| Internet-Draft | BGP-LS Extensions for IS-IS FR | April 2022 |
| Head & Przygienda | Expires 28 October 2022 | [Page] |
- Workgroup:
- Network Working Group
- Internet-Draft:
- draft-head-idr-bgp-ls-isis-fr-01
- Published:
- Intended Status:
- Standards Track
- Expires:
BGP-LS Extensions for IS-IS Flood Reflectors
Abstract
This document defines new BGP-LS (BGP Link-State) TLVs in order to carry IS-IS Flood Reflection information.¶
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 28 October 2022.¶
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2022 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 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.¶
1. Introduction
BGP Link-State RFC7752 [RFC7752] defines mechanisms to advertise information about the underlying IGP in BGP NLRI to an external entity (e.g. a controller). New BGP-LS TLVs are required in order to faciliate IS-IS Flood Reflection [IS-IS-FR] extensions.¶
1.1. 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].¶
2. BGP-LS Extensions for IS-IS Flood Reflectors
This document defines the following BGP-LS TLV code point value in accordance with RFC7752 rules:¶
| TLV Code Point | Description | IS-IS TLV |
|---|---|---|
| TBD1 | Flood Reflection TLV | TBD1 (161) [IS-IS-FR] |
TLV formats are described in detail in subsequent subsections.¶
3. BGP-LS TLVs for IS-IS Flood Reflection
This TLV advertises Flood Reflector details. The semantics and values of the fields in the TLV are described in [IS-IS-FR].¶
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 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |C| RESERVED | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Flood Reflection Cluster ID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+¶
where:¶
4. IANA Considerations
This section requests entries from the "BGP-LS Node Descriptor, Link Descriptor, Prefix Descriptor, and Attribute TLVs" registry for the following TLVs:¶
4.1. Requested TLV Entries
| TLV Code Point | Description |
|---|---|
| TBD1 | Flood Reflection TLV |
5. 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 BGP security issues. Security considerations for acquiring and distributing BGP-LS information are discussed in [RFC7752].¶
The TLVs introduced in this document are used to propagate IS-IS Flood Reflection TLVs defined in [IS-IS-FR]. These TLVs represent IS-IS Flood Reflector state and are therefore assumed to support any/all of the required security and authentication mechanisms as described in [IS-IS-FR] to prevent any security issues when propagating the TLVs into BGP-LS.¶
7. References
7.1. Normative References
- [IS-IS-FR]
- Przygienda, T., Bowers, C., Lee, Y., Sharma, A., and R. White, "IS-IS Flood Reflection", , <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-lsr-isis-flood-reflection>.
- [RFC2119]
- Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
- [RFC4271]
- Rekhter, Y., Li, T., and S. Hares, "A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4271>.
- [RFC4272]
- Murphy, S., "BGP Security Vulnerabilities Analysis", , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4272>.
- [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", , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6952>.
- [RFC7752]
- Gredler, H., Medved, J., Previdi, S., Farrel, A., and S. Ray, "North-Bound Distribution of Link-State and Traffic Engineering (TE) Information Using BGP", , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7752>.
- [RFC8126]
- Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
