Internet DRAFT - draft-head-idr-bgp-ls-isis-fr
draft-head-idr-bgp-ls-isis-fr
Network Working Group J. Head, Ed.
Internet-Draft T. Przygienda
Intended status: Standards Track Juniper Networks
Expires: 28 October 2022 26 April 2022
BGP-LS Extensions for IS-IS Flood Reflectors
draft-head-idr-bgp-ls-isis-fr-01
Abstract
This document defines new BGP-LS (BGP Link-State) TLVs in order to
carry IS-IS Flood Reflection information.
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 28 October 2022.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2022 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 Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Head & Przygienda Expires 28 October 2022 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft BGP-LS Extensions for IS-IS FR April 2022
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. BGP-LS Extensions for IS-IS Flood Reflectors . . . . . . . . 2
3. BGP-LS TLVs for IS-IS Flood Reflection . . . . . . . . . . . 2
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4.1. Requested TLV Entries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1. Introduction
BGP Link-State RFC7752 [RFC7752] defines mechanisms to advertise
information about the underlying IGP in BGP NLRI to an external
entity (e.g. a controller). New BGP-LS TLVs are required in order to
faciliate IS-IS Flood Reflection [IS-IS-FR] extensions.
1.1. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
2. BGP-LS Extensions for IS-IS Flood Reflectors
This document defines the following BGP-LS TLV code point value in
accordance with RFC7752 rules:
+================+======================+=======================+
| TLV Code Point | Description | IS-IS TLV |
+================+======================+=======================+
| TBD1 | Flood Reflection TLV | TBD1 (161) [IS-IS-FR] |
+----------------+----------------------+-----------------------+
Table 1: BGP-LS Flood Reflection TLV Code Points
TLV formats are described in detail in subsequent subsections.
3. BGP-LS TLVs for IS-IS Flood Reflection
This TLV advertises Flood Reflector details. The semantics and
values of the fields in the TLV are described in [IS-IS-FR].
Head & Przygienda Expires 28 October 2022 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft BGP-LS Extensions for IS-IS FR April 2022
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|C| RESERVED |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Flood Reflection Cluster ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: Flood Reflection TLVs
where:
*Type:* TBD1
*Length:* 5
4. IANA Considerations
This section requests entries from the "BGP-LS Node Descriptor, Link
Descriptor, Prefix Descriptor, and Attribute TLVs" registry for the
following TLVs:
4.1. Requested TLV Entries
+================+======================+
| TLV Code Point | Description |
+================+======================+
| TBD1 | Flood Reflection TLV |
+----------------+----------------------+
Table 2: IANA Requests
5. 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 analyses of BGP security issues.
Security considerations for acquiring and distributing BGP-LS
information are discussed in [RFC7752].
Head & Przygienda Expires 28 October 2022 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft BGP-LS Extensions for IS-IS FR April 2022
The TLVs introduced in this document are used to propagate IS-IS
Flood Reflection TLVs defined in [IS-IS-FR]. These TLVs represent
IS-IS Flood Reflector state and are therefore assumed to support any/
all of the required security and authentication mechanisms as
described in [IS-IS-FR] to prevent any security issues when
propagating the TLVs into BGP-LS.
6. Acknowledgements
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[IS-IS-FR] Przygienda, T., Bowers, C., Lee, Y., Sharma, A., and R.
White, "IS-IS Flood Reflection", October 2021,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-lsr-
isis-flood-reflection>.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Li, T., and S. Hares, "A Border Gateway
Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", January 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4271>.
[RFC4272] Murphy, S., "BGP Security Vulnerabilities Analysis",
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", May 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6952>.
[RFC7752] Gredler, H., Medved, J., Previdi, S., Farrel, A., and S.
Ray, "North-Bound Distribution of Link-State and Traffic
Engineering (TE) Information Using BGP", March 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7752>.
[RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", June
2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
Authors' Addresses
Head & Przygienda Expires 28 October 2022 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft BGP-LS Extensions for IS-IS FR April 2022
Jordan Head (editor)
Juniper Networks
1137 Innovation Way
Sunnyvale, CA
United States of America
Email: jhead@juniper.net
Tony Przygienda
Juniper Networks
1137 Innovation Way
Sunnyvale, CA
United States of America
Email: prz@juniper.net
Head & Przygienda Expires 28 October 2022 [Page 5]
