Network Working Group Hamid Ould-Brahim (Nortel Networks)
Internet Draft Don Fedyk (Nortel Networks)
Expiration Date: February 2009 Yakov Rekhter (Juniper Networks)
Intended Status: Proposed Standard
Traffic Engineering Attribute
draft-ietf-softwire-bgp-te-attribute-01.txt
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
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".
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
Abstract
This document defines a new BGP attribute, Traffic Engineering
attribute, than enables BGP to carry Traffic Engineering information.
Fedyk, Ould-Brahim, Rekhter [Page 1]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-softwire-bgp-te-attribute-01.txt August 2008
1. Specification of Requirements
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
2. Introduction
In certain cases (e.g., L1VPN [L1VPN]) it may be useful to augment
reachability information carried in BGP with the Traffic Engineering
information.
This document defines a new BGP attribute, Traffic Engineering
attribute, than enables BGP [BGP-4] to carry Traffic Engineering
information.
3. Traffic Engineering Attribute
Traffic Engineering attribute is an optional non-transitive BGP
attribute.
The information carried in this attribute is identical to what is
carried in the Interface Switching Capability Descriptor, as
specified in [RFC4203], [RFC4205].
The attribute contains one or more of the following:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Switching Cap | Encoding | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 0 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 2 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 3 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 4 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 5 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 6 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Fedyk, Ould-Brahim, Rekhter [Page 2]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-softwire-bgp-te-attribute-01.txt August 2008
| Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 7 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Switching Capability-specific information |
| (variable) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The Switching Capability (Switching Cap) field contains one of the
values specified in Section 3.1.1 of [GMPLS-SIG].
The Encoding field contains one of the values specified in Section
3.1.1 of [GMPLS-SIG].
The Reserved field SHOULD be set to 0 on transmit and MUST be ignored
on receive.
Maximum LSP Bandwidth is encoded as a list of eight 4 octet fields in
the IEEE floating point format [IEEE], with priority 0 first and
priority 7 last. The units are bytes (not bits!) per second.
The content of the Switching Capability specific information field
depends on the value of the Switching Capability field.
When the Switching Capability field is PSC-1, PSC-2, PSC-3, or PSC-4,
the Switching Capability specific information field includes Minimum
LSP Bandwidth and Interface MTU.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Minimum LSP Bandwidth |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Interface MTU |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The Minimum LSP Bandwidth is encoded in a 4 octet field in the IEEE
floating point format. The units are bytes (not bits!) per second.
The Interface MTU is encoded as a 2 octet integer.
When the Switching Capability field is L2SC, there is no Switching
Capability specific information field present.
When the Switching Capability field is TDM, the Switching Capability
specific information field includes Minimum LSP Bandwidth and an
indication of whether the interface supports Standard or Arbitrary
SONET/SDH.
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
Fedyk, Ould-Brahim, Rekhter [Page 3]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-softwire-bgp-te-attribute-01.txt August 2008
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Minimum LSP Bandwidth |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Indication |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The Minimum LSP Bandwidth is encoded in a 4 octet field in the IEEE
floating point format. The units are bytes (not bits!) per second.
The indication of whether the interface supports Standard or
Arbitrary SONET/SDH is encoded as 1 octet. The value of this octet
is 0 if the interface supports Standard SONET/SDH, and 1 if the
interface supports Arbitrary SONET/SDH.
When the Switching Capability field is LSC, there is no Switching
Capability specific information field present.
4. Implication on aggregation
Routes that carry the Traffic Engineering Attribute have additional
semantics that could affect traffic forwarding behavior. Therefore,
such routes SHALL NOT be aggregated unless they share identical
Traffic Engineering Attributes.
5. IANA Considerations
This document defines a new BGP attribute. This attribute is optional
and non-transitive.
6. Security Considerations
This extension to BGP does not change the underlying security issues
inherent in the existing BGP.
Fedyk, Ould-Brahim, Rekhter [Page 4]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-softwire-bgp-te-attribute-01.txt August 2008
7. Intellectual Property Statement
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-
ipr@ietf.org.
8. Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Fedyk, Ould-Brahim, Rekhter [Page 5]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-softwire-bgp-te-attribute-01.txt August 2008
9. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank John Scudder and Jeffrey Haas for
their review and comments.
10. Normative References
[BGP-4] Rekhter, Y., T. Li, Hares, S., "A Border Gateway Protocol 4
(BGP-4)", RFC4271, January 2006.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[GMPLS-SIG] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC 3471, January 2003.
[IEEE] IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Binary Floating-Point Arithmetic",
Standard 754-1985, 1985 (ISBN 1-5593-7653-8).
11. Non-Normative References
[RFC4203] Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., "OSPF Extensions in Support of
Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)", RFC4203, October
2005
[RFC4205] Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., "Intermediate System to
Intermediate System (IS-IS) Extensions in Support of Generalized
Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)", RFC4205, October 2005
[L1VPN] Fedyk, D., Ould-Brahim, H., Rekhter, Y., "BGP-based Auto-
Discovery for L1VPNs", draft-ietf-l1vpn-bgp-auto-discovery, work in
progress
Fedyk, Ould-Brahim, Rekhter [Page 6]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-softwire-bgp-te-attribute-01.txt August 2008
12. Author Information
Hamid Ould-Brahim
Nortel Networks
Email: hbrahim@nortel.com
Don Fedyk
Nortel Networks
Email: dwfedyk@nortel.com
Yakov Rekhter
Juniper Networks, Inc.
email: yakov@juniper.com
Fedyk, Ould-Brahim, Rekhter [Page 7]
