Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-inter-as-topology-ext

draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-inter-as-topology-ext







IDR Working Group                                                A. Wang
Internet-Draft                                             China Telecom
Intended status: Standards Track                                 H. Chen
Expires: 6 October 2023                                        Futurewei
                                                           K. Talaulikar
                                                           Cisco Systems
                                                               S. Zhuang
                                                     Huawei Technologies
                                                            4 April 2023


            BGP-LS Extension for Inter-AS Topology Retrieval
             draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-inter-as-topology-ext-13

Abstract

   This document describes the process to build Border Gateway Protocol-
   Link State (BGP-LS) key parameters in inter-domain scenario, defines
   one new BGP-LS Network Layer Reachability Information (NLRI) type
   (Stub Link NLRI) and some new Type-Length-Values (TLVs) for BGP-LS to
   let Software Definition Network (SDN) controller retrieve the network
   topology automatically under various inter-AS environments.

   Such extension and process can enable the network operator to collect
   the interconnect information between different domains and then
   calculate the overall network topology automatically based on the
   information provided by BGP-LS protocol.

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 6 October 2023.







Wang, et al.             Expires 6 October 2023                 [Page 1]

Internet-Draft             BGP-LS-Inter-AS-Ext                April 2023


Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2023 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.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   4.  Inter-AS Domain Scenarios.  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   5.  Stub Link NLRI  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     5.1.  Inter-AS Native IP Scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     5.2.  Inter-AS TE Scenario  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   6.  Inter-AS Native IP Scenario related TLVs  . . . . . . . . . .   6
     6.1.  Stub Link IPv4 Prefix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     6.2.  Stub Link IPv6 Prefix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   7.  Inter-AS TE Scenario related TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     7.1.  Remote AS Number TLV  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     7.2.  IPv4 Remote ASBR ID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     7.3.  IPv6 Remote ASBR ID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   8.  Topology Reconstruction.  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   9.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     10.1.  New BGP-LS NLRI type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     10.2.  New Stub Link Descriptors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   11. Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   12. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     12.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     12.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13











Wang, et al.             Expires 6 October 2023                 [Page 2]

Internet-Draft             BGP-LS-Inter-AS-Ext                April 2023


1.  Introduction

   BGP-LS [RFC7752] describes the methodology that using BGP protocol to
   transfer the Link-State information.  Such method can enable SDN
   controller to collect the underlay network topology automatically,
   but normally it can only get the information within one Interior
   Gateway Protocol (IGP) domain.  If the operator has more than one IGP
   domain, and these domains interconnect with each other, there is no
   mechanic within current BGP- LS to transfer the interconnect topology
   information.

   Draft [I-D.ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe] defines some
   extensions for exporting BGP peering node topology information
   (including its peers, interfaces and peering ASs) in a way that is
   exploitable in order to compute efficient BGP Peering Engineering
   policies and strategies.  Such information can also be used to
   calculate the interconnection topology among different IGP domains,
   but it requires every border router to run BGP-LS protocol and report
   the information to SDN controller.  Considering there will be plenty
   of border routers on the network boundary, such solution restricts
   its deployment flexibility.

   This draft analysis the situations that the SDN controller needs to
   get the interconnected topology information between different AS
   domains, defines the new Stub Link NLRI and some new TLVs within the
   BGP-LS protocol to transfer the key information related to them.
   After that, the SDN controller can then deduce the multi-domain
   topology automatically based on the information from BGP-LS protocol.

2.  Conventions used in this document

   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] .

3.  Terminology

   The following terms are defined in this document:

   *  IDCs: Internet Data Centers

   *  MAN: Metrio-Area-Network

   *  SDN: Software Definition Network







Wang, et al.             Expires 6 October 2023                 [Page 3]

Internet-Draft             BGP-LS-Inter-AS-Ext                April 2023


4.  Inter-AS Domain Scenarios.

   Figure 1 illustrates the multi-domain scenarios that this draft
   discusses.  Normally, SDN Controller can get the topology of IGP A
   and IGP B individually via the BGP-LS protocol, but it can't get the
   topology connection information between these two IGP domains because
   there is generally no IGP protocol run on the connected links.

