Network Working Group S. Previdi, Ed.
Internet-Draft Cisco Systems, Inc.
Intended status: Standards Track J. Dong, Ed.
Expires: July 10, 2017 M. Chen
Huawei Technologies
H. Gredler
RtBrick Inc.
J. Tantsura
Individual
January 6, 2017
Distribution of Traffic Engineering (TE) Policies and State using BGP-LS
draft-ietf-idr-te-lsp-distribution-06
Abstract
This document describes a mechanism to collect the Traffic
Engineering and Policy information that is locally available in a
router and advertise it into BGP-LS updates. Such information can be
used by external components for path computation, re-optimization,
service placement, network visualization, etc.
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 July 10, 2017.
Previdi, et al. Expires July 10, 2017 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft MPLS TE LSP State Distribution using BGP January 2017
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2017 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 TE Policy Information in BGP . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1. TE Policy Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2. TE Policy NLRI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2.1. TE Policy Descriptors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.3. TE Policy State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.3.1. RSVP Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.3.2. PCE Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.3.3. SR TE Policy Sub-TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3. Operational Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
4.1. BGP-LS NLRI-Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
4.2. BGP-LS Protocol-IDs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
4.3. BGP-LS Descriptors TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
4.4. BGP-LS LSP-State TLV Protocol Origin . . . . . . . . . . 23
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
1. Introduction
In many network environments, traffic engineering policies are
instantiated into various forms:
o MPLS Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths (TE-LSPs).
o IP based tunnels (IP in IP, GRE, etc).
Previdi, et al. Expires July 10, 2017 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft MPLS TE LSP State Distribution using BGP January 2017
o Segment Routing Traffic Engineering Policies (SR TE Policy) as
defined in [I-D.previdi-idr-segment-routing-te-policy]
o Local cross-connect configuration
All this information can be grouped into the same term: TE Policies.
In the rest of this document we refer to TE Policies as the set of
information related to the various instantiation of polices: MPLS TE
LSPs, IP tunnels (IPv4 or IPv6), SR TE Policies, etc.
TE Polices are generally instantiated by the head-end and are based
on either local configuration or controller based programming of the
node using various protocols and APIs, e.g., PCEP or BGP.
In many network environments, the configuration and state of each TE
Policy that is available in the network is required by a controller
which allows the network operator to optimize several functions and
operations through the use of a controller aware of both topology and
state information.
One example of a controller is the 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 TE Policy state collection mechanism complementary to the
mechanism defined in [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce].
Previdi, et al. Expires July 10, 2017 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft MPLS TE LSP State Distribution using BGP January 2017
-----------
| ----- |
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 TE Policy information to
the PCE nodes. An external component may also need to collect the TE
Policy 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 TE Policies in its own domain, in addition, a
parent PCE needs to collect TE Policy information from multiple child
PCEs to obtain a global view of LSPs inside and across the domains
involved.
In another network scenario, a centralized controller is used for
service placement. Obtaining the TE Policy 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 Policies 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 [RFC7752]. Using the
same protocol to collect Traffic Engineering and Policy information
Previdi, et al. Expires July 10, 2017 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft MPLS TE LSP State Distribution using BGP January 2017
is desirable for these external components since this avoids
introducing multiple protocols for network information collection.
This document describes a mechanism to distribute traffic engineering
and policy information (MPLS, IPv4 and IPv6) to external components
using BGP-LS.
2. Carrying TE Policy Information in BGP
2.1. TE Policy Information
TE Policy information is advertised in BGP UPDATE messages using the
MP_REACH_NLRI and MP_UNREACH_NLRI attributes [RFC4760]. The "Link-
State NLRI" defined in [RFC7752] is extended to carry the TE Policy
information. BGP speakers that wish to exchange TE Policy
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 [RFC7752]. A new "NLRI
Type" is defined for TE Policy Information as following:
o NLRI Type: TE Policy NLRI (suggested codepoint value 5, to be
assigned by IANA).
[RFC7752] 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) //
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
This document defines a new NLRI-Type and its format: the TE Policy
NLRI defined in the following section.
