Network Working Group J. Dong
Internet-Draft M. Chen
Intended status: Standards Track Huawei Technologies
Expires: June 5, 2016 H. Gredler
Individual Contributor
S. Previdi
Cisco Systems, Inc.
J. Tantsura
Ericsson
December 3, 2015
Distribution of MPLS Traffic Engineering (TE) LSP State using BGP
draft-ietf-idr-te-lsp-distribution-04
Abstract
This document describes a mechanism to collect the Traffic
Engineering (TE) LSP information using BGP. Such information can be
used by external components for path reoptimization, service
placement, and network visualization.
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 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 June 5, 2016.
Dong, et al. Expires June 5, 2016 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft MPLS TE LSP State Distribution using BGP December 2015
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2015 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Carrying LSP State Information in BGP . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. MPLS TE LSP Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2. IPv4/IPv6 MPLS TE LSP NLRI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2.1. MPLS TE LSP Descriptors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.3. LSP State Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.3.1. RSVP Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.3.2. PCE Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.3.3. SR Encap TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3. Operational Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.1. BGP-LS NLRI-Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.2. BGP-LS Protocol-IDs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.3. BGP-LS Descriptors TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.4. BGP-LS LSP-State TLV Protocol Origin . . . . . . . . . . 13
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
1. Introduction
In some network environments, the state of established Multi-Protocol
Label Switching (MPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE) Label Switched Paths
(LSPs) and Tunnels in the network are required by components external
to the network domain. Usually this information is directly
maintained by the ingress Label Edge Routers (LERs) of the MPLS TE
LSPs.
Dong, et al. Expires June 5, 2016 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft MPLS TE LSP State Distribution using BGP December 2015
One example of using the LSP information is stateful Path Computation
Element (PCE) [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce], which could provide
benefits in path reoptimization. While some extensions are proposed
in Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) for the
Path Computation Clients (PCCs) to report the LSP states to the PCE,
this mechanism may not be applicable in a management-based PCE
architecture as specified in section 5.5 of [RFC4655]. As
illustrated in the figure below, the PCC is not an LSR in the routing
domain, thus the head-end nodes of the TE-LSPs may not implement the
PCEP protocol. In this case a general mechanism to collect the TE-
LSP states from the ingress LERs is needed. This document proposes
an LSP state collection mechanism complementary to the mechanism
defined in [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce].
-----------
| ----- |
Service | | TED |<-+----------->
Request | ----- | TED synchronization
| | | | mechanism (for example,
v | | | routing protocol)
------------- Request/ | v |
| | Response| ----- |
| NMS |<--------+> | PCE | |
| | | ----- |
------------- -----------
Service |
Request |
v
---------- Signaling ----------
| Head-End | Protocol | Adjacent |
| Node |<---------->| Node |
---------- ----------
Figure 1. Management-Based PCE Usage
In networks with composite PCE nodes as specified in section 5.1 of
[RFC4655], PCE is implemented on several routers in the network, and
the PCCs in the network can use the mechanism described in
[I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] to report the LSP information to the PCE
nodes. An external component may also need to collect the LSP
information from all the PCEs in the network to obtain a global view
of the LSP state in the network.
In multi-area or multi-AS scenarios, each area or AS can have a child
PCE to collect the LSP state in its own domain, in addition, a parent
PCE needs to collect LSP information from multiple child PCEs to
obtain a global view of LSPs inside and across the domains involved.
Dong, et al. Expires June 5, 2016 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft MPLS TE LSP State Distribution using BGP December 2015
In another network scenario, a centralized controller is used for
service placement. Obtaining the TE LSP state information is quite
important for making appropriate service placement decisions with the
purpose to both meet the application's requirements and utilize
network resources efficiently.
The Network Management System (NMS) may need to provide global
visibility of the TE LSPs in the network as part of the network
visualization function.
