draft-ietf-idr-rfc7752bis-13.txt   draft-ietf-idr-rfc7752bis-17.txt 
Inter-Domain Routing K. Talaulikar, Ed. Inter-Domain Routing K. Talaulikar, Ed.
Internet-Draft Cisco Systems Internet-Draft Cisco Systems
Obsoletes: 7752, 9029 (if approved) 15 November 2022 Obsoletes: 7752, 9029 (if approved) 25 August 2023
Intended status: Standards Track Intended status: Standards Track
Expires: 19 May 2023 Expires: 26 February 2024
Distribution of Link-State and Traffic Engineering Information Using BGP Distribution of Link-State and Traffic Engineering Information Using BGP
draft-ietf-idr-rfc7752bis-13 draft-ietf-idr-rfc7752bis-17
Abstract Abstract
In many environments, a component external to a network is called In many environments, a component external to a network is called
upon to perform computations based on the network topology and the upon to perform computations based on the network topology and the
current state of the connections within the network, including current state of the connections within the network, including
Traffic Engineering (TE) information. This is information typically Traffic Engineering (TE) information. This is information typically
distributed by IGP routing protocols within the network. distributed by IGP routing protocols within the network.
This document describes a mechanism by which link-state and TE This document describes a mechanism by which link-state and TE
information can be collected from networks and shared with external information can be collected from networks and shared with external
components using the BGP routing protocol. This is achieved using a components using the BGP routing protocol. This is achieved using a
new BGP Network Layer Reachability Information (NLRI) encoding BGP Network Layer Reachability Information (NLRI) encoding format.
format. The mechanism applies to physical and virtual (e.g., tunnel) The mechanism applies to physical and virtual (e.g., tunnel) IGP
IGP links. The mechanism described is subject to policy control. links. The mechanism described is subject to policy control.
Applications of this technique include Application-Layer Traffic Applications of this technique include Application-Layer Traffic
Optimization (ALTO) servers and Path Computation Elements (PCEs). Optimization (ALTO) servers and Path Computation Elements (PCEs).
This document obsoletes RFC7752 by completely replacing that This document obsoletes RFC7752 by completely replacing that
document. It makes some small changes and clarifications to the document. It makes some small changes and clarifications to the
previous specification. This document also obsoletes RFC9029 by previous specification. This document also obsoletes RFC9029 by
incorporating the updates that it made to RFC7752. incorporating the updates that it made to RFC7752.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
skipping to change at page 2, line 4 skipping to change at page 2, line 4
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 19 May 2023. This Internet-Draft will expire on 26 February 2024.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2022 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2023 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 (https://trustee.ietf.org/ Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components
extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License. provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2. Motivation and Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2. Motivation and Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.1. MPLS-TE with PCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.1. MPLS-TE with PCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.2. ALTO Server Network API . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.2. ALTO Server Network API . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3. BGP Speaker Roles for BGP-LS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3. BGP Speaker Roles for BGP-LS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4. Advertising IGP Information into BGP-LS . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4. Advertising IGP Information into BGP-LS . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5. Carrying Link-State Information in BGP . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5. Carrying Link-State Information in BGP . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.1. TLV Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5.1. TLV Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.2. The Link-State NLRI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 5.2. The Link-State NLRI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.2.1. Node Descriptors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 5.2.1. Node Descriptors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
5.2.2. Link Descriptors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 5.2.2. Link Descriptors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
5.2.3. Prefix Descriptors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 5.2.3. Prefix Descriptors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
5.3. The BGP-LS Attribute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 5.3. The BGP-LS Attribute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
5.3.1. Node Attribute TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 5.3.1. Node Attribute TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
5.3.2. Link Attribute TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 5.3.2. Link Attribute TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
5.3.3. Prefix Attribute TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 5.3.3. Prefix Attribute TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
5.4. Private Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 5.4. Private Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
5.5. BGP Next-Hop Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 5.5. BGP Next-Hop Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
5.6. Inter-AS Links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 5.6. Inter-AS Links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
5.7. OSPF Virtual Links and Sham Links . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 5.7. OSPF Virtual Links and Sham Links . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
5.8. OSPFv2 Type 4 Summary LSA & OSPFv3 Inter-Area Router 5.8. OSPFv2 Type 4 Summary LSA & OSPFv3 Inter-Area Router
LSA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 LSA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
5.9. Handling of Unreachable IGP Nodes . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 5.9. Handling of Unreachable IGP Nodes . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
5.10. Router-ID Anchoring Example: ISO Pseudonode . . . . . . . 43 5.10. Router-ID Anchoring Example: ISO Pseudonode . . . . . . . 44
5.11. Router-ID Anchoring Example: OSPF Pseudonode . . . . . . 44 5.11. Router-ID Anchoring Example: OSPF Pseudonode . . . . . . 45
5.12. Router-ID Anchoring Example: OSPFv2 to IS-IS Migration . 45 5.12. Router-ID Anchoring Example: OSPFv2 to IS-IS Migration . 46
6. Link to Path Aggregation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 6. Link to Path Aggregation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
6.1. Example: No Link Aggregation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 6.1. Example: No Link Aggregation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
6.2. Example: ASBR to ASBR Path Aggregation . . . . . . . . . 46 6.2. Example: ASBR to ASBR Path Aggregation . . . . . . . . . 48
6.3. Example: Multi-AS Path Aggregation . . . . . . . . . . . 47 6.3. Example: Multi-AS Path Aggregation . . . . . . . . . . . 48
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
7.1. BGP-LS Registries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 7.1. BGP-LS Registries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
7.1.1. BGP-LS NLRI Types Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 7.1.1. BGP-LS NLRI Types Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
7.1.2. BGP-LS Protocol-IDs Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 7.1.2. BGP-LS Protocol-IDs Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
7.1.3. BGP-LS Well-Known Instance-IDs Registry . . . . . . . 49 7.1.3. BGP-LS Well-Known Instance-IDs Registry . . . . . . . 51
7.1.4. BGP-LS Node Flags Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 7.1.4. BGP-LS Node Flags Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
7.1.5. BGP-LS MPLS Protocol Mask Registry . . . . . . . . . 50 7.1.5. BGP-LS MPLS Protocol Mask Registry . . . . . . . . . 52
7.1.6. BGP-LS IGP Prefix Flags Registry . . . . . . . . . . 51 7.1.6. BGP-LS IGP Prefix Flags Registry . . . . . . . . . . 53
7.1.7. BGP-LS TLVs Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 7.1.7. BGP-LS TLVs Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
7.2. Guidance for Designated Experts . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 7.2. Guidance for Designated Experts . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
8. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 8. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
8.1. Operational Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 8.1. Operational Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
8.1.1. Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 8.1.1. Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
8.1.2. Installation and Initial Setup . . . . . . . . . . . 54 8.1.2. Installation and Initial Setup . . . . . . . . . . . 56
8.1.3. Migration Path . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 8.1.3. Migration Path . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
8.1.4. Requirements for Other Protocols and Functional 8.1.4. Requirements for Other Protocols and Functional
Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
8.1.5. Impact on Network Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 8.1.5. Impact on Network Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
8.1.6. Verifying Correct Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 8.1.6. Verifying Correct Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
8.2. Management Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 8.2. Management Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
8.2.1. Management Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 8.2.1. Management Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
8.2.2. Fault Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 8.2.2. Fault Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
8.2.3. Configuration Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 8.2.3. Configuration Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
8.2.4. Accounting Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 8.2.4. Accounting Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
8.2.5. Performance Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 8.2.5. Performance Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
8.2.6. Security Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 8.2.6. Security Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
9. TLV/Sub-TLV Code Points Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 9. TLV/Sub-TLV Code Points Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
11. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 11. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
12. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 12. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
13. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 13. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
13.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 13.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
13.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 13.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
Appendix A. Changes from RFC 7752 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 Appendix A. Changes from RFC 7752 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
The contents of a Link-State Database (LSDB) or of an IGP's Traffic The contents of a Link-State Database (LSDB) or of an IGP's Traffic
Engineering Database (TED) describe only the links and nodes within Engineering Database (TED) describe only the links and nodes within
an IGP area. Some applications, such as end-to-end Traffic an IGP area. Some applications, such as end-to-end Traffic
Engineering (TE), would benefit from visibility outside one area or Engineering (TE), would benefit from visibility outside one area or
Autonomous System (AS) to make better decisions. Autonomous System (AS) to make better decisions.
The IETF has defined the Path Computation Element (PCE) [RFC4655] as The IETF has defined the Path Computation Element (PCE) [RFC4655] as
skipping to change at page 4, line 15 skipping to change at page 4, line 15
ALTO server [RFC5693] as an entity that generates an abstracted ALTO server [RFC5693] as an entity that generates an abstracted
network topology and provides it to network-aware applications. network topology and provides it to network-aware applications.
Both a PCE and an ALTO server need to gather information about the Both a PCE and an ALTO server need to gather information about the
topologies and capabilities of the network to be able to fulfill topologies and capabilities of the network to be able to fulfill
their function. their function.
This document describes a mechanism by which link-state and TE This document describes a mechanism by which link-state and TE
information can be collected from networks and shared with external information can be collected from networks and shared with external
components using the BGP routing protocol [RFC4271]. This is components using the BGP routing protocol [RFC4271]. This is
achieved using a new BGP Network Layer Reachability Information achieved using a BGP Network Layer Reachability Information (NLRI)
(NLRI) encoding format. The mechanism applies to physical and encoding format. The mechanism applies to physical and virtual
virtual (e.g., tunnel) links. The mechanism described is subject to (e.g., tunnel) links. The mechanism described is subject to policy
policy control. control.
A router maintains one or more databases for storing link-state A router maintains one or more databases for storing link-state
information about nodes and links in any given area. Link attributes information about nodes and links in any given area. Link attributes
stored in these databases include: local/remote IP addresses, local/ stored in these databases include: local/remote IP addresses, local/
remote interface identifiers, link IGP metric, link TE metric, link remote interface identifiers, link IGP metric, link TE metric, link
bandwidth, reservable bandwidth, per Class-of-Service (CoS) class bandwidth, reservable bandwidth, per Class-of-Service (CoS) class
reservation state, preemption, and Shared Risk Link Groups (SRLGs). reservation state, preemption, and Shared Risk Link Groups (SRLGs).
The router's BGP Link-State (BGP-LS) process can retrieve topology The router's BGP Link-State (BGP-LS) process can retrieve topology
from these LSDBs and distribute it to a consumer, either directly or from these LSDBs and distribute it to a consumer, either directly or
via a peer BGP speaker (typically a dedicated Route Reflector), using via a peer BGP speaker (typically a dedicated Route Reflector), using
skipping to change at page 6, line 48 skipping to change at page 6, line 48
networks that need to segment their core networks into distinct networks that need to segment their core networks into distinct
areas but still want to take advantage of MPLS-TE. areas but still want to take advantage of MPLS-TE.
Previous solutions used per-domain path computation [RFC5152]. The Previous solutions used per-domain path computation [RFC5152]. The
source router could only compute the path for the first area because source router could only compute the path for the first area because
the router only has full topological visibility for the first area the router only has full topological visibility for the first area
along the path, but not for subsequent areas. Per-domain path along the path, but not for subsequent areas. Per-domain path
computation uses a technique called "loose-hop-expansion" [RFC3209] computation uses a technique called "loose-hop-expansion" [RFC3209]
and selects the exit ABR and other ABRs or AS Border Routers (ASBRs) and selects the exit ABR and other ABRs or AS Border Routers (ASBRs)
using the IGP-computed shortest path topology for the remainder of using the IGP-computed shortest path topology for the remainder of
the path. This may lead to sub-optimal paths, makes alternate/back- the path. This may lead to suboptimal paths, makes alternate/back-up
up path computation hard, and might result in no TE path being found path computation hard, and might result in no TE path being found
when one does exist. when one does exist.
