<?xml version="1.0" encoding="US-ASCII"?>
<!-- This template is for creating an Internet Draft using xml2rfc,
    which is available here: http://xml.resource.org. -->
<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd">
<?xml-stylesheet type='text/xsl' href='rfc2629.xslt' ?>
<!-- used by XSLT processors -->
<!-- For a complete list and description of processing instructions (PIs),
    please see http://xml.resource.org/authoring/README.html. -->
<!-- Below are generally applicable Processing Instructions (PIs) that most I-Ds might want to use.
    (Here they are set differently than their defaults in xml2rfc v1.32) -->
<?rfc strict="yes" ?>
<!-- give errors regarding ID-nits and DTD validation -->
<!-- control the table of contents (ToC) -->
<?rfc toc="yes"?>
<!-- generate a ToC -->
<?rfc tocdepth="4"?>
<!-- the number of levels of subsections in ToC. default: 3 -->
<!-- control references -->
<?rfc symrefs="yes"?>
<!-- use symbolic references tags, i.e, [RFC2119] instead of [1] -->
<?rfc sortrefs="yes" ?>
<!-- sort the reference entries alphabetically -->
<!-- control vertical white space
    (using these PIs as follows is recommended by the RFC Editor) -->
<?rfc compact="yes" ?>
<!-- do not start each main section on a new page -->
<?rfc subcompact="no" ?>
<!-- keep one blank line between list items -->
<!-- end of list of popular I-D processing instructions -->
<rfc category="std" docName="draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd-14"
     ipr="trust200902">
  <front>
    <title abbrev="Signaling MSD using BGP-LS">Signaling MSD (Maximum SID
    Depth) using Border Gateway Protocol - Link State</title>

    <author fullname="Jeff Tantsura" initials="J.T." surname="Tantsura">
      <organization>Apstra, Inc.</organization>

      <address>
        <email>jefftant.ietf@gmail.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>

    <author fullname="Uma Chunduri" initials="U.C." surname="Chunduri">
      <organization>Futurewei Technologies</organization>

      <address>
        <email>umac.ietf@gmail.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>

    <author fullname="Ketan Talaulikar" initials="K.T." surname="Talaulikar">
      <organization>Cisco Systems</organization>

      <address>
        <email>ketant@cisco.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>

    <author fullname="Greg Mirsky" initials="G.M." surname="Mirsky">
      <organization>ZTE Corp.</organization>

      <address>
        <email>gregimirsky@gmail.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>

    <author fullname="Nikos Triantafillis" initials="N.T."
            surname="Triantafillis">
      <organization>Amazon Web Services</organization>

      <address>
        <email>nikost@amazon.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>

    <date year=""/>

    <area>Routing</area>

    <workgroup>IDR Working Group</workgroup>

    <keyword>Internet-Draft</keyword>

    <keyword>BGP-LS</keyword>

    <keyword>SID</keyword>

    <keyword>MSD</keyword>

    <keyword>SR</keyword>

    <abstract>
      <t>This document defines a way for a Border Gateway Protocol - Link State
      (BGP-LS) speaker to advertise multiple types of supported Maximum SID
      Depths (MSDs) at node and/or link granularity.</t>

      <t>Such advertisements allow entities (e.g., centralized controllers) to
      determine whether a particular Segment Identifier (SID) stack can be
      supported in a given network.</t>
    </abstract>
  </front>

  <middle>
    <section anchor="intro" title="Introduction">
      <t>When Segment Routing (SR) <xref target="RFC8402"/> paths are computed
      by a centralized controller, it is critical that the controller learn
      the Maximum SID Depth (MSD) that can be imposed at each node/link on a
      given SR path. This ensures that the Segment Identifier (SID) stack
      depth of a computed path doesn't exceed the number of SIDs the node is
      capable of imposing.</t>

      <t><xref target="RFC8664"/> defines how to signal
      MSD in the Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP). The OSPF and IS-IS
      extensions for signaling of MSD are defined in <xref target="RFC8476"/>
      and <xref target="RFC8491"/> respectively.</t>