BGP has been extended to distribute link-state and traffic
engineering information to external components
[I-D.ietf-idr-ls-distribution]. Using the same protocol to collect
TE LSP information is desirable for these external components since
this avoids introducing multiple protocols for network information
collection. This document describes a mechanism to distribute TE LSP
information to external components using BGP.
2. Carrying LSP State Information in BGP
2.1. MPLS TE LSP Information
The MPLS TE LSP information is advertised in BGP UPDATE messages
using the MP_REACH_NLRI and MP_UNREACH_NLRI attributes [RFC4760].
The "Link-State NLRI" defined in [I-D.ietf-idr-ls-distribution] is
extended to carry the MPLS TE LSP information. BGP speakers that
wish to exchange MPLS TE LSP information MUST use the BGP
Multiprotocol Extensions Capability Code (1) to advertise the
corresponding (AFI, SAFI) pair, as specified in [RFC4760].
The format of "Link-State NLRI" is defined in
[I-D.ietf-idr-ls-distribution]. A new "NLRI Type" is defined for
MPLS TE LSP Information as following:
o NLRI Type: IPv4/IPv6 MPLS TE LSP NLRI (suggested codepoint value
5, to be assigned by IANA).
[I-D.ietf-idr-ls-distribution] defines the BGP-LS NLRI 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| NLRI Type | Total NLRI Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
// Link-State NLRI (variable) //
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Dong, et al. Expires June 5, 2016 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft MPLS TE LSP State Distribution using BGP December 2015
This document defines a new NLRI-Type and its format: the IPv4/IPv6
MPLS TE LSP NLRI defined in the following section.
2.2. IPv4/IPv6 MPLS TE LSP NLRI
The IPv4/IPv6 MPLS TE LSP NLRI (NLRI Type 5. Suggested value, to be
assigned by IANA) 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) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// MPLS TE LSP Descriptors (variable) //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
where:
o Protocol-ID field specifies the type of signaling of the MPLS TE
LSP. The following Protocol-IDs are defined (suggested values, to
be assigned by IANA) and apply to the IPv4/IPv6 MPLS TE LSP NLRI:
+-------------+----------------------------------+
| Protocol-ID | NLRI information source protocol |
+-------------+----------------------------------+
| 7 | RSVP-TE |
| 8 | Segment Routing |
+-------------+----------------------------------+
o "Identifier" is an 8 octet value as defined in
[I-D.ietf-idr-ls-distribution].
o Following MPLS TE LSP Descriptors are defined:
+-----------+----------------------------------+
| Codepoint | Descriptor TLV |
+-----------+----------------------------------+
| 267 | Tunnel ID |
| 268 | LSP ID |
| 269 | IPv4/6 Tunnel Head-end address |
| 270 | IPv4/6 Tunnel Tail-end address |
| 271 | SR-ENCAP Identifier |
+-----------+----------------------------------+
Dong, et al. Expires June 5, 2016 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft MPLS TE LSP State Distribution using BGP December 2015
2.2.1. MPLS TE LSP Descriptors
This sections defines the MPLS TE Descriptors TLVs.
2.2.1.1. Tunnel Identifier (Tunnel ID)
The Tunnel Identifier TLV contains the Tunnel ID defined in [RFC3209]
and 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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Tunnel ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
where:
o Type: To be assigned by IANA (suggested value: 267)
o Length: 2 octets.
o Tunnel ID: 2 octets as defined in [RFC3209].
2.2.1.2. LSP Identifier (LSP ID)
The LSP Identifier TLV contains the LSP ID defined in [RFC3209] and
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LSP ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
where:
o Type: To be assigned by IANA (suggested value: 268)
o Length: 2 octets.
o LSP ID: 2 octets as defined in [RFC3209].
