Inter-Domain Routing H. Gredler
Internet-Draft Juniper Networks, Inc.
Intended status: Standards Track J. Medved
Expires: May 22, 2014 S. Previdi
Cisco Systems, Inc.
A. Farrel
Juniper Networks, Inc.
S. Ray
Cisco Systems, Inc.
November 18, 2013
North-Bound Distribution of Link-State and TE Information using BGP
draft-ietf-idr-ls-distribution-04
Abstract
In a number of environments, a component external to a network is
called upon to perform computations based on the network topology and
current state of the connections within the network, including
traffic engineering information. This is information typically
distributed by IGP routing protocols within the network
This document describes a mechanism by which links state and traffic
engineering information can be collected from networks and shared
with external components using the BGP routing protocol. This is
achieved using a new BGP Network Layer Reachability Information
(NLRI) encoding format. The mechanism is applicable to physical and
virtual IGP links. The mechanism described is subject to policy
control.
Applications of this technique include Application Layer Traffic
Optimization (ALTO) servers, and Path Computation Elements (PCEs).
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.
Gredler, et al. Expires May 22, 2014 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Link-State Info Distribution using BGP November 2013
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 http://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 May 22, 2014.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2013 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
(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
2. Motivation and Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1. MPLS-TE with PCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2. ALTO Server Network API . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3. Carrying Link State Information in BGP . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.1. TLV Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2. The Link-State NLRI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.2.1. Node Descriptors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.2.2. Link Descriptors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.2.3. Prefix Descriptors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.3. The BGP-LS Attribute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
3.3.1. Node Attribute TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
3.3.2. Link Attribute TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
3.3.3. Prefix Attribute TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3.4. BGP Next Hop Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
3.5. Inter-AS Links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
3.6. Router-ID Anchoring Example: ISO Pseudonode . . . . . . . 29
3.7. Router-ID Anchoring Example: OSPFv2 to IS-IS Migration . 30
4. Link to Path Aggregation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Gredler, et al. Expires May 22, 2014 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Link-State Info Distribution using BGP November 2013
4.1. Example: No Link Aggregation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
4.2. Example: ASBR to ASBR Path Aggregation . . . . . . . . . 31
4.3. Example: Multi-AS Path Aggregation . . . . . . . . . . . 32
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
6. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
6.1. Operational Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
6.1.1. Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
6.1.2. Installation and Initial Setup . . . . . . . . . . . 33
6.1.3. Migration Path . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
6.1.4. Requirements on Other Protocols and Functional
Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
6.1.5. Impact on Network Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
6.1.6. Verifying Correct Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
6.2. Management Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
6.2.1. Management Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
6.2.2. Fault Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
6.2.3. Configuration Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
6.2.4. Accounting Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
6.2.5. Performance Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
6.2.6. Security Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
7. TLV/Sub-TLV Code Points Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
9. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
1. Introduction
The contents of a Link State Database (LSDB) or a Traffic Engineering
Database (TED) has the scope of an IGP area. Some applications, such
as end-to-end Traffic Engineering (TE), would benefit from visibility
outside one area or Autonomous System (AS) in order to make better
decisions.
The IETF has defined the Path Computation Element (PCE) [RFC4655] as
a mechanism for achieving the computation of end-to-end TE paths that
cross the visibility of more than one TED or which require CPU-
intensive or coordinated computations. The IETF has also defined the
ALTO Server [RFC5693] as an entity that generates an abstracted
network topology and provides it to network-aware applications.
Both a PCE and an ALTO Server need to gather information about the
topologies and capabilities of the network in order to be able to
fulfill their function.
Gredler, et al. Expires May 22, 2014 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Link-State Info Distribution using BGP November 2013
This document describes a mechanism by which Link State and TE
information can be collected from networks and shared with external
components using the BGP routing protocol [RFC4271]. This is
achieved using a new BGP Network Layer Reachability Information
(NLRI) encoding format. The mechanism is applicable to physical and
virtual links. The mechanism described is subject to policy control.
A router maintains one or more databases for storing link-state
information about nodes and links in any given area. Link attributes
stored in these databases include: local/remote IP addresses, local/
remote interface identifiers, link metric and TE metric, link
bandwidth, reservable bandwidth, per CoS class reservation state,
preemption and Shared Risk Link Groups (SRLG). The router's BGP
process can retrieve topology from these LSDBs and distribute it to a
consumer, either directly or via a peer BGP Speaker (typically a
dedicated Route Reflector), using the encoding specified in this
document.
The collection of Link State and TE link state information and its
distribution to consumers is shown in the following figure.
+-----------+
| Consumer |
+-----------+
^
|
+-----------+
| BGP | +-----------+
| Speaker | | Consumer |
+-----------+ +-----------+
^ ^ ^ ^
| | | |
+---------------+ | +-------------------+ |
| | | |
+-----------+ +-----------+ +-----------+
| BGP | | BGP | | BGP |
| Speaker | | Speaker | . . . | Speaker |
+-----------+ +-----------+ +-----------+
^ ^ ^
| | |
IGP IGP IGP
Figure 1: TE Link State info collection
A BGP Speaker may apply configurable policy to the information that
it distributes. Thus, it may distribute the real physical topology
from the LSDB or the TED. Alternatively, it may create an abstracted
topology, where virtual, aggregated nodes are connected by virtual
Gredler, et al. Expires May 22, 2014 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Link-State Info Distribution using BGP November 2013
paths. Aggregated nodes can be created, for example, out of multiple
routers in a POP. Abstracted topology can also be a mix of physical
and virtual nodes and physical and virtual links. Furthermore, the
BGP Speaker can apply policy to determine when information is updated
to the consumer so that there is reduction of information flow form
the network to the consumers. Mechanisms through which topologies
can be aggregated or virtualized are outside the scope of this
document
2. Motivation and Applicability
This section describes use cases from which the requirements can be
derived.
2.1. MPLS-TE with PCE
As described in [RFC4655] a PCE can be used to compute MPLS-TE paths
within a "domain" (such as an IGP area) or across multiple domains
(such as a multi-area AS, or multiple ASes).
o Within a single area, the PCE offers enhanced computational power
that may not be available on individual routers, sophisticated
policy control and algorithms, and coordination of computation
across the whole area.
o If a router wants to compute a MPLS-TE path across IGP areas its
own TED lacks visibility of the complete topology. That means
that the router cannot determine the end-to-end path, and cannot
even select the right exit router (Area Border Router - ABR) for
an optimal path. This is an issue for large-scale networks that
need to segment their core networks into distinct areas, but which
still want to take advantage of MPLS-TE.
Previous solutions used per-domain path computation [RFC5152]. The
source router could only compute the path for the first area because
the router only has full topological visibility for the first area
along the path, but not for subsequent areas. Per-domain path
computation uses a technique called "loose-hop-expansion" [RFC3209],
and selects the exit ABR and other ABRs or AS Border Routers (ASBRs)
using the IGP computed shortest path topology for the remainder of
the path. This may lead to sub-optimal paths, makes alternate/back-
up path computation hard, and might result in no TE path being found
when one really does exist.
The PCE presents a computation server that may have visibility into
more than one IGP area or AS, or may cooperate with other PCEs to
perform distributed path computation. The PCE obviously needs access
to the TED for the area(s) it serves, but [RFC4655] does not describe
Gredler, et al. Expires May 22, 2014 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Link-State Info Distribution using BGP November 2013
how this is achieved. Many implementations make the PCE a passive
participant in the IGP so that it can learn the latest state of the
network, but this may be sub-optimal when the network is subject to a
high degree of churn, or when the PCE is responsible for multiple
areas.
The following figure shows how a PCE can get its TED information
using the mechanism described in this document.
+----------+ +---------+
| ----- | | BGP |
| | TED |<-+-------------------------->| Speaker |
| ----- | TED synchronization | |
| | | mechanism: +---------+
| | | BGP with Link-State NLRI
| v |
| ----- |
| | PCE | |
| ----- |
+----------+
^
| Request/
| Response
v
Service +----------+ Signaling +----------+
Request | Head-End | Protocol | Adjacent |
-------->| Node |<------------>| Node |
+----------+ +----------+
Figure 2: External PCE node using a TED synchronization mechanism
The mechanism in this document allows the necessary TED information
to be collected from the IGP within the network, filtered according
to configurable policy, and distributed to the PCE as necessary.