The PCE presents a computation server that may have visibility into The PCE presents a computation server that may have visibility into
more than one IGP area or AS, or may cooperate with other PCEs to more than one IGP area or AS, or may cooperate with other PCEs to
perform distributed path computation. The PCE needs access to the perform distributed path computation. The PCE needs access to the
TED for the area(s) it serves, but [RFC4655] does not describe how TED for the area(s) it serves, but [RFC4655] does not describe how
this is achieved. Many implementations make the PCE a passive this is achieved. Many implementations make the PCE a passive
participant in the IGP so that it can learn the latest state of the participant in the IGP so that it can learn the latest state of the
network, but this may be sub-optimal when the network is subject to a network, but this may be sub-optimal when the network is subject to a
high degree of churn or when the PCE is responsible for multiple high degree of churn or when the PCE is responsible for multiple
skipping to change at page 9, line 9 skipping to change at page 9, line 9
In the illustration shown in Figure 1, the BGP Speakers can be seen In the illustration shown in Figure 1, the BGP Speakers can be seen
playing different roles in the distribution of information using BGP- playing different roles in the distribution of information using BGP-
LS. This section introduces terms that explain the different roles LS. This section introduces terms that explain the different roles
of the BGP Speakers which are then used through the rest of this of the BGP Speakers which are then used through the rest of this
document. document.
* BGP-LS Producer: The term BGP-LS Producer refers to a BGP Speaker * BGP-LS Producer: The term BGP-LS Producer refers to a BGP Speaker
that is originating link-state information into BGP. The BGP that is originating link-state information into BGP. The BGP
Speakers R1, R2, ... Rn, originate link-state information from Speakers R1, R2, ... Rn, originate link-state information from
their underlying link-state IGP protocols into BGP-LS. If R1 and their underlying link-state IGP protocols into BGP-LS. If R1 and
R2 are in the same IGP flooding domain, then they should originate R2 are in the same IGP flooding domain, then they would ordinarily
the same link-state information into BGP-LS. R1 may also source originate the same link-state information into BGP-LS. R1 may
information from sources other than IGP, e.g. its local node also originate information from sources other than IGP, e.g. its
information. local node information.
* BGP-LS Consumer: The term BGP-LS Consumer refers to a consumer * BGP-LS Consumer: The term BGP-LS Consumer refers to a consumer
application/process and not a BGP Speaker. The BGP Speakers RR1 application/process and not a BGP Speaker. The BGP Speakers RR1
and Rn are handing off the BGP-LS information that they have and Rn are handing off the BGP-LS information that they have
collected to a consumer application. The BGP protocol collected to a consumer application. The BGP protocol
implementation and the consumer application may be on the same or implementation and the consumer application may be on the same or
different nodes. This document only covers the BGP different nodes. This document only covers the BGP
implementation. The consumer application and the design of the implementation. The consumer application and the design of the
interface between BGP and the consumer application may be interface between BGP and the consumer application may be
implementation specific and are outside the scope of this implementation specific and are outside the scope of this
document. The communication of information MUST be unidirectional document. The communication of information MUST be unidirectional
(i.e., from a BGP Speaker to the BGP-LS Consumer application) and (i.e., from a BGP Speaker to the BGP-LS Consumer application) and
a BGP-LS Consumer MUST NOT be able to send information to a BGP a BGP-LS Consumer MUST NOT be able to send information to a BGP
Speaker for origination into BGP-LS. Speaker for origination into BGP-LS.
* BGP-LS Propagator: The term BGP-LS Propagator refers to a BGP * BGP-LS Propagator: The term BGP-LS Propagator refers to a BGP
Speaker that is performing BGP protocol processing on the link- Speaker that is performing BGP protocol processing on the link-
state information. The BGP Speaker RRm propagates the BGP-LS state information. The BGP Speaker RRm propagates the BGP-LS
information between the BGP Speaker Rn and the BGP Speaker RR1. information between the BGP Speaker Rn and the BGP Speaker RR1.
The BGP implementation on RRm is doing the propagation of BGP-LS The BGP implementation on RRm is propagating BGP-LS information.
UPDATE messages and performing BGP Decision Process. Similarly, It performs handling of BGP-LS UPDATE messages and performs the
the BGP Speaker RR1 is receiving BGP-LS information from R1, R2, BGP Decision Process as part of deciding what information is to be
and RRm and propagating the information to the BGP-LS Consumer propagated. Similarly, the BGP Speaker RR1 is receiving BGP-LS
after performing BGP Decision Process. information from R1, R2, and RRm and propagating the information
to the BGP-LS Consumer after performing BGP Decision Process.
The above roles are not mutually exclusive. The same BGP Speaker may The above roles are not mutually exclusive. The same BGP Speaker may
be the BGP-LS Producer for some link-state information and BGP-LS be the BGP-LS Producer for some link-state information and BGP-LS
Propagator for some other link-state information while also providing Propagator for some other link-state information while also providing
this information to a BGP-LS Consumer. this information to a BGP-LS Consumer.
The rest of this document refers to the role when describing The rest of this document refers to the role when describing
procedures that are specific to that role. When the role is not procedures that are specific to that role. When the role is not
specified, then the said procedure applies to all BGP Speakers. specified, then the said procedure applies to all BGP Speakers.
4. Advertising IGP Information into BGP-LS 4. Advertising IGP Information into BGP-LS
The origination and propagation of IGP link-state information via BGP The origination and propagation of IGP link-state information via BGP
needs to provide a consistent and true view of the topology of the needs to provide a consistent and accurate view of the topology of
IGP domain. BGP-LS provides an abstraction of the IGP specifics and the IGP domain. BGP-LS provides an abstraction of the IGP specifics
BGP-LS Consumers may be varied types of applications. and BGP-LS Consumers may be varied types of applications.
The link-state information advertised in BGP-LS from the IGPs is The link-state information advertised in BGP-LS from the IGPs is
derived from the IGP LSDB built using the OSPF Link State derived from the IGP LSDB built using the OSPF Link State
Advertisements (LSAs) or the IS-IS Link State Packets (LSPs). Advertisements (LSAs) or the IS-IS Link State Packets (LSPs).
However, it does not serve as a true reflection of the originating However, it does not serve as a verbatim reflection of the
router's LSDB. It does not include the LSA/LSP sequence number originating router's LSDB. It does not include the LSA/LSP sequence
information since a single link-state object may be put together with number information since a single link-state object may be put
information that is coming from multiple LSAs/LSPs. Also, not all of together with information that is coming from multiple LSAs/LSPs.
the information carried in LSAs/LSPs may be required or suitable for Also, not all of the information carried in LSAs/LSPs may be required
advertisement via BGP-LS (e.g., ASBR reachability in OSPF, OSPF or suitable for advertisement via BGP-LS (e.g., ASBR reachability in
virtual links, link-local scoped information, etc.). The LSAs/LSPs OSPF, OSPF virtual links, link-local scoped information, etc.). The
that are purged or max-aged are not included in the BGP-LS LSAs/LSPs that are purged or max-aged are not included in the BGP-LS
advertisement even though they may be present in the LSDB (e.g., for advertisement even though they may be present in the LSDB (e.g., for
the IGP flooding purposes). The information from the LSAs/LSPs that the IGP flooding purposes). The information from the LSAs/LSPs that
is invalid or malformed or that which needs to be ignored per the is invalid or malformed or that which needs to be ignored per the
respective IGP protocol specifications are also not included in the respective IGP protocol specifications are also not included in the
BGP-LS advertisement. BGP-LS advertisement.
The details of the interface between IGPs and BGP for the The details of the interface between IGPs and BGP for the
advertisement of link-state information is outside the scope of this advertisement of link-state information are outside the scope of this
document. In some cases, the information derived from IGP processing document. In some cases, the information derived from IGP processing
(e.g., combination of link-state object from across multiple LSAs/ (e.g., combination of link-state object from across multiple LSAs/
LSPs, leveraging reachability and two-way connectivity checks, etc.) LSPs, leveraging reachability and two-way connectivity checks, etc.)
is required for advertisement of link-state information into BGP-LS. is required for advertisement of link-state information into BGP-LS.
5. Carrying Link-State Information in BGP 5. Carrying Link-State Information in BGP
The link-state information is carried in BGP UPDATE messages as: (1) The link-state information is carried in BGP UPDATE messages as: (1)
BGP NLRI information carried within MP_REACH_NLRI and MP_UNREACH_NLRI BGP NLRI information carried within MP_REACH_NLRI and MP_UNREACH_NLRI
attributes that describes link, node, or prefix object, and (2) a new attributes that describes link, node, or prefix object, and (2) a BGP
BGP path attribute (BGP-LS Attribute) that carries properties of the path attribute (BGP-LS Attribute) that carries properties of the
link, node, or prefix objects such as the link and prefix metric or link, node, or prefix objects such as the link and prefix metric or
auxiliary Router-IDs of nodes, etc.. auxiliary Router-IDs of nodes, etc.
It is desirable to keep the dependencies on the protocol source of It is desirable to keep the dependencies on the protocol source of
this attribute to a minimum and represent any content in an IGP- this attribute to a minimum and represent any content in an IGP-
neutral way, such that applications that want to learn about a link- neutral way, such that applications that want to learn about a link-
state topology do not need to know about any OSPF or IS-IS protocol state topology do not need to know about any OSPF or IS-IS protocol
specifics. specifics.
This section mainly describes the procedures for a BGP-LS Producer to This section mainly describes the procedures for a BGP-LS Producer to
originate link-state information into BGP-LS. originate link-state information into BGP-LS.
5.1. TLV Format 5.1. TLV Format
Information in the new Link-State NLRIs and the BGP-LS Attribute is Information in the Link-State NLRIs and the BGP-LS Attribute is
encoded in Type/Length/Value triplets. The TLV format is shown in encoded in Type/Length/Value triplets. The TLV format is shown in
Figure 4 and applies to both the NLRI and the BGP-LS Attribute Figure 4 and applies to both the NLRI and the BGP-LS Attribute
encodings. encodings.
0 1 2 3 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 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 | | Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// Value (variable) // // Value (variable) //
skipping to change at page 11, line 28 skipping to change at page 11, line 35
types MUST be preserved and propagated within both the NLRI and the types MUST be preserved and propagated within both the NLRI and the
BGP-LS Attribute. The presence of unknown or unexpected TLVs MUST BGP-LS Attribute. The presence of unknown or unexpected TLVs MUST
NOT result in the NLRI or the BGP-LS Attribute being considered NOT result in the NLRI or the BGP-LS Attribute being considered
malformed. An example of an unexpected TLV is when a TLV is received malformed. An example of an unexpected TLV is when a TLV is received
along with an update for a link state object other than the one that along with an update for a link state object other than the one that
the TLV is specified as associated with. the TLV is specified as associated with.
To compare NLRIs with unknown TLVs, all TLVs within the NLRI MUST be To compare NLRIs with unknown TLVs, all TLVs within the NLRI MUST be
ordered in ascending order by TLV Type. If there are multiple TLVs ordered in ascending order by TLV Type. If there are multiple TLVs
of the same type within a single NLRI, then the TLVs sharing the same of the same type within a single NLRI, then the TLVs sharing the same
type MUST be in ascending order based on the value field. Comparison type MUST be first in ascending order based on the length field
of the value fields is performed by treating the entire field as followed by ascending order based on the value field. Comparison of
opaque binary data and ordered lexicographically. NLRIs having TLVs the value fields is performed by treating the entire field as opaque
which do not follow the above ordering rules MUST be considered as binary data and ordered lexicographically (i.e., treating each byte
malformed by a BGP-LS Propagator. This ensures that multiple copies of binary data as a symbol to compare, with the symbols ordered by
of the same NLRI from multiple BGP-LS Producers and the ambiguity their numerical value). NLRIs having TLVs which do not follow the
arising therefrom is prevented. above ordering rules MUST be considered as malformed by a BGP-LS
Propagator. This insistence on canonical ordering ensures that
multiple variant copies of the same NLRI from multiple BGP-LS
Producers and the ambiguity arising therefrom is prevented.
For both the NLRI and BGP-LS Attribute parts, all TLVs are considered For both the NLRI and BGP-LS Attribute parts, all TLVs are considered
as optional except where explicitly specified as mandatory or as optional except where explicitly specified as mandatory or
required in specific conditions. required in specific conditions.
The TLVs within the BGP-LS Attribute SHOULD be ordered in ascending The TLVs within the BGP-LS Attribute SHOULD be ordered in ascending
order by TLV type. BGP-LS Attribute with unordered TLVs MUST NOT be order by TLV type. BGP-LS Attribute with unordered TLVs MUST NOT be
considered malformed. considered malformed.
The origination of the same link-state information by multiple BGP-LS The origination of the same link-state information by multiple BGP-LS
skipping to change at page 12, line 30 skipping to change at page 12, line 30
Link-State NLRI types that describe either a node, a link, or a Link-State NLRI types that describe either a node, a link, or a
prefix. prefix.