Dong, et al. Expires June 5, 2016 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft MPLS TE LSP State Distribution using BGP December 2015
2.2.1.3. IPv4/IPv6 Tunnel Head-End Address
The IPv4/IPv6 Tunnel Head-End Address TLV contains the Tunnel Head-
End Address defined in [RFC3209] and has 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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// IPv4/IPv6 Tunnel Head-End Address (variable) //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
where:
o Type: To be assigned by IANA (suggested value: 269)
o Length: 4 or 16 octets.
When the IPv4/IPv6 Tunnel Head-end Address TLV contains an IPv4
address, its length is 4 (octets).
When the IPv4/IPv6 Tunnel Head-end Address TLV contains an IPv6
address, its length is 16 (octets).
2.2.1.4. IPv4/IPv6 Tunnel Tail-End Address
The IPv4/IPv6 Tunnel Tail-End Address TLV contains the Tunnel Tail-
End Address defined in [RFC3209] and has 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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// IPv4/IPv6 Tunnel Tail-End Address (variable) //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
where:
o Type: To be assigned by IANA (suggested value: 270)
o Length: 4 or 16 octets.
When the IPv4/IPv6 Tunnel Tail-end Address TLV contains an IPv4
address, its length is 4 (octets).
Dong, et al. Expires June 5, 2016 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft MPLS TE LSP State Distribution using BGP December 2015
When the IPv4/IPv6 Tunnel Tail-end Address TLV contains an IPv6
address, its length is 16 (octets).
2.2.1.5. SR-Encap TLV
The SR-ENCAP TLV contains the Identifier defined in
[I-D.sreekantiah-idr-segment-routing-te] and 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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| SR-ENCAP Identifier |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
where:
o Type: To be assigned by IANA (suggested value: 271)
o Length: 4 octets.
o SR-ENCAP Identifier: 4 octets as defined in
[I-D.sreekantiah-idr-segment-routing-te].
2.3. LSP State Information
A new TLV called "LSP State TLV" (codepoint to be assigned by IANA),
is used to describe the characteristics of the MPLS TE LSPs, which is
carried in the optional non-transitive BGP Attribute "LINK_STATE
Attribute" defined in [I-D.ietf-idr-ls-distribution]. These MPLS TE
LSP characteristics include the switching technology of the LSP,
Quality of Service (QoS) parameters, route information, the
protection mechanisms, etc.
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
// LSP State Information (variable) //
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
LSP State TLV
Dong, et al. Expires June 5, 2016 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft MPLS TE LSP State Distribution using BGP December 2015
Type: Suggested value 1158 (to be assigned by IANA)
LSP State Information: Consists of a set of TE-LSP objects as defined
in [RFC3209],[RFC3473] and [RFC5440]. Rather than replicating all
MPLS TE LSP related objects in this document, the semantics and
encodings of the MPLS TE LSP objects are reused. These MPLS TE LSP
objects are carried in the "LSP State Information" with 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Protocol-Origin| Reserved | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
// Protocol specific TE-LSP object //
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
LSP State Information
The Protocol-Origin field identifies the protocol from which the
contained MPLS TE LSP object originated. This allows for MPLS TE LSP
objects defined in different protocols to be collected while avoiding
the possible code collisions among these protocols. Three Protocol-
Origins are defined in this document (suggested values, to be
assigned by IANA)
+----------+--------------+
| Protocol | LSP Object |
| Origin | Origin |
+----------+--------------+
| 1 | RSVP-TE |
| 2 | PCE |
| 3 | SR ENCAP |
+----------+--------------+
The 8-bit Reserved field SHOULD be set to 0 on transmission and
ignored on receipt.
The Length field is set to the Length of the value field, which is
the total length of the contained MPLS TE LSP object.
The Valued field is a MPLS-TE LSP object which is defined in the
protocol identified by the Protocol-Origin field.