                             +-----------------+
                        +----+IP SDN Controller+----+
                        |    +-----------------+    |
                        |                           |
                        |BGP-LS                     |BGP-LS
                        |                           |
        +---------------+-----+               +-----+--------------+
        | +--+        +-++   ++-+           +-++   +|-+        +--+|
        | |S1+--------+S2+---+B1+-----------+B2+---+T1+--------+T2||
        | +-++   N1   +-++   ++-+           +-++   ++++   N2   +-++|
        |   |           |     |               |     ||           | |
        |   |           |     |               |     ||           | |
        | +-++        +-++   ++-+           +-++   ++++        +-++|
        | |S4+--------+S3+---+B3+-----------+B4+---+T3+--------+T4||
        | +--+        +--+   ++-+           +-++   ++-+        +--+|
        |                     |               |                    |
        |                     |               |                    |
        |       IGP A         |               |      IGP B         |
        +---------------------+               +--------------------+

                    Figure 1: Inter-AS Domain Scenarios

5.  Stub Link NLRI

   [RFC7752] defines four NLRI types(Node NLRI, Link NLRI, IPv4 Topology
   Prefix NLRI, IPv6 Topology Prefix NLRI) to transfer the topology and
   prefix information.  For inter-as link, the two ends of the link
   locates in different IGP domains, then it is not appropriate to
   transfer their information within the current defined NLRI types.

   This draft defines one new NLRI type, called Stub Link NLRI, which is
   coded as the following format:











Wang, et al.             Expires 6 October 2023                 [Page 4]

Internet-Draft             BGP-LS-Inter-AS-Ext                April 2023


        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
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |  Protocol-ID  |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                           Identifier                          |
       |                            (64 bits)                          |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       //              Local Node Descriptors (variable)              //
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       //               Stub Link Descriptors (variable)              //
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

              Figure 2: Stub Link NLRI Format

   The "Protocol-ID" should be set to the value that indicates "Direct"
   protocol.

   The semantics of "Local Node Descriptors" and "Stub Link Descriptors"
   are same as that defined in [RFC7752] for "Node Descriptors" and
   "Link Descriptor".

   This newly defined NLRI can be used to describe the link that has
   only one end located within the IGP domain, as described in the
   following sections.

5.1.  Inter-AS Native IP Scenario

   Draft [RFC8735] describes the situation that operator needs some
   traffic engineering solution for the inter-as native IP environment.
   In such situation, different domain may run different IGP protocol.
   The operator needs to know the inter-as topology first to calculate
   the end to end optimal path centrally.

   When IGP A or IGP B in Figure 1 runs native IS-IS/OSPF protocol, the
   operator can use passive feature for the inter-domain links to let
   the routers within the IGP domain know these links.  Such stub links
   information can then be carried within the Stub Link NLRI reported
   via the BGP-LS protocol to the SDN controller.

   Draft [I-D.wang-lsr-stub-link-attributes] describes the method to
   identify the stub link within the network for OSPFv2/v3 and IS-IS.
   The router that runs BGP-LS can extract these stub links from other
   interfaces that participate in the IGP protocol and report them via
   the newly defined "Stub Link NLRI".

   The "Local Node Descriptors" should describe the characteristics of
   ASBRs that are connected these stub links.



Wang, et al.             Expires 6 October 2023                 [Page 5]

Internet-Draft             BGP-LS-Inter-AS-Ext                April 2023


   When such information is reported via the BGP-LS protocol, the SDN
   controller can construct the underlay inter-domain topology according
   to procedure described in Section 8

5.2.  Inter-AS TE Scenario

   When IGP A or IGP B in Figure 1 runs IS-IS TE/OSPF-TE
   protocol,[RFC5316] and [RFC5392] define IS-IS and OSPF extensions
   respectively to deal with the situation for inter-AS traffic
   engineering.  Three new sub-TLVs(Remote AS Number、IPv4 Remote ASBR
   ID、IPv6 Remote ASBR ID) which are associated with the inter-AS TE
   link are defined.

   These TLVs are flooded within the IGP domain automatically.  They
   should be carried within the newly defined Stub Link NLRI within the
   BGP-LS protocol, as the descriptors for the inter-AS stub link.

   The "Local Node Descriptors" should describe the the characteristics
   of ASBRs that are connected these inter-AS TE links.

   If the SDN controller knows these information via one of the interior
   router that runs BGP-LS protocol, the SDN controller can rebuild the
   inter-AS TE topology correctly according to the procedure described
   in Section 8

6.  Inter-AS Native IP Scenario related TLVs

   This section proposes to add two new TLVs that is included within the
   Stub Link NLRI to transfer the information via BGP-LS, which are
   required to build the inter-AS Native IP related topology by the SDN
   controller.