      <t>However, if PCEP is not supported/configured on the head-end of a SR
      tunnel or a Binding-SID anchor node, and controller does not participate
      in IGP routing, it has no way of learning the MSD of nodes and links.
      BGP-LS <xref target="RFC7752"/> defines a way to expose topology and
      associated attributes and capabilities of the nodes in that topology to
      a centralized controller. </t>

      <t>This document defines extensions to BGP-LS to
      advertise one or more types of MSDs at node and/or link granularity.
      Other types of MSD are known to be useful. For example, <xref
      target="I-D.ietf-ospf-mpls-elc"/> and <xref
      target="I-D.ietf-isis-mpls-elc"/> define Readable Label Depth Capability
      (RLDC) that is used by a head-end to insert an Entropy Label (EL) at a
      depth that can be read by transit nodes.</t>

      <t>In the future, it is expected that new MSD-Types will be defined to
      signal additional capabilities, e.g., ELs, SIDs that can be imposed
      through recirculation, or SIDs associated with another data plane such
      as IPv6. MSD advertisements may be useful even if SR itself is not
      enabled. For example, in a non-SR MPLS network, MSD defines the maximum
      label depth.</t>

      <section title="Conventions used in this document">
        <section title="Terminology">

          <t>MSD: Maximum SID Depth - the number of SIDs supported by a node or a link on a node</t>

          <t>PCC: Path Computation Client</t>

          <t>PCE: Path Computation Element</t>

          <t>PCEP: Path Computation Element Protocol</t>

          <t>SID: Segment Identifier as defined in <xref target="RFC8402"/></t>

          <t>SR: Segment Routing</t>

          <t>Label Imposition: Imposition is the act of modifying and/or
          adding labels to the outgoing label stack associated with a packet.
          This includes:<list style="symbols">
              <t>replacing the label at the top of the label stack with a new
              label.</t>

              <t>pushing one or more new labels onto the label stack.</t> 
              <t>The number of labels imposed is then the sum of the number of labels
              that are replaced and the number of labels that are pushed. See
              <xref target="RFC3031"/> for further details.</t>
            </list></t>
        </section>

        <section title="Requirements Language">
          <t>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 <xref target="RFC2119"/> <xref
          target="RFC8174"/> when, and only when, they appear in all capitals,
          as shown here .</t>
        </section>
      </section>
    </section>

    <section anchor="ADVT" title="Advertisement of MSD via BGP-LS">
      <t>This document describes extensions that enable BGP-LS speakers to
      signal the MSD capabilities (<xref target="RFC8491"/> ) 
      of nodes and their links in a network to a BGP-LS consumer of network topology 
      such as a centralized controller.
      The centralized controller can leverage this information in computation
      of SR paths based on their MSD
      capabilities. When a BGP-LS speaker is originating the topology learnt
      via link-state routing protocols like OSPF or IS-IS, the MSD information
      for the nodes and their links is sourced from the underlying extensions
      as defined in <xref target="RFC8476"/> and <xref target="RFC8491"/>
      respectively. </t>
      <t>The BGP-LS speaker may also advertise the MSD information
      for the local node and its links when not running any link-state IGP
      protocol e.g. when running BGP as the only routing protocol.
      The Protocol-ID field should be set to BGP since the link and node attributes have BGP based identifiers.
      Deployment model for such case would be: a limited number (meeting resiliecy requirements) of BGP-LS speakers 
      exposing the topology to the controller, full-mesh/RouteReflectors for iBGP(Internal Border Gateway Protocol) or regular 
      eBGP(External Border Gateway Protocol) connectivity between nodes in the topology.</t>

      <t> The extensions introduced in this document allow for advertisement of
        different MSD-Types, which are defined elsewhere and were introduced in <xref target="RFC8491"/>.
        This enables sharing of MSD-Types that may be defined in the future by the IGPs in BGP-LS. </t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="NodeMSD" title="Node MSD TLV">
    <t>The Node MSD (<xref target="RFC8476"/> <xref target="RFC8491"/>) is encoded in a new Node Attribute TLV
   <xref target="RFC7752"/> to carry the provisioned SID depth of the router identified by the
   corresponding Router-ID.  Node MSD is the smallest MSD supported by the node
   on the set of interfaces configured for use.  MSD values may be learned via
   a hardware API or may be provisioned.  The following format is used:</t>

