rfc9104.original   rfc9104.txt 
IDR Working Group J. Tantsura Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) J. Tantsura
Internet-Draft Juniper Networks Request for Comments: 9104 Microsoft
Intended status: Standards Track Z. Wang Category: Standards Track Z. Wang
Expires: December 6, 2021 Q. Wu ISSN: 2070-1721 Q. Wu
Huawei Huawei
K. Talaulikar K. Talaulikar
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
June 4, 2021 August 2021
Distribution of Traffic Engineering Extended Administrative Groups using Distribution of Traffic Engineering Extended Administrative Groups
BGP-LS Using the Border Gateway Protocol - Link State (BGP-LS)
draft-ietf-idr-eag-distribution-19
Abstract Abstract
Administrative groups are link attributes used for traffic Administrative groups are link attributes used for traffic
engineering. This document defines an extension to BGP-LS for engineering. This document defines an extension to the Border
advertisement of extended administrative groups (EAGs). Gateway Protocol - Link State (BGP-LS) for advertisement of extended
administrative groups (EAGs).
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This is an Internet Standards Track document.
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 This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference received public review and has been approved for publication by the
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.
This Internet-Draft will expire on December 6, 2021. Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9104.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1.1. Requirements Language
2. Advertising Extended Administrative Group in BGP-LS . . . . . 3 2. Advertising Extended Administrative Groups in BGP-LS
3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. IANA Considerations
4. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. Manageability Considerations
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5. Security Considerations
6. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6. References
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6.1. Normative References
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6.2. Informative References
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Acknowledgments
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Authors' Addresses
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
Administrative groups (commonly referred to as "colors" or "link Administrative groups (commonly referred to as "colors" or "link
colors") are link attributes that are advertised by link state colors") are link attributes that are advertised by link-state
protocols like IS-IS [RFC1195], OSPFv2 [RFC2328] and OSPFv3 protocols like IS-IS [RFC1195], OSPFv2 [RFC2328], and OSPFv3
[RFC5340]. The BGP-LS advertisement of the originally defined (non- [RFC5340]. The Border Gateway Protocol - Link State (BGP-LS)
extended) administrative groups is encoded using the Administrative advertisement of the originally defined (non-extended) administrative
Group (color) TLV 1088 as defined in [RFC7752]. groups is encoded using the Administrative Group (color) TLV 1088 as
defined in [RFC7752].
These administrative groups are defined as a fixed-length 32-bit These administrative groups are defined as a fixed-length 32-bit
bitmask. As networks grew and more use-cases were introduced, the bitmask. As networks grew and more use cases were introduced, the
32-bit length was found to be constraining and hence extended 32-bit length was found to be constraining, and hence extended
administrative groups (EAG) were introduced in [RFC7308]. administrative groups (EAGs) were introduced in [RFC7308].
The EAG TLV (Section 2) is not a replacement for the Administrative The EAG TLV (Section 2) is not a replacement for the Administrative
Group (color) TLV; as explained in [RFC7308] both values can coexist. Group (color) TLV; as explained in [RFC7308], both values can
It is out of scope for this document to specify the behavior of the coexist. It is out of scope for this document to specify the
BGP-LS consumer [RFC7752]. behavior of the BGP-LS consumer [RFC7752].
This document specifies an extension to BGP-LS for advertisement of This document specifies an extension to BGP-LS for advertisement of
the extended administrative groups. the extended administrative groups.
1.1. Requirements Language 1.1. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here. capitals, as shown here.
2. Advertising Extended Administrative Group in BGP-LS 2. Advertising Extended Administrative Groups in BGP-LS
This document defines an extension that enables BGP-LS speakers to This document defines an extension that enables BGP-LS speakers to
signal the EAG of links in a network to a BGP-LS consumer of network signal the EAG of links in a network to a BGP-LS consumer of network
topology such as a centralized controller. The centralized topology such as a centralized controller. The centralized
controller can leverage this information in traffic engineering controller can leverage this information in traffic engineering
computations and other use-cases. When a BGP-LS speaker is computations and other use cases. When a BGP-LS speaker is
originating the topology learnt via link-state routing protocols like originating the topology learned via link-state routing protocols
OSPF or IS-IS, the EAG information of the links is sourced from the like OSPF or IS-IS, the EAG information of the links is sourced from
underlying extensions as defined in [RFC7308]. the underlying extensions as defined in [RFC7308].