2.2. TE Policy NLRI
The TE Policy NLRI (NLRI Type 5. Suggested value, to be assigned by
IANA) is shown in the following figure:
Previdi, et al. Expires July 10, 2017 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft MPLS TE LSP State Distribution using BGP January 2017
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) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// TE Policy Descriptors (variable) //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
where:
o Protocol-ID field specifies the signaling protocol of the TE
Policy. The following Protocol-IDs are defined (suggested values,
to be assigned by IANA) and apply to the TE Policy NLRI:
+-------------+----------------------------------+
| Protocol-ID | NLRI information source protocol |
+-------------+----------------------------------+
| 8 | RSVP-TE |
| 9 | Segment Routing |
+-------------+----------------------------------+
o "Identifier" is an 8 octet value as defined in [RFC7752].
o Following TE Policy 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 TE Policy |
| 272 | Local Cross Connect |
+-----------+----------------------------------+
2.2.1. TE Policy Descriptors
This sections defines the TE Policy 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:
Previdi, et al. Expires July 10, 2017 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft MPLS TE LSP State Distribution using BGP January 2017
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].
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:
Previdi, et al. Expires July 10, 2017 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft MPLS TE LSP State Distribution using BGP January 2017
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).
When the IPv4/IPv6 Tunnel Tail-end Address TLV contains an IPv6
address, its length is 16 (octets).
Previdi, et al. Expires July 10, 2017 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft MPLS TE LSP State Distribution using BGP January 2017
2.2.1.5. SR TE Policy TLV
The SR TE Policy TLV identifies a SR TE Policy as defined in
[I-D.previdi-idr-segment-routing-te-policy] 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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Distinguisher (4 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Policy Color (4 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Endpoint (4 or 16 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
where:
o Type: To be assigned by IANA (suggested value: 271)
o Length: 12 octets.
o Distinguisher, Policy Color and Endpoint are defined in
[I-D.previdi-idr-segment-routing-te-policy].
2.2.1.6. MPLS Cross Connect
The MPLS Cross Connect TLV identifies a local MPLS state in the form
of incoming label and interface followed by an outgoing label and
interface. Outgoing interface may appear multiple times (for
multicast states).
The Local Cross Connect TLV has the following format:
Previdi, et al. Expires July 10, 2017 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft MPLS TE LSP State Distribution using BGP January 2017
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Incoming label (4 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Outgoing label (4 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// Sub-TLVs (variable) //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
where:
o Type: To be assigned by IANA (suggested value: 271)
o Length: variable.
o Incoming and Outgoing labels: 4 octets each.
o Sub-TLVs: following Sub-TLVs are defined:
* Interface Sub-TLV
* Forwarding Equivalent Class (FEC)
The MPLS Cross Connect TLV:
MUST have an incoming label.
MUST have an outgoing label.
MAY contain an Interface Sub-TLV having the I-flag set.
MUST contain at least one Interface Sub-TLV having the I-flag
unset.
MAY contain multiple Interface Sub-TLV having the I-flag unset.
This is the case of a multicast MPLS cross connect.
MAY contain a FEC Sub-TLV.
2.2.1.6.1. MPLS Cross Connect Sub-TLVs
Previdi, et al. Expires July 10, 2017 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft MPLS TE LSP State Distribution using BGP January 2017
2.2.1.6.1.1. Interface Sub-TLV
The Interface sub-TLV is optional and contains the identifier of the
interface (incoming or outgoing) in the form of an IPv4 address or an
IPv6 address.
The Interface sub-TLV has the following format:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Flags | Interface Address (4 or 16 octets) //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
where:
o Type: To be assigned by IANA (suggested value: 1)
o Length: 5 or 17.
o Flags: 1 octet of flags defined as follows:
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|I| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
where:
* I-Flag is the Interface flag. When set, the Interface Sub-TLV
describes an incoming interface. If the I-flag is not set,
then the Interface Sub-TLV describes an outgoing interface.
o Interface address: a 4 octet IPv4 address or a 16 octet IPv6
address.
2.2.1.6.1.2. Forwarding Equivalent Class (FEC) Sub-TLV
The FEC sub-TLV is optional and contains the FEC associated to the
incoming label.