      <figure anchor="node-attribute_tlv" title="Node MSD TLV Format">
        <artwork><![CDATA[
   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            | 
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |    MSD-Type   |  MSD-Value    |  MSD-Type...  |  MSD-Value... |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	         ]]></artwork>
      </figure>

      <t>Where:<list style="symbols">
          <t>Type: 266</t>

          <t>Length: variable (multiple of 2); represents the total length of
          the value field in octets.</t>

          <t>Value : consists of one or more pairs of a 1-octet MSD-Type and
          1-octet MSD-Value.<list style="symbols">
              <t>MSD-Type : one of the values defined in the "IGP MSD-Types" registry defined in  
              <xref target="RFC8491"/>.</t>

              <t>MSD-Value : a number in the range of 0-255. For all
              MSD-Types, 0 represents the lack of ability to impose an MSD
              stack of any depth; any other value represents that of the node.
              This value MUST represent the lowest value supported by any link
              configured for use by the advertising protocol instance.</t>
            </list></t>
        </list></t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="LinkMSD" title="Link MSD TLV">
      <t>The Link MSD (<xref target="RFC8476"/> <xref target="RFC8491"/>) is defined to 
      carry the MSD of the interface associated with the link.  
      It is encoded in a new Link Attribute TLV <xref target="RFC7752"/> using the following format:</t>

      <figure anchor="link-attribute_tlv" title="Link MSD TLV Format">
        <artwork><![CDATA[
   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            | 
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |    MSD-Type   |  MSD-Value    |  MSD-Type...  |  MSD-Value... |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	         ]]></artwork>
      </figure>

      <t>Where:<list style="symbols">
          <t>Type: 267</t>

          <t>Length: variable (multiple of 2); represents the total length of
          the value field in octets.</t>

          <t>Value : consists of one or more pairs of a 1-octet MSD-Type and
          1-octet MSD-Value.<list style="symbols">
              <t>MSD-Type : MSD-Type : one of the values defined in the "IGP MSD-Types" registry defined in  
              <xref target="RFC8491"/>.</t>
              <t>MSD-Value : a number in the range of 0-255. For all
              MSD-Types, 0 represents the lack of ability to impose an MSD
              stack of any depth; any other value represents that of the link
              when used as an outgoing interface.</t>
            </list></t>
        </list></t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="Define_MSD"
      title="Procedures for Defining and Using Node and Link MSD Advertisements">
      <t>When Link MSD is present for a given MSD-type, the value of the Link
      MSD MUST take precedence over the Node MSD. When a Link MSD-type is not
      signaled but the Node MSD-type is, then the Node MSD-type value MUST be
      considered as the MSD value for that link.</t>

      <t>In order to increase flooding efficiency, it is RECOMMENDED that
      routers with homogenous link MSD values advertise just the Node MSD
      value.</t>

      <t>The meaning of the absence of both Node and Link MSD advertisements
      for a given MSD-type is specific to the MSD-type. Generally it can only
      be inferred that the advertising node does not support advertisement of
      that MSD-type. However, in some cases the lack of advertisement might
      imply that the functionality associated with the MSD-type is not
      supported. The correct interpretation MUST be specified when an MSD-type is
      defined in <xref target="RFC8491"/>.</t>

      <!---->
    </section>

    <section anchor="iana-consider" title="IANA Considerations">
      <t>This document requests assigning code-points from the registry
      "BGP-LS Node Descriptor, Link Descriptor, Prefix Descriptor, and
      Attribute TLVs" based on table below. Early allocation for these
      code-points have been done by IANA.</t>

      <figure>
        <artwork align="center"><![CDATA[
+------------+-----------------+---------------------------+-------------------+
| Code Point |   Description   |     IS-IS TLV/Sub-TLV     |   Reference       |
+------------+-----------------+---------------------------+-------------------+
|    266     | Node MSD        | 242/23                    |   This document   |
|    267     | Link MSD        | (22,23,25,141,222,223)/15 |   This document   |
+------------+-----------------+---------------------------+-------------------+

