Extensions to BGP-LS for Advertising IFIT Node Capability
draft-wang-idr-bgp-ls-ifit-node-capability-00
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 "Replaced".
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Yali Wang , Tianran Zhou | ||
| Last updated | 2020-02-28 | ||
| RFC stream | (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-wang-idr-bgp-ls-ifit-node-capability-00
Interdomain Routing Working Group Y. Wang, Ed.
Internet-Draft T. Zhou, Ed.
Intended status: Standards Track Huawei
Expires: August 29, 2020 February 26, 2020
Extensions to BGP-LS for Advertising IFIT Node Capability
draft-wang-idr-bgp-ls-ifit-node-capability-00
Abstract
This document defines a way for an a Border Gateway Protocol Link-
State (BGP-LS) speaker to announce IFIT node capabilities of routers
to BGP-LS consumer. In this document, IFIT Node Capability TLV is
defined as a new Node Attribute TLV that is encoded in the BGP-LS
attribute with Node NLRIs [RFC7752]. Such advertisements enable IFIT
applications in an operational network domain.
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 August 29, 2020.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2020 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
Wang & Zhou Expires August 29, 2020 [Page 1]
Internet-Draftdraft-wang-idr-bgp-ls-ifit-node-capability-00February 2020
(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
1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. IFIT Domain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. IFIT Node Capability Information . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Advertisement of the IFIT Node Capabilities via BGP-LS . . . 3
3.1. IFIT Node Capability TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1. TLV Code Point of the new IFIT Node Capability TLV within
Node NLRIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1. Introduction
IFIT provides a complete framework architecture and a reflection-loop
working solution for on-path flow telemetry
[I-D.song-opsawg-ifit-framework]. At present, there are a family of
emerging on-path flow telemetry techniques, including In-situ OAM
(IOAM) [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data], PBT
[I-D.song-ippm-postcard-based-telemetry] , IOAM Direct Export (DEX)
[I-D.ioamteam-ippm-ioam-direct-export] , Enhanced Alternate Marking
(EAM) [I-D.zhou-ippm-enhanced-alternate-marking], etc. IFIT is a
solution focusing on network domains. The "network domain" consists
of a set of network devices or entities within a single
administration. For example, a network domain can be one or more IGP
routing domains. The family of emerging on-path flow telemetry
techniques may be selectively or partially implemented in different
vendors' devices as an emerging feature for various use cases of
application-aware network operations. Hence, in order to enable IFIT
applications in an operational network domain, IFIT node capabilities
SHOULD be advertised by every Intermediate System to Intermediate
System (IS-IS) router in the network domain.
Wang & Zhou Expires August 29, 2020 [Page 2]
Internet-Draftdraft-wang-idr-bgp-ls-ifit-node-capability-00February 2020
BGP-LS defines a way to advertise topology and associated attributes
and capabilities of the nodes in that topology to a centralized
controller [RFC7752]. This document defines extensions to BGP-LS to
advertise the IFIT node capabilities to BGP-LS consumers.
1.1. Terminology
BGP-LS: Advertisement of Link-State and TE Information using Border
Gateway Protocol
2. Concepts
2.1. IFIT Domain
IFIT is expected to be deployed in a specific domain referred as the
IFIT domain. An IFIT domain may cross multiple network domains. One
network domain may consists of multiple IFIT domain. Within the IFIT
domain, the IFIT data fields of flow information head MAY be updated
by network nodes that the packet traverses.
2.2. IFIT Node Capability Information
Each IFIT node is configured with a node-id which uniquely identifies
a node within the associated IFIT domain. To accommodate the
different use cases or requirements of in-situ flow information
telemetry, IFIT data fields updated by network nodes fall into
different categories which are referred as different IFIT option
types, including IOAM Trace Option-Types [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data],
IOAM Edge-to-Edge (E2E) Option-Type [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data], IOAM
DEX Option-Type [I-D.ioamteam-ippm-ioam-direct-export] and Enhanced
Alternate Marking (EAM) Option-Type
[I-D.zhou-ippm-enhanced-alternate-marking]. So IFIT Option Types
SHOULD be carried in IFIT node capability advertisment.
3. Advertisement of the IFIT Node Capabilities via BGP-LS
This document describes extensions enabling BGP-LS speakers to
announce the IFIT node capabilities of routers in a network to a BGP-
LS consumer (e.g. a centralized controller). The centralized
controller can leverage this information in enabling IFIT
applications in network domains based on IFIT node capabilities and
OAM use cases.