All non-VPN link, node, and prefix information SHALL be encoded using All non-VPN link, node, and prefix information SHALL be encoded using
AFI 16388 / SAFI 71. VPN link, node, and prefix information SHALL be AFI 16388 / SAFI 71. VPN link, node, and prefix information SHALL be
encoded using AFI 16388 / SAFI 72. encoded using AFI 16388 / SAFI 72.
For two BGP speakers to exchange Link-State NLRI, they MUST use BGP For two BGP speakers to exchange Link-State NLRI, they MUST use BGP
Capabilities Advertisement to ensure that they are both capable of Capabilities Advertisement to ensure that they are both capable of
properly processing such NLRI. This is done as specified in properly processing such NLRI. This is done as specified in
[RFC4760], by using capability code 1 (multi-protocol BGP), with AFI [RFC4760], by using capability code 1 (multiprotocol BGP), with AFI
16388 / SAFI 71 for BGP-LS, and AFI 16388 / SAFI 72 for BGP-LS-VPN. 16388 / SAFI 71 for BGP-LS, and AFI 16388 / SAFI 72 for BGP-LS-VPN.
New Link-State NLRI Types may be introduced in the future. Since New Link-State NLRI Types may be introduced in the future. Since
supported NLRI type values within the address family are not supported NLRI type values within the address family are not
expressed in the Multiprotocol BGP (MP-BGP) capability [RFC4760], it expressed in the Multiprotocol BGP (MP-BGP) capability [RFC4760], it
is possible that a BGP speaker has advertised support for BGP-LS but is possible that a BGP speaker has advertised support for BGP-LS but
does not support a particular Link-State NLRI type. To allow the does not support a particular Link-State NLRI type. To allow the
introduction of new Link-State NLRI types seamlessly in the future, introduction of new Link-State NLRI types seamlessly in the future,
without the need for upgrading all BGP speakers in the propagation without the need for upgrading all BGP speakers in the propagation
path (e.g., a route reflector), this document deviates from the path (e.g., a route reflector), this document deviates from the
default handling behavior specified by [RFC7606] for Link-State default handling behavior specified by section 5.4 (paragraph 2) of
address-family. An implementation MUST handle unknown Link-State [RFC7606] for Link-State address-family. An implementation MUST
NLRI types as opaque objects and MUST preserve and propagate them. handle unknown Link-State NLRI types as opaque objects and MUST
preserve and propagate them.
The format of the Link-State NLRI is shown in the following figures. The format of the Link-State NLRI is shown in the following figures.
0 1 2 3 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 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| NLRI Type | Total NLRI Length | | NLRI Type | Total NLRI Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | | |
// Link-State NLRI (variable) // // Link-State NLRI (variable) //
skipping to change at page 15, line 49 skipping to change at page 15, line 49
Table 2: Protocol Identifiers Table 2: Protocol Identifiers
The 'Direct' and 'Static configuration' protocol types SHOULD be used The 'Direct' and 'Static configuration' protocol types SHOULD be used
when BGP-LS is sourcing local information. For all information when BGP-LS is sourcing local information. For all information
derived from other protocols, the corresponding Protocol-ID MUST be derived from other protocols, the corresponding Protocol-ID MUST be
used. If BGP-LS has direct access to interface information and wants used. If BGP-LS has direct access to interface information and wants
to advertise a local link, then the Protocol-ID 'Direct' SHOULD be to advertise a local link, then the Protocol-ID 'Direct' SHOULD be
used. For modeling virtual links, such as described in Section 6, used. For modeling virtual links, such as described in Section 6,
the Protocol-ID 'Static configuration' SHOULD be used. the Protocol-ID 'Static configuration' SHOULD be used.
A router may run multiple protocol instances of OSPF or ISIS whereby A router may run multiple protocol instances of OSPF or IS-IS whereby
it becomes a border router between multiple IGP domains. Both OSPF it becomes a border router between multiple IGP domains. Both OSPF
and IS-IS may also run multiple routing protocol instances over the and IS-IS may also run multiple routing protocol instances over the
same link. See [RFC8202] and [RFC6549]. These instances define same link. See [RFC8202] and [RFC6549]. These instances define
independent IGP routing domains. The Identifier field carries a independent IGP routing domains. The Identifier field carries an
8-octet BGP-LS Instance Identifier (Instance-ID) number that is used 8-octet BGP-LS Instance Identifier (Instance-ID) number that is used
to identify the IGP routing domain where the NLRI belongs. The NLRIs to identify the IGP routing domain where the NLRI belongs. The NLRIs
representing link-state objects (nodes, links, or prefixes) from the representing link-state objects (nodes, links, or prefixes) from the
same IGP routing instance should have the same BGP-LS Instance-ID. same IGP routing instance should have the same BGP-LS Instance-ID.
NLRIs with different BGP-LS Instance-IDs are considered to be from NLRIs with different BGP-LS Instance-IDs are considered to be from
different IGP routing instances. different IGP routing instances.
To support multiple IGP instances, an implementations needs to To support multiple IGP instances, an implementation needs to support
support the configuration of unique BGP-LS Instance-IDs at the the configuration of unique BGP-LS Instance-IDs at the routing
routing protocol instance level. The BGP-LS Instance-ID 0 is protocol instance level. The BGP-LS Instance-ID 0 is RECOMMENDED to
RECOMMENDED to be used when there is only a single protocol instance be used when there is only a single protocol instance in the network
in the network where BGP-LS is operational. The network operator where BGP-LS is operational. The network operator MUST assign the
MUST assign the same BGP-LS Instance-IDs on all BGP-LS Producers same BGP-LS Instance-IDs on all BGP-LS Producers within a given IGP
within a given IGP domain. Unique BGP-LS Instance-ID MUST be domain. Unique BGP-LS Instance-ID MUST be assigned to routing
assigned to routing protocol instances operating in different IGP protocol instances operating in different IGP domains. This can
domains. This can allow the BGP-LS Consumer to build an accurate allow the BGP-LS Consumer to build an accurate segregated multi-
segregated multi-domain topology based on the BGP-LS Instance-ID. domain topology based on the BGP-LS Instance-ID.
When the above-described semantics and recommendations are not When the above-described semantics and recommendations are not
followed, a BGP-LS Consumer may see more than one link-state objects followed, a BGP-LS Consumer may see more than one link-state objects
for the same node, link, or prefix (each with a different BGP-LS for the same node, link, or prefix (each with a different BGP-LS
Instance-ID) when there are multiple BGP-LS Producers deployed. This Instance-ID) when there are multiple BGP-LS Producers deployed. This
may also result in the BGP-LS Consumers getting an inaccurate may also result in the BGP-LS Consumers getting an inaccurate
network-wide topology. network-wide topology.
Each Node Descriptor, Link Descriptor, and Prefix Descriptor consists Each Node Descriptor, Link Descriptor, and Prefix Descriptor consists
of one or more TLVs, as described in the following sections. These of one or more TLVs, as described in the following sections. These
skipping to change at page 17, line 39 skipping to change at page 17, line 39
We define an "IGP domain" to be the set of nodes (hence, by extension We define an "IGP domain" to be the set of nodes (hence, by extension
links and prefixes) within which each node has a unique IGP links and prefixes) within which each node has a unique IGP
representation by using the combination of OSPF Area-ID, Router-ID, representation by using the combination of OSPF Area-ID, Router-ID,
Protocol-ID, Multi-Topology ID, and BGP-LS Instance-ID. The problem Protocol-ID, Multi-Topology ID, and BGP-LS Instance-ID. The problem
is that BGP may receive node/link/prefix information from multiple is that BGP may receive node/link/prefix information from multiple
independent "IGP domains", and we need to distinguish between them. independent "IGP domains", and we need to distinguish between them.
Moreover, we can't assume there is always one and only one IGP domain Moreover, we can't assume there is always one and only one IGP domain
per AS. During IGP transitions, it may happen that two redundant per AS. During IGP transitions, it may happen that two redundant
IGPs are in place. IGPs are in place.
Furthermore, in deployments where BGP-LS is used to advertise
topology from multiple-ASes, the AS Number is used to distinguish
topology information reported from different ASes.
The BGP-LS Instance-ID carried in the Identifier field as described The BGP-LS Instance-ID carried in the Identifier field as described
earlier along with a set of sub-TLVs described in Section 5.2.1.4, earlier along with a set of sub-TLVs described in Section 5.2.1.4,
allows specification of a flexible key for any given node/link allows specification of a flexible key for any given node/link
information such that the global uniqueness of the NLRI is ensured. information such that the global uniqueness of the NLRI is ensured.
Since the BGP-LS Instance-ID is operator assigned, its allocation
scheme can ensure that each IGP domain is uniquely identified even
across a multi-AS network.
5.2.1.2. Local Node Descriptors 5.2.1.2. Local Node Descriptors
The Local Node Descriptors TLV contains Node Descriptors for the node The Local Node Descriptors TLV contains Node Descriptors for the node
anchoring the local end of the link. This is a mandatory TLV in all anchoring the local end of the link. This is a mandatory TLV in all
three types of NLRIs (node, link, and prefix). The Type is 256. The three types of NLRIs (node, link, and prefix). The Type is 256. The
length of this TLV is variable. The value contains one or more Node length of this TLV is variable. The value contains one or more Node
Descriptor Sub-TLVs defined in Section 5.2.1.4. Descriptor Sub-TLVs defined in Section 5.2.1.4.
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
skipping to change at page 19, line 29 skipping to change at page 19, line 29
The sub-TLV values in Node Descriptor TLVs are defined as follows: The sub-TLV values in Node Descriptor TLVs are defined as follows:
Autonomous System: Opaque value (32-bit AS Number). This is an Autonomous System: Opaque value (32-bit AS Number). This is an
optional TLV. The value SHOULD be set to the AS Number associated optional TLV. The value SHOULD be set to the AS Number associated
with the BGP process originating the link-state information. An with the BGP process originating the link-state information. An
implementation MAY provide a configuration option on the BGP-LS implementation MAY provide a configuration option on the BGP-LS
Producer to use a different value; e.g., to avoid collisions when Producer to use a different value; e.g., to avoid collisions when
using private AS numbers. using private AS numbers.
BGP-LS Identifier: Opaque value (32-bit ID). This is an optional BGP-LS Identifier: Opaque value (32-bit ID). This is an optional
TLV. Its original purpose was that, in conjunction with TLV which has been deprecated by this document (refer to
Autonomous System Number (ASN), it would uniquely identify the Appendix A for more details). It MAY be advertised for
BGP-LS domain and that the combination of ASN and BGP-LS ID would compatibility with [RFC7752] implementations. See the final
be globally unique. However, the BGP-LS Instance-ID carried in paragraph of this section for further considerations and
the Identifier field in the fixed part of the NLRI also provides a recommended default value.
similar functionality. Hence the inclusion of the BGP-LS
Identifier TLV is not necessary. If advertised, all BGP-LS
speakers within an IGP flooding-set (set of IGP nodes within which
an LSP/LSA is flooded) MUST use the same (ASN, BGP-LS ID) tuple
and if an IGP domain consists of multiple flooding-sets, then all
BGP-LS speakers within the IGP domain SHOULD use the same (ASN,
BGP-LS ID) tuple.
OSPF Area-ID: Used to identify the 32-bit area to which the OSPF Area-ID: Used to identify the 32-bit area to which the
information advertised in the NLRI belongs. This is a mandatory information advertised in the NLRI belongs. This is a mandatory
TLV when originating information from OSPF that is derived from TLV when originating information from OSPF that is derived from
area-scope LSAs. The OSPF Area Identifier allows different NLRIs area-scope LSAs. The OSPF Area Identifier allows different NLRIs
of the same router to be differentiated on a per-area basis. It of the same router to be differentiated on a per-area basis. It
is not used for NLRIs when carrying information that is derived is not used for NLRIs when carrying information that is derived
from AS-scope LSAs as that information is not associated with a from AS-scope LSAs as that information is not associated with a
specific area. specific area.
skipping to change at page 21, line 22 skipping to change at page 21, line 11
representation of a logical link. To fully describe a single logical representation of a logical link. To fully describe a single logical
link, two anchor routers advertise a half-link each, i.e., two Link link, two anchor routers advertise a half-link each, i.e., two Link
NLRIs are advertised for a given point-to-point link. NLRIs are advertised for a given point-to-point link.