]]></artwork>
      </figure>
    </section>

    <section anchor="Manageability" title="Manageability Considerations">
      <t>The new protocol extensions introduced in this document augment the
      existing IGP topology information that is distributed via <xref
      target="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 <xref
      target="RFC7752"/>. Specifically, the malformed attribute tests for
      syntactic checks in the Fault Management section of <xref
      target="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.</t>

      <t>A consumer of the BGP-LS information retrieves this information over
      a BGP-LS session (refer Section 1 and 2 of <xref target="RFC7752"/>).</t>

      <t>This document only introduces new Attribute TLVs and any syntactic
      error in them would result in the BGP-LS Attribute being discarded <xref target="RFC7752"/>. 
      The MSD information introduced in BGP-LS by this
      specification, may be used by BGP-LS consumer applications like a SR
      path computation engine (PCE) to learn the SR SID stack handling
      capabilities of the nodes in the topology. This can enable the SR PCE to
      perform path computations taking into consideration the size of SID
      stack that the specific head-end node may be able to impose. Errors in
      the encoding or decoding of the MSD 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 head-end
      node not being able to instantiate the desired SR path in its forwarding
      and provide the SR based optimization functionality. The handling of
      such errors by applications like SR PCE may be implementation specific
      and out of scope of this document.</t>

      <t>
      The extensions specified in this document, do not specify
      any new configuration or monitoring aspects in BGP or BGP-LS.
      The specification of BGP models is an
      ongoing work based on the <xref target="I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-model"/>.</t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="security" title="Security Considerations">
      <t>The advertisement of an incorrect MSD value may have negative
      consequences. If the value is smaller than supported, path computation
      may fail to compute a viable path. If the value is larger than
      supported, an attempt to instantiate a path that can't be supported by
      the head-end (the node performing the SID imposition) may occur. The
      presence of this information may also inform an attacker of how to
      induce any of the aforementioned conditions.</t>

      
      <t>The procedures and protocol extensions defined in this document do not
      affect the BGP security model.  See the "Security Considerations" section of
      <xref target="RFC4271"/> for a discussion of BGP security.  
      Also, refer to <xref target="RFC4272"/> and <xref target="RFC6952"/> for analyses of security issues for BGP. 
      Security considerations for acquiring and distributing BGP-LS information are discussed in <xref target="RFC7752"/>.

      The TLVs introduced in this document are used to propagate the MSD IGP
      extensions defined in <xref target="RFC8476"/> <xref target="RFC8491"/>.  
      It is assumed that the IGP
      instances originating these TLVs will support all the required security (as
      described in <xref target="RFC8476"/> <xref target="RFC8491"/>) in order to prevent any security
      issues when propagating the TLVs into BGP-LS.

      The advertisement of the node and link attribute information defined in this
      document presents no additional risk beyond that associated with the
      existing node and link attribute information already supported in <xref target="RFC7752"/>.
     </t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="Contributors" title="Contributors">
      <figure>
        <artwork><![CDATA[Siva Sivabalan
Cisco Systems Inc.
Canada

Email: msiva@cisco.com]]></artwork>
      </figure>
    </section>

    <section title="Acknowledgements">
      <t>We like to thank Acee Lindem, Stephane Litkowski, Bruno Decraene and Alvaro Retana
      for their reviews and valuable comments.</t>
    </section>
  </middle>

  <back>
    <references title="Normative References">
      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.2119"?>

      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.7752"?>

      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.8174"?>

      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.8476"?>

      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.8491"?>
    </references>

    <references title="Informative References">
      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.3031"?>

      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.8402"?>

      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.8664"?>

      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.4271"?>

      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.4272"?>

      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.6952"?>

      <?rfc include='reference.I-D.ietf-idr-rfc7752bis'?>

       <?rfc include='reference.I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-model'?>

      <?rfc include="reference.I-D.ietf-ospf-mpls-elc"?>

      <?rfc include="reference.I-D.ietf-isis-mpls-elc"?>


    </references>
  </back>
</rfc>
