Application Specific Attributes Advertisement with BGP Link-State
draft-ketant-idr-bgp-ls-app-specific-attr-00

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (idr WG)
Last updated 2018-10-21 (latest revision 2018-07-23)
Stream IETF
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text pdf html bibtex
Stream WG state Candidate for WG Adoption
Document shepherd No shepherd assigned
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
Inter-Domain Routing                                       K. Talaulikar
Internet-Draft                                                 P. Psenak
Intended status: Standards Track                           Cisco Systems
Expires: January 24, 2019                                  July 23, 2018

   Application Specific Attributes Advertisement with BGP Link-State
              draft-ketant-idr-bgp-ls-app-specific-attr-00

Abstract

   Various link attributes have been defined in link-state routing
   protocols like OSPF and IS-IS in the context of the MPLS Traffic
   Engineering (TE) and GMPLS.  BGP Link-State (BGP-LS) extensions have
   been defined to distribute these attributes along with other topology
   information from these link-state routing protocols.  Many of these
   link attributes can be used for applications other than MPLS TE or
   GMPLS.

   Extensions to link-state routing protocols have been defined for such
   link attributes which enable distribution of their application
   specific values.  This document defines extensions to BGP-LS address-
   family to enable advertisement of these application specific
   attributes 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", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

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 January 24, 2019.

Talaulikar & Psenak     Expires January 24, 2019                [Page 1]
Internet-Draft  BGP-LS Extns for App Specific Attributes       July 2018

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2018 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.  Application Specific Link Attributes TLV  . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Application Specific Link Attributes  . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   4.  Procedures  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   5.  Backward Compatibility  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   7.  Manageability Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     7.1.  Operational Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     7.2.  Management Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   8.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   9.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   10. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     10.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     10.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12

1.  Introduction

   Various link attributes have been defined in link-state routing
   protocols (viz.  IS-IS [RFC1195], OSPFv2 [RFC2328] and OSPFv3
   [RFC5340] ) in the context of the MPLS traffic engineering and GMPLS.
   All these attributes are distributed by these protocols using TLVs
   that were originally defined for traditional MPLS Traffic Engineering
   (i.e. using RSVP-TE [RFC3209]) or GMPLS [RFC4202] applications.

   In recent years new applications have been introduced which have use
   cases for many of the link attributes historically used by RSVP-TE
   and GMPLS.  Such applications include Segment Routing (SR)
   [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing] and Loop Free Alternates (LFA)
   [RFC5286].  This has introduced ambiguity in that if a deployment
   includes a mix of RSVP-TE support and SR support (for example) it is

Talaulikar & Psenak     Expires January 24, 2019                [Page 2]
Show full document text