| RFC 9085 | BGP-LS Extensions for Segment Routing | August 2021 |
| Previdi, et al. | Standards Track | [Page] |
Segment Routing (SR) allows for a flexible definition of end-to-end paths by encoding paths as sequences of topological subpaths, called "segments". These segments are advertised by routing protocols, e.g., by the link-state routing protocols (IS-IS, OSPFv2, and OSPFv3) within IGP topologies.¶
This document defines extensions to the Border Gateway Protocol - Link State (BGP-LS) address family in order to carry SR information via BGP.¶
This is an Internet Standards Track document.¶
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has received public review and has been approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.¶
Information about the current status of this document, any errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained athttps://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9085.¶
Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.¶
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.¶
Segment Routing (SR) allows for a flexible definition of end-to-end paths by combining subpaths called "segments". A segment can represent any instruction: topological or service based. A segment can have a local semantic to an SR node or global semantic within a domain. Within IGP topologies, an SR path is encoded as a sequence of topological subpaths, called "IGP segments". These segments are advertised by the link-state routing protocols (IS-IS, OSPFv2, and OSPFv3).¶
[RFC8402] defines the link-state IGP segments -- prefix, node, anycast, and adjacency segments. Prefix segments, by default, represent an ECMP-aware shortest-path to a prefix, as per the state of the IGP topology. Adjacency segments represent a hop over a specific adjacency between two nodes in the IGP. A prefix segment is typically a multi-hop path while an adjacency segment, in most of the cases, is a one-hop path. Node and anycast segments are variations of the prefix segment with their specific characteristics.¶
When SR is enabled in an IGP domain, segments are advertised in the form of Segment Identifiers (SIDs). The IGP link-state routing protocols have been extended to advertise SIDs and other SR-related information. IGP extensions are described for:IS-IS [RFC8667],OSPFv2 [RFC8665], andOSPFv3 [RFC8666]. Using these extensions, SR can be enabled within an IGP domain.¶
SR allows advertisement of single or multi-hop paths. The flooding scope for the IGP extensions for SR is IGP area-wide. Consequently, the contents of a Link-State Database (LSDB) or a Traffic Engineering Database (TED) has the scope of an IGP area; therefore, by using the IGP alone, it is not enough to construct segments across multiple IGP area or Autonomous System (AS) boundaries.¶
In order to address the need for applications that require topological visibility across IGP areas, or even across ASes, the BGP-LS address family / subaddress family have been defined to allow BGP to carry link-state information. The BGP Network Layer Reachability Information (NLRI) encoding format for BGP-LS and a new BGP Path Attribute called the "BGP-LS Attribute" are defined in[RFC7752]. The identifying key of each link-state object, namely a node, link, or prefix, is encoded in the NLRI, and the properties of the object are encoded in the BGP-LS Attribute.¶
+------------+ | Consumer | +------------+ ^ | v +-------------------+ | BGP Speaker | +-----------+ | (Route Reflector) | | Consumer | +-------------------+ +-----------+ ^ ^ ^ ^ | | | | +---------------+ | +-------------------+ | | | | | v v v v +-----------+ +-----------+ +-----------+ | BGP | | BGP | | BGP | | Speaker | | Speaker | . . . | Speaker | +-----------+ +-----------+ +-----------+ ^ ^ ^ | | | IGP IGP IGP
Figure 1 denotes a typical deployment scenario. In each IGP area, one or more nodes are configured with BGP-LS. These BGP speakers form an Internal BGP (IBGP) mesh by connecting to one or more route reflectors. This way, all BGP speakers (specifically the route reflectors) obtain link-state information from all IGP areas (and from other ASes from External BGP (EBGP) peers). An external component connects to the route reflector to obtain this information (perhaps moderated by a policy regarding what information is or isn't advertised to the external component) as described in[RFC7752].¶
This document describes extensions to BGP-LS to advertise the SR information. An external component (e.g., a controller) can collect SR information from across an SR domain (as described in[RFC8402]) and construct the end-to-end path (with its associated SIDs) that needs to be applied to an incoming packet to achieve the desired end-to-end forwarding. SR operates within a trusted domain consisting of a single AS or multiple ASes managed by the same administrative entity, e.g., within a single provider network.¶