The FEC sub-TLV has the following format:
Previdi, et al. Expires July 10, 2017 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft MPLS TE LSP State Distribution using BGP January 2017
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Flags | Masklength | Prefix (variable) //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// Prefix (variable) //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
where:
o Type: To be assigned by IANA (suggested value: 2)
o Length: variable.
o Flags: 1 octet of flags defined as follows:
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|4| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
where:
* 4-Flag is the IPv4 flag. When set, the FEC Sub-TLV describes
an IPv4 FEC. If the 4-flag is not set, then the FEC Sub-TLV
describes an IPv6 FEC.
o Mask Length: 1 octet of prefix length.
o Prefix: an IPv4 or IPv6 prefix whose mask length is given by the "
Mask Length" field.
2.3. TE Policy State
A new TLV called "TE Policy State TLV" (codepoint to be assigned by
IANA), is used to describe the characteristics of the TE Policy,
which is carried in the optional non-transitive BGP Attribute
"LINK_STATE Attribute" defined in [RFC7752]. These TE Policy
characteristics include the characteristics and attributs of the
policy, it's dataplane, explicit path, Quality of Service (QoS)
parameters, route information, the protection mechanisms, etc.
Previdi, et al. Expires July 10, 2017 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft MPLS TE LSP State Distribution using BGP January 2017
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
// TE Policy State Information (variable) //
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
TE Policy State TLV
Type: Suggested value 1158 (to be assigned by IANA)
TE Policy State Information: Consists of a set of objects as defined
in [RFC3209],[RFC3473], [RFC5440] and
[I-D.previdi-idr-segment-routing-te-policy]. Rather than replicating
all these objects in this document, the semantics and encodings of
the objects are reused. These objects are carried in the "TE Policy
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 Policy objects //
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
TE Policy State Information
The Protocol-Origin field identifies the protocol from which the
contained object originated. This allows for 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 | BGP SR TE Policy |
+----------+------------------+
Previdi, et al. Expires July 10, 2017 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft MPLS TE LSP State Distribution using BGP January 2017
The 8-bit Reserved field SHOULD be set to 0 on transmission and MUST
be ignored on receipt.
The Length field is set to the Length of the value field, which is
the total length of the contained object.
The Valued field is a TE Policy object which is defined in the
protocol identified by the Protocol-Origin field.
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]
Previdi, et al. Expires July 10, 2017 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft MPLS TE LSP State Distribution using BGP January 2017
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
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 TE Policy Sub-TLVs
Segment Routing Traffic Engineering Policy (SR TE Policy) as
described in [I-D.previdi-idr-segment-routing-te-policy]makes use of
the Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute defined in
[I-D.ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps] and defines following sub-TLVs:
o Preference
o Binding SID
o Weight
Previdi, et al. Expires July 10, 2017 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft MPLS TE LSP State Distribution using BGP January 2017
o Segment List
o Segment
The equivalent sub-TLVs are defined hereafter and carried in the TE
Policy State TLV. When carrying SR TE Policy objects, the "Protocol-
Origin" field is set to "BGP SR TE Policy" (suggested value 3, to be
assigned by IANA).
2.3.3.1. Preference Object
The Preference sub-TLV has the following format:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length | Flags | RESERVED |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Preference (4 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
All fields, including type and length, are defined in
[I-D.previdi-idr-segment-routing-te-policy].
2.3.3.2. SR TE Binding SID Sub-TLV
The Binding SID sub-TLV has the following format:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length | Flags | RESERVED |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Binding SID (variable, optional) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
All fields, including type and length, are defined in
[I-D.previdi-idr-segment-routing-te-policy].
[I-D.previdi-idr-segment-routing-te-policy] specifies the Binding SID
sub-TLV which carries an indication of which value to allocate as
Binding SID to the SR TE Policy. In the context of the BGP-LS
extensions defined in this document, the Binding SID sub-TLV to the
reciever of the , the Binding SID TLThe Binding SID sub-TLV contains
the Binding SID the originator of the BGP-LS update has allocated to
the corresponding SR TE Policy.
Previdi, et al. Expires July 10, 2017 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft MPLS TE LSP State Distribution using BGP January 2017
In the context of BGP-LS, the Binding SID sub-TLV defined in this
document, contains the effective value of the Binding SID that the
router allocated to the SR TE Policy. The router is the SR TE Policy
receiver (as described in
[I-D.previdi-idr-segment-routing-te-policy]) and it is also the
originator of the corresponding BGP-LS update with the extensions
defined in this document.