Dong, et al. Expires June 5, 2016 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft MPLS TE LSP State Distribution using BGP December 2015
2.3.1. RSVP Objects
RSVP-TE objects are encoded in the "Value" field of the LSP State TLV
and consists of MPLS TE LSP objects defined in RSVP-TE [RFC3209]
[RFC3473]. Rather than replicating all MPLS TE LSP related objects
in this document, the semantics and encodings of the MPLS TE LSP
objects are re-used. These MPLS TE LSP objects are carried in the
LSP State TLV.
When carrying RSVP-TE objects, the "Protocol-Origin" field is set to
"RSVP-TE" (suggested value 1, to be assigned by IANA).
The following RSVP-TE Objects are defined:
o SENDER_TSPEC and FLOW_SPEC [RFC2205]
o SESSION_ATTRIBUTE [RFC3209]
o EXPLICIT_ROUTE Object (ERO) [RFC3209]
o ROUTE_RECORD Object (RRO) [RFC3209]
o FAST_REROUTE Object [RFC4090]
o DETOUR Object [RFC4090]
o EXCLUDE_ROUTE Object (XRO) [RFC4874]
o SECONDARY_EXPLICIT_ROUTE Object (SERO) [RFC4873]
o SECONDARY_RECORD_ROUTE (SRRO) [RFC4873]
o LSP_ATTRIBUTES Object [RFC5420]
o LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES Object [RFC5420]
o PROTECTION Object [RFC3473][RFC4872][RFC4873]
o ASSOCIATION Object [RFC4872]
o PRIMARY_PATH_ROUTE Object [RFC4872]
o ADMIN_STATUS Object [RFC3473]
o LABEL_REQUEST Object [RFC3209][RFC3473]
For the MPLS TE LSP Objects listed above, the corresponding sub-
objects are also applicable to this mechanism. Note that this list
Dong, et al. Expires June 5, 2016 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft MPLS TE LSP State Distribution using BGP December 2015
is not exhaustive, other MPLS TE LSP objects which reflect specific
characteristics of the MPLS TE LSP can also be carried in the LSP
state TLV.
2.3.2. PCE Objects
PCE objects are encoded in the "Value" field of the MPLS TE LSP State
TLV and consists of PCE objects defined in [RFC5440]. Rather than
replicating all MPLS TE LSP related objects in this document, the
semantics and encodings of the MPLS TE LSP objects are re-used.
These MPLS TE LSP objects are carried in the LSP State TLV.
When carrying PCE objects, the "Protocol-Origin" field is set to
"PCE" (suggested value 2, to be assigned by IANA).
The following PCE Objects are defined:
o METRIC Object [RFC5440]
o BANDWIDTH Object [RFC5440]
For the MPLS TE LSP Objects listed above, the corresponding sub-
objects are also applicable to this mechanism. Note that this list
is not exhaustive, other MPLS TE LSP objects which reflect specific
characteristics of the MPLS TE LSP can also be carried in the LSP
state TLV.
2.3.3. SR Encap TLVs
SR-ENCAP objects are encoded in the "Value" field of the LSP State
TLV and consists of SR-ENCAP objects defined in
[I-D.sreekantiah-idr-segment-routing-te]. Rather than replicating
all MPLS TE LSP related objects in this document, the semantics and
encodings of the MPLS TE LSP objects are re-used. These MPLS TE LSP
objects are carried in the LSP State TLV.
When carrying SR-ENCAP objects, the "Protocol-Origin" field is set to
"SR-ENCAP" (suggested value 3, to be assigned by IANA).
The following SR-ENCAP Objects are defined:
o ERO TLV [I-D.sreekantiah-idr-segment-routing-te]
o Weight TLV [I-D.sreekantiah-idr-segment-routing-te]
o Binding SID TLV [I-D.sreekantiah-idr-segment-routing-te]
Dong, et al. Expires June 5, 2016 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft MPLS TE LSP State Distribution using BGP December 2015
For the MPLS TE LSP Objects listed above, the corresponding sub-
objects are also applicable to this mechanism. Note that this list
is not exhaustive, other MPLS TE LSP objects which reflect specific
characteristics of the MPLS TE LSP can also be carried in the LSP
state TLV.
