Networking Working Group L. Ginsberg, Ed. Internet-Draft Cisco Systems, Inc. Intended status: Standards Track S. Previdi Expires: April 12, 2019 Q. Wu Huawei J. Tantsura Apstra, Inc. C. Filsfils Cisco Systems, Inc. October 9, 2018 BGP-LS Advertisement of IGP Traffic Engineering Performance Metric Extensions draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp-13 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 April 12, 2019. Ginsberg, et al. Expires April 12, 2019 [Page 1] Internet-Draft BGP-LS Advertisement of Performance Metric October 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 April 12, 2019 [Page 2] Internet-Draft BGP-LS Advertisement of Performance Metric October 2018 TLV Name ------------------------------------------ Unidirectional Link Delay Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay Unidirectional Delay Variation Unidirectional Link 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 April 12, 2019 [Page 3] Internet-Draft BGP-LS Advertisement of Performance Metric October 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 April 12, 2019 [Page 4] Internet-Draft BGP-LS Advertisement of Performance Metric October 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 April 12, 2019 [Page 5] Internet-Draft BGP-LS Advertisement of Performance Metric October 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 April 12, 2019 [Page 6] Internet-Draft BGP-LS Advertisement of Performance Metric October 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 Link 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 April 12, 2019 [Page 7] Internet-Draft BGP-LS Advertisement of Performance Metric October 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, . [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, . [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, . [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, . [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, . [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, May 2017, . 8.2. Informative References [RFC4272] Murphy, S., "BGP Security Vulnerabilities Analysis", RFC 4272, DOI 10.17487/RFC4272, January 2006, . [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, . Ginsberg, et al. Expires April 12, 2019 [Page 8] Internet-Draft BGP-LS Advertisement of Performance Metric October 2018 Authors' Addresses Les Ginsberg (editor) Cisco Systems, Inc. US Email: ginsberg@cisco.com Stefano Previdi Huawei IT 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. US Email: jefftant.ietf@gmail.com Clarence Filsfils Cisco Systems, Inc. Brussels BE Email: cfilsfil@cisco.com Ginsberg, et al. Expires April 12, 2019 [Page 9]