wdiff draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-interas-te-extension-01.txt draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-interas-te-extension-02.txt

Network work group Mach Chen
Internet Draft Renhai Zhang
Expires: March May 2008 Huawei Technologies Co.,Ltd
Category: Standards Track September 6, Xiaodong Duan
China Mobile
November 19, 2007

OSPF Traffic Engineering (OSPF-TE) Extensions in Support of Inter-AS Multiprotocol Label Switching
(MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering
draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-interas-te-extension-01.txt
draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-interas-te-extension-02.txt

Status of this Memo

By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that
any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is
aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she
becomes aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of
BCP 79.

Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other
groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.

Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt

The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html

This Internet-Draft will expire on March 6, May 19, 2008.

Abstract

This document describes extensions to the OSPF v2 version 2 and v3 Traffic
Engineering (OSPF-TE) mechanisms 3
protocols to support Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and
Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering(TE) for multiple
Autonomous Systems (ASes). It defines OSPF-TE v2 and v3 extensions are defined
for the flooding of TE information about inter-AS links which can be
used to perform inter-AS TE path computation.

No support for flooding TE information from other outside the AS is
proposed or defined in this document.

Conventions used in this document

The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC-2119 [RFC2119].

Table of Contents

1. Introduction.................................................2
2. Problem Statement............................................3
2.1. A Note on Non-Objectives................................3 Non-Objectives................................4
2.2. Per-Domain Path Determination...........................4
2.3. Backward Recursive Path Computation.....................6
3. Extensions to OSPF-TE........................................7 OSPF...........................................7
3.1. Remote AS Number Sub-TLV................................7 LSA Definitions.........................................8
3.1.1. Inter-AS-TE-v2 LSA.................................8
3.1.2. Inter-AS-TE-v3 LSA.................................8
3.2. Inter-AS LSA Payload.............................................9
3.2.1. Link Type......................................8 TLV...........................................9
3.3. Link ID.................................................8 Sub-TLV Detail.........................................10
3.3.1. Remote AS Number Sub-TLV..........................10
3.3.2. IPv4 Remote ASBR ID Sub-TLV.......................11
3.3.3. IPv6 Remote ASBR ID Sub-TLV.......................11
4. Procedure for Inter-AS TE Links..............................8 Links.............................12
4.1. Origin of Proxied TE Information.......................13
5. Security Considerations......................................9 Considerations.....................................14
6. IANA Considerations.........................................10 Considerations.........................................14
6.1. Inter-AS TE OSPF LSA Sub-TLVs type.................................10 LSA...................................14
6.2. OSPF TE Link Type......................................10 LSA Sub-TLVs type.................................15
7. Acknowledgments.............................................10 Acknowledgments.............................................15
8. References..................................................11 References..................................................15
8.1. Normative References...................................11 References...................................15
8.2. Informative References.................................11 References.................................16
Authors' Addresses.............................................12 Addresses.............................................17
Intellectual Property Statement................................12 Statement................................17
Disclaimer of Validity.........................................13 Validity.........................................18
Copyright Statement............................................13 Statement............................................18

1. Introduction

[OSPF-TE] defines extensions to the OSPF protocol [OSPF] to support
intra-area Traffic Engineering (TE). The extensions provide a way of
encoding the TE information for TE-enabled links within the network
(TE links) and flooding this information within an area. Type 10
opaque LSAs [RFC2370] are used to carry such TE information. Two top-
level TLVs are defined in [OSPF-TE]: Router Address TLV and Link TLV.
The Link TLV has several nested sub-TLVs which describe the TE
attributes for a TE link.

[OSPF-TE-V3]

[OSPF-V3-TE] defines similar extensions to OSPFv3 [OSPFV3]. It
defines a new LSA, which is referred to as the Intra-Area-TE LSA, to
advertise TE information. [OSPF-V3-TE] uses "Traffic Engineering
Extensions to OSPF" [OSPF-TE] as a base for TLV definitions and
defines some new TLVs and sub-TLVs to extend TE capabilities to IPv6
networks.

Requirements for establishing Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) TE Traffic
Engineering (MPLS-TE) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) that cross multiple
Autonomous Systems (ASes) are described in [INTER-AS-TE-REQ]. As
described in [INTER-AS-
TE-REQ], [INTER-AS-TE-REQ], a method SHOULD provide the ability
to compute a path spanning multiple ASes. So a path computation
entity that may be the head-end Label Switching Router (LSR), an AS
Border Router (ASBR), or a Path Computation Element (PCE [PCE]) needs
to know the TE information not only of the links within an AS, but
also of the links that connect to other ASes.

