Networking Working Group L. Ginsberg, Ed.
Internet-Draft S. Previdi
Intended status: Standards Track Cisco Systems, Inc.
Expires: March 22, 2019 Q. Wu
Huawei
J. Tantsura
Individual
C. Filsfils
Cisco Systems, Inc.
September 18, 2018
BGP-LS Advertisement of IGP Traffic Engineering Performance Metric
Extensions
draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp-11
Abstract
This document defines new BGP-LS TLVs in order to carry the IGP
Traffic Engineering Extensions defined in IS-IS and OSPF protocols.
Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on March 22, 2019.
Ginsberg, et al. Expires March 22, 2019 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft BGP-LS Advertisement of Performance Metric September 2018
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Link Attribute TLVs for TE Metric Extensions . . . . . . . . 2
3. TLV Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1. Unidirectional Link Delay TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.2. Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay TLV . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.3. Unidirectional Delay Variation TLV . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.4. Unidirectional Link Loss TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.5. Unidirectional Residual Bandwidth TLV . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.6. Unidirectional Available Bandwidth TLV . . . . . . . . . 5
3.7. Unidirectional Utilized Bandwidth TLV . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1. Introduction
BGP-LS ([RFC7752]) defines NLRI and attributes in order to carry
link-state information. New BGP-LS Link-Attribute TLVs are required
in order to carry the Traffic Engineering Metric Extensions defined
in [RFC7810] and [RFC7471].
2. Link Attribute TLVs for TE Metric Extensions
The following new Link Attribute TLVs are defined:
Ginsberg, et al. Expires March 22, 2019 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft BGP-LS Advertisement of Performance Metric September 2018
TLV Name
------------------------------------------
Unidirectional Link Delay
Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay
Unidirectional Delay Variation
Unidirectional Packet Loss
Unidirectional Residual Bandwidth
Unidirectional Available Bandwidth
Unidirectional Bandwidth Utilization
3. TLV Details
3.1. Unidirectional Link Delay TLV
This TLV advertises the average link delay between two directly
connected IGP link-state neighbors. The semantic of the TLV is
described in [RFC7810] and [RFC7471].
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|A| RESERVED | Delay |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
where:
Figure 1
Type: 1114
Length: 4.
3.2. Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay TLV
This sub-TLV advertises the minimum and maximum delay values between
two directly connected IGP link-state neighbors. The semantic of the
TLV is described in [RFC7810] and [RFC7471].
Ginsberg, et al. Expires March 22, 2019 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft BGP-LS Advertisement of Performance Metric September 2018
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|A| RESERVED | Min Delay |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| RESERVED | Max Delay |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
where:
Figure 2
Type: 1115
Length: 8.
3.3. Unidirectional Delay Variation TLV
This sub-TLV advertises the average link delay variation between two
directly connected IGP link-state neighbors. The semantic of the TLV
is described in [RFC7810] and [RFC7471].
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 | Delay Variation |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
where:
Figure 3
Type: 1116
Length: 4.
3.4. Unidirectional Link Loss TLV
This sub-TLV advertises the loss (as a packet percentage) between two
directly connected IGP link-state neighbors. The semantic of the TLV
is described in [RFC7810] and [RFC7471].
Ginsberg, et al. Expires March 22, 2019 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft BGP-LS Advertisement of Performance Metric September 2018
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|A| RESERVED | Link Loss |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
where:
Type:1117
Length: 4.
3.5. Unidirectional Residual Bandwidth TLV
This sub-TLV advertises the residual bandwidth between two directly
connected IGP link-state neighbors. The semantic of the TLV is
described in [RFC7810] and [RFC7471].
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Residual Bandwidth |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
where:
Type: 1118
Length: 4.
3.6. Unidirectional Available Bandwidth TLV
This sub-TLV advertises the available bandwidth between two directly
connected IGP link-state neighbors. The semantic of the TLV is
described in [RFC7810] and [RFC7471].
