Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) L. Ginsberg, Ed.
Request for Comments: 8571 Cisco Systems, Inc.
Category: Standards Track S. Previdi
ISSN: 2070-1721 Q. Wu
Huawei
J. Tantsura
Apstra, Inc.
C. Filsfils
Cisco Systems, Inc.
March 2019
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) L. Ginsberg, Ed.
Request for Comments: 8571 Cisco Systems, Inc.
Category: Standards Track S. Previdi
ISSN: 2070-1721 Q. Wu
Huawei
J. Tantsura
Apstra, Inc.
C. Filsfils
Cisco Systems, Inc.
March 2019
BGP - Link State (BGP-LS) Advertisement of IGP Traffic Engineering Performance Metric Extensions
BGP-IGP流量工程性能度量扩展的链路状态（BGP-LS）广告
Abstract
摘要
This document defines new BGP - Link State (BGP-LS) TLVs in order to carry the IGP Traffic Engineering Metric Extensions defined in the IS-IS and OSPF protocols.
本文件定义了新的BGP链路状态（BGP-LS）TLV，以承载IS-IS和OSPF协议中定义的IGP流量工程度量扩展。
Status of This Memo
关于下段备忘
This is an Internet Standards Track document.
这是一份互联网标准跟踪文件。
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.
本文件是互联网工程任务组（IETF）的产品。它代表了IETF社区的共识。它已经接受了公众审查，并已被互联网工程指导小组（IESG）批准出版。有关互联网标准的更多信息，请参见RFC 7841第2节。
Information about the current status of this document, any errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8571.
有关本文件当前状态、任何勘误表以及如何提供反馈的信息，请访问https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8571.
Copyright Notice
版权公告
Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.
版权（c）2019 IETF信托基金和被确定为文件作者的人员。版权所有。
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.
本文件受BCP 78和IETF信托有关IETF文件的法律规定的约束(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info)自本文件出版之日起生效。请仔细阅读这些文件，因为它们描述了您对本文件的权利和限制。从本文件中提取的代码组件必须包括信托法律条款第4.e节中所述的简化BSD许可证文本，并提供简化BSD许可证中所述的无担保。
Table of Contents
目录
1. Introduction ....................................................2
2. Link Attribute TLVs for TE Metric Extensions ....................3
2.1. Unidirectional Link Delay TLV ..............................3
2.2. Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay TLV ......................4
2.3. Unidirectional Delay Variation TLV .........................4
2.4. Unidirectional Link Loss TLV ...............................5
2.5. Unidirectional Residual Bandwidth TLV ......................5
2.6. Unidirectional Available Bandwidth TLV .....................6
2.7. Unidirectional Utilized Bandwidth TLV ......................6
2.8. Mappings to IGP Source Sub-TLVs ............................7
3. Security Considerations .........................................7
4. IANA Considerations .............................................8
5. References ......................................................8
5.1. Normative References .......................................8
5.2. Informative References .....................................9
Acknowledgements ...................................................9
Contributors .......................................................9
Authors' Addresses ................................................10
1. Introduction ....................................................2
2. Link Attribute TLVs for TE Metric Extensions ....................3
2.1. Unidirectional Link Delay TLV ..............................3
2.2. Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay TLV ......................4
2.3. Unidirectional Delay Variation TLV .........................4
2.4. Unidirectional Link Loss TLV ...............................5
2.5. Unidirectional Residual Bandwidth TLV ......................5
2.6. Unidirectional Available Bandwidth TLV .....................6
2.7. Unidirectional Utilized Bandwidth TLV ......................6
2.8. Mappings to IGP Source Sub-TLVs ............................7
3. Security Considerations .........................................7
4. IANA Considerations .............................................8
5. References ......................................................8
5.1. Normative References .......................................8
5.2. Informative References .....................................9
Acknowledgements ...................................................9
Contributors .......................................................9
Authors' Addresses ................................................10
BGP - Link State (BGP-LS) [RFC7752] defines Network Layer Reachability Information (NLRI) and attributes in order to carry link-state information. New BGP-LS Link Attribute TLVs are required in order to carry the Traffic Engineering Metric Extensions defined in [RFC8570] and [RFC7471].