A link between two nodes is not considered as complete (or available) A link between two nodes is not considered as complete (or available)
unless it is described by the two Link NLRIs corresponding to the unless it is described by the two Link NLRIs corresponding to the
half-link representation from the pair of anchor nodes. This check half-link representation from the pair of anchor nodes. This check
is similar to the 'two-way connectivity check' that is performed by is similar to the 'two-way connectivity check' that is performed by
link-state IGPs. link-state IGPs.
An implementation may end up suppressing the advertisement of a Link An implementation MAY suppress the advertisement of a Link NLRI,
NLRI, corresponding to a half-link, from a link-state IGP unless the corresponding to a half-link, from a link-state IGP unless the IGP
IGP has verified that the link is being reported in the IS-IS LSP or has verified that the link is being reported in the IS-IS LSP or OSPF
OSPF Router LSA by both the nodes connected by that link. This 'two- Router LSA by both the nodes connected by that link. This 'two-way
way connectivity check' is performed by link-state IGPs during their connectivity check' is performed by link-state IGPs during their
computation and may be leveraged before passing information for any computation and can be leveraged before passing information for any
half-link that is reported from these IGPs into BGP-LS. This ensures half-link that is reported from these IGPs into BGP-LS. This ensures
that only those Link State IGP adjacencies which are established get that only those Link State IGP adjacencies which are established get
reported via Link NLRIs. Such a 'two-way connectivity check' may be reported via Link NLRIs. Such a 'two-way connectivity check' could
also required in certain cases (e.g., with OSPF) to obtain the proper be also required in certain cases (e.g., with OSPF) to obtain the
link identifiers of the remote node. proper link identifiers of the remote node.
The format and semantics of the Value fields in most Link Descriptor The format and semantics of the Value fields in most Link Descriptor
TLVs correspond to the format and semantics of value fields in IS-IS TLVs correspond to the format and semantics of value fields in IS-IS
Extended IS Reachability sub-TLVs, defined in [RFC5305], [RFC5307], Extended IS Reachability sub-TLVs, defined in [RFC5305], [RFC5307],
and [RFC6119]. Although the encodings for Link Descriptor TLVs were and [RFC6119]. Although the encodings for Link Descriptor TLVs were
originally defined for IS-IS, the TLVs can carry data sourced by originally defined for IS-IS, the TLVs can carry data sourced by
either IS-IS or OSPF. either IS-IS or OSPF.
The following TLVs are defined as Link Descriptors in the Link NLRI: The following TLVs are defined as Link Descriptors in the Link NLRI:
skipping to change at page 22, line 39 skipping to change at page 22, line 39
The information about a link present in the LSA/LSP originated by the The information about a link present in the LSA/LSP originated by the
local node of the link determines the set of TLVs in the Link local node of the link determines the set of TLVs in the Link
Descriptor of the link. Descriptor of the link.
If interface and neighbor addresses, either IPv4 or IPv6, are If interface and neighbor addresses, either IPv4 or IPv6, are
present, then the interface/neighbor address TLVs MUST be present, then the interface/neighbor address TLVs MUST be
included, and the Link Local/Remote Identifiers TLV MUST NOT be included, and the Link Local/Remote Identifiers TLV MUST NOT be
included in the Link Descriptor. The Link Local/Remote included in the Link Descriptor. The Link Local/Remote
Identifiers TLV MAY be included in the link attribute when Identifiers TLV MAY be included in the link attribute when
available. IPv6 link-local addresses MUST NOT be carried in the available. IPv4/IPv6 link-local addresses MUST NOT be carried in
IPv6 interface/neighbor address TLVs (261/262) as descriptors of a the IPv4/IPv6 interface/neighbor address TLVs (259/260/261/262) as
link as they are not considered unique. descriptors of a link as they are not considered unique.
If interface and neighbor addresses are not present and the link If interface and neighbor addresses are not present and the link
local/remote identifiers are present, then the Link Local/Remote local/remote identifiers are present, then the Link Local/Remote
Identifiers TLV MUST be included in the Link Descriptor. The Link Identifiers TLV MUST be included in the Link Descriptor. The Link
Local/Remote Identifiers MUST be included in the Link Descriptor Local/Remote Identifiers MUST be included in the Link Descriptor
also in the case of links having only IPv6 link-local addressing also in the case of links having only IPv6 link-local addressing
on them. on them.
The Multi-Topology Identifier TLV MUST be included as a Link The Multi-Topology Identifier TLV MUST be included as a Link
Descriptor if the underlying IGP link object is associated with a Descriptor if the underlying IGP link object is associated with a
skipping to change at page 26, line 21 skipping to change at page 26, line 21
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 14: IP Reachability Information TLV Format Figure 14: IP Reachability Information TLV Format
The Type and Length fields of the TLV are defined in Table 5. The The Type and Length fields of the TLV are defined in Table 5. The
following two fields determine the reachability information of the following two fields determine the reachability information of the
address family. The Prefix Length field contains the length of the address family. The Prefix Length field contains the length of the
prefix in bits. The IP Prefix field contains an IP address prefix, prefix in bits. The IP Prefix field contains an IP address prefix,
followed by the minimum number of trailing bits needed to make the followed by the minimum number of trailing bits needed to make the
end of the field fall on an octet boundary. Any trailing bits MUST end of the field fall on an octet boundary. Any trailing bits MUST
be set to 0. Thus the IP Prefix field contains the most significant be set to 0. Thus, the IP Prefix field contains the most significant
octets of the prefix, i.e., 1 octet for prefix length 1 up to 8, 2 octets of the prefix, i.e., 1 octet for prefix length 1 up to 8, 2
octets for prefix length 9 to 16, 3 octets for prefix length 17 up to octets for prefix length 9 to 16, 3 octets for prefix length 17 up to
24, 4 octets for prefix length 25 up to 32, etc. 24, 4 octets for prefix length 25 up to 32, etc.
5.3. The BGP-LS Attribute 5.3. The BGP-LS Attribute
The BGP-LS Attribute (assigned value 29 by IANA) is an optional, non- The BGP-LS Attribute (assigned value 29 by IANA) is an optional, non-
transitive BGP attribute that is used to carry link, node, and prefix transitive BGP attribute that is used to carry link, node, and prefix
parameters and attributes. It is defined as a set of Type/Length/ parameters and attributes. It is defined as a set of Type/Length/
Value (TLV) triplets, described in the following section. This Value (TLV) triplets, described in the following section. This
attribute SHOULD only be included with Link-State NLRIs. This attribute SHOULD only be included with Link-State NLRIs. The use of
attribute MUST be ignored for all other address families. this attribute for other address families is outside the scope of
this document.
The Node Attribute TLVs, Link Attribute TLVs, and Prefix Attribute The Node Attribute TLVs, Link Attribute TLVs, and Prefix Attribute
TLVs are sets of TLVs that may be encoded in the BGP-LS Attribute TLVs are sets of TLVs that may be encoded in the BGP-LS Attribute
associated with a Node NLRI, Link NLRI, and Prefix NLRI respectively. associated with a Node NLRI, Link NLRI, and Prefix NLRI respectively.
The size of the BGP-LS Attribute may potentially grow large depending The size of the BGP-LS Attribute may potentially grow large depending
on the amount of link-state information associated with a single on the amount of link-state information associated with a single
Link-State NLRI. The BGP specification [RFC4271] mandates a maximum Link-State NLRI. The BGP specification [RFC4271] mandates a maximum
BGP message size of 4096 octets. It is RECOMMENDED that an BGP message size of 4096 octets. It is RECOMMENDED that an
implementation supports [RFC8654] to accommodate a larger size of implementation supports [RFC8654] to accommodate a larger size of
information within the BGP-LS Attribute. BGP-LS Producers MUST information within the BGP-LS Attribute. BGP-LS Producers MUST
ensure that they limit the TLVs included in the BGP-LS Attribute to ensure that the TLVs included in the BGP-LS Attribute does not result
ensure that a BGP UPDATE message for a single Link-State NLRI does in a BGP UPDATE message for a single Link-State NLRI that crosses the
not cross the maximum limit for a BGP message. The determination of maximum limit for a BGP message.
the types of TLVs to be included may be made by the BGP-LS Producer
based on the BGP-LS Consumer applications requirement and is outside An implementation MAY adopt mechanisms to avoid this problem that may
the scope of this document. When a BGP-LS Propagator finds that it be based the BGP-LS Consumer applications' requirement; these
is exceeding the maximum BGP message size due to the addition or mechanisms are beyond the scope of this specification. However, if
update of some other BGP Attribute (e.g. AS_PATH), it MUST consider an implementation chooses to mitigate the problem by excluding some
the BGP-LS Attribute to be malformed, apply the "Attribute Discard" TLVs from the BGP-LS Attribute, this exclusion SHOULD be done
error-handling approach [RFC7606], and handle the propagation as consistently by all BGP-LS Producers within a given BGP-LS domain.
described in Section 8.2.2. When a BGP-LS Propagator needs to In the event of inconsistent exclusion of TLVs from the BGP-LS
perform "Attribute Discard" for reducing the BGP UPDATE message size Attribute, the result would be a differing set of attributes of the
as specified in section 4 of [RFC8654], it MUST first discard the link-state object being propagated to BGP-LS Consumers based on the
BGP-LS Attribute to enable the detection and diagnosis of this error BGP decision process at BGP-LS Propagators.
condition as discussed in Section 8.2.2. This brings the deployment
consideration that the consistent propagation of BGP-LS information When a BGP-LS Propagator finds that it is exceeding the maximum BGP
with a BGP UPDATE message size larger than 4096 octets can only message size due to the addition or update of some other BGP
happen along a set of BGP Speakers that all support [RFC8654]. Attribute (e.g. AS_PATH), it MUST consider the BGP-LS Attribute to
be malformed, apply the "Attribute Discard" error-handling approach
[RFC7606], and handle the propagation as described in Section 8.2.2.
When a BGP-LS Propagator needs to perform "Attribute Discard" for
reducing the BGP UPDATE message size as specified in section 4 of
[RFC8654], it MUST first discard the BGP-LS Attribute to enable the
detection and diagnosis of this error condition as discussed in
Section 8.2.2. This brings the deployment consideration that the
consistent propagation of BGP-LS information with a BGP UPDATE
message size larger than 4096 octets can only happen along a set of
BGP Speakers that all support [RFC8654].
5.3.1. Node Attribute TLVs 5.3.1. Node Attribute TLVs
The following Node Attribute TLVs are defined for the BGP-LS The following Node Attribute TLVs are defined for the BGP-LS
Attribute associated with a Node NLRI: Attribute associated with a Node NLRI:
+================+================+==========+===============+ +================+================+==========+===============+
| TLV Code Point | Description | Length | Reference | | TLV Code Point | Description | Length | Reference |
| | | | (RFC/Section) | | | | | (RFC/Section) |
+================+================+==========+===============+ +================+================+==========+===============+
skipping to change at page 28, line 41 skipping to change at page 29, line 23
+-----+--------------+------------+ +-----+--------------+------------+
| 'B' | ABR Bit | [RFC2328] | | 'B' | ABR Bit | [RFC2328] |
+-----+--------------+------------+ +-----+--------------+------------+
| 'R' | Router Bit | [RFC5340] | | 'R' | Router Bit | [RFC5340] |
+-----+--------------+------------+ +-----+--------------+------------+
| 'V' | V6 Bit | [RFC5340] | | 'V' | V6 Bit | [RFC5340] |
+-----+--------------+------------+ +-----+--------------+------------+
Table 7: Node Flag Bits Definitions Table 7: Node Flag Bits Definitions
The bits that are not defined MUST be set to 0 by the originator and
MUST be ignored by the receiver.
5.3.1.2. IS-IS Area Identifier TLV 5.3.1.2. IS-IS Area Identifier TLV
An IS-IS node can be part of only a single IS-IS area. However, a An IS-IS node can be part of only a single IS-IS area. However, a
node can have multiple synonymous area addresses. Each of these area node can have multiple synonymous area addresses. Each of these area
addresses is carried in the IS-IS Area Identifier TLV. If multiple addresses is carried in the IS-IS Area Identifier TLV. If multiple
area addresses are present, multiple TLVs are used to encode them. area addresses are present, multiple TLVs are used to encode them.