In this document, some extensions to OSPF-TE two new separate LSAs are defined in support
of carrying to advertise
inter-AS TE link information for inter-AS Traffic
Engineering. A OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 respectively, and three
new sub-TLV is sub-TLVs are added to the existing Link TLV and a new link
type is introduced. The extensions are equally applicable to OSPFv2
and OSPFv3 as identical extensions to [OSPF-TE] and [OSPF-TE-V3]. extend TE
capabilities for inter-AS Traffic Engineering. The detailed
definitions and procedures are discussed in the following sections.

This document does not propose or define any mechanisms to advertise
any other extra-AS TE information within OSPF. See Section 2.1 for a
full list of non-objectives for this work.

2. Problem Statement

As described in [INTER-AS-TE-REQ], in the case of establishing an
inter-AS TE LSP traversing multiple ASes, the Path message [RFC3209]
may include the following elements in the Explicit Route Object (ERO)
in order to describe the path of the LSP:

- a set of AS numbers as loose hops; and/or

- a set of LSRs including ASBRs as loose hops.

Two methods for determining inter-AS paths are currently being
discussed. The per-domain method [PD-PATH] determines the path one
domain at a time. The backward recursive method [BRPC] uses
cooperation between PCEs to determine an optimum inter-domain path.
The sections that follow examine how inter-AS TE link information
could be useful in both cases.

2.1. A Note on Non-Objectives

It is important to note that this document does not make any change
to the confidentiality and scaling assumptions surrounding the use of
ASes in the Internet. In particular, this document is conformant to
the requirements set out in [INTER-AS-TE-REQ].

The following lists of features are explicit exclusions. explicitly excluded.:

o There is no attempt to distribute TE information from within one
AS to another AS.

o There is no mechanism proposed to distribute any form of TE
reachability information for destinations outside the AS.

o There is no proposed change to the PCE architecture or usage.

o TE aggregation is not supported or recommended.

o There is no exchange of private information between ASes.

o No OSPF adjacencies are formed on the inter-AS link.

Note further also that the extensions proposed in this document are
limited used only
to use for advertise information about inter-AS TE links. As such these
extensions address an entirely different problem from L1VPN Auto-
Discovery [L1VPN-OSPF-AD] which defines how TE information about
links between Customer Edge (CE) equipment and Provider Edge (PE)
equipment can be advertised in OSPF-TE alongside the auto-discovery
information for the CE-PE links. That There is separate functionality and does not no overlap with the function defined in between this document.
document and [L1VPN-OSPF-AD].

2.2. Per-Domain Path Determination

In the per-domain method of determining an inter-AS path for an MPLS-
TE LSP, when an LSR that is an entry-point to an AS receives a PATH
message from an upstream AS with an ERO containing a next hop that is
an AS number, it needs to find which LSRs (ASBRs) within the local AS
are connected to the downstream AS so that it can compute a TE LSP
segment across the local AS to one of those LSRs and forward the PATH
message to the LSR it and hence into the next AS. See the figure below Figure 1 for an example:
example :

R1------R3----R5-----R7------R9-----R11
| | \ | / |
| | \ | ---- |
| | \ | / |
R2------R4----R6 --R8------R10----R12
: :
<-- AS1 -->:<---- AS2 --->:<--- AS3 --->

Figure 1: Inter-AS Reference Model

The figure shows three ASes (AS1, AS2, and AS3) and twelve LSRs (R1
through R12). R3 and R4 are ASBRs in AS1. R5, R6, R7, and R8 are
ASBRs in AS2. R9 and R10 are ASBRs in AS3.

If an inter-AS TE LSP is planned to be established from R1 to R12,
the AS sequence is limited as: will be: AS1, AS2, AS3.

Suppose that the Path message enters AS2 from R3. The next hop in the
ERO shows AS3, and R5 must determine a path segment across AS2 to
reach AS3. It has a choice of three exit points from AS2 (R6, R7, and
R8) and it needs to know which of these provide TE connectivity to
AS3, and whether the TE connectivity (for example, available
bandwidth) is adequate for the requested LSP.

Alternatively, if the next hop in the ERO is the entry ASBR for AS3
(say R9), R5 needs to know which of its exit ASBRs has a TE link that
connects to R9. Since there may be multiple exist ASBRs that are connected
to R9 (both R7 and R8 in this example), R5 also needs to know the TE
properties of the inter-AS TE links so that it can select the correct
exit ASBR.