2.2. ALTO Server Network API
An ALTO Server [RFC5693] is an entity that generates an abstracted
network topology and provides it to network-aware applications over a
web service based API. Example applications are p2p clients or
trackers, or CDNs. The abstracted network topology comes in the form
of two maps: a Network Map that specifies allocation of prefixes to
Partition Identifiers (PIDs), and a Cost Map that specifies the cost
between PIDs listed in the Network Map. For more details, see
[I-D.ietf-alto-protocol].
ALTO abstract network topologies can be auto-generated from the
physical topology of the underlying network. The generation would
Gredler, et al. Expires May 22, 2014 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Link-State Info Distribution using BGP November 2013
typically be based on policies and rules set by the operator. Both
prefix and TE data are required: prefix data is required to generate
ALTO Network Maps, TE (topology) data is required to generate ALTO
Cost Maps. Prefix data is carried and originated in BGP, TE data is
originated and carried in an IGP. The mechanism defined in this
document provides a single interface through which an ALTO Server can
retrieve all the necessary prefix and network topology data from the
underlying network. Note an ALTO Server can use other mechanisms to
get network data, for example, peering with multiple IGP and BGP
Speakers.
The following figure shows how an ALTO Server can get network
topology information from the underlying network using the mechanism
described in this document.
+--------+
| Client |<--+
+--------+ |
| ALTO +--------+ BGP with +---------+
+--------+ | Protocol | ALTO | Link-State NLRI | BGP |
| Client |<--+------------| Server |<----------------| Speaker |
+--------+ | | | | |
| +--------+ +---------+
+--------+ |
| Client |<--+
+--------+
Figure 3: ALTO Server using network topology information
3. Carrying Link State Information in BGP
This specification contains two parts: definition of a new BGP NLRI
that describes links, nodes and prefixes comprising IGP link state
information, and definition of a new BGP path attribute (BGP-LS
attribute) that carries link, node and prefix properties and
attributes, such as the link and prefix metric or auxiliary Router-
IDs of nodes, etc.
3.1. TLV Format
Information in the new Link-State NLRIs and attributes is encoded in
Type/Length/Value triplets. The TLV format is shown in Figure 4.
Gredler, et al. Expires May 22, 2014 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Link-State Info Distribution using BGP November 2013
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// Value (variable) //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 4: TLV format
The Length field defines the length of the value portion in octets
(thus a TLV with no value portion would have a length of zero). The
TLV is not padded to four-octet alignment. Unrecognized types are
preserved and propagated. In order to compare NLRIs with unknown
TLVs all TLVs MUST be ordered in ascending order. If there are more
TLVs of the same type, then the TLVs MUST be ordered in ascending
order of the TLV value within the set of TLVs with the same type.
All TLVs that are not specified as mandatory are considered optional.
3.2. The Link-State NLRI
The MP_REACH and MP_UNREACH attributes are BGP's containers for
carrying opaque information. Each Link-State NLRI describes either a
node, a link or a prefix.
All non-VPN link, node and prefix information SHALL be encoded using
AFI 16388 / SAFI 71. VPN link, node and prefix information SHALL be
encoded using AFI 16388 / SAFI 128.
In order for two BGP speakers to exchange Link-State NLRI, they MUST
use BGP Capabilities Advertisement to ensure that they both are
capable of properly processing such NLRI. This is done as specified
in [RFC4760], by using capability code 1 (multi-protocol BGP), with
an AFI 16388 / SAFI 71 and AFI 16388 / SAFI 128 for the VPN flavor.
The format of the Link-State NLRI is shown in the following figure.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| NLRI Type | Total NLRI Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
// Link-State NLRI (variable) //
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 5: Link-State AFI 16388 / SAFI 71 NLRI Format
Gredler, et al. Expires May 22, 2014 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Link-State Info Distribution using BGP November 2013
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| NLRI Type | Total NLRI Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ Route Distinguisher +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
// Link-State NLRI (variable) //
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 6: Link-State VPN AFI 16388 / SAFI 128 NLRI Format
The 'Total NLRI Length' field contains the cumulative length, in
octets, of rest of the NLRI not including the NLRI Type field or
itself. For VPN applications it also includes the length of the
Route Distinguisher.
The 'NLRI Type' field can contain one of the following values:
Type = 1: Node NLRI
Type = 2: Link NLRI
Type = 3: IPv4 Topology Prefix NLRI
Type = 4: IPv6 Topology Prefix NLRI
The Node NLRI (NLRI Type = 1) is shown in the following figure.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Protocol-ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Identifier |
| (64 bits) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// Local Node Descriptors (variable) //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 7: The Node NLRI format
The Link NLRI (NLRI Type = 2) is shown in the following figure.
Gredler, et al. Expires May 22, 2014 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Link-State Info Distribution using BGP November 2013
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Protocol-ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Identifier |
| (64 bits) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// Local Node Descriptors (variable) //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// Remote Node Descriptors (variable) //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// Link Descriptors (variable) //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 8: The Link NLRI format
The IPv4 and IPv6 Prefix NLRIs (NLRI Type = 3 and Type = 4) use the
same format as shown in the following figure.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Protocol-ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Identifier |
| (64 bits) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// Local Node Descriptor (variable) //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// Prefix Descriptors (variable) //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 9: The IPv4/IPv6 Topology Prefix NLRI format
The 'Protocol-ID' field can contain one of the following values:
Protocol-ID = 0: Unknown, The source of NLRI information could not
be determined
Protocol-ID = 1: IS-IS Level 1, The NLRI information has been
sourced by IS-IS Level 1
Protocol-ID = 2: IS-IS Level 2, The NLRI information has been
sourced by IS-IS Level 2
Protocol-ID = 3: OSPF, The NLRI information has been sourced by
OSPF
Gredler, et al. Expires May 22, 2014 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Link-State Info Distribution using BGP November 2013
Protocol-ID = 4: Direct, The NLRI information has been sourced
from local interface state
Protocol-ID = 5: Static, The NLRI information has been sourced by
static configuration
Both OSPF and IS-IS may run multiple routing protocol instances over
the same link. See [RFC6822] and [RFC6549]. These instances define
independent "routing universes". The 64-Bit 'Identifier' field is
used to identify the "routing universe" where the NLRI belongs. The
NLRIs representing IGP objects (nodes, links or prefixes) from the
same routing universe MUST have the same 'Identifier' value; NLRIs
with different 'Identifier' values MUST be considered to be from
different routing universes. Table Table 1 lists the 'Identifier'
values that are defined as well-known in this draft.
+------------+---------------------+
| Identifier | Routing Universe |
+------------+---------------------+
| 0 | L3 packet topology |
| 1 | L1 optical topology |
+------------+---------------------+
Table 1: Well-known Instance Identifiers
Each Node Descriptor and Link Descriptor consists of one or more TLVs
described in the following sections.
3.2.1. Node Descriptors
Each link is anchored by a pair of Router-IDs that are used by the
underlying IGP, namely, 48 Bit ISO System-ID for IS-IS and 32 bit
Router-ID for OSPFv2 and OSPFv3. An IGP may use one or more
additional auxiliary Router-IDs, mainly for traffic engineering
purposes. For example, IS-IS may have one or more IPv4 and IPv6 TE
Router-IDs [RFC5305], [RFC6119]. These auxiliary Router-IDs MUST be
included in the link attribute described in Section Section 3.3.2.
It is desirable that the Router-ID assignments inside the Node
Descriptor are globally unique. However there may be Router-ID
spaces (e.g. ISO) where no global registry exists, or worse, Router-
IDs have been allocated following private-IP RFC 1918 [RFC1918]
allocation. We use Autonomous System (AS) Number and BGP-LS
Identifier in order to disambiguate the Router-IDs, as described in
Section 3.2.1.1.
3.2.1.1. Globally Unique Node/Link/Prefix Identifiers
Gredler, et al. Expires May 22, 2014 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Link-State Info Distribution using BGP November 2013
One problem that needs to be addressed is the ability to identify an
IGP node globally (by "global", we mean within the BGP-LS database
collected by all BGP-LS speakers that talk to each other). This can
be expressed through the following two requirements:
(A) The same node must not be represented by two keys (otherwise one
node will look like two nodes).
(B) Two different nodes must not be represented by the same key
(otherwise, two nodes will look like one node).