The IS-IS Area Identifier TLV may be present in the BGP-LS Attribute The IS-IS Area Identifier TLV may be present in the BGP-LS Attribute
only when advertised in the Link-State Node NLRI. only when advertised in the Link-State Node NLRI.
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
skipping to change at page 29, line 21 skipping to change at page 29, line 51
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 16: IS-IS Area Identifier TLV Format Figure 16: IS-IS Area Identifier TLV Format
5.3.1.3. Node Name TLV 5.3.1.3. Node Name TLV
The Node Name TLV is optional. The encoding semantics for the node The Node Name TLV is optional. The encoding semantics for the node
name has been borrowed from [RFC5301]. The Value field identifies name has been borrowed from [RFC5301]. The Value field identifies
the symbolic name of the router node. This symbolic name can either the symbolic name of the router node. This symbolic name can either
be the Fully Qualified Domain Name (FQDN) for the router, or it can be the Fully Qualified Domain Name (FQDN) for the router, or it can
be a subset of the FQDN (e.g., a hostname), or it can be any string be a substring of the FQDN (e.g., a hostname), or it can be any
that an operator wants to use for the router. The use of FQDN or a string that an operator wants to use for the router. The use of FQDN
subset of it is strongly RECOMMENDED. The maximum length of the Node or a substring of it is strongly RECOMMENDED. The maximum length of
Name TLV is 255 octets. the Node Name TLV is 255 octets.
The Value field is encoded in 7-bit ASCII. If a user interface for The Value field is encoded in 7-bit ASCII. If a user interface for
configuring or displaying this field permits Unicode characters, that configuring or displaying this field permits Unicode characters, that
the user interface is responsible for applying the ToASCII and/or the user interface is responsible for applying the ToASCII and/or
ToUnicode algorithm as described in [RFC5890] to achieve the correct ToUnicode algorithm as described in [RFC5890] to achieve the correct
format for transmission or display. format for transmission or display.
[RFC5301] describes an IS-IS-specific extension and [RFC5642] [RFC5301] describes an IS-IS-specific extension and [RFC5642]
describes an OSPF extension for the advertisement of Node Name which describes an OSPF extension for the advertisement of Node Name which
may be encoded in the Node Name TLV. may be encoded in the Node Name TLV.
skipping to change at page 30, line 21 skipping to change at page 31, line 5
field or new protocol extensions to the protocol as advertised in the field or new protocol extensions to the protocol as advertised in the
NLRI header Protocol-ID field for which there is no protocol-neutral NLRI header Protocol-ID field for which there is no protocol-neutral
representation in the BGP Link-State NLRI. The primary use of the representation in the BGP Link-State NLRI. The primary use of the
Opaque Node Attribute TLV is to bridge the document lag between a new Opaque Node Attribute TLV is to bridge the document lag between a new
IGP link-state attribute and its protocol-neutral BGP-LS extension IGP link-state attribute and its protocol-neutral BGP-LS extension
being defined. Once the protocol-neutral BGP-LS extensions are being defined. Once the protocol-neutral BGP-LS extensions are
defined, the BGP-LS implementations may still need to advertise the defined, the BGP-LS implementations may still need to advertise the
information both within the Opaque Attribute TLV and the new TLV information both within the Opaque Attribute TLV and the new TLV
definition for incremental deployment and transition. definition for incremental deployment and transition.
In the case of OSPF, this TLV may be used only to advertise the TLVs In the case of OSPF, this TLV MUST NOT be used to advertise TLVs
in the OSPF Router Information (RI) LSA [RFC7770]. other than those in the OSPF Router Information (RI) LSA [RFC7770].
0 1 2 3 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 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 | | Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// Opaque node attributes (variable) // // Opaque node attributes (variable) //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 18: Opaque Node Attribute Format Figure 18: Opaque Node Attribute Format
skipping to change at page 32, line 40 skipping to change at page 33, line 28
0 1 2 3 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 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 | | Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|L|R| Reserved | |L|R| Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 19: MPLS Protocol Mask TLV Figure 19: MPLS Protocol Mask TLV
The following bits are defined and the reserved bits MUST be set to The following bits are defined, and the reserved bits MUST be set to
zero and SHOULD be ignored on receipt: zero and SHOULD be ignored on receipt:
+=====+=============================================+===========+ +=====+=============================================+===========+
| Bit | Description | Reference | | Bit | Description | Reference |
+=====+=============================================+===========+ +=====+=============================================+===========+
| 'L' | Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) | [RFC5036] | | 'L' | Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) | [RFC5036] |
+-----+---------------------------------------------+-----------+ +-----+---------------------------------------------+-----------+
| 'R' | Extension to RSVP for LSP Tunnels (RSVP-TE) | [RFC3209] | | 'R' | Extension to RSVP for LSP Tunnels (RSVP-TE) | [RFC3209] |
+-----+---------------------------------------------+-----------+ +-----+---------------------------------------------+-----------+
Table 9: MPLS Protocol Mask TLV Codes Table 9: MPLS Protocol Mask TLV Codes
The bits that are not defined MUST be set to 0 by the originator and
MUST be ignored by the receiver.
5.3.2.3. TE Default Metric TLV 5.3.2.3. TE Default Metric TLV
The TE Default Metric TLV carries the Traffic Engineering metric for The TE Default Metric TLV carries the Traffic Engineering metric for
this link. The length of this TLV is fixed at 4 octets. If a source this link. The length of this TLV is fixed at 4 octets. If a source
protocol uses a metric width of fewer than 32 bits, then the high- protocol uses a metric width of fewer than 32 bits, then the high-
order bits of this field MUST be padded with zero. order bits of this field MUST be padded with zero.
0 1 2 3 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 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
skipping to change at page 33, line 26 skipping to change at page 34, line 19
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| TE Default Link Metric | | TE Default Link Metric |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 20: TE Default Metric TLV Format Figure 20: TE Default Metric TLV Format
5.3.2.4. IGP Metric TLV 5.3.2.4. IGP Metric TLV
The IGP Metric TLV carries the metric for this link. The length of The IGP Metric TLV carries the metric for this link. The length of
this TLV is variable, depending on the metric width of the underlying this TLV is variable, depending on the metric width of the underlying
protocol. IS-IS small metrics have a length of 1 octet. Since the protocol. IS-IS small metrics are of 6-bit size, but are encoded in
ISIS small metrics are of 6-bit size, the two most significant bits a 1 octet field; therefore the two most significant bits of the field
MUST be set to 0 and MUST be ignored by the receiver. OSPF link MUST be set to 0 by the originator and MUST be ignored by the
metrics have a length of 2 octets. IS-IS wide metrics have a length receiver. OSPF link metrics have a length of 2 octets. IS-IS wide
of 3 octets. metrics have a length of 3 octets.
0 1 2 3 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 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 | | Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// IGP Link Metric (variable length) // // IGP Link Metric (variable length) //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 21: IGP Metric TLV Format Figure 21: IGP Metric TLV Format
skipping to change at page 34, line 41 skipping to change at page 35, line 41
field or new protocol extensions to the protocol as advertised in the field or new protocol extensions to the protocol as advertised in the
NLRI header Protocol-ID field for which there is no protocol-neutral NLRI header Protocol-ID field for which there is no protocol-neutral
representation in the BGP Link-State NLRI. The primary use of the representation in the BGP Link-State NLRI. The primary use of the
Opaque Link Attribute TLV is to bridge the document lag between a new Opaque Link Attribute TLV is to bridge the document lag between a new
IGP link-state attribute and its 'protocol-neutral' BGP-LS extension IGP link-state attribute and its 'protocol-neutral' BGP-LS extension
being defined. Once the protocol-neutral BGP-LS extensions are being defined. Once the protocol-neutral BGP-LS extensions are
defined, the BGP-LS implementations may still need to advertise the defined, the BGP-LS implementations may still need to advertise the
information both within the Opaque Attribute TLV and the new TLV information both within the Opaque Attribute TLV and the new TLV
definition for incremental deployment and transition. definition for incremental deployment and transition.
In the case of OSPFv2, this TLV may be used to only advertise In the case of OSPFv2, this TLV MUST NOT be used to advertise
information carried using the TLVs in the OSPFv2 Extended Link Opaque information carried using TLVs other than those in the OSPFv2
LSA [RFC7684]. In the case of OSPFv3, this TLV may be used only to Extended Link Opaque LSA [RFC7684]. In the case of OSPFv3, this TLV
advertise the TLVs in the OSPFv3 E-Router-LSA or E-Link-LSA MUST NOT be used to advertise TLVs other than those in the OSPFv3 E-
[RFC8362]. Router-LSA or E-Link-LSA [RFC8362].
0 1 2 3 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 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 | | Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// Opaque link attributes (variable) // // Opaque link attributes (variable) //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 23: Opaque Link Attribute TLV Format Figure 23: Opaque Link Attribute TLV Format
5.3.2.7. Link Name TLV 5.3.2.7. Link Name TLV
The Link Name TLV is optional. The Value field identifies the The Link Name TLV is optional. The Value field identifies the
symbolic name of the router link. This symbolic name can either be symbolic name of the router link. This symbolic name can either be
the FQDN for the link, or it can be a subset of the FQDN, or it can the FQDN for the link, or it can be a substring of the FQDN, or it
be any string that an operator wants to use for the link. The use of can be any string that an operator wants to use for the link. The
FQDN or a subset of it is strongly RECOMMENDED. The maximum length use of FQDN or a substring of it is strongly RECOMMENDED. The
of the Link Name TLV is 255 octets. maximum length of the Link Name TLV is 255 octets.
The Value field is encoded in 7-bit ASCII. If a user interface for The Value field is encoded in 7-bit ASCII. If a user interface for
configuring or displaying this field permits Unicode characters, that configuring or displaying this field permits Unicode characters, that
the user interface is responsible for applying the ToASCII and/or the user interface is responsible for applying the ToASCII and/or
ToUnicode algorithm as described in [RFC5890] to achieve the correct ToUnicode algorithm as described in [RFC5890] to achieve the correct
format for transmission or display. format for transmission or display.
How a router derives and injects link names is outside of the scope How a router derives and injects link names is outside of the scope
of this document. of this document.
skipping to change at page 36, line 37 skipping to change at page 37, line 37
The IGP Flags TLV contains one octet of IS-IS and OSPF flags and bits The IGP Flags TLV contains one octet of IS-IS and OSPF flags and bits
originally assigned to the prefix. The IGP Flags TLV is encoded as originally assigned to the prefix. The IGP Flags TLV is encoded as
follows: follows:
0 1 2 3 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 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 | | Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|D|N|L|P|Reservd| |D|N|L|P| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 25: IGP Flag TLV Format Figure 25: IGP Flag TLV Format
The Value field contains bits defined according to the table below The Value field contains bits defined according to the table below:
and the reserved bits MUST be set to zero and SHOULD be ignored on
receipt:
+=====+===========================+===========+ +=====+===========================+===========+
| Bit | Description | Reference | | Bit | Description | Reference |
+=====+===========================+===========+ +=====+===========================+===========+
| 'D' | IS-IS Up/Down Bit | [RFC5305] | | 'D' | IS-IS Up/Down Bit | [RFC5305] |
+-----+---------------------------+-----------+ +-----+---------------------------+-----------+
| 'N' | OSPF "no unicast" Bit | [RFC5340] | | 'N' | OSPF "no unicast" Bit | [RFC5340] |
+-----+---------------------------+-----------+ +-----+---------------------------+-----------+
| 'L' | OSPF "local address" Bit | [RFC5340] | | 'L' | OSPF "local address" Bit | [RFC5340] |
+-----+---------------------------+-----------+ +-----+---------------------------+-----------+
| 'P' | OSPF "propagate NSSA" Bit | [RFC5340] | | 'P' | OSPF "propagate NSSA" Bit | [RFC5340] |
+-----+---------------------------+-----------+ +-----+---------------------------+-----------+
Table 11: IGP Flag Bits Definitions Table 11: IGP Flag Bits Definitions
The bits that are not defined MUST be set to 0 by the originator and
MUST be ignored by the receiver.