3.1. IFIT Node Capability TLV
IFIT Node-Capability TLV is defined as a new Node Attribute TLV that
is encoded in the BGP-LS attribute with Node NLRIs [RFC7752]. The
IFIT Node Capability TLV is defined as a TLV triplet, i.e. a two-
Wang & Zhou Expires August 29, 2020 [Page 3]
Internet-Draftdraft-wang-idr-bgp-ls-ifit-node-capability-00February 2020
octet Type field, a two-octet Length field, and 4-octet Value field.
The Type field indicates the type of items in the Value field. The
Length field indicates the length of the Value field in octets. The
Value field indicates the IFIT Node Capability, which is a 4-octet
IFIT Option Type-enabled Flag bitmap.
The IFIT Node capability TLV has the following format:
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 |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| IFIT Option Type-enabled Flag |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
Fig. 1 IFIT Node Capability TLV Format
Type: To be assigned by IANA
Length: A 8-bit field that indicates the length of the value portion
in octets and will be a multiple of 4 octets dependent on the number
of capabilities advertised.
IFIT Option Type-enabled Flag: A 4-octet field, which is defined as
following:
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
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
|p|i|d|e|m| Reserved |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
Where:
p-Flag: IOAM Pre-allocated Trace Option Type-enabled flag. If p bit
is set (1), the router is capable of IOAM Pre-allocated Trace
[I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data].
i-Flag: IOAM Incremental Trace Option Type-enabled flag. If i bit is
set (1), the router is capable of IOAM Incremental Tracing
[I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data].
d-Flag: IOAM DEX Option Type-enabled flag. If d bit is set (1), the
router is capable of IOAM DEX [I-D.ioamteam-ippm-ioam-direct-export].
Wang & Zhou Expires August 29, 2020 [Page 4]
Internet-Draftdraft-wang-idr-bgp-ls-ifit-node-capability-00February 2020
e-Flag: IOAM E2E Option Type-enabled flag. If e bit is set (1), the
router is capable of IOAM E2E processing [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data].
m-Flag: Enhanced Alternative Marking enabled flag. If m bit is set
(1), then the router is capable of processing Enhanced Alternative
Marking packets [I-D.zhou-ippm-enhanced-alternate-marking].
Reserved: Must be set to zero upon transmission and ignored upon
receipt.
An IFIT node SHALL be capable of more than one IFIT option types. So
in this case, IFIT Option Type-enabled Flag bitmap SHOULD has more
than one bit being set.
4. IANA Considerations
Note to RFC Editor: this section may be removed on publication as an
RFC.
4.1. TLV Code Point of the new IFIT Node Capability TLV within Node
NLRIs
This document makes the following registrations for a Node Attribute
TLV code point for the IFIT Node Capability TLV included with Node
NLRIs.
+------------+----------------------+
| Code Point | Description |
+------------+----------------------+
| TBD | IFIT Node Capability |
+------------+----------------------+
5. Security Considerations
This document introduces new Node Attribute TLVs for the existing
Node NLRIs. It does not introduce any new security risks to BGP-LS.
6. Acknowledgements
7. References
7.1. 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>.
Wang & Zhou Expires August 29, 2020 [Page 5]
Internet-Draftdraft-wang-idr-bgp-ls-ifit-node-capability-00February 2020
[RFC5305] "IS-IS Extensions for Traffic Engineering",
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5305>.
[RFC7752] "North-Bound Distribution of Link-State and Traffic
Engineering (TE) Information Using BGP",
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc7752/>.
7.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data]
"Data Fields for In-situ OAM".
[I-D.ioamteam-ippm-ioam-direct-export]
"In-situ OAM Direct Exporting",
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ioamteam-ippm-
ioam-direct-export/>.
[I-D.song-ippm-postcard-based-telemetry]
"Postcard-based On-Path Flow Data Telemetry",
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-song-ippm-
postcard-based-telemetry/>.
[I-D.song-opsawg-ifit-framework]
"In-situ Flow Information Telemetry Framework",
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-song-opsawg-ifit-
framework/>.
[I-D.zhou-ippm-enhanced-alternate-marking]
"Enhanced Alternate Marking Method",
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-zhou-ippm-
enhanced-alternate-marking/>.
Authors' Addresses
Yali Wang (editor)
Huawei
156 Beiqing Rd., Haidian District
Beijing
China
Email: wangyali11@huawei.com
Wang & Zhou Expires August 29, 2020 [Page 6]
Internet-Draftdraft-wang-idr-bgp-ls-ifit-node-capability-00February 2020
Tianran Zhou (editor)
Huawei
156 Beiqing Rd., Haidian District
Beijing
China
Email: zhoutianran@huawei.com
Wang & Zhou Expires August 29, 2020 [Page 7]