We define an "IGP domain" to be the set of nodes (hence, by extension
links and prefixes), within which, each node has a unique IGP
representation by using the combination of Area-ID, Router-ID,
Protocol, Topology-ID, and Instance ID. The problem is that BGP may
receive node/link/prefix information from multiple independent "IGP
domains" and we need to distinguish between them. Moreover, we can't
assume there is always one and only one IGP domain per AS. During
IGP transitions it may happen that two redundant IGPs are in place.
In section Section 3.2.1.4 a set of sub-TLVs is described, which
allows to specify a flexible key for any given Node/Link information
such that global uniqueness of the NLRI is ensured.
3.2.1.2. Local Node Descriptors
The Local Node Descriptors TLV contains Node Descriptors for the node
anchoring the local end of the link. This is a mandatory TLV in all
three types of NLRIs. The length of this TLV is variable. The value
contains one or more Node Descriptor Sub-TLVs defined in
Section 3.2.1.4.
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
// Node Descriptor Sub-TLVs (variable) //
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 10: Local Node Descriptors TLV format
3.2.1.3. Remote Node Descriptors
The Remote Node Descriptors contains Node Descriptors for the node
anchoring the remote end of the link. This is a mandatory TLV for
Gredler, et al. Expires May 22, 2014 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Link-State Info Distribution using BGP November 2013
link NLRIs. The length of this TLV is variable. The value contains
one or more Node Descriptor Sub-TLVs defined in Section 3.2.1.4.
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
// Node Descriptor Sub-TLVs (variable) //
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 11: Remote Node Descriptors TLV format
3.2.1.4. Node Descriptor Sub-TLVs
The Node Descriptor Sub-TLV type codepoints and lengths are listed in
the following table:
+--------------------+-------------------+----------+
| Sub-TLV Code Point | Description | Length |
+--------------------+-------------------+----------+
| 512 | Autonomous System | 4 |
| 513 | BGP-LS Identifier | 4 |
| 514 | Area-ID | 4 |
| 515 | IGP Router-ID | Variable |
+--------------------+-------------------+----------+
Table 2: Node Descriptor Sub-TLVs
The sub-TLV values in Node Descriptor TLVs are defined as follows:
Autonomous System: opaque value (32 Bit AS Number)
BGP-LS Identifier: opaque value (32 Bit ID). In conjunction with
ASN, uniquely identifies the BGP-LS domain. The combination of
ASN and BGP-LS ID MUST be globally unique. All BGP-LS speakers
within an IGP flooding-set (set of IGP nodes within which an LSP/
LSA is flooded) MUST use the same ASN, BGP-LS ID tuple. If an IGP
domain consists of multiple flooding-sets, then all BGP-LS
speakers within the IGP domain SHOULD use the same ASN, BGP-LS ID
tuple. The ASN, BGP Router-ID tuple (which is globally unique
[RFC6286] ) of one of the BGP-LS speakers within the flooding-set
(or IGP domain) may be used for all BGP-LS speakers in that
flooding-set (or IGP domain).
Gredler, et al. Expires May 22, 2014 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Link-State Info Distribution using BGP November 2013
Area ID: It is used to identify the 32 Bit area to which the NLRI
belongs. Area Identifier allows the different NLRIs of the same
router to be discriminated.
IGP Router ID: opaque value. This is a mandatory TLV. For an IS-IS
non-Pseudonode, this contains 6 octet ISO node-ID (ISO system-ID).
For an IS-IS Pseudonode corresponding to a LAN, this contains 6
octet ISO node-ID of the "Designated Intermediate System" (DIS)
followed by one octet nonzero PSN identifier (7 octet in total).
For an OSPFv2 or OSPFv3 non-"Pseudonode", this contains 4 octet
Router-ID. For an OSPFv2 "Pseudonode" representing a LAN, this
contains 4 octet Router-ID of the designated router (DR) followed
by 4 octet IPv4 address of the DR's interface to the LAN (8 octet
in total). Similarly, for an OSPFv3 "Pseudonode", this contains 4
octet Router-ID of the DR followed by 4 octet interface identifier
of the DR's interface to the LAN (8 octet in total). The TLV size
in combination with protocol identifier enables the decoder to
determine the type of the node.
There can be at most one instance of each sub-TLV type present in
any Node Descriptor. The TLV ordering within a Node descriptor
MUST be kept in order of increasing numeric value of type. This
needs to be done in order to compare NLRIs, even when an
implementation encounters an unknown sub-TLV. Using stable
sorting an implementation can do binary comparison of NLRIs and
hence allow incremental deployment of new key sub-TLVs.
3.2.1.5. Multi-Topology ID
The Multi-Topology ID (MT-ID) TLV carries one or more IS-IS or OSPF
Multi-Topology IDs for a link, node or prefix.
Semantics of the IS-IS MT-ID are defined in RFC5120, Section 7.2
[RFC5120]. Semantics of the OSPF MT-ID are defined in RFC4915,
Section 3.7 [RFC4915]. If the value in the MT-ID TLV is derived from
OSPF, then the upper 9 bits MUST be set to 0. Bits R are reserved,
SHOULD be set to 0 when originated and ignored on receipt.
The format of the MT-ID TLV is shown in the following figure.
Gredler, et al. Expires May 22, 2014 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Link-State Info Distribution using BGP November 2013
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=2*n |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|R R R R| Multi-Topology ID 1 | .... //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// .... |R R R R| Multi-Topology ID n |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 12: Multi-Topology ID TLV format
where Type is 263, Length is 2*n and n is the number of MT-IDs
carried in the TLV.
The MT-ID TLV MAY be present in a Link Descriptor, a Prefix
Descriptor, or in the BGP-LS attribute of a node NLRI. In Link or
Prefix Descriptor, only one MT-ID TLV containing only the MT-ID of
the topology where the link or the prefix belongs is allowed. In the
BGP-LS attribute of a node NLRI, one MT-ID TLV containing the array
of MT-IDs of all topologies where the node belongs can be present.
3.2.2. Link Descriptors
The 'Link Descriptor' field is a set of Type/Length/Value (TLV)
triplets. The format of each TLV is shown in Section 3.1. The 'Link
descriptor' TLVs uniquely identify a link among multiple parallel
links between a pair of anchor routers. A link described by the Link
descriptor TLVs actually is a "half-link", a unidirectional
representation of a logical link. In order to fully describe a
single logical link two originating routers advertise a half-link
each, i.e. two link NLRIs are advertised for a given point-to-point
link.
The format and semantics of the 'value' fields in most 'Link
Descriptor' TLVs correspond to the format and semantics of value
fields in IS-IS Extended IS Reachability sub-TLVs, defined in
[RFC5305], [RFC5307] and [RFC6119]. Although the encodings for 'Link
Descriptor' TLVs were originally defined for IS-IS, the TLVs can
carry data sourced either by IS-IS or OSPF.
The following TLVs are valid as Link Descriptors in the Link NLRI:
Gredler, et al. Expires May 22, 2014 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Link-State Info Distribution using BGP November 2013
+------------+--------------------+---------------+-----------------+
| TLV Code | Description | IS-IS TLV | Value defined |
| Point | | /Sub-TLV | in: |
+------------+--------------------+---------------+-----------------+
| 258 | Link Local/Remote | 22/4 | [RFC5307]/1.1 |
| | Identifiers | | |
| 259 | IPv4 interface | 22/6 | [RFC5305]/3.2 |
| | address | | |
| 260 | IPv4 neighbor | 22/8 | [RFC5305]/3.3 |
| | address | | |
| 261 | IPv6 interface | 22/12 | [RFC6119]/4.2 |
| | address | | |
| 262 | IPv6 neighbor | 22/13 | [RFC6119]/4.3 |
| | address | | |
| 263 | Multi-Topology | --- | Section 3.2.1.5 |
| | Identifier | | |
+------------+--------------------+---------------+-----------------+
Table 3: Link Descriptor TLVs
3.2.3. Prefix Descriptors
The 'Prefix Descriptor' field is a set of Type/Length/Value (TLV)
triplets. 'Prefix Descriptor' TLVs uniquely identify an IPv4 or IPv6
Prefix originated by a Node. The following TLVs are valid as Prefix
Descriptors in the IPv4/IPv6 Prefix NLRI:
+-----------+--------------------------+------------+---------------+
| TLV Code | Description | Length | Value defined |
| Point | | | in: |
+-----------+--------------------------+------------+---------------+
| 263 | Multi-Topology | variable | Section |
| | Identifier | | 3.2.1.5 |
| 264 | OSPF Route Type | 1 | Section |
| | | | 3.2.3.1 |
| 265 | IP Reachability | variable | Section |
| | Information | | 3.2.3.2 |
+-----------+--------------------------+------------+---------------+
Table 4: Prefix Descriptor TLVs
Gredler, et al. Expires May 22, 2014 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Link-State Info Distribution using BGP November 2013
3.2.3.1. OSPF Route Type
OSPF Route Type is an optional TLV that MAY be present in Prefix
NLRIs. It is used to identify the OSPF route-type of the prefix. It
is used when an OSPF prefix is advertised in the OSPF domain with
multiple different route-types. The Route Type TLV allows to
discriminate these advertisements. The format of the OSPF Route Type
TLV is shown in the following figure.