5.3.3.2. IGP Route Tag TLV 5.3.3.2. IGP Route Tag TLV
The IGP Route Tag TLV carries original IGP Tags (IS-IS [RFC5130] or The IGP Route Tag TLV carries original IGP Tags (IS-IS [RFC5130] or
OSPF) of the prefix and is encoded as follows: OSPF) of the prefix and is encoded as follows:
0 1 2 3 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 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 | | Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
skipping to change at page 39, line 21 skipping to change at page 40, line 34
field or new protocol extensions to the protocol as advertised in the field or new protocol extensions to the protocol as advertised in the
NLRI header Protocol-ID field for which there is no protocol-neutral NLRI header Protocol-ID field for which there is no protocol-neutral
representation in the BGP Link-State NLRI. The primary use of the representation in the BGP Link-State NLRI. The primary use of the
Opaque Prefix Attribute TLV is to bridge the document lag between a Opaque Prefix Attribute TLV is to bridge the document lag between a
new IGP link-state attribute and its protocol-neutral BGP-LS new IGP link-state attribute and its protocol-neutral BGP-LS
extension being defined. Once the protocol-neutral BGP-LS extensions extension being defined. Once the protocol-neutral BGP-LS extensions
are defined, the BGP-LS implementations may still need to advertise are defined, the BGP-LS implementations may still need to advertise
the information both within the Opaque Attribute TLV and the new TLV the information both within the Opaque Attribute TLV and the new TLV
definition for incremental deployment and transition. definition for incremental deployment and transition.
In the case of OSPFv2, this TLV may be used to only advertise In the case of OSPFv2, this TLV MUST NOT be used to advertise
information carried using the TLVs in the OSPFv2 Extended Prefix information carried using TLVs other than those in the OSPFv2
Opaque LSA [RFC7684]. In the case of OSPFv3, this TLV may be used Extended Prefix Opaque LSA [RFC7684]. In the case of OSPFv3, this
only to advertise the TLVs in the OSPFv3 E-Inter-Area-Prefix-LSA, E- TLV MUST NOT be used to advertise TLVs other than those in the OSPFv3
Intra-Area-Prefix-LSA, E-AS-External-Prefix-LSA, and E-NSSA-LSA E-Inter-Area-Prefix-LSA, E-Intra-Area-Prefix-LSA, E-AS-External-
[RFC8362]. Prefix-LSA, and E-NSSA-LSA [RFC8362].
The format of the TLV is as follows: The format of the TLV is as follows:
0 1 2 3 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 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 | | Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// Opaque Prefix Attributes (variable) // // Opaque Prefix Attributes (variable) //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
skipping to change at page 39, line 51 skipping to change at page 41, line 16
5.4. Private Use 5.4. Private Use
TLVs for Vendor Private use are supported using the code point range TLVs for Vendor Private use are supported using the code point range
reserved as indicated in Section 7. For such TLV use in the NLRI or reserved as indicated in Section 7. For such TLV use in the NLRI or
BGP-LS Attribute, the format as described in Section 5.1 is to be BGP-LS Attribute, the format as described in Section 5.1 is to be
used and a 4-octet field MUST be included as the first field in the used and a 4-octet field MUST be included as the first field in the
value to carry the Enterprise Code. For a private use NLRI Type, a 4 value to carry the Enterprise Code. For a private use NLRI Type, a 4
octet field MUST be included as the first field in the NLRI octet field MUST be included as the first field in the NLRI
immediately following the Total NLRI Length field of the Link-State immediately following the Total NLRI Length field of the Link-State
NLRI format as described in Section 5.2 to carry the Enterprise Code. NLRI format as described in Section 5.2 to carry the Enterprise Code
The Enterprise Codes are listed at <http://www.iana.org/assignments/ [ENTNUM]. This enables the use of vendor-specific extensions without
enterprise-numbers>. This enables the use of vendor-specific conflicts.
extensions without conflicts.
Multiple instances of private-use TLVs MAY appear in the BGP-LS Multiple instances of private-use TLVs MAY appear in the BGP-LS
Attribute. Attribute.
5.5. BGP Next-Hop Information 5.5. BGP Next-Hop Information
BGP link-state information for both IPv4 and IPv6 networks can be BGP link-state information for both IPv4 and IPv6 networks can be
carried over either an IPv4 BGP session or an IPv6 BGP session. If carried over either an IPv4 BGP session or an IPv6 BGP session. If
an IPv4 BGP session is used, then the next-hop in the MP_REACH_NLRI an IPv4 BGP session is used, then the next-hop in the MP_REACH_NLRI
SHOULD be an IPv4 address. Similarly, if an IPv6 BGP session is SHOULD be an IPv4 address. Similarly, if an IPv6 BGP session is
skipping to change at page 40, line 29 skipping to change at page 41, line 42
described in [RFC4760]. The Length field of the next-hop address described in [RFC4760]. The Length field of the next-hop address
will specify the next-hop address family. If the next-hop length is will specify the next-hop address family. If the next-hop length is
4, then the next-hop is an IPv4 address; if the next-hop length is 4, then the next-hop is an IPv4 address; if the next-hop length is
16, then it is a global IPv6 address; and if the next-hop length is 16, then it is a global IPv6 address; and if the next-hop length is
32, then there is one global IPv6 address followed by a link-local 32, then there is one global IPv6 address followed by a link-local
IPv6 address. The link-local IPv6 address should be used as IPv6 address. The link-local IPv6 address should be used as
described in [RFC2545]. For VPN Subsequent Address Family Identifier described in [RFC2545]. For VPN Subsequent Address Family Identifier
(SAFI), as per custom, an 8-byte Route Distinguisher set to all zero (SAFI), as per custom, an 8-byte Route Distinguisher set to all zero
is prepended to the next-hop. is prepended to the next-hop.
The BGP Next-Hop attribute is used by each BGP-LS speaker to validate The BGP Next-Hop is used by each BGP-LS speaker to validate the NLRI
the NLRI it receives. In case identical NLRIs are sourced by it receives. In case identical NLRIs are sourced by multiple BGP-LS
multiple BGP-LS Producers, the BGP Next-Hop attribute is used to Producers, the BGP Next-Hop is used to tiebreak as per the standard
tiebreak as per the standard BGP path decision process. This BGP path decision process. This specification doesn't mandate any
specification doesn't mandate any rule regarding the rewrite of the rule regarding the rewrite of the BGP Next-Hop.
BGP Next-Hop attribute.
5.6. Inter-AS Links 5.6. Inter-AS Links
The main source of TE information is the IGP, which is not active on The main source of TE information is the IGP, which is not active on
inter-AS links. In some cases, the IGP may have information of inter-AS links. In some cases, the IGP may have information of
inter-AS links [RFC5392] [RFC5316]. In other cases, an inter-AS links [RFC5392] [RFC9346]. In other cases, an
implementation SHOULD provide a means to inject inter-AS links into implementation SHOULD provide a means to inject inter-AS links into
BGP-LS. The exact mechanism used to advertise the inter-AS links is BGP-LS. The exact mechanism used to advertise the inter-AS links is
outside the scope of this document. outside the scope of this document.
5.7. OSPF Virtual Links and Sham Links 5.7. OSPF Virtual Links and Sham Links
In an OSPF [RFC2328] [RFC5340] network, OSPF virtual links serve to In an OSPF [RFC2328] [RFC5340] network, OSPF virtual links serve to
connect physically separate components of the backbone to establish/ connect physically separate components of the backbone to establish/
maintain continuity of the backbone area. While OSPF virtual links maintain continuity of the backbone area. While OSPF virtual links
are modeled as point-to-point unnumbered links in the OSPF topology, are modeled as point-to-point unnumbered links in the OSPF topology,
their characteristics and purpose are different from other types of their characteristics and purpose are different from other types of
links in the OSPF topology. They are advertised using a distinct links in the OSPF topology. They are advertised using a distinct
"virtual link" type in OSPF LSAs. The mechanism for the "virtual link" type in OSPF LSAs. The mechanism for the
advertisement of OSPF virtual links via BGP-LS is outside the scope advertisement of OSPF virtual links via BGP-LS is outside the scope
of this document. of this document.
In an OSPF network, sham links [RFC4577] [RFC6565] are used to In an OSPF network, sham links [RFC4577] [RFC6565] are used to
provide intra-area connectivity between VRFs on PE routers over the provide intra-area connectivity between VPN Routing and Forwarding
VPN provider's network. These links are advertised in OSPF as point- (VRF) instances on PE routers over the VPN provider's network. These
to-point unnumbered links and represent connectivity over a service links are advertised in OSPF as point-to-point unnumbered links and
provider network using encapsulation mechanisms like MPLS. As such, represent connectivity over a service provider network using
the mechanism for the advertisement of OSPF sham links follows the encapsulation mechanisms like MPLS. As such, the mechanism for the
same procedures as other point-to-point unnumbered links as described advertisement of OSPF sham links follows the same procedures as other
previously in this document. point-to-point unnumbered links as described previously in this
document.
5.8. OSPFv2 Type 4 Summary LSA & OSPFv3 Inter-Area Router LSA 5.8. OSPFv2 Type 4 Summary LSA & OSPFv3 Inter-Area Router LSA
OSPFv2 [RFC2328] defines the Type 4 Summary LSA and OSPFv3 [RFC5340] OSPFv2 [RFC2328] defines the Type 4 Summary LSA and OSPFv3 [RFC5340]
the Inter-area-router-LSA for an Area Border Router (ABR) to the Inter-area-router-LSA for an Area Border Router (ABR) to
advertise reachability to an AS Border Router (ASBR) that is external advertise reachability to an AS Border Router (ASBR) that is external
to the area yet internal to the AS. The nature of information to the area yet internal to the AS. The nature of information
advertised by OSPF using this type of LSA does not map to either a advertised by OSPF using this type of LSA does not map to either a
node or a link or a prefix as discussed in this document. Therefore, node or a link or a prefix as discussed in this document. Therefore,
the mechanism for the advertisement of the information carried by the mechanism for the advertisement of the information carried by
skipping to change at page 42, line 39 skipping to change at page 44, line 7
derives from R6's stale Router LSA. derives from R6's stale Router LSA.
At the same time, R6 has removed the link R6-R5 from its Router LSA, At the same time, R6 has removed the link R6-R5 from its Router LSA,
and this updated LSA is available at R3. Similarly, R3 also has a and this updated LSA is available at R3. Similarly, R3 also has a
stale copy of R5's Router LSA having the link R5-R6 in it. Based on stale copy of R5's Router LSA having the link R5-R6 in it. Based on
its LSDB, R3 will advertise only the half-link R5-R6 that it has its LSDB, R3 will advertise only the half-link R5-R6 that it has
derived from R5's stale Router LSA. derived from R5's stale Router LSA.
Now, the BGP-LS Consumer receives both the Link NLRIs corresponding Now, the BGP-LS Consumer receives both the Link NLRIs corresponding
to the half-links from R2 and R3 via RR0. When viewed together, it to the half-links from R2 and R3 via RR0. When viewed together, it
would not detect or realize that area 1 is partitioned. Also if R2 would not detect or realize that area 1 is partitioned. Also, if R2
continues to report Node and Prefix NLRIs corresponding to the stale continues to report Node and Prefix NLRIs corresponding to the stale
copy of R4 and R6's Router LSAs then RR0 could prefer them over the copy of R4 and R6's Router LSAs then RR0 could prefer them over the
valid Node and Prefix NLRIs for R4 and R6 that it is receiving from valid Node and Prefix NLRIs for R4 and R6 that it is receiving from
R3 depending on RR0's BGP decision process. This would result in the R3 depending on RR0's BGP decision process. This would result in the
BGP-LS Consumer getting stale and inaccurate topology information. BGP-LS Consumer getting stale and inaccurate topology information.
This problem scenario is avoided if R2 were to not advertise the This problem scenario is avoided if R2 were to not advertise the
link-state information corresponding to R4 and R6 and if R3 were to link-state information corresponding to R4 and R6 and if R3 were to
not advertise similarly for R1 and R5. not advertise similarly for R1 and R5.
