Inter-Domain Routing J. Head, Ed. Internet-Draft T. Przygienda Intended status: Experimental Juniper Networks Expires: 6 January 2023 5 July 2022 BGP-LS Extensions for IS-IS Flood Reflection draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-isis-flood-reflection-00 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 6 January 2023. 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 6 January 2023 [Page 1] Internet-Draft BGP-LS Extensions for IS-IS FR July 2022 Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2. BGP-LS Extensions for IS-IS Flood Reflection . . . . . . . . 2 3. BGP-LS TLVs for IS-IS Flood Reflection . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4.1. Requested TLV Entries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 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 Reflection Controllers may need to compute traffic engineered paths across Flood Reflection clusters. This requires that they be aware of Flood Reflection specific details, such as Cluster ID, C-bit (which indicates Flood Reflector or Flood Reflector Client), or any sub- TLVs. 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. Head & Przygienda Expires 6 January 2023 [Page 2] Internet-Draft BGP-LS Extensions for IS-IS FR July 2022 3. BGP-LS TLVs for IS-IS Flood Reflection This TLV advertises Flood Reflection details. The semantics of any fields within the TLV/sub-TLVs is described in [IS-IS-FR]. 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 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Sub-TLVs ... | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 1: Flood Reflection TLVs where: *Type:* TBD1 *Length:* variable 4. IANA Considerations This section requests the following (suggested) values 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 | IS-IS TLV/Sub-TLV | Reference | +================+=============+===================+===========+ | TBD1 (161) | IS-IS Flood | 161 | This | | | Reflection | | document. | +----------------+-------------+-------------------+-----------+ Table 2: Requested TLV Entries Head & Przygienda Expires 6 January 2023 [Page 3] Internet-Draft BGP-LS Extensions for IS-IS FR July 2022 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]. 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 Reflection 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, . [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, . [RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Li, T., and S. Hares, "A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", January 2006, . [RFC4272] Murphy, S., "BGP Security Vulnerabilities Analysis", 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", May 2013, . Head & Przygienda Expires 6 January 2023 [Page 4] Internet-Draft BGP-LS Extensions for IS-IS FR July 2022 [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, . [RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", June 2017, . Authors' Addresses 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 6 January 2023 [Page 5]