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Route Type |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 13: OSPF Route Type TLV Format
where the Type and Length fields of the TLV are defined in Table 4.
The OSPF Route Type field values are defined in the OSPF protocol,
and can be one of the following:
Intra-Area (0x1)
Inter-Area (0x2)
External 1 (0x3)
External 2 (0x4)
NSSA 1 (0x5)
NSSA 2 (0x6)
3.2.3.2. IP Reachability Information
The IP Reachability Information is a mandatory TLV that contains one
IP address prefix (IPv4 or IPv6) originally advertised in the IGP
topology. Its purpose is to glue a particular BGP service NLRI vi
virtue of its BGP next-hop to a given Node in the LSDB. A router
SHOULD advertise an IP Prefix NLRI for each of its BGP Next-hops.
The format of the IP Reachability Information TLV is shown in the
following figure:
Gredler, et al. Expires May 22, 2014 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Link-State Info Distribution using BGP November 2013
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Prefix Length | IP Prefix (variable) //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 14: IP Reachability Information TLV Format
The Type and Length fields of the TLV are defined in Table 4. The
following two fields determine the address-family reachability
information. The 'Prefix Length' field contains the length of the
prefix in bits. The 'IP Prefix' field contains the most significant
octets of the prefix; i.e., 1 octet for prefix length 1 up to 8, 2
octets for prefix length 9 to 16, 3 octets for prefix length 17 up to
24 and 4 octets for prefix length 25 up to 32, etc.
3.3. The BGP-LS Attribute
This is an optional, non-transitive BGP attribute that is used to
carry link, node and prefix parameters and attributes. It is defined
as a set of Type/Length/Value (TLV) triplets, described in the
following section. This attribute SHOULD only be included with Link-
State NLRIs. This attribute MUST be ignored for all other address-
families.
3.3.1. Node Attribute TLVs
Node attribute TLVs are the TLVs that may be encoded in the BGP-LS
attribute with a node NLRI. The following node attribute TLVs are
defined:
Gredler, et al. Expires May 22, 2014 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Link-State Info Distribution using BGP November 2013
+-----------+----------------------+------------+-------------------+
| TLV Code | Description | Length | Value defined in: |
| Point | | | |
+-----------+----------------------+------------+-------------------+
| 263 | Multi-Topology | variable | Section 3.2.1.5 |
| | Identifier | | |
| 1024 | Node Flag Bits | 1 | Section 3.3.1.1 |
| 1025 | Opaque Node | variable | Section 3.3.1.5 |
| | Properties | | |
| 1026 | Node Name | variable | Section 3.3.1.3 |
| 1027 | IS-IS Area | variable | Section 3.3.1.2 |
| | Identifier | | |
| 1028 | IPv4 Router-ID of | 4 | [RFC5305]/4.3 |
| | Local Node | | |
| 1029 | IPv6 Router-ID of | 16 | [RFC6119]/4.1 |
| | Local Node | | |
+-----------+----------------------+------------+-------------------+
Table 5: Node Attribute TLVs
3.3.1.1. Node Flag Bits TLV
The Node Flag Bits TLV carries a bit mask describing node attributes.
The value is a variable length bit array of flags, where each bit
represents a node capability.
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|O|T|E|A| Reserved|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 15: Node Flag Bits TLV format
The bits are defined as follows:
Gredler, et al. Expires May 22, 2014 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Link-State Info Distribution using BGP November 2013
+----------+-------------------------+-----------+
| Bit | Description | Reference |
+----------+-------------------------+-----------+
| 'O' | Overload Bit | [RFC1195] |
| 'T' | Attached Bit | [RFC1195] |
| 'E' | External Bit | [RFC2328] |
| 'A' | ABR Bit | [RFC2328] |
| Reserved | Reserved for future use | |
+----------+-------------------------+-----------+
Table 6: Node Flag Bits Definitions
3.3.1.2. IS-IS Area Identifier TLV
An IS-IS node can be part of one or more IS-IS areas. Each of these
area addresses is carried in the IS-IS Area Identifier TLV. If more
than one Area Addresses are present, multiple TLVs are used to encode
them. The IS-IS Area Identifier TLV may be present in the BGP-LS
attribute only with the Link-State Node NLRI.
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// Area Identifier (variable) //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 16: IS-IS Area Identifier TLV Format
3.3.1.3. Node Name TLV
The Node Name TLV is optional. Its structure and encoding has been
borrowed from [RFC5301]. The value field identifies the symbolic
name of the router node. This symbolic name can be the FQDN for the
router, it can be a subset of the FQDN, or it can be any string
operators want to use for the router. The use of FQDN or a subset of
it is strongly recommended.
The Value field is encoded in 7-bit ASCII. If a user-interface for
configuring or displaying this field permits Unicode characters, that
user-interface is responsible for applying the ToASCII and/or
ToUnicode algorithm as described in [RFC3490] to achieve the correct
format for transmission or display.
Gredler, et al. Expires May 22, 2014 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft Link-State Info Distribution using BGP November 2013
Altough [RFC5301] is a IS-IS specific extension, usage of the Node
Name TLV is possible for all protocols. How a router derives and
injects node names for e.g. OSPF nodes, is outside of the scope of
this document.
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// Node Name (variable) //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 17: Node Name format
3.3.1.4. Local IPv4/IPv6 Router-ID
The local IPv4/IPv6 Router-ID TLVs are used to describe auxiliary
Router-IDs that the IGP might be using, e.g., for TE and migration
purposes like correlating a Node-ID between different protocols. If
there is more than one auxiliary Router-ID of a given type, then each
one is encoded in its own TLV.
3.3.1.5. Opaque Node Attribute TLV
The Opaque Node attribute TLV is an envelope that transparently
carries optional node attribute TLVs advertised by a router. An
originating router shall use this TLV for encoding information
specific to the protocol advertised in the NLRI header Protocol-ID
field or new protocol extensions to the protocol as advertised in the
NLRI header Protocol-ID field for which there is no protocol neutral
representation in the BGP link-state NLRI. A router for example
could use this extension in order to advertise the native protocols
node attribute TLVs, such as the OSPF Router Informational
Capabilities TLV defined in [RFC4970], or the IGP TE Node Capability
Descriptor TLV described in [RFC5073].
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// Opaque node attributes (variable) //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 18: Opaque Node attribute format
Gredler, et al. Expires May 22, 2014 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft Link-State Info Distribution using BGP November 2013
3.3.2. Link Attribute TLVs
Link attribute TLVs are TLVs that may be encoded in the BGP-LS
attribute with a link NLRI. Each 'Link Attribute' is a Type/Length/
Value (TLV) triplet formatted as defined in Section 3.1. The format
and semantics of the 'value' fields in some 'Link Attribute' TLVs
correspond to the format and semantics of value fields in IS-IS
Extended IS Reachability sub-TLVs, defined in [RFC5305] and
[RFC5307]. Other 'Link Attribute' TLVs are defined in this document.
Although the encodings for 'Link Attribute' TLVs were originally
defined for IS-IS, the TLVs can carry data sourced either by IS-IS or
OSPF.
