BGP-LS Advertisement of TE Policy Performance Metric
draft-lin-idr-bgpls-te-policy-pm-04
This document is an Internet-Draft (I-D).
Anyone may submit an I-D to the IETF.
This I-D is not endorsed by the IETF and has no formal standing in the
IETF standards process.
| Document | Type | Active Internet-Draft (individual) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Changwang Lin , Yisong Liu , Yongqing Zhu | ||
| Last updated | 2024-09-08 | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-lin-idr-bgpls-te-policy-pm-04
Network Working Group C. Lin
Internet Draft New H3C Technologies
Intended status: Standards Track Y. Liu
Expires: March 09, 2025 China Mobile
Y. Zhu
China Telecom
September 09, 2024
BGP-LS Advertisement of TE Policy Performance Metric
draft-lin-idr-bgpls-te-policy-pm-04
Abstract
This document describes a way to advertise the performance metrics
for Traffic Engineering (TE) Policy using BGP Link State (BGP-LS).
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), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
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."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
This Internet-Draft will expire on March 09, 2025.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2024 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
Lin, et al. Expire March 09, 2025 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft BGP-LS TE Policy Performance Metric September 2024
(http://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...................................................3
1.1. Requirements Language.....................................3
2. Advertisement of TE Policy Performance Metric..................3
3. Extensions for Round-trip TE Performance Metric................4
3.1. Round-trip Delay TLV......................................4
3.2. Min/Max Round-trip Delay TLV..............................4
3.3. Round-trip Delay Variation TLV............................5
3.4. Round-trip Loss TLV.......................................6
4. Security Considerations........................................6
5. Management Considerations......................................7
6. IANA Considerations............................................7
7. References.....................................................7
7.1. Normative References......................................7
Authors' Addresses................................................9
Lin, et al. Expires March 09, 2025 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft BGP-LS TE Policy Performance Metric September 2024
1. Introduction
BGP Link State (BGP-LS) can be used to distribute link-state and
traffic engineering (TE) information to external components
[RFC9552]. [I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ls-te-path] describes the mechanism for
BGP-LS to distribute the information of TE policies. [I-D.ietf-idr-
bgp-ls-sr-policy] describes the mechanism for BGP-LS to distribute
the information of SR policies.
In some network scenarios, the controller needs to obtain the
performance information of TE Policies, which can be used in service
placement to meet better customer requirements and utilize network
resources more efficiently.
This document describes a way to advertise the performance metrics
for Traffic Engineering (TE) Policy using BGP Link State (BGP-LS).
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. Advertisement of TE Policy Performance Metric
[RFC8571] defines several Link Attribute TLVs for BGP-LS to carry
the IGP Traffic Engineering Performance Metric Extensions:
TLV Code Point Value
--------------------------------------------------------
1114 Unidirectional Link Delay
1115 Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay
1116 Unidirectional Delay Variation
1117 Unidirectional Link Loss
The above TLVs can be re-used to advertise the performance metrics
for TE Policies.
When used to describe the performance metric of the TE Policy NLRI,
they are carried in the optional non-transitive BGP Path Attribute
"BGP-LS Attribute" defined in [RFC9552]. The semantics of the above
TLVs comply with [RFC8571], except for that they are extended to
describe TE Policies besides IGP links.
Lin, et al. Expires March 09, 2025 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft BGP-LS TE Policy Performance Metric September 2024
The performance metric of TE Policy may be measured at the headend,
for example, by using TWAMP for SR Policy. But the measurement
methods are out of the scope of this document.
The existing performance metrics above are all unidirectional.
However, there are also requirements to advertise round-trip
performance metrics for TE Policies. The BGP-LS extensions for
round-trip TE performance metrics are defined in the following
section.
3. Extensions for Round-trip TE Performance Metric
3.1. Round-trip Delay TLV
This TLV advertises the average round-trip delay for TE Policy.
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|A| RESERVED | Delay |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
where:
o Type: TBD
o Length: 4
o Reserved: Reserved for future use. MUST be set to 0 when sent and
MUST be ignored when received.
o A: Anomalous (A) Bit. Same with the A Bit in Unidirectional Link
Delay TLV [RFC8571].
o Delay: Similar with the Delay filed in Unidirectional Link Delay
TLV [RFC8571], except for that the delay is round-trip.
3.2. Min/Max Round-trip Delay TLV
This TLV advertises the minimum and maximum round-trip delay for TE
Policy.
