Internet DRAFT - draft-head-rift-kv-registry
draft-head-rift-kv-registry
RIFT J. Head, Ed.
Internet-Draft T. Przygienda
Intended status: Standards Track Juniper Networks
Expires: 10 January 2022 9 July 2021
RIFT Keys Structure and Well-Known Registry in Key Value TIE
draft-head-rift-kv-registry-01
Abstract
Routing in Fat-Trees RIFT [RIFT] allows for key/value pairs to be
advertised within Key-Value Topology Information Elements (KV TIEs).
The data contained within these KV TIEs can be used for any
imaginable purpose. This document defines the various Key Types
(i.e. Well-Known, OUI, and Experimental) and a method to structure
corresponding values.
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].
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 10 January 2022.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Head & Przygienda Expires 10 January 2022 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft draft-head-rift-kv-registry-01 July 2021
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. Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Key-Value Pair Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.1. Well-Known Key Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. OUI Key Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.3. Experimental Key Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Key Type Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1.1. Requested Entries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. Experimental Key Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2.1. Requested Entries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.3. Well-Known Key Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.3.1. Requested Entries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.4. OUI Key Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.4.1. Requested Entries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Operational Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1. Description
Routing in Fat-Trees (RIFT [RIFT]) allows for key/value pairs to be
advertised within Key-Value Topology Information Elements (KV TIEs).
There are no restrictions placed on the type of data that is
contained in KV TIEs nor what the data is used for.
This document defines a Key Type Registry to maintain Well-Known and
vendor specific Key Types in order to simplify interoperability
between implementations and eliminate the risk of collision for
future implementations. An Experimental Key Type is additionally
defined.
2. Key-Value Pair Structure
Figure 1 illustrates the generic Key-Value Pair structure.
Head & Przygienda Expires 10 January 2022 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft draft-head-rift-kv-registry-01 July 2021
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Key-Type | Key Identifier |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Values (variable) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: Generic Key-Value Structure
where:
Key-Type:
A 1-byte value that identifies the Key Type. It MUST be a
reserved value from the Key Value Type Registry that is defined
later in this document.
Key Identifier:
A 3-byte value that identifies the specific Key and describes
the structure of the contained values.
Values:
A variable length value that contains data associated with the
Key. It SHOULD contain 1 or more elements. Whether the
collection of elements allows duplicates and/or is ordered is
governed by the particular key identifier.
2.1. Well-Known Key Type
This section reserves a value in the Key Type Registry to indicate
Well-Known Key Types that all implementations SHOULD support.
As shown in Figure 2, the Key-Type will be used to identify that the
Key Type is Well-Known. The Key Identifier will be used to identify
the specific Key and describe the structure of the contained values.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| TBD2 | Well-Known Key Identifier |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Well-Known Values (variable) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: Well-Known Key Type
Head & Przygienda Expires 10 January 2022 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft draft-head-rift-kv-registry-01 July 2021
2.2. OUI Key Type
This section reserves a value in the Key Type Registry to indicate an
OUI (vendor-specific) Key Type that any implementation MAY support.
As shown in Figure 3, the Key-Type will be used to identify the Key
Type as OUI. The Key Identifier MUST use an organization's reserved
OUI space to indicate the Key and value structure.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| TBD3 | Organizationally Unique Identifier |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Vendor Specific Values (variable) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3: OUI Key Type
2.3. Experimental Key Type
This section reserves a value in the Key Type Registry to indicate an
Experimental Key Type.
As shown in Figure 4, the Key-Type will be used to identify the Key
Type as Experimental. The Key Identifier will be used to identify
the specific experimental Key and describe the structure of the
contained values.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| TBD1 | Experimental Key Identifier |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Experimental Values (variable) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 4: Experimental Key Type
3. IANA Considerations
This section requests that IANA help govern Key Types via the usual
IANA registry procedures as per [RFC8126].
All values not suggested are available for assignment. The
allocation of new values MUST be done via "Expert Review" procedures.
Head & Przygienda Expires 10 January 2022 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft draft-head-rift-kv-registry-01 July 2021
3.1. Key Type Registry
This section defines the Key Type Registry that is used to identify a
specific Key Type. It also suggests values for Experimental, Well-
Known, and OUI Key Types.
