Networking Working GroupInternet Engineering Task Force (IETF) L. Ginsberg, Ed.Internet-DraftRequest for Comments: 8571 Cisco Systems, Inc.Intended status:Category: Standards Track S. PrevidiExpires: June 23, 2019ISSN: 2070-1721 Q. Wu Huawei J. Tantsura Apstra, Inc. C. Filsfils Cisco Systems, Inc.December 20, 2018 BGP-LSMarch 2019 BGP - Link State (BGP-LS) Advertisement of IGP Traffic Engineering Performance Metric Extensionsdraft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp-18Abstract This document defines newBGP-LSBGP - Link State (BGP-LS) TLVs in order to carry the IGP Traffic Engineering Metric Extensions defined in the IS-IS and OSPF protocols. Status of This Memo ThisInternet-Draftissubmitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documentsan Internet Standards Track document. This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF).Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The listIt represents the consensus ofcurrent Internet- Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Internet-Drafts are draft documents validthe IETF community. It has received public review and has been approved fora maximumpublication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on Internet Standards is available in Section 2 ofsix monthsRFC 7841. Information about the current status of this document, any errata, and how to provide feedback on it may beupdated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documentsobtained atany 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 23, 2019.https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8571. Copyright Notice Copyright (c)20182019 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 2. Link Attribute TLVs for TE Metric Extensions. . . . . . . . 2....................3 2.1. Unidirectional Link Delay TLV. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3..............................3 2.2. Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay TLV. . . . . . . . . . 4......................4 2.3. Unidirectional Delay Variation TLV. . . . . . . . . . . 4.........................4 2.4. Unidirectional Link Loss TLV. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5...............................5 2.5. Unidirectional Residual Bandwidth TLV. . . . . . . . . . 5......................5 2.6. Unidirectional Available Bandwidth TLV. . . . . . . . . 6.....................6 2.7. Unidirectional Utilized Bandwidth TLV. . . . . . . . . . 6......................6 2.8. Mappings to IGP Sourcesub-TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7Sub-TLVs ............................7 3. Security Considerations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.........................................7 4. IANA Considerations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.............................................8 5.Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 7.References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 7.1.......................................................8 5.1. Normative References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 7.2........................................8 5.2. Informative References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.....................................9 Acknowledgements ...................................................9 Contributors .......................................................9 Authors' Addresses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9................................................10 1. IntroductionBGP-LS ([RFC7752])BGP - Link State (BGP-LS) [RFC7752] definesNLRINetwork Layer Reachability Information (NLRI) and attributes in order to carry link-state information. New BGP-LSLink-AttributeLink Attribute TLVs are required in order to carry the Traffic Engineering Metric Extensions defined in[I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis][RFC8570] and [RFC7471]. 2. Link Attribute TLVs for TE Metric Extensions The following new Link Attribute TLVs are defined: TLVcode-pointCode Point Value -------------------------------------------------------- 1114 Unidirectional Link Delay 1115 Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay 1116 Unidirectional Delay Variation 1117 Unidirectional Link Loss 1118 Unidirectional Residual Bandwidth 1119 Unidirectional Available Bandwidth 1120 Unidirectional Utilized Bandwidth TLV formats are described in detail in the followingsub-sections.subsections. TLV formats follow the rules defined in [RFC7752]. 2.1. Unidirectional Link Delay TLV This TLV advertises the average link delay between two directly connected IGP link-state neighbors. The semantics and values of thevalue fieldfields in the TLV are described in[I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis][RFC8570] 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 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 1 where: Type: 1114 Length:4.4 2.2. Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay TLV Thissub-TLVTLV advertises the minimum and maximum delay values between two directly connected IGP link-state neighbors. The semantics and values of thevalue fieldfields in the TLV are described in[I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis][RFC8570] 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 | Min Delay | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | RESERVED | Max Delay | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 2 where: Type: 1115 Length:8.8 2.3. Unidirectional Delay Variation TLV Thissub-TLVTLV advertises the average link delay variation between two directly connected IGP link-state neighbors. The semantics and values of thevalue fieldfields in the TLV are described in[I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis][RFC8570] 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 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 3 where: Type: 1116 Length:4.4 2.4. Unidirectional Link Loss TLV Thissub-TLVTLV advertises the loss (as a packet percentage) between two directly connected IGP link-state neighbors. The semantics and values of thevalue fieldfields in the TLV are described in[I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis][RFC8570] 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 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 