3. Operational Considerations
The Existing BGP operational procedures apply to this document. No
new operation procedures are defined in this document. The
operational considerations as specified in
[I-D.ietf-idr-ls-distribution] apply to this document.
In general the ingress nodes of the MPLS TE LSPs are responsible for
the distribution of LSP state information, while other nodes on the
LSP path MAY report the LSP information when needed. For example,
the border routers in the inter-domain case will also distribute LSP
state information since the ingress node may not have the complete
information for the end-to-end path.
4. IANA Considerations
This document requires new IANA assigned codepoints.
4.1. BGP-LS NLRI-Types
IANA maintains a registry called "Border Gateway Protocol - Link
State (BGP-LS) Parameters" with a sub-registry called "BGP-LS NLRI-
Types".
The following codepoints is suggested (to be assigned by IANA):
+------+----------------------------+---------------+
| Type | NLRI Type | Reference |
+------+----------------------------+---------------+
| 5 | IPv4/IPv6 MPLS TE LSP NLRI | this document |
+------+----------------------------+---------------+
4.2. BGP-LS Protocol-IDs
IANA maintains a registry called "Border Gateway Protocol - Link
State (BGP-LS) Parameters" with a sub-registry called "BGP-LS
Protocol-IDs".
The following Protocol-ID codepoints are suggested (to be assigned by
IANA):
Dong, et al. Expires June 5, 2016 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft MPLS TE LSP State Distribution using BGP December 2015
+-------------+----------------------------------+---------------+
| Protocol-ID | NLRI information source protocol | Reference |
+-------------+----------------------------------+---------------+
| 7 | RSVP-TE | this document |
| 8 | Segment Routing | this document |
+-------------+----------------------------------+---------------+
4.3. BGP-LS Descriptors TLVs
IANA maintains a registry called "Border Gateway Protocol - Link
State (BGP-LS) Parameters" with a sub-registry called "Node Anchor,
Link Descriptor and Link Attribute TLVs".
The following TLV codepoints are suggested (to be assigned by IANA):
+----------+--------------------------------------+---------------+
| TLV Code | Description | Value defined |
| Point | | in |
+----------+--------------------------------------+---------------+
| 1158 | LSP State TLV | this document |
| 267 | Tunnel ID TLV | this document |
| 268 | LSP ID TLV | this document |
| 269 | IPv4/6 Tunnel Head-end address TLV | this document |
| 270 | IPv4/6 Tunnel Tail-end address TLV | this document |
| 271 | SR-ENCAP Identifier TLV | this document |
+----------+--------------------------------------+---------------+
4.4. BGP-LS LSP-State TLV Protocol Origin
This document requests IANA to maintain a new sub-registry under
"Border Gateway Protocol - Link State (BGP-LS) Parameters". The new
registry is called "Protocol Origin" and contains the codepoints
allocated to the "Protocol Origin" field defined in Section 2.3. The
registry contains the following codepoints (suggested values, to be
assigned by IANA):
+----------+--------------+
| Protocol | Description |
| Origin | |
+----------+--------------+
| 1 | RSVP-TE |
| 2 | PCE |
| 3 | SR-ENCAP |
+----------+--------------+
Dong, et al. Expires June 5, 2016 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft MPLS TE LSP State Distribution using BGP December 2015
5. Security Considerations
Procedures and protocol extensions defined in this document do not
affect the BGP security model. See [RFC6952] for details.
6. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Dhruv Dhody, Mohammed Abdul Aziz
Khalid, Lou Berger, Acee Lindem, Siva Sivabalan and Arjun Sreekantiah
for their review and valuable comments.
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-idr-ls-distribution]
Gredler, H., Medved, J., Previdi, S., Farrel, A., and S.
Ray, "North-Bound Distribution of Link-State and TE
Information using BGP", draft-ietf-idr-ls-distribution-13
(work in progress), October 2015.
