BGP-LS Advertisement of IGP Traffic Engineering Performance Metric Extensions
draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp-03
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft that was ultimately published as RFC 8571.
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Stefano Previdi , Qin Wu , Hannes Gredler , Saikat Ray , Jeff Tantsura , Clarence Filsfils , Les Ginsberg | ||
| Last updated | 2016-05-11 | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Reviews |
GENART Last Call review
(of
-15)
by Erik Kline
Ready w/nits
|
||
| Additional resources | Mailing list discussion | ||
| Stream | WG state | WG Document | |
| Document shepherd | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Became RFC 8571 (Proposed Standard) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp-03
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].
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: TBA (suggested value: 1107).
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: TBA (suggested value: 1108).
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].
Previdi, et al. Expires November 12, 2016 [Page 5]
Internet-DrBGP-LS Advertisement of Performance Metric Extensi May 2016
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: TBA (suggested value: 1109).
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: TBA (suggested value: 1110).
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
Previdi, et al. Expires November 12, 2016 [Page 6]
Internet-DrBGP-LS Advertisement of Performance Metric Extensi May 2016
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 deefined in the table here
below:
TLV code-point Value
--------------------------------------------------------
1104 (Suggested) Unidirectional Link Delay
1105 (Suggested) Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay
1106 (Suggested) Unidirectional Delay Variation
1107 (Suggested) Unidirectional Packet Loss
1108 (Suggested) Unidirectional Residual Bandwidth
1109 (Suggested) Unidirectional Available Bandwidth
1110 (Suggested) Unidirectional Bandwidth Utilization
6. Acknowledgements
TBD
7. References
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>.
[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,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4271>.
Previdi, et al. Expires November 12, 2016 [Page 7]
Internet-DrBGP-LS Advertisement of Performance Metric Extensi May 2016
[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,
<http://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,
<http://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,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7810>.
7.2. Informative References
[RFC4272] Murphy, S., "BGP Security Vulnerabilities Analysis",
RFC 4272, DOI 10.17487/RFC4272, January 2006,
<http://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,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6952>.
Authors' Addresses
Stefano Previdi (editor)
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Via Del Serafico 200
Rome 00191
IT
Email: sprevidi@cisco.com
Qin Wu
Huawei
101 Software Avenue, Yuhua District
Nanjing, Jiangsu 210012
China
Email: bill.wu@huawei.com
Previdi, et al. Expires November 12, 2016 [Page 8]
Internet-DrBGP-LS Advertisement of Performance Metric Extensi May 2016
Hannes Gredler
Individual
AT
Email: hannes@gredler.at
Saikat Ray
Individual
US
Email: raysaikat@gmail.com
Jeff Tantsura
Individual
US
Email: jefftant@gmail.com
Clarence Filsfils
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Brussels
BE
Email: cfilsfil@cisco.com
Les Ginsberg
Cisco Systems, Inc.
US
Email: ginsberg@cisco.com
Previdi, et al. Expires November 12, 2016 [Page 9]