The following 'Link Attribute' TLVs are are valid in the LINK_STATE
attribute:
+----------+----------------------+---------------+-----------------+
| TLV Code | Description | IS-IS TLV | Defined in: |
| Point | | /Sub-TLV | |
+----------+----------------------+---------------+-----------------+
| 1028 | IPv4 Router-ID of | 134/--- | [RFC5305]/4.3 |
| | Local Node | | |
| 1029 | IPv6 Router-ID of | 140/--- | [RFC6119]/4.1 |
| | Local Node | | |
| 1030 | IPv4 Router-ID of | 134/--- | [RFC5305]/4.3 |
| | Remote Node | | |
| 1031 | IPv6 Router-ID of | 140/--- | [RFC6119]/4.1 |
| | Remote Node | | |
| 1088 | Administrative group | 22/3 | [RFC5305]/3.1 |
| | (color) | | |
| 1089 | Maximum link | 22/9 | [RFC5305]/3.3 |
| | bandwidth | | |
| 1090 | Max. reservable link | 22/10 | [RFC5305]/3.5 |
| | bandwidth | | |
| 1091 | Unreserved bandwidth | 22/11 | [RFC5305]/3.6 |
| 1092 | TE Default Metric | 22/18 | [RFC5305]/3.7 |
| 1093 | Link Protection Type | 22/20 | [RFC5307]/1.2 |
| 1094 | MPLS Protocol Mask | --- | Section 3.3.2.2 |
| 1095 | Metric | --- | Section 3.3.2.3 |
| 1096 | Shared Risk Link | --- | Section 3.3.2.4 |
| | Group | | |
| 1097 | Opaque link | --- | Section 3.3.2.5 |
| | attribute | | |
| 1098 | Link Name attribute | --- | Section 3.3.2.6 |
+----------+----------------------+---------------+-----------------+
Table 7: Link Attribute TLVs
Gredler, et al. Expires May 22, 2014 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft Link-State Info Distribution using BGP November 2013
3.3.2.1. IPv4/IPv6 Router-ID
The local/remote IPv4/IPv6 Router-ID TLVs are used to describe
auxiliary Router-IDs that the IGP might be using, e.g., for TE
purposes. All auxiliary Router-IDs of both the local and the remote
node MUST be included in the link attribute of each link NLRI. If
there are more than one auxiliary Router-ID of a given type, then
multiple TLVs are used to encode them.
3.3.2.2. MPLS Protocol Mask TLV
The MPLS Protocol TLV carries a bit mask describing which MPLS
signaling protocols are enabled. The length of this TLV is 1. The
value is a bit array of 8 flags, where each bit represents an MPLS
Protocol capability.
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|L|R| Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 19: MPLS Protocol TLV
The following bits are defined:
+----------------+----------------------------------+---------------+
| Bit | Description | Reference |
+----------------+----------------------------------+---------------+
| 'L' | Label Distribution Protocol | [RFC5036] |
| | (LDP) | |
| 'R' | Extension to RSVP for LSP | [RFC3209] |
| | Tunnels (RSVP-TE) | |
| 'Reserved' | Reserved for future use | |
+----------------+----------------------------------+---------------+
Table 8: MPLS Protocol Mask TLV Codes
3.3.2.3. Metric TLV
The IGP Metric TLV carries the metric for this link. The length of
this TLV is variable, depending on the metric width of the underlying
protocol. IS-IS small metrics have a length of 1 octet (the two most
significant bits are ignored). OSPF metrics have a length of two
octects. IS-IS wide-metrics have a length of three octets.
Gredler, et al. Expires May 22, 2014 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft Link-State Info Distribution using BGP November 2013
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// IGP Link Metric (variable length) //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 20: Metric TLV format
3.3.2.4. Shared Risk Link Group TLV
The Shared Risk Link Group (SRLG) TLV carries the Shared Risk Link
Group information (see Section 2.3, "Shared Risk Link Group
Information", of [RFC4202]). It contains a data structure consisting
of a (variable) list of SRLG values, where each element in the list
has 4 octets, as shown in Figure 21. The length of this TLV is 4 *
(number of SRLG values).
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Shared Risk Link Group Value |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// ............ //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Shared Risk Link Group Value |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 21: Shared Risk Link Group TLV format
Note that there is no SRLG TLV in OSPF-TE. In IS-IS the SRLG
information is carried in two different TLVs: the IPv4 (SRLG) TLV
(Type 138) defined in [RFC5307], and the IPv6 SRLG TLV (Type 139)
defined in [RFC6119]. In Link-State NLRI both IPv4 and IPv6 SRLG
information are carried in a single TLV.
3.3.2.5. Opaque Link Attribute TLV
The Opaque link attribute TLV is an envelope that transparently
carries optional link atrribute TLVs advertised by a router. An
originating router shall use this TLV for encoding information
specific to the protocol advertised in the NLRI header Protocol-ID
field or new protocol extensions to the protocol as advertised in the
NLRI header Protocol-ID field for which there is no protocol neutral
representation in the BGP link-state NLRI.
Gredler, et al. Expires May 22, 2014 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft Link-State Info Distribution using BGP November 2013
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// Opaque link attributes (variable) //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 22: Opaque link attribute format
3.3.2.6. Link Name TLV
The Link Name TLV is optional. The value field identifies the
symbolic name of the router link. This symbolic name can be the FQDN
for the link, it can be a subset of the FQDN, or it can be any string
operators want to use for the link. The use of FQDN or a subset of
it is strongly recommended.
The Value field is encoded in 7-bit ASCII. If a user-interface for
configuring or displaying this field permits Unicode characters, that
user-interface is responsible for applying the ToASCII and/or
ToUnicode algorithm as described in [RFC3490] to achieve the correct
format for transmission or display.
How a router derives and injects link names is outside of the scope
of this document.
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// Link Name (variable) //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 23: Link Name format
3.3.3. Prefix Attribute TLVs
Prefixes are learned from the IGP topology (IS-IS or OSPF) with a set
of IGP attributes (such as metric, route tags, etc.) that MUST be
reflected into the LINK_STATE attribute. This section describes the
different attributes related to the IPv4/IPv6 prefixes. Prefix
Attributes TLVs SHOULD be used when advertising NLRI types 3 and 4
only. The following attributes TLVs are defined:
Gredler, et al. Expires May 22, 2014 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft Link-State Info Distribution using BGP November 2013
+-------------+---------------------+--------------+----------------+
| TLV Code | Description | Length | Reference |
| Point | | | |
+-------------+---------------------+--------------+----------------+
| 1152 | IGP Flags | 1 | Section |
| | | | 3.3.3.1 |
| 1153 | Route Tag | 4*n | Section |
| | | | 3.3.3.2 |
| 1154 | Extended Tag | 8*n | Section |
| | | | 3.3.3.3 |
| 1155 | Prefix Metric | 4 | Section |
| | | | 3.3.3.4 |
| 1156 | OSPF Forwarding | 4 | Section |
| | Address | | 3.3.3.5 |
| 1157 | Opaque Prefix | variable | Section |
| | Attribute | | 3.3.3.6 |
+-------------+---------------------+--------------+----------------+
Table 9: Prefix Attribute TLVs
3.3.3.1. IGP Flags TLV
IGP Flags TLV contains IS-IS and OSPF flags and bits originally
assigned tothe prefix. The IGP Flags TLV is encoded as follows:
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|D| Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 24: IGP Flag TLV format
The value field contains bits defined according to the table below:
+----------+--------------------------+-----------+
| Bit | Description | Reference |
+----------+--------------------------+-----------+
| 'D' | IS-IS Up/Down Bit | [RFC5305] |
| Reserved | Reserved for future use. | |
+----------+--------------------------+-----------+
Table 10: IGP Flag Bits Definitions
Gredler, et al. Expires May 22, 2014 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft Link-State Info Distribution using BGP November 2013
3.3.3.2. Route Tag
Route Tag TLV carries original IGP TAGs (IS-IS [RFC5130] or OSPF) of
the prefix and is encoded as follows:
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// Route Tags (one or more) //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 25: IGP Route TAG TLV format
Length is a multiple of 4.
The value field contains one or more Route Tags as learned in the IGP
topology.
3.3.3.3. Extended Route Tag
Extended Route Tag TLV carries IS-IS Extended Route TAGs of the
prefix [RFC5130] and is encoded as follows:
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// Extended Route Tag (one or more) //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 26: Extended IGP Route TAG TLV format
Length is a multiple of 8.