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14[RFC2119][RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.¶
This document defines SR extensions to BGP-LS and specifies the TLVs and sub-TLVs for advertising SR information within the BGP-LS Attribute. Sections2.4 and2.5 list the equivalent TLVs and sub-TLVs in the IS-IS, OSPFv2, and OSPFv3 protocols.¶
BGP-LS [RFC7752] defines the BGP-LS NLRI that can be a Node NLRI, a Link NLRI, or a Prefix NLRI, and it defines the TLVs that map link-state information to BGP-LS NLRI within the BGP-LS Attribute. This document adds additional BGP-LS Attribute TLVs in order to encode SR information. It does not introduce any changes to the encoding of the BGP-LS NLRIs.¶
The following Node Attribute TLVs are defined:¶
| Type | Description | Section |
|---|---|---|
| 1161 | SID/Label | Section 2.1.1 |
| 1034 | SR Capabilities | Section 2.1.2 |
| 1035 | SR Algorithm | Section 2.1.3 |
| 1036 | SR Local Block | Section 2.1.4 |
| 1037 | SRMS Preference | Section 2.1.5 |
These TLVs should only be added to the BGP-LS Attribute associated with the Node NLRI that describes the IGP node that is originating the corresponding IGP TLV/sub-TLV described below.¶
The SID/Label TLV is used as a sub-TLV by the SR Capabilities (Section 2.1.2) and Segment Routing Local Block (SRLB) (Section 2.1.4) TLVs. This information is derived from the protocol-specific advertisements.¶
The TLV has the following format:¶
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+| Type | Length |+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+| SID/Label (variable) //+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Where:¶
The SR Capabilities TLV is used in order to advertise the node's SR capabilities including its Segment Routing Global Base (SRGB) range(s). In the case of IS-IS, the capabilities also include the IPv4 and IPv6 support for the SR-MPLS forwarding plane. This information is derived from the protocol-specific advertisements.¶
The SR Capabilities TLV has the following format:¶
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+| Type | Length |+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+| Flags | Reserved |+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-++-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+| Range Size 1 |+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+| SID/Label Sub-TLV 1 //+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+...+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+| Range Size N |+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+| SID/Label Sub-TLV N //+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Where:¶
The SR-Algorithm TLV is used in order to advertise the SR algorithms supported by the node. This information is derived from the protocol-specific advertisements.¶
The SR-Algorithm TLV has the following format:¶
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+| Type | Length |+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+| Algorithm 1 | Algorithm... | Algorithm N |+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Where:¶
The SRLB TLV contains the range(s) of labels the node has reserved for local SIDs. Local SIDs are used, e.g., in IGP (IS-IS, OSPF) for Adjacency SIDs and may also be allocated by components other than IGP protocols. As an example, an application or a controller may instruct a node to allocate a specific local SID. Therefore, in order for such applications or controllers to know the range of local SIDs available, the node is required to advertise its SRLB.¶
This information is derived from the protocol-specific advertisements.¶
The SRLB TLV has the following format:¶
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+| Type | Length |+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+| Flags | Reserved |+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-++-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+| Sub-Range Size 1 |+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+| SID/Label Sub-TLV 1 //+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+...+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+| Sub-Range Size N |+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+| SID/Label Sub-TLV N //+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Where:¶
The Segment Routing Mapping Server (SRMS) Preference TLV is used in order to associate a preference with SRMS advertisements from a particular source.[RFC8661] specifies the SRMS functionality along with the SRMS preference of the node advertising the SRMS Prefix-to-SID mapping ranges.¶
This information is derived from the protocol-specific advertisements.¶
The SRMS Preference TLV has the following format:¶