   The following Link Descriptor TLVs are added into the BGP-LS protocol
   :

+-----------+---------------------+--------------+------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|  TLV Code | Description         |IS-IS/OSPF TLV|                       Reference                                                          |
|   Point   |                     |   /Sub-TLV   |                     (RFC/Section)                                                        |
+-----------+---------------------+--------------+------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|    TBD    |Stub Link IPv4 Prefix|   TBD        | [https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-wang-lsr-stub-link-attributes-06#section-4.3|
|    TBD    |Stub Link IPv6 Prefix|   TBD        | [https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-wang-lsr-stub-link-attributes-06#section-4.4|
+-----------+---------------------+--------------+------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
             Figure 3: Stub Link Descriptor TLVs

   Detail encoding of these TLVs are synchronized with the corresponding
   parts in [I-D.wang-lsr-stub-link-attributes], which keeps the BGP-LS
   protocol agnostic to the underly protocol.




Wang, et al.             Expires 6 October 2023                 [Page 6]

Internet-Draft             BGP-LS-Inter-AS-Ext                April 2023


6.1.  Stub Link IPv4 Prefix

   A new TLV, which is referred to as the Stub Link IPv4 Prefix TLV, is
   defined for inclusion in the link descriptor when advertising inter-
   AS links.  The Stub Link IPv4 Prefix TLV specifies the IPv4 Prefix of
   the stub link.

   The Stub Link IPv4 Prefix TLV is TLV type TBD (see Section 10) and is
   4 octets in length.  The format of the Stub Link IPv4 Prefix TLV is
   as follows:

    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            |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                  Stub Link IPv4 Prefix                        |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
             Figure 4:  Stub Link IPv4 Prefix TLV Format

   The Stub Link IPv4 Prefix TLV MUST be included if the stub link has
   an IPv4 address.

6.2.  Stub Link IPv6 Prefix

   A new TLV, which is referred to as the Stub Link IPv6 Prefix TLV, is
   defined for inclusion in the link descriptor when advertising inter-
   AS links.  The Stub Link IPv6 Prefix TLV specifies the IPv6 Prefix of
   the stub link.

   The Stub Link IPv6 Prefix TLV is TLV type TBD (see Section 10) and is
   16 octets in length.  The format of the Stub Link IPv6 Prefix TLV is
   as follows:

    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            |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                   Stub Link IPv6 Prefix                       |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |             Stub Link IPv6 Prefix (continued)                 |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |             Stub Link IPv6 Prefix (continued)                 |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |             Stub Link IPv6 Prefix (continued)                 |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
              Figure 5:  Stub Link IPv6 Prefix TLV Format



Wang, et al.             Expires 6 October 2023                 [Page 7]

Internet-Draft             BGP-LS-Inter-AS-Ext                April 2023


   The Stub Link IPv6 PrefixTLV MUST be included if the stub link has an
   IPv6 address.

7.  Inter-AS TE Scenario related TLVs

   This section proposes to add three new TLVs that is included within
   the Stub Link NLRI to transfer the information via BGP-LS, which are
   required to build the inter-AS TE related topology by the SDN
   controller.

   The following Link Descriptor TLVs are added into the BGP-LS protocol
   :

   +-----------+---------------------+--------------+----------------+
   |  TLV Code | Description         |IS-IS/OSPF TLV| Reference      |
   |   Point   |                     |   /Sub-TLV   | (RFC/Section)  |
   +-----------+---------------------+--------------+----------------+
   |    TBD    |Remote AS Number     |   24/21      | [RFC5316]/3.3.1|
   |           |                     |              | [RFC5392]/3.3.1|
   |    TBD    |IPv4 Remote ASBR ID  |   25/22      | [RFC5316]/3.3.2|
   |           |                     |              | [RFC5392]/3.3.2|
   |    TBD    |IPv6 Remote ASBR ID  |   26/24      | [RFC5316]/3.3.3|
   |           |                     |              | [RFC5392]/3.3.3|
   +-----------+---------------------+--------------+----------------+
                Figure 6: Stub Link Descriptor TLVs

   Detail encoding of these TLVs are synchronized with the corresponding
   parts in [RFC5316] and [RFC5392], which keeps the BGP-LS protocol
   agnostic to the underly protocol.

7.1.  Remote AS Number TLV

   A new TLV, the remote AS number TLV, is defined for inclusion in the
   link descriptor when advertising inter-AS TE links.  The remote AS
   number TLV specifies the AS number of the neighboring AS to which the
   advertised link connects.