A BGP-LS Producer SHOULD withdraw all link-state objects advertised A BGP-LS Producer SHOULD withdraw all link-state objects advertised
skipping to change at page 44, line 28 skipping to change at page 45, line 44
The Link NLRI of (Node1, Pseudonode1) is encoded as follows: The Link NLRI of (Node1, Pseudonode1) is encoded as follows:
* Local Node Descriptor * Local Node Descriptor
TLV #515: IGP Router-ID: 192.0.2.1 TLV #515: IGP Router-ID: 192.0.2.1
TLV #514: OSPF Area-ID: ID:0.0.0.0 TLV #514: OSPF Area-ID: ID:0.0.0.0
* Remote Node Descriptor * Remote Node Descriptor
TLV #515: IGP Router-ID: 192.0.2.1:10.1.1.1 TLV #515: IGP Router-ID: 192.0.2.1:198.51.100.1
TLV #514: OSPF Area-ID: ID:0.0.0.0 TLV #514: OSPF Area-ID: ID:0.0.0.0
The Link NLRI of (Pseudonode1, Node2) is encoded as follows: The Link NLRI of (Pseudonode1, Node2) is encoded as follows:
* Local Node Descriptor * Local Node Descriptor
TLV #515: IGP Router-ID: 192.0.2.1:198.51.100.1 TLV #515: IGP Router-ID: 192.0.2.1:198.51.100.1
TLV #514: OSPF Area-ID: ID:0.0.0.0 TLV #514: OSPF Area-ID: ID:0.0.0.0
* Remote Node Descriptor * Remote Node Descriptor
TLV #515: IGP Router-ID: 192.0.2.2 TLV #515: IGP Router-ID: 192.0.2.2
TLV #514: OSPF Area-ID: ID:0.0.0.0 TLV #514: OSPF Area-ID: ID:0.0.0.0
198.51.100.1/24 198.51.100.2/24 198.51.100.1/24 198.51.100.2/24
+-------------+ +-------------+ +-------------+ +-------------+ +-------------+ +-------------+
skipping to change at page 47, line 34 skipping to change at page 49, line 27
7. IANA Considerations 7. IANA Considerations
As this document obsoletes [RFC7752] and [RFC9029], IANA is requested As this document obsoletes [RFC7752] and [RFC9029], IANA is requested
to change all registration information that references those to change all registration information that references those
documents to instead reference this document. documents to instead reference this document.
IANA has assigned address family number 16388 (BGP-LS) in the IANA has assigned address family number 16388 (BGP-LS) in the
"Address Family Numbers" registry. "Address Family Numbers" registry.
IANA has assigned SAFI values 71 (BGP-LS) and 72 (BGP-LS-VPN) in the IANA has assigned SAFI values 71 (BGP-LS) and 72 (BGP-LS-VPN) in the
"SAFI Values" sub-registry under the "Subsequent Address Family "SAFI Values" registry under the "Subsequent Address Family
Identifiers (SAFI) Parameters" registry. Identifiers (SAFI) Parameters" registry group.
IANA has assigned value 29 (BGP-LS Attribute) in the "BGP Path IANA has assigned value 29 (BGP-LS Attribute) in the "BGP Path
Attributes" sub-registry under the "Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) Attributes" registry under the "Border Gateway Protocol (BGP)
Parameters" registry. Parameters" registry group.
IANA has created a new "Border Gateway Protocol - Link-State (BGP-LS) IANA has created a "Border Gateway Protocol - Link-State (BGP-LS)
Parameters" registry at <https://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-ls- Parameters" registry group at <https://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-
parameters>. ls-parameters>.
This section also incorporates all the changes to the allocation This section also incorporates all the changes to the allocation
procedures for the BGP-LS IANA registries as well as the guidelines procedures for the BGP-LS IANA registry group as well as the
for designated experts introduced by [RFC9029]. guidelines for designated experts introduced by [RFC9029].
7.1. BGP-LS Registries 7.1. BGP-LS Registries
All of the registries listed in the following sub-sections are BGP-LS All of the registries listed in the following subsections are BGP-LS
specific and are accessible under this registry. specific and are accessible under this registry.
7.1.1. BGP-LS NLRI Types Registry 7.1.1. BGP-LS NLRI Types Registry
The "BGP-LS NLRI Types" registry has been set up for assignment for The "BGP-LS NLRI Types" registry has been set up for assignment for
the two-octet sized code-points for BGP-LS NLRI types and populated the two-octet sized code-points for BGP-LS NLRI types and populated
with the values shown below: with the values shown below:
+=============+===========================+=================+ +=============+===========================+=================+
| Type | NLRI Type | Reference | | Type | NLRI Type | Reference |
skipping to change at page 49, line 36 skipping to change at page 51, line 36
A range is reserved for Private Use [RFC8126]. All other allocations A range is reserved for Private Use [RFC8126]. All other allocations
within the registry are to be made using the "Expert Review" policy within the registry are to be made using the "Expert Review" policy
[RFC8126] that requires documentation of the proposed use of the [RFC8126] that requires documentation of the proposed use of the
allocated value and approval by the Designated Expert assigned by the allocated value and approval by the Designated Expert assigned by the
IESG. IESG.
7.1.3. BGP-LS Well-Known Instance-IDs Registry 7.1.3. BGP-LS Well-Known Instance-IDs Registry
The "BGP-LS Well-Known Instance-IDs" registry that was set up via The "BGP-LS Well-Known Instance-IDs" registry that was set up via
[RFC7752] is no longer required. IANA is requested to remove this [RFC7752] is no longer required. IANA is requested to mark this
registry. registry as obsolete and to change its registration procedure to
"registry closed".
7.1.4. BGP-LS Node Flags Registry 7.1.4. BGP-LS Node Flags Registry
The "BGP-LS Node Flags" registry is requested to be created for the The "BGP-LS Node Flags" registry is requested to be created for the
one octet-sized flags field of the Node Flag Bits TLV (1024) and one octet-sized flags field of the Node Flag Bits TLV (1024) and
populated with the initial values shown below: populated with the initial values shown below:
+=====+======================+=================+ +=====+======================+=================+
| Bit | Description | Reference | | Bit | Description | Reference |
+=====+======================+=================+ +=====+======================+=================+
skipping to change at page 52, line 26 skipping to change at page 54, line 26
In all cases of review by the designated expert described here, the In all cases of review by the designated expert described here, the
designated expert is expected to check the clarity of purpose and use designated expert is expected to check the clarity of purpose and use
of the requested code points. The following points apply to the of the requested code points. The following points apply to the
registries discussed in this document: registries discussed in this document:
1. Application for a code point allocation may be made to the 1. Application for a code point allocation may be made to the
designated experts at any time and MUST be accompanied by designated experts at any time and MUST be accompanied by
technical documentation explaining the use of the code point. technical documentation explaining the use of the code point.
Such documentation SHOULD be presented in the form of an Such documentation SHOULD be presented in the form of an
Internet-Draft but MAY arrive in any form that can be reviewed Internet-Draft, but MAY arrive in any form that can be reviewed
and exchanged amongst reviewers. and exchanged among reviewers.
2. The designated experts SHOULD only consider requests that arise 2. The designated experts SHOULD only consider requests that arise
from Internet-Drafts that have already been accepted as working from Internet-Drafts that have already been accepted as working
group documents or that are planned for progression as AD- group documents or that are planned for progression as AD-
Sponsored documents in the absence of a suitably chartered Sponsored documents in the absence of a suitably chartered
working group. working group.
3. In the case of working group documents, the designated experts 3. In the case of working group documents, the designated experts
MUST check with the working group chairs that there is a MUST check with the working group chairs that there is a
consensus within the working group to allocate at this time. In consensus within the working group to allocate at this time. In
skipping to change at page 53, line 47 skipping to change at page 56, line 5
information has a different impact than regular BGP updates, which information has a different impact than regular BGP updates, which
need to change the forwarding state for an entire router. need to change the forwarding state for an entire router.
Distribution of the BGP-LS NLRIs SHOULD be handled by dedicated route Distribution of the BGP-LS NLRIs SHOULD be handled by dedicated route
reflectors in most deployments providing a level of isolation and reflectors in most deployments providing a level of isolation and
fault containment between different BGP address families. In the fault containment between different BGP address families. In the
event of dedicated route reflectors not being available, other event of dedicated route reflectors not being available, other
alternate mechanisms like separation of BGP instances or separate BGP alternate mechanisms like separation of BGP instances or separate BGP
sessions (e.g. using different addresses for peering) for Link-State sessions (e.g. using different addresses for peering) for Link-State
information distribution SHOULD be used. information distribution SHOULD be used.
It is RECOMMENDED that operators deploying BGP-LS enable two or more
BGP-LS Producers in each IGP flooding domain to achieve redundancy in
the origination of link-state information into BGP-LS. It is also
RECOMMENDED that operators ensure BGP peering designs that ensure
redundancy in the BGP update propagation paths (e.g., using at least
a pair of route reflectors) and ensuring that BGP-LS Consumers are
receiving the topology information from at least two BGP-LS Speakers.
In a multi-domain IGP network, the correct provisioning of the BGP-LS In a multi-domain IGP network, the correct provisioning of the BGP-LS
Instance-IDs on the BGP-LS Producers is required for consistent Instance-IDs on the BGP-LS Producers is required for consistent
reporting of the multi-domain link-state topology. Refer to reporting of the multi-domain link-state topology. Refer to
Section 5.2 for more details. Section 5.2 for more details.
8.1.2. Installation and Initial Setup 8.1.2. Installation and Initial Setup
Configuration parameters defined in Section 8.2.3 SHOULD be Configuration parameters defined in Section 8.2.3 SHOULD be
initialized to the following default values: initialized to the following default values:
skipping to change at page 55, line 50 skipping to change at page 58, line 14
* The rule regarding the ordering of TLVs been followed as described * The rule regarding the ordering of TLVs been followed as described
in Section 5.1. in Section 5.1.
* For NLRIs carrying either a Local or Remote Node Descriptor TLV, * For NLRIs carrying either a Local or Remote Node Descriptor TLV,
there is not more than one instance of a sub-TLV present. there is not more than one instance of a sub-TLV present.
When the error that is determined allows for the router to skip the When the error that is determined allows for the router to skip the
malformed NLRI(s) and continue the processing of the rest of the BGP malformed NLRI(s) and continue the processing of the rest of the BGP
UPDATE message (e.g. when the TLV ordering rule is violated), then it UPDATE message (e.g. when the TLV ordering rule is violated), then it
MUST handle such malformed NLRIs as 'Treat-as-withdraw'. In other MUST handle such malformed NLRIs as 'NLRI discard' (i.e., processing
similar to what is described in section 5.4 of [RFC7606]). In other
cases, where the error in the NLRI encoding results in the inability cases, where the error in the NLRI encoding results in the inability
to process the BGP UPDATE message (e.g. length related encoding to process the BGP UPDATE message (e.g. length related encoding
errors), then the router SHOULD handle such malformed NLRIs as 'AFI/ errors), then the router SHOULD handle such malformed NLRIs as 'AFI/
SAFI disable' when other AFI/SAFI besides BGP-LS are being advertised SAFI disable' when other AFI/SAFI besides BGP-LS are being advertised
over the same session. Alternately, the router MUST perform a over the same session. Alternately, the router MUST perform a
'session reset' when the session is only being used for BGP-LS or if 'session reset' when the session is only being used for BGP-LS or if
'AFI/SAFI disable' action is not possible. 'AFI/SAFI disable' action is not possible.
A BGP-LS Attribute MUST NOT be considered malformed or invalid based A BGP-LS Attribute MUST NOT be considered malformed or invalid based
on the inclusion/exclusion of TLVs or contents of the TLV fields on the inclusion/exclusion of TLVs or contents of the TLV fields
skipping to change at page 58, line 13 skipping to change at page 60, line 17
neighbors. neighbors.
An implementation SHOULD allow the operator to specify the maximum An implementation SHOULD allow the operator to specify the maximum
number of Link-State NLRIs stored in a router's Routing Information number of Link-State NLRIs stored in a router's Routing Information
Base (RIB). Base (RIB).
An implementation SHOULD allow the operator to create abstracted An implementation SHOULD allow the operator to create abstracted
topologies that are advertised to neighbors and create different topologies that are advertised to neighbors and create different
abstractions for different neighbors. abstractions for different neighbors.
An implementation MUST allow the operator to configure a 8-octet BGP- An implementation MUST allow the operator to configure an 8-octet
LS Instance-ID. Refer to Section 5.2 for guidance to the operator BGP-LS Instance-ID. Refer to Section 5.2 for guidance to the
for the configuration of BGP-LS Instance-ID. operator for the configuration of BGP-LS Instance-ID.
An implementation SHOULD allow the operator to configure ASN and BGP- An implementation SHOULD allow the operator to configure ASN and BGP-
LS identifiers (refer to Section 5.2.1.4). LS identifiers (refer to Section 5.2.1.4).