The 'Extended Route Tag' field contains one or more Extended Route
Tags as learned in the IGP topology.
3.3.3.4. Prefix Metric TLV
Prefix Metric TLV carries the metric of the prefix as known in the
IGP topology [RFC5305]. The attribute is mandatory and can only
appear once.
Gredler, et al. Expires May 22, 2014 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft Link-State Info Distribution using BGP November 2013
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Metric |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 27: Prefix Metric TLV Format
Length is 4.
3.3.3.5. OSPF Forwarding Address TLV
OSPF Forwarding Address TLV [RFC2328] carries the OSPF forwarding
address as known in the original OSPF advertisement. Forwarding
address can be either IPv4 or IPv6.
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// Forwarding Address (variable) //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 28: OSPF Forwarding Address TLV Format
Length is 4 for an IPv4 forwarding address an 16 for an IPv6
forwarding address.
3.3.3.6. Opaque Prefix Attribute TLV
The Opaque Prefix attribute TLV is an envelope that transparently
carries optional prefix attribute TLVs advertised by a router. An
originating router shall use this TLV for encoding information
specific to the protocol advertised in the NLRI header Protocol-ID
field or new protocol extensions to the protocol as advertised in the
NLRI header Protocol-ID field for which there is no protocol neutral
representation in the BGP link-state NLRI.
Gredler, et al. Expires May 22, 2014 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft Link-State Info Distribution using BGP November 2013
The format of the TLV is as follows:
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// Opaque Prefix Attributes (variable) //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 29: Opaque Prefix Attribute TLV Format
Type is as specified in Table 9 and Length is variable.
3.4. BGP Next Hop Information
BGP link-state information for both IPv4 and IPv6 networks can be
carried over either an IPv4 BGP session, or an IPv6 BGP session. If
IPv4 BGP session is used, then the next hop in the MP_REACH_NLRI
SHOULD be an IPv4 address. Similarly, if IPv6 BGP session is used,
then the next hop in the MP_REACH_NLRI SHOULD be an IPv6 address.
Usually the next hop will be set to the local end-point address of
the BGP session. The next hop address MUST be encoded as described
in [RFC4760]. The length field of the next hop address will specify
the next hop address-family. If the next hop length is 4, then the
next hop is an IPv4 address; if the next hop length is 16, then it is
a global IPv6 address and if the next hop length is 32, then there is
one global IPv6 address followed by a link-local IPv6 address. The
link-local IPv6 address should be used as described in [RFC2545].
For VPN SAFI, as per custom, an 8 byte route-distinguisher set to all
zero is prepended to the next hop.
The BGP Next Hop attribute is used by each BGP-LS speaker to validate
the NLRI it receives. However, this specification doesn't mandate
any rule regarding the re-write of the BGP Next Hop attribute.
3.5. Inter-AS Links
The main source of TE information is the IGP, which is not active on
inter-AS links. In some cases, the IGP may have information of
inter-AS links ([RFC5392], [RFC5316]). In other cases, an
implementation SHOULD provide a means to inject inter-AS links into
BGP-LS. The exact mechanism used to provision the inter-AS links is
outside the scope of this document
3.6. Router-ID Anchoring Example: ISO Pseudonode
Gredler, et al. Expires May 22, 2014 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft Link-State Info Distribution using BGP November 2013
Encoding of a broadcast LAN in IS-IS provides a good example of how
Router-IDs are encoded. Consider Figure 30. This represents a
Broadcast LAN between a pair of routers. The "real" (=non
pseudonode) routers have both an IPv4 Router-ID and IS-IS Node-ID.
The pseudonode does not have an IPv4 Router-ID. Node1 is the DIS for
the LAN. Two unidirectional links (Node1, Pseudonode 1) and
(Pseudonode1, Node2) are being generated.
The link NRLI of (Node1, Pseudonode1) is encoded as follows: the IGP
Router-ID TLV of the local node descriptor is 6 octets long
containing ISO-ID of Node1, 1920.0000.2001; the IGP Router-ID TLV of
the remote node descriptor is 7 octets long containing the ISO-ID of
Pseudonode1, 1920.0000.2001.02. The BGP-LS attribute of this link
contains one local IPv4 Router-ID TLV (TLV type 1028) containing
192.0.2.1, the IPv4 Router-ID of Node1.
The link NRLI of (Pseudonode1. Node2) is encoded as follows: the IGP
Router-ID TLV of the local node descriptor is 7 octets long
containing the ISO-ID of Pseudonode1, 1920.0000.2001.02; the IGP
Router-ID TLV of the remote node descriptor is 6 octets long
containing ISO-ID of Node2, 1920.0000.2002. The BGP-LS attribute of
this link contains one remote IPv4 Router-ID TLV (TLV type 1030)
containing 192.0.2.2, the IPv4 Router-ID of Node2.
+-----------------+ +-----------------+ +-----------------+
| Node1 | | Pseudonode1 | | Node2 |
|1920.0000.2001.00|--->|1920.0000.2001.02|--->|1920.0000.2002.00|
| 192.0.2.1 | | | | 192.0.2.2 |
+-----------------+ +-----------------+ +-----------------+
Figure 30: IS-IS Pseudonodes
3.7. Router-ID Anchoring Example: OSPFv2 to IS-IS Migration
Graceful migration from one IGP to another requires coordinated
operation of both protocols during the migration period. Such a
coordination requires identifying a given physical link in both IGPs.
The IPv4 Router-ID provides that "glue" which is present in the node
descriptors of the OSPF link NLRI and in the link attribute of the
IS-IS link NLRI.
Consider a point-to-point link between two routers, A and B, that
initially were OSPFv2-only routers and then IS-IS is enabled on them.
Node A has IPv4 Router-ID and ISO-ID; node B has IPv4 Router-ID, IPv6
Router-ID and ISO-ID. Each protocol generates one link NLRI for the
link (A, B), both of which are carried by BGP-LS. The OSPFv2 link
NLRI for the link is encoded with the IPv4 Router-ID of nodes A and B
in the local and remote node descriptors, respectively. The IS-IS
Gredler, et al. Expires May 22, 2014 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft Link-State Info Distribution using BGP November 2013
link NLRI for the link is encoded with the ISO-ID of nodes A and B in
the local and remote node descriptors, respectively. In addition,
the BGP-LS attribute of the IS-IS link NLRI contains the the TLV type
1028 containing the IPv4 Router-ID of node A; TLV type 1030
containing the IPv4 Router-ID of node B and TLV type 1031 containing
the IPv6 Router-ID of node B. In this case, by using IPv4 Router-ID,
the link (A, B) can be identified in both IS-IS and OSPF protocol.
4. Link to Path Aggregation
Distribution of all links available in the global Internet is
certainly possible, however not desirable from a scaling and privacy
point of view. Therefore an implementation may support link to path
aggregation. Rather than advertising all specific links of a domain,
an ASBR may advertise an "aggregate link" between a non-adjacent pair
of nodes. The "aggregate link" represents the aggregated set of link
properties between a pair of non-adjacent nodes. The actual methods
to compute the path properties (of bandwidth, metric) are outside the
scope of this document. The decision whether to advertise all
specific links or aggregated links is an operator's policy choice.
To highlight the varying levels of exposure, the following deployment
examples are discussed.
4.1. Example: No Link Aggregation
Consider Figure 31. Both AS1 and AS2 operators want to protect their
inter-AS {R1,R3}, {R2, R4} links using RSVP-FRR LSPs. If R1 wants to
compute its link-protection LSP to R3 it needs to "see" an alternate
path to R3. Therefore the AS2 operator exposes its topology. All
BGP TE enabled routers in AS1 "see" the full topology of AS and
therefore can compute a backup path. Note that the decision if the
direct link between {R3, R4} or the {R4, R5, R3) path is used is made
by the computing router.
AS1 : AS2
:
R1-------R3
| : | \
| : | R5
| : | /
R2-------R4
:
:
Figure 31: No link aggregation
4.2. Example: ASBR to ASBR Path Aggregation
Gredler, et al. Expires May 22, 2014 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft Link-State Info Distribution using BGP November 2013
The brief difference between the "no-link aggregation" example and
this example is that no specific link gets exposed. Consider Figure
32. The only link which gets advertised by AS2 is an "aggregate"
link between R3 and R4. This is enough to tell AS1 that there is a
backup path. However the actual links being used are hidden from the
topology.
