IGP Extensions for In-situ Flow Information Telemetry (IFIT) Capability Advertisement
draft-wang-lsr-igp-extensions-ifit-01

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Authors Yali Wang  , Tianran Zhou  , Fengwei Qin  , Huanan Chen  , Ran Pang 
Last updated 2020-07-28
Replaces draft-wang-lsr-ifit-node-capability-advertisement
Stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text xml pdf htmlized (tools) htmlized bibtex
Stream Stream state (No stream defined)
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
RFC Editor Note (None)
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
Link State Routing Working Group                                 Y. Wang
Internet-Draft                                                   T. Zhou
Intended status: Standards Track                                  Huawei
Expires: January 29, 2021                                         F. Qin
                                                            China Mobile
                                                                 H. Chen
                                                           China Telecom
                                                                 R. Pang
                                                            China Unicom
                                                           July 28, 2020

IGP Extensions for In-situ Flow Information Telemetry (IFIT) Capability
                             Advertisement
                 draft-wang-lsr-igp-extensions-ifit-01

Abstract

   This document extends Node and Link Attribute TLVs to Interior
   Gateway Protocols (IGP) to advertise supported In-situ Flow
   Information Telemetry (IFIT) capabilities at node and/or link
   granularity.  An ingress router cannot insert IFIT-Data-Fields for
   packets going into a path unless an egress router has indicated via
   signaling that it has the capability to process IFIT-Data-Fields.  In
   addition, such advertisements would be useful for ingress routers to
   gather each router's IFIT capability for achieving the computation of
   Traffic Engineering (TE) paths or loose TE paths that be able to
   fulfill the visibility of on-path OAM data.

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

Wang, et al.            Expires January 29, 2021                [Page 1]
Internet-Draft    draft-wang-lsr-igp-extensions-ifit-01        July 2020

   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 29, 2021.

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
   (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.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  IFIT Capability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  Signaling IFIT Capability Using IS-IS . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     4.1.  IS-IS Node IFIT Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     4.2.  IS-IS Link IFIT Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   5.  Signaling IFIT Capability Using OSPF  . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     5.1.  OSPF Node IFIT TLV  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     5.2.  OSPFv2 Link IFIT sub-TLV  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     5.3.  OSPFv3 Link IFIT Sub-TLV  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   6.  Application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   7.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   8.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   9.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   10. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     10.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     10.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12

1.  Introduction

   IFIT provides a high-level framework and a reflection-loop solution
   for on-path telemetry [I-D.song-opsawg-ifit-framework].  At present,
   there is a family of emerging on-path telemetry techniques, including
   In-situ OAM (IOAM) [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data], IOAM Direct Export
Show full document text