An implementation SHOULD allow the operator to configure limiting of An implementation SHOULD allow the operator to configure limiting of
maximum size of a BGP-LS UPDATE message to 4096 bytes on a BGP-LS maximum size of a BGP-LS UPDATE message to 4096 bytes on a BGP-LS
Producer or to allow larger values when they know that [RFC8654] is Producer or to allow larger values when they know that [RFC8654] is
supported on all BGP-LS Speakers. supported on all BGP-LS Speakers.
8.2.4. Accounting Management 8.2.4. Accounting Management
skipping to change at page 61, line 44 skipping to change at page 63, line 47
reflects on the consumer applications instead of BGP routing reflects on the consumer applications instead of BGP routing
functionalities. functionalities.
Additionally, it may be considered that the export of link-state and Additionally, it may be considered that the export of link-state and
TE information as described in this document constitutes a risk to TE information as described in this document constitutes a risk to
confidentiality of mission-critical or commercially sensitive confidentiality of mission-critical or commercially sensitive
information about the network. BGP peerings are not automatic and information about the network. BGP peerings are not automatic and
require configuration; thus, it is the responsibility of the network require configuration; thus, it is the responsibility of the network
operator to ensure that only trusted BGP Speakers are configured to operator to ensure that only trusted BGP Speakers are configured to
receive such information. Similar security considerations also arise receive such information. Similar security considerations also arise
on the interface between BGP Speaker and BGP-LS Consumers but their on the interface between BGP Speaker and BGP-LS Consumers, but their
discussion is outside the scope of this document. discussion is outside the scope of this document.
11. Contributors 11. Contributors
The following persons contributed significant text to RFC7752 and The following persons contributed significant text to RFC7752 and
this document. They should be considered co-authors. this document. They should be considered co-authors.
Hannes Gredler Hannes Gredler
Rtbrick Rtbrick
Email: hannes@rtbrick.com Email: hannes@rtbrick.com
skipping to change at page 62, line 40 skipping to change at page 64, line 45
This document update to the BGP-LS specification [RFC7752] is a This document update to the BGP-LS specification [RFC7752] is a
result of feedback and inputs from the discussions in the IDR working result of feedback and inputs from the discussions in the IDR working
group. It also incorporates certain details and clarifications based group. It also incorporates certain details and clarifications based
on implementation and deployment experience with BGP-LS. on implementation and deployment experience with BGP-LS.
Cengiz Alaettinoglu and Parag Amritkar brought forward the need to Cengiz Alaettinoglu and Parag Amritkar brought forward the need to
clarify the advertisement of a LAN subnet for OSPF. clarify the advertisement of a LAN subnet for OSPF.
We would like to thank Balaji Rajagopalan, Srihari Sangli, Shraddha We would like to thank Balaji Rajagopalan, Srihari Sangli, Shraddha
Hegde, Andrew Stone, Jeff Tantsura, Acee Lindem, Les Ginsberg, Jie Hegde, Andrew Stone, Jeff Tantsura, Acee Lindem, Les Ginsberg, Jie
Dong, Aijun Wang, Nandan Saha, and Joel Halpern for their review and Dong, Aijun Wang, Nandan Saha, Joel Halpern, and Gyan Mishra for
feedback on this document. Thanks to Tom Petch for his review and their review and feedback on this document. Thanks to Tom Petch for
comments on the IANA Considerations section. Would also like to his review and comments on the IANA Considerations section. Would
thank Jeffrey Haas for his detailed shepherd review and inputs for also like to thank Jeffrey Haas for his detailed shepherd review and
improving the document. inputs for improving the document.
The detailed AD review by Alvaro Retana and his suggestions have The detailed AD review by Alvaro Retana and his suggestions have
helped improve this document significantly. helped improve this document significantly.
We would like to thank Robert Varga for his significant contribution We would like to thank Robert Varga for his significant contribution
to RFC7752. to RFC7752.
We would like to thank Nischal Sheth, Alia Atlas, David Ward, Derek We would like to thank Nischal Sheth, Alia Atlas, David Ward, Derek
Yeung, Murtuza Lightwala, John Scudder, Kaliraj Vairavakkalai, Les Yeung, Murtuza Lightwala, John Scudder, Kaliraj Vairavakkalai, Les
Ginsberg, Liem Nguyen, Manish Bhardwaj, Matt Miller, Mike Shand, Ginsberg, Liem Nguyen, Manish Bhardwaj, Matt Miller, Mike Shand,
Peter Psenak, Rex Fernando, Richard Woundy, Steven Luong, Tamas Peter Psenak, Rex Fernando, Richard Woundy, Steven Luong, Tamas
Mondal, Waqas Alam, Vipin Kumar, Naiming Shen, Carlos Pignataro, Mondal, Waqas Alam, Vipin Kumar, Naiming Shen, Carlos Pignataro,
Balaji Rajagopalan, Yakov Rekhter, Alvaro Retana, Barry Leiba, and Balaji Rajagopalan, Yakov Rekhter, Alvaro Retana, Barry Leiba, and
Ben Campbell for their comments on RFC7752. Ben Campbell for their comments on RFC7752.
13. References 13. References
13.1. Normative References 13.1. Normative References
[ENTNUM] IANA, "Private Enterprise Numbers",
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/enterprise-numbers/>.
[ISO10589] International Organization for Standardization, [ISO10589] International Organization for Standardization,
"Intermediate System to Intermediate System intra-domain "Intermediate System to Intermediate System intra-domain
routeing information exchange protocol for use in routeing information exchange protocol for use in
conjunction with the protocol for providing the conjunction with the protocol for providing the
connectionless-mode network service (ISO 8473)", ISO/ connectionless-mode network service (ISO 8473)", ISO/
IEC 10589, November 2002. IEC 10589, November 2002.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
skipping to change at page 66, line 40 skipping to change at page 68, line 44
Computation Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655, Computation Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4655, August 2006, DOI 10.17487/RFC4655, August 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4655>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4655>.
[RFC5152] Vasseur, JP., Ed., Ayyangar, A., Ed., and R. Zhang, "A [RFC5152] Vasseur, JP., Ed., Ayyangar, A., Ed., and R. Zhang, "A
Per-Domain Path Computation Method for Establishing Inter- Per-Domain Path Computation Method for Establishing Inter-
Domain Traffic Engineering (TE) Label Switched Paths Domain Traffic Engineering (TE) Label Switched Paths
(LSPs)", RFC 5152, DOI 10.17487/RFC5152, February 2008, (LSPs)", RFC 5152, DOI 10.17487/RFC5152, February 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5152>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5152>.
[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 [RFC5392] Chen, M., Zhang, R., and X. Duan, "OSPF Extensions in
Support of Inter-Autonomous System (AS) MPLS and GMPLS Support of Inter-Autonomous System (AS) MPLS and GMPLS
Traffic Engineering", RFC 5392, DOI 10.17487/RFC5392, Traffic Engineering", RFC 5392, DOI 10.17487/RFC5392,
January 2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5392>. January 2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5392>.
[RFC5693] Seedorf, J. and E. Burger, "Application-Layer Traffic [RFC5693] Seedorf, J. and E. Burger, "Application-Layer Traffic
Optimization (ALTO) Problem Statement", RFC 5693, Optimization (ALTO) Problem Statement", RFC 5693,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5693, October 2009, DOI 10.17487/RFC5693, October 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5693>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5693>.
skipping to change at page 68, line 5 skipping to change at page 69, line 46
[RFC8202] Ginsberg, L., Previdi, S., and W. Henderickx, "IS-IS [RFC8202] Ginsberg, L., Previdi, S., and W. Henderickx, "IS-IS
Multi-Instance", RFC 8202, DOI 10.17487/RFC8202, June Multi-Instance", RFC 8202, DOI 10.17487/RFC8202, June
2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8202>. 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8202>.
[RFC9029] Farrel, A., "Updates to the Allocation Policy for the [RFC9029] Farrel, A., "Updates to the Allocation Policy for the
Border Gateway Protocol - Link State (BGP-LS) Parameters Border Gateway Protocol - Link State (BGP-LS) Parameters
Registries", RFC 9029, DOI 10.17487/RFC9029, June 2021, Registries", RFC 9029, DOI 10.17487/RFC9029, June 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9029>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9029>.
[RFC9346] Chen, M., Ginsberg, L., Previdi, S., and D. Xiaodong, "IS-
IS Extensions in Support of Inter-Autonomous System (AS)
MPLS and GMPLS Traffic Engineering", RFC 9346,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9346, February 2023,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9346>.
Appendix A. Changes from RFC 7752 Appendix A. Changes from RFC 7752
This section lists the high-level changes from RFC 7752 and provides This section lists the high-level changes from RFC 7752 and provides
reference to the document sections wherein those have been reference to the document sections wherein those have been
introduced. introduced.
1. Updated the Figure 1 in Section 1 and added Section 3 to 1. Updated the Figure 1 in Section 1 and added Section 3 to
illustrate the different roles of a BGP implementation in illustrate the different roles of a BGP implementation in
conveying link-state information. conveying link-state information.
skipping to change at page 68, line 42 skipping to change at page 70, line 42
information is explained in Section 5.3 along with mitigation of information is explained in Section 5.3 along with mitigation of
errors arising out of it. errors arising out of it.
6. Clarified that the document describes the NLRI descriptor TLVs 6. Clarified that the document describes the NLRI descriptor TLVs
for the protocols and NLRI types specified in this document and for the protocols and NLRI types specified in this document and
future BGP-LS extensions must describe the same for other future BGP-LS extensions must describe the same for other
protocols and NLRI types that they introduce. protocols and NLRI types that they introduce.
7. Clarification on the use of the Identifier field in the Link- 7. Clarification on the use of the Identifier field in the Link-
State NLRI in Section 5.2 is provided. It was defined State NLRI in Section 5.2 is provided. It was defined
ambiguously to refer to only mutli-instance IGP on a single link ambiguously to refer to only multi-instance IGP on a single link
while it can also be used for multiple IGP protocol instances on while it can also be used for multiple IGP protocol instances on
a router. The IANA registry is accordingly being removed. a router. The IANA registry is accordingly being removed.
8. The BGP-LS Identifier TLV in the Node Descriptors has been 8. The BGP-LS Identifier TLV in the Node Descriptors has been
deprecated. Its use was not well specified by [RFC7752] and deprecated. Its use was not well specified by [RFC7752] and
there has been some amount of confusion between implementators there has been some amount of confusion between implementators
on its usage for identification of IGP domains as against the on its usage for identification of IGP domains as against the
use of the Identifier field carrying the BGP-LS Instance-ID when use of the Identifier field carrying the BGP-LS Instance-ID when
running multiple instances of IGP routing protocols. running multiple instances of IGP routing protocols. The
original purpose of the BGP-LS Identifier was that, in
conjunction with Autonomous System Number (ASN), it would
uniquely identify the BGP-LS domain and that the combination of
ASN and BGP-LS ID would be globally unique. However, the BGP-LS
Instance-ID carried in the Identifier field in the fixed part of
the NLRI also provides a similar functionality. Hence, the
inclusion of the BGP-LS Identifier TLV is not necessary. If
advertised, all BGP-LS speakers within an IGP flooding-set (set
of IGP nodes within which an LSP/LSA is flooded) had to use the
same (ASN, BGP-LS ID) tuple and if an IGP domain consists of
multiple flooding-sets, then all BGP-LS speakers within the IGP
domain had to use the same (ASN, BGP-LS ID) tuple.
9. Clarification that the Area-ID TLV is mandatory in the Node 9. Clarification that the Area-ID TLV is mandatory in the Node
Descriptor for the origination of information from OSPF except Descriptor for the origination of information from OSPF except
for when sourcing information from AS-scope LSAs where this TLV for when sourcing information from AS-scope LSAs where this TLV
is not applicable. Also clarified on the IS-IS area and area is not applicable. Also clarified on the IS-IS area and area
addresses. addresses.
10. Moved MT-ID TLV from the Node Descriptor section to under the 10. Moved MT-ID TLV from the Node Descriptor section to under the
Link Descriptor section since it is not a Node Descriptor sub- Link Descriptor section since it is not a Node Descriptor sub-
TLV. Fixed the ambiguity in the encoding of OSPF MT-ID in this TLV. Fixed the ambiguity in the encoding of OSPF MT-ID in this
 End of changes. 73 change blocks. 
242 lines changed or deleted 289 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.45. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/