   The remote AS number TLV is TLV type TBD (see Section 10 ) and is 4
   octets in length.  The format is as follows:

    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            |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                       Remote AS Number                        |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
              Figure 7: Remote AS Number TLV Format



Wang, et al.             Expires 6 October 2023                 [Page 8]

Internet-Draft             BGP-LS-Inter-AS-Ext                April 2023


   The Remote AS number field has 4 octets.  When only 2 octets are used
   for the AS number, as in current deployments, the left (high-order) 2
   octets MUST be set to 0.  The remote AS number TLV MUST be included
   when a router advertises an inter-AS TE link.

7.2.  IPv4 Remote ASBR ID

   A new TLV, which is referred to as the IPv4 remote ASBR ID TLV, is
   defined for inclusion in the link descriptor when advertising inter-
   AS TE links.  The IPv4 remote ASBR ID TLV specifies the IPv4
   identifier of the remote ASBR to which the advertised inter-AS link
   connects.  This could be any stable and routable IPv4 address of the
   remote ASBR.  Use of the TE Router ID as specified in the Traffic
   Engineering router ID TLV [RFC5316] is RECOMMENDED.

   The IPv4 remote ASBR ID TLV is TLV type TBD (see Section 10) and is 4
   octets in length.  The format of the IPv4 remote ASBR ID TLV is as
   follows:

    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            |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                       Remote ASBR ID                          |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
               Figure 8:  IPv4 Remote ASBR ID TLV Format

   The IPv4 remote ASBR ID TLV MUST be included if the neighboring ASBR
   has an IPv4 address.  If the neighboring ASBR does not have an IPv4
   address (not even an IPv4 TE Router ID), the IPv6 remote ASBR ID TLV
   MUST be included instead.  An IPv4 remote ASBR ID TLV and IPv6 remote
   ASBR ID TLV MAY both be present in an inter-AS TE link NLRI.

7.3.  IPv6 Remote ASBR ID

   A new TLV, which is referred to as the IPv6 remote ASBR ID TLV, is
   defined for inclusion in the link descriptor when advertising inter-
   AS links.  The IPv6 remote ASBR ID TLV specifies the IPv6 identifier
   of the remote ASBR to which the advertised inter-AS link connects.
   This could be any stable and routable IPv6 address of the remote
   ASBR.  Use of the TE Router ID as specified in the IPv6 Traffic
   Engineering router ID TLV [RFC5316] is RECOMMENDED.

   The IPv6 remote ASBR ID TLV is TLV type TBD (see Section 10) and is
   16 octets in length.  The format of the IPv6 remote ASBR ID TLV is as
   follows:




Wang, et al.             Expires 6 October 2023                 [Page 9]

Internet-Draft             BGP-LS-Inter-AS-Ext                April 2023


    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            |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                       Remote ASBR ID                          |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                       Remote ASBR ID (continued)              |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                       Remote ASBR ID (continued)              |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                       Remote ASBR ID (continued)              |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
              Figure 9:  IPv6 Remote ASBR ID TLV Format

   The IPv6 remote ASBR ID TLV MUST be included if the neighboring ASBR
   has an IPv6 address.  If the neighboring ASBR does not have an IPv6
   address, the IPv4 remote ASBR ID TLV MUST be included instead.  An
   IPv4 remote ASBR ID TLV and IPv6 remote ASBR ID TLV MAY both be
   present in an inter-AS TE link NLRI.

8.  Topology Reconstruction.

   When SDN controller gets such information from BGP-LS protocol, it
   should compares the proximity of these stub links.  If they are under
   the same network scope and in different AS, then it should find the
   corresponding associated router information, build the link between
   these two border routers.

   If the prefixes reported via the "Stub Link" NLRI are under the same
   network scope, and in the same AS, the SDN controller can then
   determine there is some IGP adjacency irregular.  The usage of such
   information is out of scope of this draft.

   After iterating the above procedures for all of the stub links, the
   SDN controller can then retrieve the connection topology between
   different domains automatically.

9.  Security Considerations

   It is common for one operator to occupy several IGP domains that are
   composited by its backbone network and several MAN(Metrio-Area-
   Network)s/Internet Data Centers (IDCs).  When they do traffic
   engineering which spans MAN, Backbone and IDC, they need to know the
   inter-as topology via the process described in this draft.  Using the
   passive interface features or configuring the Traffic Engineering
   (TE) parameters on the interconnect links will not spread the
   topology fluctuation across each other domain.