The EAG of a link is encoded in a new Link Attribute TLV [RFC7752] The EAG of a link is encoded in a new Link Attribute TLV [RFC7752]
using the following format: using the following format:
0 1 2 3 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 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 | | Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Extended Administrative Group (variable) // | Extended Administrative Group (variable) //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: Extended Administrative Group TLV Format Figure 1: Extended Administrative Group TLV Format
Where: Where:
o Type: 1173 Type: 1173
o Length: variable length which represents the total length of the Length: variable length that represents the total length of the
value field in octets. The length value MUST be a multiple of 4. value field in octets. The length value MUST be a multiple of 4.
If the length is not a multiple of 4, the TLV MUST be considered If the length is not a multiple of 4, the TLV MUST be considered
malformed. malformed.
o Value: one or more sets of 32-bit bitmasks that indicate the Value: one or more sets of 32-bit bitmasks that indicate the
administrative groups (colors) that are enabled on the link when administrative groups (colors) that are enabled on the link when
those specific bits are set. those specific bits are set.
3. IANA Considerations 3. IANA Considerations
This document requests assigning a code-point from the registry "BGP- IANA has assigned a code point from the "BGP-LS Node Descriptor, Link
LS Node Descriptor, Link Descriptor, Prefix Descriptor, and Attribute Descriptor, Prefix Descriptor, and Attribute TLVs" registry as
TLVs" based on table below. Early allocation for these code-points described in the following table.
have been done by IANA.
+============+===============================+===================+
| Code Point | Description | IS-IS TLV/Sub-TLV |
+============+===============================+===================+
| 1173 | Extended Administrative Group | 22/14 |
+------------+-------------------------------+-------------------+ +------------+-------------------------------+-------------------+
| Code Point | Description | IS-IS TLV/Sub-TLV |
+------------+-------------------------------+-------------------+ Table 1
| 1173 | Extended Administrative Group | 22/14 |
+------------+-------------------------------+-------------------+
4. Manageability Considerations 4. Manageability Considerations
The new protocol extensions introduced in this document augment the The new protocol extensions introduced in this document augment the
existing IGP topology information that is distributed via [RFC7752]. existing IGP topology information that is distributed via [RFC7752].
Procedures and protocol extensions defined in this document do not Procedures and protocol extensions defined in this document do not
affect the BGP protocol operations and management other than as affect the BGP protocol operations and management other than as
discussed in the Manageability Considerations section of [RFC7752]. discussed in Section 6 ("Manageability Considerations") of [RFC7752].
Specifically, the malformed attribute tests for syntactic checks in Specifically, the tests for malformed attributes, to perform
the Fault Management section of [RFC7752] now encompass the new BGP- syntactic checks as described in Section 6.2.2 ("Fault Management")
LS Attribute TLV defined in this document. The semantic or content of [RFC7752], now encompass the new BGP-LS Attribute TLV defined in
checking for the TLV specified in this document and its association this document. The semantic or content checking for the TLV
with the BGP-LS NLRI types or its BGP-LS Attribute is left to the specified in this document and its association with the BGP-LS
consumer of the BGP-LS information (e.g. an application or a Network Layer Reachability Information (NLRI) types or its BGP-LS
controller) and not the BGP protocol. Attribute are left to the consumer of the BGP-LS information (e.g.,
an application or a controller) and not to BGP itself.
A consumer of the BGP-LS information retrieves this information over A consumer of the BGP-LS information retrieves this information over
a BGP-LS session (refer Section 1 and 2 of [RFC7752]). a BGP-LS session (refer to Sections 1 and 2 of [RFC7752]).
5. Security Considerations 5. Security Considerations
The procedures and protocol extensions defined in this document do The procedures and protocol extensions defined in this document do
not affect the BGP security model. See the "Security Considerations" not affect the BGP security model. See the "Security Considerations"
section of [RFC4271] for a discussion of BGP security. This document section of [RFC4271] for a discussion of BGP security. This document
only introduces a new Attribute TLV and any syntactic error in it only introduces a new Attribute TLV, and any syntactic error in it
would result in the BGP-LS Attribute being discarded [RFC7752]. would result in the BGP-LS Attribute being discarded [RFC7752].
Also, refer to [RFC4272] and [RFC6952] for analyses of security Also, refer to [RFC4272] and [RFC6952] for analyses of security
issues for BGP. Security considerations for acquiring and issues for BGP. Security considerations for acquiring and
distributing BGP-LS information are discussed in [RFC7752]. The TLV distributing BGP-LS information are discussed in [RFC7752]. The TLV
introduced in this document is used to propagate the EAG extensions introduced in this document is used to propagate the EAG extensions
defined in [RFC7308]. It is assumed that the IGP instances defined in [RFC7308]. It is assumed that the IGP instances
originating this TLV will support any required security mechanisms originating this TLV will support any required security mechanisms
for OSPF and IS-IS, in order to prevent any security issues when for OSPF and IS-IS, in order to prevent any security issues when
propagating the Sub-TLVs into BGP-LS. propagating the Sub-TLVs into BGP-LS.