BGP-链路状态（BGP-LS）[RFC7752]定义网络层可达性信息（NLRI）和属性，以便携带链路状态信息。为了承载[RFC8570]和[RFC7471]中定义的流量工程度量扩展，需要新的BGP-LS链路属性TLV。
The following new Link Attribute TLVs are defined:
定义了以下新链接属性TLV：
TLV Code Point Value
--------------------------------------------------------
1114 Unidirectional Link Delay
TLV Code Point Value
--------------------------------------------------------
1114 Unidirectional Link Delay
1115 Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay
1115最小/最大单向链路延迟
1116 Unidirectional Delay Variation
1116单向延迟变化
1117 Unidirectional Link Loss
1117单向链路损耗
1118 Unidirectional Residual Bandwidth
1118单向剩余带宽
1119 Unidirectional Available Bandwidth
1119单向可用带宽
1120 Unidirectional Utilized Bandwidth
1120单向利用带宽
TLV formats are described in detail in the following subsections. TLV formats follow the rules defined in [RFC7752].
TLV格式在以下小节中详细描述。TLV格式遵循[RFC7752]中定义的规则。
This TLV advertises the average link delay between two directly connected IGP link-state neighbors. The semantics and values of the fields in the TLV are described in [RFC8570] and [RFC7471].
该TLV公布两个直接连接的IGP链路状态邻居之间的平均链路延迟。TLV中字段的语义和值如[RFC8570]和[RFC7471]所述。
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|A| RESERVED | Delay |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|A| RESERVED | Delay |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1
图1
where:
哪里：
Type: 1114
类型：1114
Length: 4
长度：4
This TLV advertises the minimum and maximum delay values between two directly connected IGP link-state neighbors. The semantics and values of the fields in the TLV are described in [RFC8570] and [RFC7471].
该TLV播发两个直接连接的IGP链路状态邻居之间的最小和最大延迟值。TLV中字段的语义和值如[RFC8570]和[RFC7471]所述。
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|A| RESERVED | Min Delay |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| RESERVED | Max Delay |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|A| RESERVED | Min Delay |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| RESERVED | Max Delay |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2
图2
where:
哪里：
Type: 1115
类型：1115
Length: 8
长度：8
This TLV advertises the average link delay variation between two directly connected IGP link-state neighbors. The semantics and values of the fields in the TLV are described in [RFC8570] and [RFC7471].
该TLV公布两个直接连接的IGP链路状态邻居之间的平均链路延迟变化。TLV中字段的语义和值如[RFC8570]和[RFC7471]所述。
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| RESERVED | Delay Variation |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| RESERVED | Delay Variation |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3
图3
where:
哪里：
Type: 1116
类型：1116
Length: 4
长度：4
This TLV advertises the loss (as a packet percentage) between two directly connected IGP link-state neighbors. The semantics and values of the fields in the TLV are described in [RFC8570] and [RFC7471].
该TLV在两个直接连接的IGP链路状态邻居之间播发丢失（以数据包百分比表示）。TLV中字段的语义和值如[RFC8570]和[RFC7471]所述。
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|A| RESERVED | Link Loss |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|A| RESERVED | Link Loss |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 4
图4
where:
哪里：
Type: 1117
类型：1117
Length: 4
长度：4
This TLV advertises the residual bandwidth between two directly connected IGP link-state neighbors. The semantics and values of the fields in the TLV are described in [RFC8570] and [RFC7471].
该TLV播发两个直接连接的IGP链路状态邻居之间的剩余带宽。TLV中字段的语义和值如[RFC8570]和[RFC7471]所述。
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Residual Bandwidth |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Residual Bandwidth |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 5
图5
where:
哪里：
Type: 1118
类型：1118
Length: 4
长度：4
This TLV advertises the available bandwidth between two directly connected IGP link-state neighbors. The semantics and values of the fields in the TLV are described in [RFC8570] and [RFC7471].
该TLV在两个直接连接的IGP链路状态邻居之间公布可用带宽。TLV中字段的语义和值如[RFC8570]和[RFC7471]所述。
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Available Bandwidth |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Available Bandwidth |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 6
图6
where:
哪里：
Type: 1119
类型：1119
Length: 4
长度：4
This TLV advertises the bandwidth utilization between two directly connected IGP link-state neighbors. The semantics and values of the fields in the TLV are described in [RFC8570] and [RFC7471].
该TLV在两个直接连接的IGP链路状态邻居之间公布带宽利用率。TLV中字段的语义和值如[RFC8570]和[RFC7471]所述。
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Utilized Bandwidth |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Utilized Bandwidth |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 7
图7
where:
哪里：
Type: 1120
类型：1120
Length: 4
长度：4
This section documents the mappings between the Link Attribute TLVs defined in this document and the corresponding advertisements sourced by the IGPs.