Ginsberg, et al. Expires March 22, 2019 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft BGP-LS Advertisement of Performance Metric September 2018
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Available Bandwidth |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
where:
Figure 4
Type: 1119
Length: 4.
3.7. Unidirectional Utilized Bandwidth TLV
This sub-TLV advertises the bandwidth utilization between two
directly connected IGP link-state neighbors. The semantic of the TLV
is described in [RFC7810] and [RFC7471].
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Utilized Bandwidth |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
where:
Figure 5
Type: 1120
Length: 4.
4. Security Considerations
Procedures and protocol extensions defined in this document do not
affect the BGP security model. See the 'Security Considerations'
section of [RFC4271] for a discussion of BGP security. Also refer to
[RFC4272] and [RFC6952] for analysis of security issues for BGP.
The TLVs introduced in this document are used to propagate IGP
defined information ([RFC7810] and [RFC7471].) These TLVs represent
the state and resources availability of the IGP link. The IGP
Ginsberg, et al. Expires March 22, 2019 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft BGP-LS Advertisement of Performance Metric September 2018
instances originating these TLVs are assumed to have all the required
security and authentication mechanism (as described in [RFC7810] and
[RFC7471]) in order to prevent any security issue when propagating
the TLVs into BGP-LS.
5. IANA Considerations
This document requests assigning code-points from the registry "BGP-
LS Node Descriptor, Link Descriptor, Prefix Descriptor, and Attribute
TLVs" for the new Link Attribute TLVs defined in the table below:
TLV code-point Value
--------------------------------------------------------
1114 Unidirectional Link Delay
1115 Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay
1116 Unidirectional Delay Variation
1117 Unidirectional Packet Loss
1118 Unidirectional Residual Bandwidth
1119 Unidirectional Available Bandwidth
1120 Unidirectional Bandwidth Utilization
6. Contributors
The following people have substantially contributed to this document
and should be considered co-authors:
Saikat Ray
Individual
Email: raysaikat@gmail.com
Hannes Gredler
RtBrick Inc.
Email: hannes@rtbrick.com
7. Acknowledgements
The authors wish to acknowledge comments from Ketan Talaulikar.
Ginsberg, et al. Expires March 22, 2019 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft BGP-LS Advertisement of Performance Metric September 2018
8. References
8.1. 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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A
Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4271>.
[RFC7471] Giacalone, S., Ward, D., Drake, J., Atlas, A., and S.
Previdi, "OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric
Extensions", RFC 7471, DOI 10.17487/RFC7471, March 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7471>.
[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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7752>.
[RFC7810] Previdi, S., Ed., Giacalone, S., Ward, D., Drake, J., and
Q. Wu, "IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions",
RFC 7810, DOI 10.17487/RFC7810, May 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7810>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
8.2. Informative References
[RFC4272] Murphy, S., "BGP Security Vulnerabilities Analysis",
RFC 4272, DOI 10.17487/RFC4272, January 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4272>.
[RFC6952] Jethanandani, M., Patel, K., and L. Zheng, "Analysis of
BGP, LDP, PCEP, and MSDP Issues According to the Keying
and Authentication for Routing Protocols (KARP) Design
Guide", RFC 6952, DOI 10.17487/RFC6952, May 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6952>.
Ginsberg, et al. Expires March 22, 2019 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft BGP-LS Advertisement of Performance Metric September 2018
Authors' Addresses
Les Ginsberg (editor)
Cisco Systems, Inc.
US
Email: ginsberg@cisco.com
Stefano Previdi
Cisco Systems, Inc.
IT
Email: stefano@previdi.net
Qin Wu
Huawei
101 Software Avenue, Yuhua District
Nanjing, Jiangsu 210012
China
Email: bill.wu@huawei.com
Jeff Tantsura
Individual
US
Email: jefftant.ietf@gmail.com
Clarence Filsfils
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Brussels
BE
Email: cfilsfil@cisco.com
Ginsberg, et al. Expires March 22, 2019 [Page 9]