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+| Type | Length |+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+| Preference |+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Where:¶
The following Link Attribute TLVs are defined:¶
| Type | Description | Section |
|---|---|---|
| 1099 | Adjacency SID TLV | Section 2.2.1 |
| 1100 | LAN Adjacency SID TLV | Section 2.2.2 |
| 1172 | L2 Bundle Member Attributes TLV | Section 2.2.3 |
These TLVs should only be added to the BGP-LS Attribute associated with the Link NLRI that describes the link of the IGP node that is originating the corresponding IGP TLV/sub-TLV described below.¶
The Adjacency SID TLV is used in order to advertise information related to an Adjacency SID. This information is derived from the Adj-SID Sub-TLV of IS-IS (Section 2.2.1 of [RFC8667]), OSPFv2 (Section 6.1 of [RFC8665]), and OSPFv3 (Section 7.1 of [RFC8666]).¶
The Adjacency SID TLV has the following format:¶
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+| Type | Length |+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+| Flags | Weight | Reserved |+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+| SID/Label/Index (variable) //+---------------------------------------------------------------+
Where:¶
1-octet value that should be set as:¶
The Flags and, as an extension, the SID/Index/Label fields of this TLV are interpreted according to the respective underlying IS-IS, OSPFv2, or OSPFv3 protocol. The Protocol-ID of the BGP-LS Link NLRI is used to determine the underlying protocol specification for parsing these fields.¶
For a LAN, normally a node only announces its adjacency to the IS-IS pseudonode (or the equivalent OSPF Designated and Backup Designated Routers). The LAN Adjacency SID TLV allows a node to announce adjacencies to all other nodes attached to the LAN in a single instance of the BGP-LS Link NLRI. Without this TLV, the corresponding BGP-LS Link NLRI would need to be originated for each additional adjacency in order to advertise the SR TLVs for these neighbor adjacencies.¶
This information is derived from the LAN-Adj-SID Sub-TLV of IS-IS (Section 2.2.2 of [RFC8667]), the LAN Adj-SID Sub-TLV of OSPFv2 (Section 6.2 of [RFC8665]), and the LAN Adj-SID Sub-TLV of OSPFv3 (Section 7.2 of [RFC8666]).¶
The LAN Adjacency SID TLV has the following format:¶
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+| Type | Length |+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+| Flags | Weight | Reserved |+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-++-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+| OSPF Neighbor ID / IS-IS System ID |+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+| |+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-++-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+| SID/Label/Index (variable) //+---------------------------------------------------------------+
Where:¶
1-octet value that should be set as:¶
The Neighbor ID, Flags, and, as an extension, the SID/Index/Label fields of this TLV are interpreted according to the respective underlying IS-IS, OSPFv2, or OSPFv3 protocol. The Protocol-ID of the BGP-LS Link NLRI is used to determine the underlying protocol specification for parsing these fields.¶
The L2 Bundle Member Attributes TLV identifies an L2 Bundle Member link, which in turn is associated with a parent L3 link. The L3 link is described by the Link NLRI defined in[RFC7752], and the L2 Bundle Member Attributes TLV is associated with the Link NLRI. The TLVMAY include sub-TLVs that describe attributes associated with the bundle member. The identified bundle member represents a unidirectional path from the originating router to the neighbor specified in the parent L3 link. Multiple L2 Bundle Member Attributes TLVsMAY be associated with a Link NLRI.¶
This information is derived from L2 Bundle Member Attributes TLV of IS-IS (Section 2 of [RFC8668]). The equivalent functionality has not been specified as yet for OSPF.¶
The L2 Bundle Member Attributes TLV has the following format:¶
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+| Type | Length |+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+| L2 Bundle Member Descriptor |+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+| Link Attribute Sub-TLVs(variable) //+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Where:¶
Link attributes for L2 Bundle Member links are advertised as sub-TLVs of the L2 Bundle Member Attributes TLV. The sub-TLVs are identical to existing BGP-LS TLVs as identified in the table below.¶
| TLV Code Point | Description | Reference Document |
|---|---|---|
| 1088 | Administrative group (color) | [RFC7752] |
| 1089 | Maximum link bandwidth | [RFC7752] |
| 1090 | Max. reservable link bandwidth | [RFC7752] |
| 1091 | Unreserved bandwidth | [RFC7752] |