AS1 : AS2
:
R1-------R3
| : |
| : |
| : |
R2-------R4
:
:
Figure 32: ASBR link aggregation
4.3. Example: Multi-AS Path Aggregation
Service providers in control of multiple ASes may even decide to not
expose their internal inter-AS links. Consider Figure 33. AS3 is
modeled as a single node which connects to the border routers of the
aggregated domain.
AS1 : AS2 : AS3
: :
R1-------R3-----
| : : \
| : : vR0
| : : /
R2-------R4-----
: :
: :
Figure 33: Multi-AS aggregation
5. IANA Considerations
This document requests a code point from the registry of Address
Family Numbers. As per early allocation procedure this is AFI 16388.
This document requests a code point from the registry of Subsequent
Address Family Numbers. As per early allocation procedure this is
SAFI 71.
Gredler, et al. Expires May 22, 2014 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft Link-State Info Distribution using BGP November 2013
This document requests a code point from the BGP Path Attributes
registry.
This document requests creation of a new registry for node anchor,
link descriptor and link attribute TLVs. Values 0-255 are reserved.
Values 256-65535 will be used for Codepoints. The registry will be
initialized as shown in Table 11. Allocations within the registry
will require documentation of the proposed use of the allocated value
and approval by the Designated Expert assigned by the IESG (see
[RFC5226]).
Note to RFC Editor: this section may be removed on publication as an
RFC.
6. Manageability Considerations
This section is structured as recommended in [RFC5706].
6.1. Operational Considerations
6.1.1. Operations
Existing BGP operational procedures apply. No new operation
procedures are defined in this document. It is noted that the NLRI
information present in this document purely carries application level
data that has no immediate corresponding forwarding state impact. As
such, any churn in reachability information has different impact than
regular BGP updates which need to change forwarding state for an
entire router. Furthermore it is anticipated that distribution of
this NLRI will be handled by dedicated route-reflectors providing a
level of isolation and fault-containment between different NLRI
types.
6.1.2. Installation and Initial Setup
Configuration parameters defined in Section 6.2.3 SHOULD be
initialized to the following default values:
o The Link-State NLRI capability is turned off for all neighbors.
o The maximum rate at which Link-State NLRIs will be advertised/
withdrawn from neighbors is set to 200 updates per second.
Gredler, et al. Expires May 22, 2014 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft Link-State Info Distribution using BGP November 2013
6.1.3. Migration Path
The proposed extension is only activated between BGP peers after
capability negotiation. Moreover, the extensions can be turned on/
off an individual peer basis (see Section 6.2.3), so the extension
can be gradually rolled out in the network.
6.1.4. Requirements on Other Protocols and Functional Components
The protocol extension defined in this document does not put new
requirements on other protocols or functional components.
6.1.5. Impact on Network Operation
Frequency of Link-State NLRI updates could interfere with regular BGP
prefix distribution. A network operator MAY use a dedicated Route-
Reflector infrastructure to distribute Link-State NLRIs.
Distribution of Link-State NLRIs SHOULD be limited to a single admin
domain, which can consist of multiple areas within an AS or multiple
ASes.
6.1.6. Verifying Correct Operation
Existing BGP procedures apply. In addition, an implementation SHOULD
allow an operator to:
o List neighbors with whom the Speaker is exchanging Link-State
NLRIs
6.2. Management Considerations
6.2.1. Management Information
6.2.2. Fault Management
TBD.
6.2.3. Configuration Management
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 specify the maximum
rate at which Link-State NLRIs will be advertised/withdrawn from
neighbors
Gredler, et al. Expires May 22, 2014 [Page 34]
Internet-Draft Link-State Info Distribution using BGP November 2013
An implementation SHOULD allow the operator to specify the maximum
number of Link-State NLRIs stored in router's RIB.
An implementation SHOULD allow the operator to create abstracted
topologies that are advertised to neighbors; Create different
abstractions for different neighbors.
An implementation SHOULD allow the operator to configure a 64-bit
instance ID.
An implementation SHOULD allow the operator to configure a pair of
ASN and BGP-LS identifier per flooding set the node participates in.
6.2.4. Accounting Management
Not Applicable.
6.2.5. Performance Management
An implementation SHOULD provide the following statistics:
o Total number of Link-State NLRI updates sent/received
o Number of Link-State NLRI updates sent/received, per neighbor
o Number of errored received Link-State NLRI updates, per neighbor
o Total number of locally originated Link-State NLRIs
6.2.6. Security Management
An operator SHOULD define ACLs to limit inbound updates as follows:
o Drop all updates from Consumer peers
7. TLV/Sub-TLV Code Points Summary
This section contains the global table of all TLVs/Sub-TLVs defined
in this document.
+---------+----------------------+--------------+-------------------+
| TLV | Description | IS-IS TLV/ | Value defined in: |
| Code | | Sub-TLV | |
| Point | | | |
+---------+----------------------+--------------+-------------------+
| 256 | Local Node | --- | Section 3.2.1.2 |
| | Descriptors | | |
| 257 | Remote Node | --- | Section 3.2.1.3 |
Gredler, et al. Expires May 22, 2014 [Page 35]
Internet-Draft Link-State Info Distribution using BGP November 2013
| | Descriptors | | |
| 258 | Link Local/Remote | 22/4 | [RFC5307]/1.1 |
| | Identifiers | | |
| 259 | IPv4 interface | 22/6 | [RFC5305]/3.2 |
| | address | | |
| 260 | IPv4 neighbor | 22/8 | [RFC5305]/3.3 |
| | address | | |
| 261 | IPv6 interface | 22/12 | [RFC6119]/4.2 |
| | address | | |
| 262 | IPv6 neighbor | 22/13 | [RFC6119]/4.3 |
| | address | | |
| 263 | Multi-Topology ID | --- | Section 3.2.1.5 |
| 264 | OSPF Route Type | --- | Section 3.2.3 |
| 265 | IP Reachability | --- | Section 3.2.3 |
| | Information | | |
| 512 | Autonomous System | --- | Section 3.2.1.4 |
| 513 | BGP-LS Identifier | --- | Section 3.2.1.4 |
| 514 | Area ID | --- | Section 3.2.1.4 |
| 515 | IGP Router-ID | --- | Section 3.2.1.4 |
| 1024 | Node Flag Bits | --- | Section 3.3.1.1 |
| 1025 | Opaque Node | --- | Section 3.3.1.5 |
| | Properties | | |
| 1026 | Node Name | variable | Section 3.3.1.3 |
| 1027 | IS-IS Area | variable | Section 3.3.1.2 |
| | Identifier | | |
| 1028 | IPv4 Router-ID of | 134/--- | [RFC5305]/4.3 |
| | Local Node | | |
| 1029 | IPv6 Router-ID of | 140/--- | [RFC6119]/4.1 |
| | Local Node | | |
| 1030 | IPv4 Router-ID of | 134/--- | [RFC5305]/4.3 |
| | Remote Node | | |
| 1031 | IPv6 Router-ID of | 140/--- | [RFC6119]/4.1 |
| | Remote Node | | |
| 1088 | Administrative group | 22/3 | [RFC5305]/3.1 |
| | (color) | | |
| 1089 | Maximum link | 22/9 | [RFC5305]/3.3 |
| | bandwidth | | |
| 1090 | Max. reservable link | 22/10 | [RFC5305]/3.5 |
| | bandwidth | | |
| 1091 | Unreserved bandwidth | 22/11 | [RFC5305]/3.6 |
| 1092 | TE Default Metric | 22/18 | [RFC5305]/3.7 |
| 1093 | Link Protection Type | 22/20 | [RFC5307]/1.2 |
| 1094 | MPLS Protocol Mask | --- | Section 3.3.2.2 |
| 1095 | Metric | --- | Section 3.3.2.3 |
| 1096 | Shared Risk Link | --- | Section 3.3.2.4 |
| | Group | | |
| 1097 | Opaque link | --- | Section 3.3.2.5 |
| | attribute | | |
Gredler, et al. Expires May 22, 2014 [Page 36]
Internet-Draft Link-State Info Distribution using BGP November 2013
| 1098 | Link Name attribute | --- | Section 3.3.2.6 |
| 1152 | IGP Flags | --- | Section 3.3.3.1 |
| 1153 | Route Tag | --- | [RFC5130] |
| 1154 | Extended Tag | --- | [RFC5130] |
| 1155 | Prefix Metric | --- | [RFC5305] |
| 1156 | OSPF Forwarding | --- | [RFC2328] |
| | Address | | |
| 1157 | Opaque Prefix | --- | Section 3.3.3.6 |
| | Attribute | | |
+---------+----------------------+--------------+-------------------+
Table 11: Summary Table of TLV/Sub-TLV Codepoints
8. 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 [I-D.ietf-karp-routing-tcp-analysis] for analysis of
security issues for BGP.