2.3.3.3. Weight Sub-TLV
The Weight sub-TLV has the following format:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length | Flags | RESERVED |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Weight |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
All fields, including type and length, are defined in
[I-D.previdi-idr-segment-routing-te-policy].
2.3.3.4. Segment List Sub-TLV
The Segment List object contains sub-TLVs (which in fact are sub-sub-
TLVs) 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 | RESERVED |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// sub-TLVs //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
o All fields, including type and length, are defined in
[I-D.previdi-idr-segment-routing-te-policy].
o Length is the total length (not including the Type and Length
fields) of the sub-TLVs encoded within the Segment List sub-TLV.
o sub-objects:
* An optional single Weight sub-TLV.
* One or more Segment sub-TLVs.
Previdi, et al. Expires July 10, 2017 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft MPLS TE LSP State Distribution using BGP January 2017
The Segment List sub-TLV is mandatory.
Multiple occurrences of the Segment List sub-TLV MAY appear in the SR
TE Policy.
2.3.3.5. Segment Sub-TLV
The Segment sub-TLV describes a single segment in a segment list
(i.e.: a single element of the explicit path). Multiple Segment sub-
TLVs constitute an explicit path of the SR TE Policy.
[I-D.previdi-idr-segment-routing-te-policy] defines 8 different types
of Segment Sub-TLVs:
Type 1: SID only, in the form of MPLS Label
Type 2: SID only, in the form of IPv6 address
Type 3: IPv4 Node Address with optional SID
Type 4: IPv6 Node Address with optional SID
Type 5: IPv4 Address + index with optional SID
Type 6: IPv4 Local and Remote addresses with optional SID
Type 7: IPv6 Address + index with optional SID
Type 8: IPv6 Local and Remote addresses with optional SID
2.3.3.5.1. Type 1: SID only, in the form of MPLS Label
The Type-1 Segment Sub-TLV encodes a single SID in the form of an
MPLS label. The format 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 | Flags | RESERVED |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Label | TC |S| TTL |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type, Length and values are defined in
[I-D.previdi-idr-segment-routing-te-policy].
2.3.3.5.2. Type 2: SID only, in the form of IPv6 address
The Type-2 Segment Sub-TLV encodes a single SID in the form of an
IPv6 address. The format is as follows:
Previdi, et al. Expires July 10, 2017 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft MPLS TE LSP State Distribution using BGP January 2017
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 | Flags | RESERVED |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// IPv6 SID (16 octets) //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type, Length and values are defined in
[I-D.previdi-idr-segment-routing-te-policy].
2.3.3.5.3. Type 3: IPv4 Node Address with optional SID
The Type-3 Segment Sub-TLV encodes an IPv4 node address and an
optional SID in the form of either an MPLS label or an IPv6 address.
The format 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 | Flags | RESERVED |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv4 Node Address (4 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// SID (optional, 4 or 16 octets) //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type, Length and values are defined in
[I-D.previdi-idr-segment-routing-te-policy].
2.3.3.5.4. Type 4: IPv6 Node Address with optional SID
The Type-4 Segment Sub-TLV encodes an IPv6 node address and an
optional SID in the form of either an MPLS label or an IPv6 address.
The format 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 | Flags | RESERVED |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// IPv6 Node Address (16 octets) //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// SID (optional, 4 or 16 octets) //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type, Length and values are defined in
[I-D.previdi-idr-segment-routing-te-policy].
Previdi, et al. Expires July 10, 2017 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft MPLS TE LSP State Distribution using BGP January 2017
2.3.3.5.5. Type 5: IPv4 Address + index with optional SID
The Type-5 Segment Sub-TLV encodes an IPv4 node address, an interface
index and an optional SID in the form of either an MPLS label or an
IPv6 address. The format 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 | Flags | RESERVED |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IfIndex (4 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv4 Node Address (4 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// SID (optional, 4 or 16 octets) //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type, Length and values are defined in
[I-D.previdi-idr-segment-routing-te-policy].