| 1092 | TE default metric | [RFC7752] |
| 1093 | Link protection type | [RFC7752] |
| 1099 | Adjacency Segment Identifier (Adj-SID) TLV | Section 2.2.1 |
| 1100 | LAN Adjacency Segment Identifier (Adj-SID) TLV | Section 2.2.2 |
| 1114 | Unidirectional link delay | [RFC8571] |
| 1115 | Min/Max Unidirectional link delay | [RFC8571] |
| 1116 | Unidirectional Delay Variation | [RFC8571] |
| 1117 | Unidirectional Link Loss | [RFC8571] |
| 1118 | Unidirectional residual bandwidth | [RFC8571] |
| 1119 | Unidirectional available bandwidth | [RFC8571] |
| 1120 | Unidirectional Utilized Bandwidth | [RFC8571] |
The following Prefix Attribute TLVs are defined:¶
| Type | Description | Section |
|---|---|---|
| 1158 | Prefix-SID | Section 2.3.1 |
| 1159 | Range | Section 2.3.5 |
| 1170 | Prefix Attribute Flags | Section 2.3.2 |
| 1171 | Source Router Identifier | Section 2.3.3 |
| 1174 | Source OSPF Router-ID | Section 2.3.4 |
These TLVs should only be added to the BGP-LS Attribute associated with the Prefix NLRI that describes the prefix of the IGP node that is originating the corresponding IGP TLV/sub-TLV described below.¶
The Prefix-SID TLV is used in order to advertise information related to a Prefix-SID. This information is derived from the Prefix-SID Sub-TLV of IS-IS (Section 2.1 of [RFC8667]), the Prefix-SID Sub-TLV of OSPFv2 (Section 5 of [RFC8665]), and the Prefix-SID Sub-TLV of OSPFv3 (Section 6 of [RFC8666]).¶
The Prefix-SID TLV has the following format:¶
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+| Type | Length |+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+| Flags | Algorithm | Reserved |+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+| SID/Index/Label (variable) //+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Where:¶
1-octet value that should be set as:¶
The Flags and, as an extension, the SID/Index/Label fields of this TLV are interpreted according to the respective underlying IS-IS, OSPFv2, or OSPFv3 protocol. The Protocol-ID of the BGP-LS Prefix NLRI is used to determine the underlying protocol specification for parsing these fields.¶
The Prefix Attribute Flags TLV carries IPv4/IPv6 prefix attribute flags information. These flags are defined for OSPFv2 inSection 2.1 of [RFC7684], OSPFv3 inAppendix A.4.1.1 of [RFC5340], and IS-IS inSection 2.1 of [RFC7794].¶
The Prefix Attribute Flags TLV has the following format:¶
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+| Type | Length |+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+| Flags (variable) //+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Where:¶
a variable-length Flag field (according to the Length field). Flags are routing protocol specific and are to be set as below:¶
The Flags field of this TLV is interpreted according to the respective underlying IS-IS, OSPFv2, or OSPFv3 protocol. The Protocol-ID of the BGP-LS Prefix NLRI is used to determine the underlying protocol specification for parsing this field.¶
The Source Router Identifier TLV contains the IPv4 or IPv6 Router Identifier of the originator of the prefix. For the IS-IS protocol, this is derived from the IPv4/IPv6 Source Router ID Sub-TLV as defined inSection 2.2 of [RFC7794]. For the OSPF protocol, this is derived from the Prefix Source Router Address Sub-TLV as defined inSection 2.2 of [RFC9084].¶
The Source Router Identifier TLV has the following format:¶
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+| Type | Length |+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+| 4- or 16-octet Router Identifier //+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Where:¶
The Source OSPF Router-ID TLV is applicable only for the OSPF protocol and contains the OSPF Router-ID of the originator of the prefix. It is derived from the Prefix Source OSPF Router-ID Sub-TLV as defined inSection 2.1 of [RFC9084].¶
The Source OSPF Router-ID TLV has the following format:¶
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+| Type | Length |+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+| 4-octet OSPF Router-ID //+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Where:¶
The Range TLV is used in order to advertise a range of prefix-to-SID mappings as part of the SRMS functionality[RFC8661], as defined in the respective underlying IGP SR extensions:Section 4 of [RFC8665],Section 5 of [RFC8666], andSection 2.4 of [RFC8667]. The information advertised in the Range TLV is derived from the SID/Label Binding TLV in the case of IS-IS and the OSPFv2/OSPFv3 Extended Prefix Range TLV in the case of OSPFv2/OSPFv3.¶
A Prefix NLRI, that has been advertised with a Range TLV, is considered a normal routing prefix (i.e., prefix reachability) only when there is also an IGP metric TLV (TLV 1095) associated it. Otherwise, it is considered only as the first prefix in the range for prefix-to-SID mapping advertisement.¶