Lin, et al. Expires March 09, 2025 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft BGP-LS TE Policy Performance Metric September 2024
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|A| RESERVED | Min Delay |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| RESERVED | Max Delay |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
where:
o Type: TBD
o Length: 4
o Reserved: Reserved for future use. MUST be set to 0 when sent and
MUST be ignored when received.
o A: Anomalous (A) Bit. Same with the A Bit in Min/Max
Unidirectional Link Delay TLV [RFC8571].
o Min Delay: Similar with the Min Delay filed in Min/Max
Unidirectional Link Delay TLV [RFC8571], except for that the
delay is round-trip.
o Max Delay: Similar with the Max Delay filed in Min/Max
Unidirectional Link Delay TLV [RFC8571], except for that the
delay is round-trip.
3.3. Round-trip Delay Variation TLV
This TLV advertises the average round-trip delay variation for TE
Policy.
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|A| RESERVED | Delay Variation |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
where:
o Type: TBD
o Length: 4
Lin, et al. Expires March 09, 2025 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft BGP-LS TE Policy Performance Metric September 2024
o Reserved: Reserved for future use. MUST be set to 0 when sent and
MUST be ignored when received.
o A: Anomalous (A) Bit. Same with the A Bit in Unidirectional Delay
Variation TLV [RFC8571].
o Delay Variation: Similar with the Delay Variation filed in
Unidirectional Delay Variation TLV [RFC8571], except for that the
delay variation is round-trip.
3.4. Round-trip Loss TLV
This TLV advertises the round-trip loss for TE Policy.
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|A| RESERVED | Loss |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
where:
o Type: TBD
o Length: 4
o Reserved: Reserved for future use. MUST be set to 0 when sent and
MUST be ignored when received.
o A: Anomalous (A) Bit. Same with the A Bit in Unidirectional Link
Loss TLV [RFC8571].
o Loss: Similar with the Link Loss filed in Unidirectional Link
Loss TLV [RFC8571], except for that the loss is round-trip.
4. 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 security issues for BGP.
Security considerations for acquiring and distributing BGP-LS
information are discussed in [RFC9552], [I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ls-te-
path] and [I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy].
Lin, et al. Expires March 09, 2025 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft BGP-LS TE Policy Performance Metric September 2024
The mechanism proposed in this document is subject to the same
vulnerabilities as any other protocol that relies on BGP-LS.
5. Management Considerations
An implementation SHOULD allow the operator to specify neighbors to
which Link-State NLRIs will be advertised and from which Link-State
NLRIs will be accepted.
An implementation SHOULD allow the operator to control the content
of advertisements, such as whether or not to advertise latency,
packet loss rate, bidirectional latency, and bidirectional packet
loss rate.
An implementation SHOULD allow the operator to control advertisement
thresholds to avoid frequent announcements.
6. IANA Considerations
This document defines the following TLVs for BGP-LS.
TLV Code Point Value
--------------------------------------------------------
TBD Round-trip Delay
TBD Min/Max Round-trip Delay
TBD Round-trip Variation
TBD Round-trip Loss
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A
Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, DOI
10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006,<https://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc4271>.
[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", RFC 6952, DOI 10.17487/RFC6952, May 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6952>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, May 2017
Lin, et al. Expires March 09, 2025 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft BGP-LS TE Policy Performance Metric September 2024
[RFC8571] Ginsberg, L., Ed., Previdi, S., Wu, Q., Tantsura, J., and
C. Filsfils, "BGP - Link State (BGP-LS) Advertisement of
IGP Traffic Engineering Performance Metric Extensions",
RFC 8571, DOI 10.17487/RFC8571, March 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8571>.
[RFC9552] Talaulikar, K., Ed., "Distribution of Link-State and
Traffic Engineering Information Using BGP", RFC 9552, DOI
10.17487/RFC9552, December 2023, <https://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc9552>.
[I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ls-te-path] Previdi, S., Talaulikar, K., Dong, J.,
Gredler, H., and J. Tantsura, "Advertisement of Traffic
Engineering Paths using BGP Link-State", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-te-path-01,
September 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-
ls-te-path-01>.
[I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy] Previdi, S., Talaulikar, K., Dong,
J., Gredler, H., and J. Tantsura, "Advertisement of
Segment Routing Policies using BGP Link-State", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy-
03, November 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-
ls-sr-policy-03>.
Lin, et al. Expires March 09, 2025 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft BGP-LS TE Policy Performance Metric September 2024
Authors' Addresses
Changwang Lin
New H3C Technologies
Email: linchangwang.04414@h3c.com
Yisong Liu
China Mobile
Email: liuyisong@chinamobile.com
Yongqing Zhu
China Telecom
Guangzhou
Email: zhuyq8@chinatelecom.cn
Lin, et al. Expires March 09, 2025 [Page 9]