draft-ietf-lsvr-bgp-spf-08.txt   draft-ietf-lsvr-bgp-spf-09.txt 
Network Working Group K. Patel Network Working Group K. Patel
Internet-Draft Arrcus, Inc. Internet-Draft Arrcus, Inc.
Intended status: Standards Track A. Lindem Intended status: Standards Track A. Lindem
Expires: September 25, 2020 Cisco Systems Expires: November 16, 2020 Cisco Systems
S. Zandi S. Zandi
LinkedIn LinkedIn
W. Henderickx W. Henderickx
Nokia Nokia
March 24, 2020 May 15, 2020
Shortest Path Routing Extensions for BGP Protocol Shortest Path Routing Extensions for BGP Protocol
draft-ietf-lsvr-bgp-spf-08 draft-ietf-lsvr-bgp-spf-09
Abstract Abstract
Many Massively Scaled Data Centers (MSDCs) have converged on Many Massively Scaled Data Centers (MSDCs) have converged on
simplified layer 3 routing. Furthermore, requirements for simplified layer 3 routing. Furthermore, requirements for
operational simplicity have led many of these MSDCs to converge on operational simplicity have led many of these MSDCs to converge on
BGP as their single routing protocol for both their fabric routing BGP as their single routing protocol for both their fabric routing
and their Data Center Interconnect (DCI) routing. This document and their Data Center Interconnect (DCI) routing. This document
describes a solution which leverages BGP Link-State distribution and describes a solution which leverages BGP Link-State distribution and
the Shortest Path First (SPF) algorithm similar to Internal Gateway the Shortest Path First (SPF) algorithm similar to Internal Gateway
skipping to change at page 1, line 42 skipping to change at page 1, line 42
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on September 25, 2020. This Internet-Draft will expire on November 16, 2020.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 18, line 26 skipping to change at page 18, line 26
Capability TLV in the Node NLRI BGP-LS Attribute [RFC7752], it MUST Capability TLV in the Node NLRI BGP-LS Attribute [RFC7752], it MUST
ignore the received TLV and the Node NLRI and not pass it to other ignore the received TLV and the Node NLRI and not pass it to other
BGP peers as specified in [RFC7606]. When discarding a Node NLRI BGP peers as specified in [RFC7606]. When discarding a Node NLRI
with malformed TLV, a BGP speaker SHOULD log an error for further with malformed TLV, a BGP speaker SHOULD log an error for further
analysis. analysis.
6. IANA Considerations 6. IANA Considerations
This document defines an AFI/SAFI for BGP-LS SPF operation and This document defines an AFI/SAFI for BGP-LS SPF operation and
requests IANA to assign the BGP-LS/BGP-LS-SPF (AFI 16388 / SAFI TBD1) requests IANA to assign the BGP-LS/BGP-LS-SPF (AFI 16388 / SAFI TBD1)
as described in [RFC4750]. as described in [RFC4760].
This document also defines five attribute TLVs for BGP-LS NLRI. We This document also defines five attribute TLVs for BGP-LS NLRI. We
request IANA to assign types for the SPF capability TLV, Sequence request IANA to assign types for the SPF capability TLV, Sequence
Number TLV, IPv4 Link Prefix-Length TLV, IPv6 Link Prefix-Length TLV, Number TLV, IPv4 Link Prefix-Length TLV, IPv6 Link Prefix-Length TLV,
and SPF Status TLV from the "BGP-LS Node Descriptor, Link Descriptor, and SPF Status TLV from the "BGP-LS Node Descriptor, Link Descriptor,
Prefix Descriptor, and Attribute TLVs" Registry. Prefix Descriptor, and Attribute TLVs" Registry.
7. Security Considerations 7. Security Considerations
This extension to BGP does not change the underlying security issues This extension to BGP does not change the underlying security issues
skipping to change at page 19, line 23 skipping to change at page 19, line 23
total number of SPF computations of each type and the total number of total number of SPF computations of each type and the total number of
SPF triggering events. Additionally, to troubleshoot SPF scheduling SPF triggering events. Additionally, to troubleshoot SPF scheduling
and back-off [RFC8405], the current SPF back-off state, remaining and back-off [RFC8405], the current SPF back-off state, remaining
time-to-learn, remaining holddown, last trigger event time, last SPF time-to-learn, remaining holddown, last trigger event time, last SPF
time, and next SPF time should be available. time, and next SPF time should be available.
9. Acknowledgements 9. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Sue Hares, Jorge Rabadan, Boris The authors would like to thank Sue Hares, Jorge Rabadan, Boris
Hassanov, Dan Frost, Matt Anderson, and Fred Baker for their review Hassanov, Dan Frost, Matt Anderson, and Fred Baker for their review
and comments. Thanks to Chaitanya Yadlapalli and Pushpais Sarkar for and comments. Thanks to Chaitanya Yadlapalli and Pushpasis Sarkar
discussions on preventing a BGP SPF Router from being used for non- for discussions on preventing a BGP SPF Router from being used for
local traffic (i.e., transit traffic). non-local traffic (i.e., transit traffic).
The authors extend special thanks to Eric Rosen for fruitful The authors extend special thanks to Eric Rosen for fruitful
discussions on BGP-LS SPF convergence as compared to IGPs. discussions on BGP-LS SPF convergence as compared to IGPs.
10. Contributors 10. Contributors
In addition to the authors listed on the front page, the following In addition to the authors listed on the front page, the following
co-authors have contributed to the document. co-authors have contributed to the document.
Derek Yeung Derek Yeung
skipping to change at page 21, line 10 skipping to change at page 21, line 10
Francois, P., and C. Bowers, "Shortest Path First (SPF) Francois, P., and C. Bowers, "Shortest Path First (SPF)
Back-Off Delay Algorithm for Link-State IGPs", RFC 8405, Back-Off Delay Algorithm for Link-State IGPs", RFC 8405,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8405, June 2018, DOI 10.17487/RFC8405, June 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8405>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8405>.
11.2. Information References 11.2. Information References
[I-D.ietf-lsvr-applicability] [I-D.ietf-lsvr-applicability]
Patel, K., Lindem, A., Zandi, S., and G. Dawra, "Usage and Patel, K., Lindem, A., Zandi, S., and G. Dawra, "Usage and
Applicability of Link State Vector Routing in Data Applicability of Link State Vector Routing in Data
Centers", draft-ietf-lsvr-applicability-04 (work in Centers", draft-ietf-lsvr-applicability-05 (work in
progress), November 2019. progress), March 2020.
[RFC2328] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328, [RFC2328] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2328, April 1998, DOI 10.17487/RFC2328, April 1998,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2328>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2328>.
[RFC4456] Bates, T., Chen, E., and R. Chandra, "BGP Route [RFC4456] Bates, T., Chen, E., and R. Chandra, "BGP Route
Reflection: An Alternative to Full Mesh Internal BGP Reflection: An Alternative to Full Mesh Internal BGP
(IBGP)", RFC 4456, DOI 10.17487/RFC4456, April 2006, (IBGP)", RFC 4456, DOI 10.17487/RFC4456, April 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4456>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4456>.
 End of changes. 7 change blocks. 
10 lines changed or deleted 10 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.47. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/