The format of the Range TLV is as follows:¶
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+| Type | Length |+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+| Flags | Reserved | Range Size |+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+| sub-TLVs //+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Where:¶
1-octet value that should be set as:¶
The Flags field of this TLV is interpreted according to the respective underlying IS-IS, OSPFv2, or OSPFv3 protocol. The Protocol-ID of the BGP-LS Prefix NLRI is used to determine the underlying protocol specification for parsing this field.¶
The prefix-to-SID mappings are advertised using sub-TLVs as below:¶
The prefix-to-SID mapping information for the BGP-LS Prefix-SID TLV (used as a sub-TLV in this context) is encoded as described inSection 2.3.1.¶
This section illustrates the IS-IS Segment Routing Extensions TLVs and sub-TLVs mapped to the ones defined in this document.¶
For each BGP-LS TLV, the following table illustrates its equivalence in IS-IS.¶
| Description | IS-IS TLV/sub-TLV | Reference |
|---|---|---|
| SR Capabilities | SR-Capabilities Sub-TLV (2) | [RFC8667] |
| SR Algorithm | SR-Algorithm Sub-TLV (19) | [RFC8667] |
| SR Local Block | SR Local Block Sub-TLV (22) | [RFC8667] |
| SRMS Preference | SRMS Preference Sub-TLV (19) | [RFC8667] |
| Adjacency SID | Adj-SID Sub-TLV (31) | [RFC8667] |
| LAN Adjacency SID | LAN-Adj-SID Sub-TLV (32) | [RFC8667] |
| Prefix-SID | Prefix-SID Sub-TLV (3) | [RFC8667] |
| Range | SID/Label Binding TLV (149) | [RFC8667] |
| SID/Label | SID/Label Sub-TLV (1) | [RFC8667] |
| Prefix Attribute Flags | Prefix Attribute Flags Sub-TLV (4) | [RFC7794] |
| Source Router Identifier | IPv4/IPv6 Source Router ID Sub-TLV (11/12) | [RFC7794] |
| L2 Bundle Member Attributes | L2 Bundle Member Attributes TLV (25) | [RFC8668] |
This section illustrates the OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 Segment Routing Extensions TLVs and sub-TLVs mapped to the ones defined in this document.¶
For each BGP-LS TLV, the following tables illustrate its equivalence in OSPFv2 and OSPFv3.¶
| Description | OSPFv2 TLV/sub-TLV | Reference |
|---|---|---|
| SR Capabilities | SID/Label Range TLV (9) | [RFC8665] |
| SR Algorithm | SR-Algorithm TLV (8) | [RFC8665] |
| SR Local Block | SR Local Block TLV (14) | [RFC8665] |
| SRMS Preference | SRMS Preference TLV (15) | [RFC8665] |
| Adjacency SID | Adj-SID Sub-TLV (2) | [RFC8665] |
| LAN Adjacency SID | LAN Adj-SID Sub-TLV (3) | [RFC8665] |
| Prefix-SID | Prefix-SID Sub-TLV (2) | [RFC8665] |
| Range | OSPF Extended Prefix Range TLV (2) | [RFC8665] |
| SID/Label | SID/Label Sub-TLV (1) | [RFC8665] |
| Prefix Attribute Flags | Flags of OSPFv2 Extended Prefix TLV (1) | [RFC7684] |
| Source Router Identifier | Prefix Source Router Address Sub-TLV (5) | [RFC9084] |
| Source OSPF Router-ID | Prefix Source OSPF Router-ID Sub-TLV (4) | [RFC9084] |
| Description | OSPFv3 TLV/sub-TLV | Reference |
|---|---|---|
| SR Capabilities | SID/Label Range TLV (9) | [RFC8665] |
| SR Algorithm | SR-Algorithm TLV (8) | [RFC8665] |
| SR Local Block | SR Local Block TLV (14) | [RFC8665] |
| SRMS Preference | SRMS Preference TLV (15) | [RFC8665] |
| Adjacency SID | Adj-SID Sub-TLV (5) | [RFC8666] |
| LAN Adjacency SID | LAN Adj-SID Sub-TLV (6) | [RFC8666] |
| Prefix-SID | Prefix-SID Sub-TLV (4) | [RFC8666] |
| Range | OSPFv3 Extended Prefix Range TLV (9) | [RFC8666] |
| SID/Label | SID/Label Sub-TLV (7) | [RFC8666] |
| Prefix Attribute Flags | Prefix Option Fields of Prefix TLV types 3,5,6 | [RFC8362] |
| Source OSPF Router Identifier | Prefix Source Router Address Sub-TLV (28) | [RFC9084] |
| Source OSPF Router-ID | Prefix Source OSPF Router-ID Sub-TLV (27) | [RFC9084] |
IANA has registered the following code points in the "BGP-LS Node Descriptor, Link Descriptor, Prefix Descriptor, and Attribute TLVs" registry under the "Border Gateway Protocol - Link State (BGP-LS) Parameter" registry based onTable 8. The column "IS-IS TLV/Sub-TLV" defined in the registry does not require any value and should be left empty.¶
This section contains the global table of all TLVs/sub-TLVs defined in this document.¶
| TLV Code Point | Description | Reference |
|---|---|---|
| 1034 | SR Capabilities | Section 2.1.2 |
| 1035 | SR Algorithm | Section 2.1.3 |
| 1036 | SR Local Block | Section 2.1.4 |
| 1037 | SRMS Preference | Section 2.1.5 |
| 1099 | Adjacency SID | Section 2.2.1 |
| 1100 | LAN Adjacency SID | Section 2.2.2 |
| 1158 | Prefix-SID | Section 2.3.1 |
| 1159 | Range | Section 2.3.5 |
| 1161 | SID/Label | Section 2.1.1 |
| 1170 | Prefix Attribute Flags | Section 2.3.2 |
| 1171 | Source Router Identifier | Section 2.3.3 |
| 1172 | L2 Bundle Member Attributes | Section 2.2.3 |
| 1174 | Source OSPF Router-ID | Section 2.3.4 |