[I-D.sreekantiah-idr-segment-routing-te]
Sreekantiah, A., Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Sivabalan, S.,
Mattes, P., and J. Marcon, "Segment Routing Traffic
Engineering Policy using BGP", draft-sreekantiah-idr-
segment-routing-te-00 (work in progress), October 2015.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC2205] Braden, R., Ed., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S., and S.
Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1
Functional Specification", RFC 2205, DOI 10.17487/RFC2205,
September 1997, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2205>.
[RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.,
and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
Tunnels", RFC 3209, DOI 10.17487/RFC3209, December 2001,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3209>.
[RFC3473] Berger, L., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-
Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3473, January 2003,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3473>.
Dong, et al. Expires June 5, 2016 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft MPLS TE LSP State Distribution using BGP December 2015
[RFC4090] Pan, P., Ed., Swallow, G., Ed., and A. Atlas, Ed., "Fast
Reroute Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP Tunnels", RFC 4090,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4090, May 2005,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4090>.
[RFC4760] Bates, T., Chandra, R., Katz, D., and Y. Rekhter,
"Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4", RFC 4760,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4760, January 2007,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4760>.
[RFC4872] Lang, J., Ed., Rekhter, Y., Ed., and D. Papadimitriou,
Ed., "RSVP-TE Extensions in Support of End-to-End
Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)
Recovery", RFC 4872, DOI 10.17487/RFC4872, May 2007,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4872>.
[RFC4873] Berger, L., Bryskin, I., Papadimitriou, D., and A. Farrel,
"GMPLS Segment Recovery", RFC 4873, DOI 10.17487/RFC4873,
May 2007, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4873>.
[RFC4874] Lee, CY., Farrel, A., and S. De Cnodder, "Exclude Routes -
Extension to Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic
Engineering (RSVP-TE)", RFC 4874, DOI 10.17487/RFC4874,
April 2007, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4874>.
[RFC5420] Farrel, A., Ed., Papadimitriou, D., Vasseur, JP., and A.
Ayyangarps, "Encoding of Attributes for MPLS LSP
Establishment Using Resource Reservation Protocol Traffic
Engineering (RSVP-TE)", RFC 5420, DOI 10.17487/RFC5420,
February 2009, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5420>.
[RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation
Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5440, March 2009,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5440>.
7.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce]
Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Medved, J., and R. Varga, "PCEP
Extensions for Stateful PCE", draft-ietf-pce-stateful-
pce-13 (work in progress), December 2015.
[RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J., and J. Ash, "A Path Computation
Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4655, August 2006,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4655>.
Dong, et al. Expires June 5, 2016 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft MPLS TE LSP State Distribution using BGP December 2015
[RFC6952] Jethanandani, M., Patel, K., and L. Zheng, "Analysis of
BGP, LDP, PCEP, and MSDP Issues According to the Keying
and Authentication for Routing Protocols (KARP) Design
Guide", RFC 6952, DOI 10.17487/RFC6952, May 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6952>.
Authors' Addresses
Jie Dong
Huawei Technologies
Huawei Campus, No. 156 Beiqing Rd.
Beijing 100095
China
Email: jie.dong@huawei.com
Mach(Guoyi) Chen
Huawei Technologies
Huawei Campus, No. 156 Beiqing Rd.
Beijing 100095
China
Email: mach.chen@huawei.com
Hannes Gredler
Individual Contributor
Austria
Email: hannes@gredler.at
Stefano Previdi
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Via Del Serafico, 200
Rome 00142
Italy
Email: sprevidi@cisco.com
Dong, et al. Expires June 5, 2016 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft MPLS TE LSP State Distribution using BGP December 2015
Jeff Tantsura
Ericsson
300 Holger Way
San Jose, CA 95134
US
Email: jeff.tantsura@ericsson.com
Dong, et al. Expires June 5, 2016 [Page 17]
