Networking Working Group L. Ginsberg, Ed. Internet-Draft Cisco Systems, Inc. Intended status: Standards Track S. Previdi Expires: June 23, 2019 Q. Wu Huawei J. Tantsura Apstra, Inc. C. Filsfils Cisco Systems, Inc. December 20, 2018 BGP-LS Advertisement of IGP Traffic Engineering Performance Metric Extensions draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp-18 Abstract This document defines new 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 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 June 23, 2019. 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 Ginsberg, et al. Expires June 23, 2019 [Page 1] Internet-Draft BGP-LS Advertisement of Performance Metric December 2018 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 2.1. Unidirectional Link Delay TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.2. Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay TLV . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.3. Unidirectional Delay Variation TLV . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.4. Unidirectional Link Loss TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.5. Unidirectional Residual Bandwidth TLV . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.6. Unidirectional Available Bandwidth TLV . . . . . . . . . 6 2.7. Unidirectional Utilized Bandwidth TLV . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.8. Mappings to IGP Source sub-TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 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 [I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis] and [RFC7471]. 2. Link Attribute TLVs for TE Metric Extensions The following new Link Attribute TLVs are defined: Ginsberg, et al. Expires June 23, 2019 [Page 2] Internet-Draft BGP-LS Advertisement of Performance Metric December 2018 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 Utilized Bandwidth TLV formats are described in detail in the following sub-sections. 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 of the value field in the TLV are described in [I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis] 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. Ginsberg, et al. Expires June 23, 2019 [Page 3] Internet-Draft BGP-LS Advertisement of Performance Metric December 2018 2.2. 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 semantics of the value field in the TLV are described in [I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis] 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. 2.3. Unidirectional Delay Variation TLV This sub-TLV advertises the average link delay variation between two directly connected IGP link-state neighbors. The semantics of the value field in the TLV are described in [I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis] 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 Ginsberg, et al. Expires June 23, 2019 [Page 4] Internet-Draft BGP-LS Advertisement of Performance Metric December 2018 Length: 4. 2.4. Unidirectional Link Loss TLV This sub-TLV advertises the loss (as a packet percentage) between two directly connected IGP link-state neighbors. The semantics of the value field in the TLV are described in [I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis] 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:1117 Length: 4. 2.5. Unidirectional Residual Bandwidth TLV This sub-TLV advertises the residual bandwidth between two directly connected IGP link-state neighbors. The semantics of the value field in the TLV are described in [I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis] 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 Ginsberg, et al. Expires June 23, 2019 [Page 5] Internet-Draft BGP-LS Advertisement of Performance Metric December 2018 Length: 4. 2.6. Unidirectional Available Bandwidth TLV This sub-TLV advertises the available bandwidth between two directly connected IGP link-state neighbors. The semantics of the value field in the TLV are described in [I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis] 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. 2.7. Unidirectional Utilized Bandwidth TLV This sub-TLV advertises the bandwidth utilization between two directly connected IGP link-state neighbors. The semantics of the value field in the TLV are described in [I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis] 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 Ginsberg, et al. Expires June 23, 2019 [Page 6] Internet-Draft BGP-LS Advertisement of Performance Metric December 2018 Length: 4. 2.8. Mappings to IGP Source sub-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 and OSPFv3 the advertisements are defined in [RFC7471] . For IS-IS the advertisements are defined in [I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis] . +---------------------------------------+----------+----------------+ | Attribute Name | IS-IS | OSPFv2/OSPFv3 | | | sub-TLV | sub-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' section of [RFC4271] for a discussion of BGP security. Also refer to [RFC4272] and [RFC6952] for analysis 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 propagate IGP defined information ([I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis] and [RFC7471].) These TLVs represent the state and resource availability of the IGP link. The IGP instances originating these TLVs are assumed to Ginsberg, et al. Expires June 23, 2019 [Page 7] Internet-Draft BGP-LS Advertisement of Performance Metric December 2018 support all the required security and authentication mechanisms (as described in [I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis] and [RFC7471]) in order to prevent any security issue 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 existing set of link attribute information already supported in [RFC7752]. 4. IANA Considerations IANA has made temporary assignments in 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 Utilized Bandwidth 5. 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 Ginsberg, et al. Expires June 23, 2019 [Page 8] Internet-Draft BGP-LS Advertisement of Performance Metric December 2018 6. Acknowledgements The authors wish to acknowledge comments from Ketan Talaulikar. 7. References 7.1. 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, . [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, . 7.2. 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, . [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, . Authors' Addresses Ginsberg, et al. Expires June 23, 2019 [Page 9] Internet-Draft BGP-LS Advertisement of Performance Metric December 2018 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 June 23, 2019 [Page 10]