In the context of the BGP peerings associated with this document, a
BGP Speaker SHOULD NOT accept updates from a Consumer peer. That is,
a participating BGP Speaker, should be aware of the nature of its
relationships for link state relationships and should protect itself
from peers sending updates that either represent erroneous
information feedback loops, or are false input. Such protection can
be achieved by manual configuration of Consumer peers at the BGP
Speaker.
An operator SHOULD employ a mechanism to protect a BGP Speaker
against DDOS attacks from Consumers. The principal attack a consumer
may apply is to attempt to start multiple sessions either
sequentially or simultaneously. Protection can be applied by
imposing rate limits.
Additionally, it may be considered that the export of link state and
TE information as described in this document constitutes a risk to
confidentiality of mission-critical or commercially-sensitive
information about the network. BGP peerings are not automatic and
require configuration, thus it is the responsibility of the network
operator to ensure that only trusted Consumers are configured to
receive such information.
9. Contributors
We would like to thank Robert Varga for the significant contribution
he gave to this document.
Gredler, et al. Expires May 22, 2014 [Page 37]
Internet-Draft Link-State Info Distribution using BGP November 2013
10. Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Nischal Sheth, Alia Atlas, David Ward, Derek
Yeung, Murtuza Lightwala, John Scudder, Kaliraj Vairavakkalai, Les
Ginsberg, Liem Nguyen, Manish Bhardwaj, Mike Shand, Peter Psenak, Rex
Fernando, Richard Woundy, Steven Luong, Tamas Mondal, Waqas Alam,
Vipin Kumar, Naiming Shen, Balaji Rajagopalan and Yakov Rekhter for
their comments.
11. References
11.1. Normative References
[RFC1195] Callon, R., "Use of OSI IS-IS for routing in TCP/IP and
dual environments", RFC 1195, December 1990.
[RFC1918] Rekhter, Y., Moskowitz, R., Karrenberg, D., Groot, G., and
E. Lear, "Address Allocation for Private Internets", BCP
5, RFC 1918, February 1996.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2328] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328, April 1998.
[RFC2545] Marques, P. and F. Dupont, "Use of BGP-4 Multiprotocol
Extensions for IPv6 Inter-Domain Routing", RFC 2545, March
1999.
[RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.,
and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001.
[RFC3490] Faltstrom, P., Hoffman, P., and A. Costello,
"Internationalizing Domain Names in Applications (IDNA)",
RFC 3490, March 2003.
[RFC4202] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Routing Extensions in
Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS)", RFC 4202, October 2005.
[RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Li, T., and S. Hares, "A Border Gateway
Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, January 2006.
[RFC4272] Murphy, S., "BGP Security Vulnerabilities Analysis", RFC
4272, January 2006.
Gredler, et al. Expires May 22, 2014 [Page 38]
Internet-Draft Link-State Info Distribution using BGP November 2013
[RFC4760] Bates, T., Chandra, R., Katz, D., and Y. Rekhter,
"Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4", RFC 4760, January
2007.
[RFC4915] Psenak, P., Mirtorabi, S., Roy, A., Nguyen, L., and P.
Pillay-Esnault, "Multi-Topology (MT) Routing in OSPF", RFC
4915, June 2007.
[RFC5036] Andersson, L., Minei, I., and B. Thomas, "LDP
Specification", RFC 5036, October 2007.
[RFC5120] Przygienda, T., Shen, N., and N. Sheth, "M-ISIS: Multi
Topology (MT) Routing in Intermediate System to
Intermediate Systems (IS-ISs)", RFC 5120, February 2008.
[RFC5130] Previdi, S., Shand, M., and C. Martin, "A Policy Control
Mechanism in IS-IS Using Administrative Tags", RFC 5130,
February 2008.
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
May 2008.
[RFC5301] McPherson, D. and N. Shen, "Dynamic Hostname Exchange
Mechanism for IS-IS", RFC 5301, October 2008.
[RFC5305] Li, T. and H. Smit, "IS-IS Extensions for Traffic
Engineering", RFC 5305, October 2008.
[RFC5307] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "IS-IS Extensions in Support
of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)",
RFC 5307, October 2008.
[RFC6119] Harrison, J., Berger, J., and M. Bartlett, "IPv6 Traffic
Engineering in IS-IS", RFC 6119, February 2011.
[RFC6286] Chen, E. and J. Yuan, "Autonomous-System-Wide Unique BGP
Identifier for BGP-4", RFC 6286, June 2011.
[RFC6822] Previdi, S., Ginsberg, L., Shand, M., Roy, A., and D.
Ward, "IS-IS Multi-Instance", RFC 6822, December 2012.
11.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-alto-protocol]
Alimi, R., Penno, R., and Y. Yang, "ALTO Protocol", draft-
ietf-alto-protocol-13 (work in progress), September 2012.
Gredler, et al. Expires May 22, 2014 [Page 39]
Internet-Draft Link-State Info Distribution using BGP November 2013
[I-D.ietf-karp-routing-tcp-analysis]
Jethanandani, M., Patel, K., and L. Zheng, "Analysis of
BGP, LDP, PCEP and MSDP Issues According to KARP Design
Guide", draft-ietf-karp-routing-tcp-analysis-07 (work in
progress), April 2013.
[RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J., and J. Ash, "A Path Computation
Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655, August 2006.
[RFC4970] Lindem, A., Shen, N., Vasseur, JP., Aggarwal, R., and S.
Shaffer, "Extensions to OSPF for Advertising Optional
Router Capabilities", RFC 4970, July 2007.
[RFC5073] Vasseur, J. and J. Le Roux, "IGP Routing Protocol
Extensions for Discovery of Traffic Engineering Node
Capabilities", RFC 5073, December 2007.
[RFC5152] Vasseur, JP., Ayyangar, A., and R. Zhang, "A Per-Domain
Path Computation Method for Establishing Inter-Domain
Traffic Engineering (TE) Label Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC
5152, February 2008.
[RFC5316] Chen, M., Zhang, R., and X. Duan, "ISIS Extensions in
Support of Inter-Autonomous System (AS) MPLS and GMPLS
Traffic Engineering", RFC 5316, December 2008.
[RFC5392] Chen, M., Zhang, R., and X. Duan, "OSPF Extensions in
Support of Inter-Autonomous System (AS) MPLS and GMPLS
Traffic Engineering", RFC 5392, January 2009.
[RFC5693] Seedorf, J. and E. Burger, "Application-Layer Traffic
Optimization (ALTO) Problem Statement", RFC 5693, October
2009.
[RFC5706] Harrington, D., "Guidelines for Considering Operations and
Management of New Protocols and Protocol Extensions", RFC
5706, November 2009.
[RFC6549] Lindem, A., Roy, A., and S. Mirtorabi, "OSPFv2 Multi-
Instance Extensions", RFC 6549, March 2012.
Authors' Addresses
Gredler, et al. Expires May 22, 2014 [Page 40]
Internet-Draft Link-State Info Distribution using BGP November 2013
Hannes Gredler
Juniper Networks, Inc.
1194 N. Mathilda Ave.
Sunnyvale, CA 94089
US
Email: hannes@juniper.net
Jan Medved
Cisco Systems, Inc.
170, West Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA 95134
US
Email: jmedved@cisco.com
Stefano Previdi
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Via Del Serafico, 200
Rome 00142
Italy
Email: sprevidi@cisco.com
Adrian Farrel
Juniper Networks, Inc.
1194 N. Mathilda Ave.
Sunnyvale, CA 94089
US
Email: afarrel@juniper.net
Saikat Ray
Cisco Systems, Inc.
170, West Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA 95134
US
Email: sairay@cisco.com
Gredler, et al. Expires May 22, 2014 [Page 41]