本节记录了本文档中定义的链接属性TLV与IGPs来源的相应广告之间的映射。
For OSPFv2 and OSPFv3, the advertisements are defined in [RFC7471]. For IS-IS, the advertisements are defined in [RFC8570].
对于OSPFv2和OSPFv3，广告在[RFC7471]中定义。对于IS-IS，广告在[RFC8570]中定义。
+---------------------------------------+----------+----------------+
| Attribute Name | IS-IS | OSPFv2/OSPFv3 |
| | Sub-TLV | Sub-TLV |
+---------------------------------------+----------+----------------+
| Unidirectional Link Delay | 33 | 27 |
+---------------------------------------+----------+----------------+
| Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay | 34 | 28 |
+---------------------------------------+----------+----------------+
| Unidirectional Delay Variation | 35 | 29 |
+---------------------------------------+----------+----------------+
| Unidirectional Link Loss | 36 | 30 |
+---------------------------------------+----------+----------------+
| Unidirectional Residual Bandwidth | 37 | 31 |
+---------------------------------------+----------+----------------+
| Unidirectional Available Bandwidth | 38 | 32 |
+---------------------------------------+----------+----------------+
| Unidirectional Utilized Bandwidth | 39 | 33 |
+---------------------------------------+----------+----------------+
+---------------------------------------+----------+----------------+
| Attribute Name | IS-IS | OSPFv2/OSPFv3 |
| | Sub-TLV | Sub-TLV |
+---------------------------------------+----------+----------------+
| Unidirectional Link Delay | 33 | 27 |
+---------------------------------------+----------+----------------+
| Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay | 34 | 28 |
+---------------------------------------+----------+----------------+
| Unidirectional Delay Variation | 35 | 29 |
+---------------------------------------+----------+----------------+
| Unidirectional Link Loss | 36 | 30 |
+---------------------------------------+----------+----------------+
| Unidirectional Residual Bandwidth | 37 | 31 |
+---------------------------------------+----------+----------------+
| Unidirectional Available Bandwidth | 38 | 32 |
+---------------------------------------+----------+----------------+
| Unidirectional Utilized Bandwidth | 39 | 33 |
+---------------------------------------+----------+----------------+
Figure 8
图8
Procedures and protocol extensions defined in this document do not affect the BGP security model. See the "Security Considerations" section of [RFC4271] for a discussion of BGP security. Also, refer to [RFC4272] and [RFC6952] for analyses of security issues for BGP. Security considerations for acquiring and distributing BGP-LS information are discussed in [RFC7752].
本文档中定义的过程和协议扩展不影响BGP安全模型。有关BGP安全性的讨论，请参阅[RFC4271]的“安全注意事项”部分。此外，请参阅[RFC4272]和[RFC6952]以了解BGP的安全问题分析。[RFC7752]中讨论了获取和分发BGP-LS信息的安全注意事项。
The TLVs introduced in this document are used to propagate the Traffic Engineering Metric Extensions defined in [RFC8570] and [RFC7471]. These TLVs represent the state and resource availability of the IGP link. It is assumed that the IGP instances originating these TLVs will support all the required security and authentication mechanisms (as described in [RFC8570] and [RFC7471]) in order to prevent any security issues when propagating the TLVs into BGP-LS.
本文档中介绍的TLV用于传播[RFC8570]和[RFC7471]中定义的流量工程度量扩展。这些TLV表示IGP链路的状态和资源可用性。假设发起这些TLV的IGP实例将支持所有必需的安全和身份验证机制（如[RFC8570]和[RFC7471]所述），以防止将TLV传播到BGP-LS时出现任何安全问题。
The advertisement of the link attribute information defined in this document presents no additional risk beyond that associated with the existing link attribute information already supported in [RFC7752].
除[RFC7752]中已支持的现有链接属性信息相关的风险外，本文档中定义的链接属性信息的公布不会带来额外风险。
IANA has made assignments in the "BGP-LS Node Descriptor, Link Descriptor, Prefix Descriptor, and Attribute TLVs" registry for the new Link Attribute TLVs as listed below:
IANA已在“BGP-LS节点描述符、链路描述符、前缀描述符和属性TLV”注册表中为新的链路属性TLV进行分配，如下所示：
TLV Code Point Description
--------------------------------------------------------
1114 Unidirectional Link Delay
TLV Code Point Description
--------------------------------------------------------
1114 Unidirectional Link Delay
1115 Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay
1115最小/最大单向链路延迟
1116 Unidirectional Delay Variation
1116单向延迟变化
1117 Unidirectional Link Loss
1117单向链路损耗
1118 Unidirectional Residual Bandwidth
1118单向剩余带宽
1119 Unidirectional Available Bandwidth
1119单向可用带宽
1120 Unidirectional Utilized Bandwidth
1120单向利用带宽
[RFC7471] Giacalone, S., Ward, D., Drake, J., Atlas, A., and S. Previdi, "OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions", RFC 7471, DOI 10.17487/RFC7471, March 2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7471>.
