., Thubert, P., Rijsman, B., and
              D. Afanasiev, "RIFT: Routing in Fat Trees", Work in
              Progress draft-ietf-rift-rift-15, July 2021,
              <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-rift-rift-
              15.pdf>.

8.  Informative References

   [RIFT-AUTO-EVPN]
              Head, J., Przygienda, T., and W. Lin, "RIFT Auto-EVPN",
              Work in Progress, draft-ietf-rift-auto-evpn-03, June 2022,
              <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-rift-auto-
              evpn-03.html>.

Head & Przygienda         Expires 13 March 2023                 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft       draft-ietf-rift-kv-registry-04       September 2022

   [THRIFT]   Apache Software Foundation, "Thrift Language
              Implementation and Documentation",
              <https://github.com/apache/thrift/tree/0.15.0/doc>.

Authors' Addresses

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

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

Head & Przygienda         Expires 13 March 2023                 [Page 9]