rfc9832v2.txt   rfc9832.txt 
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) K. Vairavakkalai, Ed. Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) K. Vairavakkalai, Ed.
Request for Comments: 9832 N. Venkataraman, Ed. Request for Comments: 9832 N. Venkataraman, Ed.
Category: Experimental Juniper Networks, Inc. Category: Experimental Juniper Networks, Inc.
ISSN: 2070-1721 August 2025 ISSN: 2070-1721 September 2025
BGP Classful Transport Planes BGP Classful Transport Planes
Abstract Abstract
This document specifies a mechanism referred to as "Intent Driven This document specifies a mechanism referred to as "Intent Driven
Service Mapping". The mechanism uses BGP to express Intent based Service Mapping". The mechanism uses BGP to express Intent based
association of overlay routes with underlay routes having specific association of overlay routes with underlay routes having specific
Traffic Engineering (TE) characteristics satisfying a certain Service Traffic Engineering (TE) characteristics satisfying a certain Service
Level Agreement (SLA). This is achieved by defining new constructs Level Agreement (SLA). This is achieved by defining new constructs
skipping to change at line 28 skipping to change at line 28
overlay routes use as an ordered set to resolve reachability overlay routes use as an ordered set to resolve reachability
(Resolution Schemes) towards service endpoints. These constructs can (Resolution Schemes) towards service endpoints. These constructs can
be used, for example, to realize the "IETF Network Slice" defined in be used, for example, to realize the "IETF Network Slice" defined in
the TEAS Network Slices framework (RFC 9543). the TEAS Network Slices framework (RFC 9543).
Additionally, this document specifies protocol procedures for BGP Additionally, this document specifies protocol procedures for BGP
that enable dissemination of service mapping information in a network that enable dissemination of service mapping information in a network
that may span multiple cooperating administrative domains. These that may span multiple cooperating administrative domains. These
domains may be administered either by the same provider or by closely domains may be administered either by the same provider or by closely
coordinating providers. A new BGP address family that leverages the coordinating providers. A new BGP address family that leverages the
procedures described in "BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private Networks (VPNs)" procedures described in RFC 4364 ("BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private
(RFC 4364) and follows the NLRI encoding described in RFC 8277 Networks (VPNs)") and follows the NLRI encoding described in RFC 8277
("Using BGP to Bind MPLS Labels to Address Prefixes") is defined to ("Using BGP to Bind MPLS Labels to Address Prefixes") is defined to
enable each advertised underlay route to be identified by its class. enable each advertised underlay route to be identified by its class.
This new address family is called "BGP Classful Transport" (or "BGP This new address family is called "BGP Classful Transport" (or "BGP
CT"). CT").
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
published for examination, experimental implementation, and published for examination, experimental implementation, and
evaluation. evaluation.
skipping to change at line 2120 skipping to change at line 2120
: : : : : : : : : : : :
: [PE11]----[ASBR11]---[ASBR21------[ASBR22]---[ASBR31------[PE31]: : [PE11]----[ASBR11]---[ASBR21------[ASBR22]---[ASBR31------[PE31]:
: : : : : : : : : : : :
: Metro Ingress : : Core : : Metro Egress : : Metro Ingress : : Core : : Metro Egress :
: : : : : : : : : : : :
: AS1 : : AS2 : : AS3 : : AS1 : : AS2 : : AS3 :
..................... ....................... ..................... ..................... ....................... .....................
----------- Traffic Direction --------> ----------- Traffic Direction -------->
Figure 9: Transport Layer with Heterogenous Color Domains Figure 9: Transport Layer with Heterogeneous Color Domains
In Figure 9, we have three Autonomous Systems. All the nodes in the In Figure 9, we have three Autonomous Systems. All the nodes in the
topology support BGP CT. topology support BGP CT.
* In AS1, the Gold SLA is represented by color 100. * In AS1, the Gold SLA is represented by color 100.
* In AS2, Gold has finer shades: Gold1 by color 101 and Gold2 by * In AS2, Gold has finer shades: Gold1 by color 101 and Gold2 by
color 102. color 102.
* In AS3, the Gold SLA is represented by color 100. * In AS3, the Gold SLA is represented by color 100.
skipping to change at line 2941 skipping to change at line 2941
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9012>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9012>.
[RFC9252] Dawra, G., Ed., Talaulikar, K., Ed., Raszuk, R., Decraene, [RFC9252] Dawra, G., Ed., Talaulikar, K., Ed., Raszuk, R., Decraene,
B., Zhuang, S., and J. Rabadan, "BGP Overlay Services B., Zhuang, S., and J. Rabadan, "BGP Overlay Services
Based on Segment Routing over IPv6 (SRv6)", RFC 9252, Based on Segment Routing over IPv6 (SRv6)", RFC 9252,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9252, July 2022, DOI 10.17487/RFC9252, July 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9252>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9252>.
[RFC9830] Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Ed., Mattes, [RFC9830] Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Ed., Mattes,
P., and D. Jain, "Advertising Segment Routing Policies in P., and D. Jain, "Advertising Segment Routing Policies in
BGP", RFC 9830, DOI 10.17487/RFC9830, August 2025, BGP", RFC 9830, DOI 10.17487/RFC9830, September 2025,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9830>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9830>.
16.2. Informative References 16.2. Informative References
[BCP26] Best Current Practice 26, [BCP26] Best Current Practice 26,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp26>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp26>.
At the time of writing, this BCP comprises the following: At the time of writing, this BCP comprises the following:
Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
skipping to change at line 2978 skipping to change at line 2978
[BGP-LU-EPE] [BGP-LU-EPE]
Gredler, H., Ed., Vairavakkalai, K., Ed., R, C., Gredler, H., Ed., Vairavakkalai, K., Ed., R, C.,
Rajagopalan, B., Aries, E., and L. Fang, "Egress Peer Rajagopalan, B., Aries, E., and L. Fang, "Egress Peer
Engineering using BGP-LU", Work in Progress, Internet- Engineering using BGP-LU", Work in Progress, Internet-
Draft, draft-gredler-idr-bgplu-epe-16, 14 October 2024, Draft, draft-gredler-idr-bgplu-epe-16, 14 October 2024,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-gredler-idr- <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-gredler-idr-
bgplu-epe-16>. bgplu-epe-16>.
[FLOWSPEC-REDIR-IP] [FLOWSPEC-REDIR-IP]
Uttaro, J., Haas, J., akarch@cisco.com, Ray, S., Haas, J., Henderickx, W., and A. Simpson, "BGP Flow-Spec
Mohapatra, P., Henderickx, W., Simpson, A., and M. Texier, Redirect-to-IP Action", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
"BGP Flow-Spec Redirect-to-IP Action", Work in Progress, draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-ip-04, 2 September 2025,
Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-ip-03, 8 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-idr-
September 2024, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/ flowspec-redirect-ip-04>.
draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-ip-03>.
[INTAREA-TUNNELS] [INTAREA-TUNNELS]
Touch, J. D. and M. Townsley, "IP Tunnels in the Internet Touch, J. D. and M. Townsley, "IP Tunnels in the Internet
Architecture", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft- Architecture", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
ietf-intarea-tunnels-15, 9 May 2025, ietf-intarea-tunnels-15, 9 May 2025,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-intarea- <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-intarea-
tunnels-15>. tunnels-15>.
[Intent-Routing-Color] [Intent-Routing-Color]
Hegde, S., Rao, D., Uttaro, J., Bogdanov, A., and L. Hegde, S., Rao, D., Uttaro, J., Bogdanov, A., and L.
 End of changes. 5 change blocks. 
11 lines changed or deleted 10 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48.