[RFC7471]Giacalone，S.，Ward，D.，Drake，J.，Atlas，A.，和S.Previdi，“OSPF交通工程（TE）度量扩展”，RFC 7471，DOI 10.17487/RFC7471，2015年3月<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7471>.
[RFC7752] Gredler, H., Ed., Medved, J., Previdi, S., Farrel, A., and S. Ray, "North-Bound Distribution of Link-State and Traffic Engineering (TE) Information Using BGP", RFC 7752, DOI 10.17487/RFC7752, March 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7752>.
[RFC7752]Gredler，H.，Ed.，Medved，J.，Previdi，S.，Farrel，A.，和S.Ray，“使用BGP的链路状态和流量工程（TE）信息的北向分布”，RFC 7752，DOI 10.17487/RFC7752，2016年3月<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7752>.
[RFC8570] Ginsberg, L., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Giacalone, S., Ward, D., Drake, J., and Q. Wu, "IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions", RFC 8570, DOI 10.17487/RFC8570, March 2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8570>.
[RFC8570]Ginsberg，L.，Ed.，Previdi，S.，Ed.，Giacalone，S.，Ward，D.，Drake，J.，和Q.Wu，“IS-IS交通工程（TE）度量扩展”，RFC 8570，DOI 10.17487/RFC8570，2019年3月<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8570>.
[RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4271>.
[RFC4271]Rekhter，Y.，Ed.，Li，T.，Ed.，和S.Hares，Ed.，“边境网关协议4（BGP-4）”，RFC 4271，DOI 10.17487/RFC4271，2006年1月<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4271>.
[RFC4272] Murphy, S., "BGP Security Vulnerabilities Analysis", RFC 4272, DOI 10.17487/RFC4272, January 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4272>.
[RFC4272]Murphy，S.，“BGP安全漏洞分析”，RFC 4272，DOI 10.17487/RFC4272，2006年1月<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4272>.
[RFC6952] Jethanandani, M., Patel, K., and L. Zheng, "Analysis of BGP, LDP, PCEP, and MSDP Issues According to the Keying and Authentication for Routing Protocols (KARP) Design Guide", RFC 6952, DOI 10.17487/RFC6952, May 2013, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6952>.
[RFC6952]Jethanandani，M.，Patel，K.，和L.Zheng，“根据路由协议键控和认证（KARP）设计指南分析BGP，LDP，PCEP和MSDP问题”，RFC 6952，DOI 10.17487/RFC6952，2013年5月<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6952>.
Acknowledgements
致谢
The authors wish to acknowledge comments from Ketan Talaulikar.
作者希望感谢Ketan Talaulikar的评论。
Contributors
贡献者
The following people have contributed substantially to this document and should be considered coauthors:
以下人员对本文件做出了重大贡献，应被视为共同作者：
Saikat Ray Individual Email: raysaikat@gmail.com
Saikat Ray个人电子邮件：raysaikat@gmail.com
Hannes Gredler RtBrick Inc. Email: hannes@rtbrick.com
Hannes Gredler RtBrick Inc.电子邮件：hannes@rtbrick.com
Authors' Addresses
作者地址
Les Ginsberg (editor) Cisco Systems, Inc. United States of America
Les Ginsberg（编辑）美国思科系统公司
Email: ginsberg@cisco.com
Email: ginsberg@cisco.com
Stefano Previdi Huawei Italy
意大利华为公司
Email: stefano@previdi.net
Email: stefano@previdi.net
Qin Wu Huawei 101 Software Avenue, Yuhua District Nanjing, Jiangsu 210012 China
中国江苏省南京市雨花区华为软件大道101号秦武210012
Email: bill.wu@huawei.com
Email: bill.wu@huawei.com
Jeff Tantsura Apstra, Inc. United States of America
Jeff Tantsura Apstra，Inc.美利坚合众国
Email: jefftant.ietf@gmail.com
Email: jefftant.ietf@gmail.com
Clarence Filsfils Cisco Systems, Inc. Brussels Belgium
Clarence Filsfils思科系统公司，比利时布鲁塞尔
Email: cfilsfil@cisco.com
Email: cfilsfil@cisco.com