2.3.3.5.6. Type 6: IPv4 Local and Remote addresses with optional SID
The Type-6 Segment Sub-TLV encodes an IPv4 node address, an adjacency
local address, an adjacency remote address and an optional SID in the
form of either an MPLS label or an IPv6 address. The format 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 | Flags | RESERVED |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Local IPv4 Address (4 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Remote IPv4 Address (4 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// SID (4 or 16 octets) //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type, Length and values are defined in
[I-D.previdi-idr-segment-routing-te-policy].
2.3.3.5.7. Type 7: IPv6 Address + index with optional SID
The Type-7 Segment Sub-TLV encodes an IPv6 node address, an interface
index and an optional SID in the form of either an MPLS label or an
IPv6 address. The format is as follows:
Previdi, et al. Expires July 10, 2017 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft MPLS TE LSP State Distribution using BGP January 2017
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 | Flags | RESERVED |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IfIndex (4 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// IPv6 Node Address (16 octets) //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// SID (optional, 4 or 16 octets) //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type, Length and values are defined in
[I-D.previdi-idr-segment-routing-te-policy].
2.3.3.5.8. Type 8: IPv6 Local and Remote addresses with optional SID
The Type-8 Segment Sub-TLV encodes an IPv6 node address, an adjacency
local address, an adjacency remote address and an optional SID in the
form of either an MPLS label or an IPv6 address. The format 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 | Flags | RESERVED |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// Local IPv6 Address (16 octets) //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// Remote IPv6 Address (16 octets) //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// SID (4 or 16 octets) //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type, Length and values are defined in
[I-D.previdi-idr-segment-routing-te-policy].
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 [RFC7752] apply to this
document.
In general, it is assumed that the TE Policy head-end nodes are
responsible for the distribution of TE Policy state information,
while other nodes, e.g. the nodes in the path of a policy, MAY report
the TE Policy information (if available) when needed. For example,
Previdi, et al. Expires July 10, 2017 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft MPLS TE LSP State Distribution using BGP January 2017
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 | TE Policy NLRI type | 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):
+-------------+----------------------------------+---------------+
| Protocol-ID | NLRI information source protocol | Reference |
+-------------+----------------------------------+---------------+
| 8 | RSVP-TE | this document |
| 9 | 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):
Previdi, et al. Expires July 10, 2017 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft MPLS TE LSP State Distribution using BGP January 2017
+----------+--------------------------------------+---------------+
| TLV Code | Description | Value defined |
| Point | | in |
+----------+--------------------------------------+---------------+
| 1158 | TE Policy 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 TE Policy 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 | BGP SR TE Policy |
+----------+------------------+
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, Arjun Sreekantiah,
Dhanendra Jain and Clarence Filsfils for their review and valuable
comments.
7. References
Previdi, et al. Expires July 10, 2017 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft MPLS TE LSP State Distribution using BGP January 2017
7.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<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>.
[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>.
Previdi, et al. Expires July 10, 2017 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft MPLS TE LSP State Distribution using BGP January 2017
[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>.
[RFC7752] Gredler, H., Ed., Medved, J., Previdi, S., Farrel, A., and
S. Ray, "North-Bound Distribution of Link-State and
Traffic Engineering (TE) Information Using BGP", RFC 7752,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7752, March 2016,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7752>.
7.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps]
Rosen, E., Patel, K., and G. Velde, "The BGP Tunnel
Encapsulation Attribute", draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps-03
(work in progress), November 2016.
[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-18 (work in progress), December 2016.
[I-D.previdi-idr-segment-routing-te-policy]
Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Sreekantiah, A., Sivabalan, S.,
Mattes, P., Rosen, E., and S. Lin, "Advertising Segment
Routing Traffic Engineering Policies in BGP", draft-
previdi-idr-segment-routing-te-policy-03 (work in
progress), December 2016.
[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>.
[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>.
Previdi, et al. Expires July 10, 2017 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft MPLS TE LSP State Distribution using BGP January 2017
Authors' Addresses
Stefano Previdi (editor)
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Via Del Serafico, 200
Rome 00142
Italy
Email: sprevidi@cisco.com
Jie Dong (editor)
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
RtBrick Inc.
Email: hannes@rtbrick.com
Jeff Tantsura
Individual
Email: jefftant@gmail.com
Previdi, et al. Expires July 10, 2017 [Page 26]