The range of valid values is 1 - 255.
0 is an illegal value and MUST NOT be allocated to or used by any
implementation. It MUST be ignored on reception.
3.1.1. Requested Entries
+==============+=======+=========================================+
| Key Type | Value | Description |
+==============+=======+=========================================+
| Experimental | TBD1 | Indicates that the Key is Experimental. |
+--------------+-------+-----------------------------------------+
| Well-Known | TBD2 | Indicates that the Key is Well-Known. |
+--------------+-------+-----------------------------------------+
| OUI | TBD3 | Indicates that the Key is OUI. |
+--------------+-------+-----------------------------------------+
Table 1
3.2. Experimental Key Type
This value indicates that a specific key is Experimental.
The range of valid values is 1 - 16777215 (2^24-1).
0 is an illegal value and MUST NOT be allocated to or used by any
implementation. It MUST be ignored on reception.
3.2.1. Requested Entries
+==================+============+==============+
| Experimental Key | Identifier | Description |
+==================+============+==============+
| Illegal | 0 | Not allowed. |
+------------------+------------+--------------+
Table 2
3.3. Well-Known Key Type
This value indicates that a specific key is Well-Known.
Head & Przygienda Expires 10 January 2022 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft draft-head-rift-kv-registry-01 July 2021
The range of valid values is 1 - 16777215 (2^24-1).
0 is an illegal value and MUST NOT be allocated to or used by any
implementation. It MUST be ignored on reception.
3.3.1. Requested Entries
+============================+============+================+
| Well-Known Key | Identifier | Description |
+============================+============+================+
| Illegal | 0 | Not allowed. |
+----------------------------+------------+----------------+
| MAC/IP Binding | TBD1 | To be defined. |
+----------------------------+------------+----------------+
| FAM Security Roll-Over Key | TBD2 | To be defined. |
+----------------------------+------------+----------------+
Table 3
3.4. OUI Key Type
This value indicates a specific OUI Key using an organization's
reserved OUI space.
The range of valid values is 1 - 16777215 (2^24-1).
0 is an illegal value and MUST NOT be allocated to or used by any
implementation. It MUST be ignored on reception.
3.4.1. Requested Entries
+=========+============+==============+
| OUI Key | Identifier | Description |
+=========+============+==============+
| Illegal | 0 | Not allowed. |
+---------+------------+--------------+
Table 4
4. Operational Considerations
While no restrictions are placed on Key-Value data or what it is used
for, it is RECOMMENDED that a serialized Thrift model be used for
simpler interoperability. RIFT Auto-EVPN [RIFT-AUTO-EVPN] is an
example of this type of implementation.
Key-Value elements SHOULD NOT be used to carry topology information
used by RIFT itself to perform distributed computations.
Head & Przygienda Expires 10 January 2022 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft draft-head-rift-kv-registry-01 July 2021
In cases where Key-Value TIEs are flooded from north to south,
policies SHOULD be implemented in order to avoid network-wide
flooding.
For networks with more than one ToF node, it is RECOMMENDED that
those ToF nodes contain identical Key-Value TIE information when
being distributed from north to south as the Key-Value tie breaking
rules in RIFT [RIFT] ultimately mention that only one Key-Value TIE
can be selected from multiple northbound neighbors. If this is not
considered, nodes receiving varying Key-Value TIEs might select a
suboptimal Key-Value TIE.
5. Security Considerations
This document introduces no new security concerns to RIFT or other
specifications referenced in this document given that the TIEs that
carry KV pairs are already extensively secured by the RIFT [RIFT]
specification itself.
6. Acknowledgements
To be provided.
7. 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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[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>.
[RIFT] Przygienda, T., Sharma, A., Thubert, P., Rijsman, B., and
D. Afanasiev, "RIFT: Routing in Fat Trees", Work in
Progress, draft-ietf-rift-rift-13, July 2021.
[RIFT-AUTO-EVPN]
Head, J., Przygienda, T., and W. Lin, "RIFT Auto-EVPN",
Work in Progress, draft-head-rift-auto-evpn-01, July 2021.
Authors' Addresses
Head & Przygienda Expires 10 January 2022 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft draft-head-rift-kv-registry-01 July 2021
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 10 January 2022 [Page 8]