Wang, et al.             Expires 6 October 2023                [Page 10]

Internet-Draft             BGP-LS-Inter-AS-Ext                April 2023


10.  IANA Considerations

   This document defines:

   *  A new BGP NLRI Type: Stub Link NLRI.  The codepoint is from the
      "BGP-LS NLRI Types"

   *  Three new Link Descriptors TLV: Remote AS Number TLV, IPv4 Remote
      ASBR ID, IPv6 Remote ASBR ID.  The codepoint are from "BGP-LS Node
      Descriptor, Link Descriptor, Prefix Descriptor, and Attribute
      TLVs" registry.

10.1.  New BGP-LS NLRI type

   This document defines a new value in the registry "BGP-LS NLRI
   Types":

   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |    Code Point   |   Description  |          Status            |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |TBD(suggestion 7)| Stub Link NLRI |  Allocation from IANA      |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
              Figure 10:  Stub Link NLRI Codepoint

10.2.  New Stub Link Descriptors

   This document defines three new values in the registry "BGP-LS Node
   Descriptor, Link Descriptor, Prefix Descriptor, and Attribute TLVs":

   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |    Code Point     |   Description        |        Status        |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |TBD(suggestion 268)| Stub Link IPv4 Prefix| Allocation from IANA |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |TBD(suggestion 269)| Stub Link IPv6 Prefix| Allocation from IANA |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |TBD(suggestion 270)|  Remote AS Number    | Allocation from IANA |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |TBD(suggestion 271)|  IPv4 Remote ASBR ID | Allocation from IANA |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |TBD(suggestion 272)|  IPv6 Remote ASBR ID | Allocation from IANA |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
              Figure 11:  BGP-LS Link Descriptors TLV








Wang, et al.             Expires 6 October 2023                [Page 11]

Internet-Draft             BGP-LS-Inter-AS-Ext                April 2023


11.  Acknowledgement

   The author would like to thank Acee Lindem, Jie Dong, Shaowen Ma,
   Jeff Tantsura and Dhruv Dhody for their valuable comments and
   suggestions.

12.  References

12.1.  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,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC5305]  Li, T. and H. Smit, "IS-IS Extensions for Traffic
              Engineering", RFC 5305, DOI 10.17487/RFC5305, October
              2008, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5305>.

   [RFC5316]  Chen, M., Zhang, R., and X. Duan, "ISIS Extensions in
              Support of Inter-Autonomous System (AS) MPLS and GMPLS
              Traffic Engineering", RFC 5316, DOI 10.17487/RFC5316,
              December 2008, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5316>.

   [RFC5392]  Chen, M., Zhang, R., and X. Duan, "OSPF Extensions in
              Support of Inter-Autonomous System (AS) MPLS and GMPLS
              Traffic Engineering", RFC 5392, DOI 10.17487/RFC5392,
              January 2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5392>.

   [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,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7752>.

   [RFC8735]  Wang, A., Huang, X., Kou, C., Li, Z., and P. Mi,
              "Scenarios and Simulation Results of PCE in a Native IP
              Network", RFC 8735, DOI 10.17487/RFC8735, February 2020,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8735>.

12.2.  Informative References










Wang, et al.             Expires 6 October 2023                [Page 12]

Internet-Draft             BGP-LS-Inter-AS-Ext                April 2023


   [I-D.ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe]
              Previdi, S., Talaulikar, K., Filsfils, C., Patel, K., Ray,
              S., and J. Dong, "Border Gateway Protocol - Link State
              (BGP-LS) Extensions for Segment Routing BGP Egress Peer
              Engineering", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
              ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe-19, 16 May 2019,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-idr-
              bgpls-segment-routing-epe-19>.

   [I-D.wang-lsr-stub-link-attributes]
              Wang, A., Hu, Z., Lindem, A., Mishra, G. S., and J. Sun,
              "Advertisement of Stub Link Attributes", Work in Progress,
              Internet-Draft, draft-wang-lsr-stub-link-attributes-05, 20
              October 2022, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/
              draft-wang-lsr-stub-link-attributes-05>.

Authors' Addresses

   Aijun Wang
   China Telecom
   Beiqijia Town, Changping District
   Beijing
   Beijing, 102209
   China
   Email: wangaj3@chinatelecom.cn


   Huaimo Chen
   Futurewei
   Boston, MA
   United States of America
   Email: hchen@futurewei.com


   Ketan Talaulikar
   Cisco Systems
   India
   Email: ketant.ietf@gmail.com


   Shunwan Zhuang
   Huawei Technologies
   Huawei Building, No.156 Beiqing Rd.
   Beijing
   100095
   China
   Email: zhuangshunwan@huawei.com




Wang, et al.             Expires 6 October 2023                [Page 13]