Security concerns for OSPF are addressed in [RFC7474], [RFC4552] and Security concerns for OSPF are addressed in [RFC7474], [RFC4552], and
[RFC7166]. Further security analysis for OSPF protocol is done in [RFC7166]. Further security analysis for the OSPF protocol is done
[RFC6863]. in [RFC6863].
Security considerations for IS-IS are specified by [RFC5304]. Security considerations for IS-IS are specified by [RFC5304].
The advertisement of the link attribute information defined in this The advertisement of the link attribute information defined in this
document presents no significant additional risk beyond that document presents no significant additional risk beyond that
associated with the existing link attribute information already associated with the existing link attribute information already
supported in [RFC7752]. supported in [RFC7752].
6. Acknowledgments 6. References
The authors would like to thank Eric Osborne, Les Ginsberg, Tim
Chown, Ben Niven-Jenkins and Alvaro Retana for their reviews and
valuable comments.
7. References
7.1. Normative References 6.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC7308] Osborne, E., "Extended Administrative Groups in MPLS [RFC7308] Osborne, E., "Extended Administrative Groups in MPLS
Traffic Engineering (MPLS-TE)", RFC 7308, Traffic Engineering (MPLS-TE)", RFC 7308,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7308, July 2014, DOI 10.17487/RFC7308, July 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7308>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7308>.
skipping to change at page 5, line 40 skipping to change at line 216
[RFC7752] Gredler, H., Ed., Medved, J., Previdi, S., Farrel, A., and [RFC7752] Gredler, H., Ed., Medved, J., Previdi, S., Farrel, A., and
S. Ray, "North-Bound Distribution of Link-State and S. Ray, "North-Bound Distribution of Link-State and
Traffic Engineering (TE) Information Using BGP", RFC 7752, Traffic Engineering (TE) Information Using BGP", RFC 7752,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7752, March 2016, DOI 10.17487/RFC7752, March 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7752>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7752>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>. May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
7.2. Informative References 6.2. Informative References
[RFC1195] Callon, R., "Use of OSI IS-IS for routing in TCP/IP and [RFC1195] Callon, R., "Use of OSI IS-IS for routing in TCP/IP and
dual environments", RFC 1195, DOI 10.17487/RFC1195, dual environments", RFC 1195, DOI 10.17487/RFC1195,
December 1990, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1195>. December 1990, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1195>.
[RFC2328] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328, [RFC2328] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2328, April 1998, DOI 10.17487/RFC2328, April 1998,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2328>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2328>.
[RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A [RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A
skipping to change at page 6, line 48 skipping to change at line 269
[RFC7166] Bhatia, M., Manral, V., and A. Lindem, "Supporting [RFC7166] Bhatia, M., Manral, V., and A. Lindem, "Supporting
Authentication Trailer for OSPFv3", RFC 7166, Authentication Trailer for OSPFv3", RFC 7166,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7166, March 2014, DOI 10.17487/RFC7166, March 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7166>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7166>.
[RFC7474] Bhatia, M., Hartman, S., Zhang, D., and A. Lindem, Ed., [RFC7474] Bhatia, M., Hartman, S., Zhang, D., and A. Lindem, Ed.,
"Security Extension for OSPFv2 When Using Manual Key "Security Extension for OSPFv2 When Using Manual Key
Management", RFC 7474, DOI 10.17487/RFC7474, April 2015, Management", RFC 7474, DOI 10.17487/RFC7474, April 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7474>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7474>.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Eric Osborne, Les Ginsberg, Tim
Chown, Ben Niven-Jenkins, and Alvaro Retana for their reviews and
valuable comments.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Jeff Tantsura Jeff Tantsura
Juniper Networks Microsoft
Email: jefftant.ietf@gmail.com Email: jefftant.ietf@gmail.com
Zitao Wang Zitao Wang
Huawei Huawei
101 Software Avenue, Yuhua District Yuhua District
Nanjing, Jiangsu 210012 101 Software Avenue
Nanjing
Jiangsu, 210012
China China
Email: wangzitao@huawei.com Email: wangzitao@huawei.com
Qin Wu Qin Wu
Huawei Huawei
101 Software Avenue, Yuhua District Yuhua District
Nanjing, Jiangsu 210012 101 Software Avenue
Nanjing
Jiangsu, 210012
China China
Email: bill.wu@huawei.com Email: bill.wu@huawei.com
Ketan Talaulikar Ketan Talaulikar
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
Email: ketant@cisco.com Email: ketant@cisco.com
 End of changes. 34 change blocks. 
91 lines changed or deleted 96 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/