4 where:Type:1117Type: 1117 Length:4.4 2.5. Unidirectional Residual Bandwidth TLV Thissub-TLVTLV advertises the residual bandwidth between two directly connected IGP link-state neighbors. The semantics and values of thevalue fieldfields in the TLV are described in[I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis][RFC8570] 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 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 5 where: Type: 1118 Length:4.4 2.6. Unidirectional Available Bandwidth TLV Thissub-TLVTLV advertises the available bandwidth between two directly connected IGP link-state neighbors. The semantics and values of thevalue fieldfields in the TLV are described in[I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis][RFC8570] 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 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Available Bandwidth | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 6 where: Type: 1119 Length:4.4 2.7. Unidirectional Utilized Bandwidth TLV Thissub-TLVTLV advertises the bandwidth utilization between two directly connected IGP link-state neighbors. The semantics and values of thevalue fieldfields in the TLV are described in[I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis][RFC8570] 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 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 7 where: Type: 1120 Length:4.4 2.8. Mappings to IGP Sourcesub-TLVsSub-TLVs This section documents the mappings between the Link Attribute TLVs defined in this document and the corresponding advertisements sourced by the IGPs. For OSPFv2 andOSPFv3OSPFv3, the advertisements are defined in[RFC7471] .[RFC7471]. ForIS-ISIS-IS, the advertisements are defined in[I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis] .[RFC8570]. +---------------------------------------+----------+----------------+ | Attribute Name | IS-IS | OSPFv2/OSPFv3 | | |sub-TLVSub-TLV |sub-TLVSub-TLV | +---------------------------------------+----------+----------------+ | Unidirectional Link Delay | 33 | 27 | +---------------------------------------+----------+----------------+ | Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay | 34 | 28 | +---------------------------------------+----------+----------------+ | Unidirectional Delay Variation | 35 | 29 | +---------------------------------------+----------+----------------+ | Unidirectional Link Loss | 36 | 30 | +---------------------------------------+----------+----------------+ | Unidirectional Residual Bandwidth | 37 | 31 | +---------------------------------------+----------+----------------+ | Unidirectional Available Bandwidth | 38 | 32 | +---------------------------------------+----------+----------------+ | Unidirectional Utilized Bandwidth | 39 | 33 | +---------------------------------------+----------+----------------+ Figure 8 3. Security Considerations Procedures and protocol extensions defined in this document do not affect the BGP security model. See the'Security Considerations'"Security Considerations" section of [RFC4271] for a discussion of BGP security.AlsoAlso, refer to [RFC4272] and [RFC6952] foranalysisanalyses of security issues for BGP. Security considerations for acquiring and distributing BGP-LS information are discussed in [RFC7752]. The TLVs introduced in this document are used to propagateIGPthe Traffic Engineering Metric Extensions definedinformation ([I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis]in [RFC8570] and[RFC7471].)[RFC7471]. These TLVs represent the state and resource availability of the IGP link.TheIt is assumed that the IGP instances originating these TLVsare assumed towill support all the required security and authentication mechanisms (as described in[I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis][RFC8570] and [RFC7471]) in order to prevent any securityissueissues when propagating the TLVs into BGP-LS. The advertisement of the link attribute information defined in this document presents no additional risk beyond that associated with the existingset oflink attribute information already supported in [RFC7752]. 4. IANA Considerations IANA has madetemporaryassignments in theregistry"BGP-LS Node Descriptor, Link Descriptor, Prefix Descriptor, and Attribute TLVs" registry for the new Link Attribute TLVsdefined in the tableas listed below: TLVcode-point ValueCode Point Description -------------------------------------------------------- 1114 Unidirectional Link Delay 1115 Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay 1116 Unidirectional Delay Variation 1117 Unidirectional Link Loss 1118 Unidirectional Residual Bandwidth 1119 Unidirectional Available Bandwidth 1120 Unidirectional Utilized Bandwidth7.5. References7.1.5.1. Normative References[I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis] Ginsberg, L., Previdi, S., Giacalone, S., Ward, D., Drake, J., and Q. Wu, "IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions", draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis-04 (work in progress), December 2018.[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>.7.2.[RFC8570] Ginsberg, L., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Giacalone, S., Ward, D., Drake, J., and Q. Wu, "IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions", RFC 8570, DOI 10.17487/RFC8570, March 2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8570>. 5.2. Informative References [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>. [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>.6.Acknowledgements The authors wish to acknowledge comments from Ketan Talaulikar.5.Contributors The following people havesubstantiallycontributed substantially to this document and should be consideredco-authors:coauthors: Saikat Ray Individual Email: raysaikat@gmail.com Hannes Gredler RtBrick Inc. Email: hannes@rtbrick.com Authors' Addresses Les Ginsberg (editor) Cisco Systems, Inc.USUnited States of America Email: ginsberg@cisco.com Stefano Previdi HuaweiITItaly Email: stefano@previdi.net Qin Wu Huawei 101 Software Avenue, Yuhua District Nanjing, Jiangsu 210012 China Email: bill.wu@huawei.com Jeff Tantsura Apstra, Inc.USUnited States of America Email: jefftant.ietf@gmail.com Clarence Filsfils Cisco Systems, Inc. BrusselsBEBelgium Email: cfilsfil@cisco.com