This section is structured as recommended in[RFC5706].¶
The new protocol extensions introduced in this document augment the existing IGP topology information that is distributed via[RFC7752]. Procedures and protocol extensions defined in this document do not affect the BGP protocol operations and management other than as discussed in the Manageability Considerations section of[RFC7752]. Specifically, the malformed attribute tests for syntactic checks in the Fault Management section of[RFC7752] now encompass the new BGP-LS Attribute TLVs defined in this document. The semantic or content checking for the TLVs specified in this document and their association with the BGP-LS NLRI types or their BGP-LS Attribute is left to the consumer of the BGP-LS information (e.g., an application or a controller) and not the BGP protocol.¶
A consumer of the BGP-LS information retrieves this information over a BGP-LS session (refer to Sections1 and2 of[RFC7752]). The handling of semantic or content errors by the consumer would be dictated by the nature of its application usage and hence is beyond the scope of this document.¶
This document only introduces new Attribute TLVs, and any syntactic error in them would result in the BGP-LS Attribute being discarded with an error log. The SR information introduced in BGP-LS by this specification may be used by BGP-LS consumer applications like an SR Path Computation Engine (PCE) to learn the SR capabilities of the nodes in the topology and the mapping of SR segments to those nodes. This can enable the SR PCE to perform path computations based on SR for traffic engineering use cases and to steer traffic on paths different from the underlying IGP-based distributed best-path computation. Errors in the encoding or decoding of the SR information may result in the unavailability of such information to the SR PCE or incorrect information being made available to it. This may result in the SR PCE not being able to perform the desired SR-based optimization functionality or to perform it in an unexpected or inconsistent manner. The handling of such errors by applications like SR PCE may be implementation specific and out of scope of this document.¶
The extensions, specified in this document, do not introduce any new configuration or monitoring aspects in BGP or BGP-LS other than as discussed in[RFC7752]. The manageability aspects of the underlying SR features are covered by[RFC9020],[ISIS-SR-YANG], and[OSPF-SR-YANG].¶
The new protocol extensions introduced in this document augment the existing IGP topology information that is distributed via[RFC7752]. The advertisement of the SR link attribute information defined in this document presents similar risk as associated with the existing set of link attribute information as described in[RFC7752]. The Security Considerations section of[RFC7752] also applies to these extensions. The procedures and new TLVs defined in this document, by themselves, do not affect the BGP-LS security model discussed in[RFC7752].¶
The TLVs introduced in this document are used to propagate IGP-defined information (see[RFC8665],[RFC8666], and[RFC8667]). These TLVs represent the SR information associated with the IGP node, link, and prefix. The IGP instances originating these TLVs are assumed to support all the required security and authentication mechanisms (as described in[RFC8665],[RFC8666], and[RFC8667]) in order to prevent any security issue when propagating the TLVs into BGP-LS.¶
BGP-LS SR extensions enable traffic engineering use cases within the SR domain. SR operates within a trusted domain[RFC8402], and its security considerations also apply to BGP-LS sessions when carrying SR information. The SR traffic engineering policies using the SIDs advertised via BGP-LS are expected to be used entirely within this trusted SR domain (e.g., between multiple ASes/domains within a single provider network). Therefore, precaution is necessary to ensure that the link-state information (including SR information) advertised via BGP-LS sessions is limited to consumers in a secure manner within this trusted SR domain. BGP peering sessions for address families other than link state may be set up to routers outside the SR domain. The isolation of BGP-LS peering sessions is recommended to ensure that BGP-LS topology information (including the newly added SR information) is not advertised to an external BGP peering session outside the SR domain.¶
The authors would like to thankJeffrey Haas,Aijun Wang,Robert Raszuk, andSusan Hares for their review of this document and their comments. The authors would also like to thankAlvaro Retana for his extensive review and comments, which helped correct issues and improve the document.¶
The following people have substantially contributed to the editing of this document:¶