Once the path message reaches the exit ASBR, any choice of inter-AS
TE link can be made by the ASBR if not already made by entry ASBR
that computed the segment.

More details can be found in the Section 4.0 of [PD-PATH], which
clearly points out why advertising of inter-AS links is desired.

To enable R5 to make the correct choice of exit ASBR the following
information is needed:

o List of all inter-AS TE links for the local AS.

o TE properties of each inter-AS TE link.

o AS number of the neighboring AS connected to by each inter-AS TE
link.

o Identity (TE Router ID) of the neighboring ASBR connected to by
each inter-AS TE link.

In GMPLS networks further information may also be required to select
the correct TE links as defined in [GMPLS-TE].

The example above shows how this information is needed at the entry
point ASBRs for each AS (or the PCEs that provide computation
services for the ASBRs), but this information is also needed
throughout the local AS if path computation function is fully
distributed among LSRs in the local AS, for example to support LSPs
that have start points (ingress nodes) within the AS.

2.3. Backward Recursive Path Computation

Another scenario using PCE techniques has the same problem. [BRPC]
defines a PCE-based TE LSP computation method (called Backward
Recursive Path Computation) to compute optimal inter-domain
constrained MPLS-TE or GMPLS LSPs. In this path computation method, a
specific set of traversed domains (ASes) are assumed to be selected
before computation starts. Each downstream PCE in domain(i) returns
to its upstream neighbor PCE in domain(i-1) a multipoint-to-point
tree of potential paths. Each tree consists of the set of paths from
all Boundary Nodes located in domain(i) to the destination where each
path satisfies the set of required constraints for the TE LSP
(bandwidth, affinities, etc.).

So a PCE needs to select Boundary Nodes (that is, ASBRs) that provide
connectivity from the upstream AS. In order that the tree of paths
provided by one PCE to its neighbor can be correlated, the identities
of the ASBRs for each path need to be referenced, so the PCE must
know the identities of the ASBRs in the remote AS reached by any
inter-AS TE link, and, in order that it provides only suitable paths
in the tree, the PCE must know the TE properties of the inter-AS TE
links. See the following figure as an example:

PCE1<------>PCE2<-------->PCE3
/ : :
/ : :
R1------R3----R5-----R7------R9-----R11
| | \ | / |
| | \ | ---- |
| | \ | / |
R2------R4----R6 --R8------R10----R12
: :
<-- AS1 -->:<---- AS2 --->:<--- AS3 --->

Figure 2: BRPC for Inter-AS Reference Model

The figure shows three ASes (AS1, AS2, and AS3), three PCEs (PCE1,
PCE2, and PCE3), and twelve LSRs (R1 through R12). R3 and R4 are
ASBRs in AS1. R5, R6, R7, and R8 are ASBRs in AS2. R9 and R10 are
ASBRs in AS3. PCE1, PCE2, and PCE3 cooperate to perform inter-AS path
computation and are responsible for path segment computation within
their own domains. domain(s).

If an inter-AS TE LSP is planned to be established from R1 to R12,
the traversed domains are assumed to be selected: AS1->AS2->AS3, and
the PCE chain is: PCE1->PCE2->PCE3. First, the path computation
request originated from the PCC (R1) is relayed by PCE1 and PCE2
along the PCE chain to PCE3, then PCE3 begins to compute the path
segments from the entry boundary nodes that provide connection from
AS2 to the destination (R12). But, to provide suitable path segments,
PCE3 must determine which entry boundary nodes provide connectivity
to its upstream neighbor AS (identified by its AS number), and must
know the TE properties of the inter-AS TE links. In the same way,
PCE2 also needs to determine the entry boundary nodes according to
its upstream neighbor AS and the inter-AS TE link capabilities.

Thus, to support Backward Recursive Path Computation the same
information as listed in Section 2.2 is required. The AS number of the
neighboring AS connected to by each inter-AS TE link is particular
important.

3. Extensions to OSPF-TE OSPF

Note that this document does not define mechanisms for distribution
of TE information from one AS to another, does not distribute any
form of TE reachability information for destinations outside the AS,
does not change the PCE architecture or usage, does not suggest or
recommend any form of TE aggregation, and does not feed private
information between ASes. See section 2.1.

The extensions defined in this document allow an inter-AS TE link
advertisement to be easily identified as such by the use of a new
link type. A two new sub-TLV
types of LSA, which are referred to as Inter-AS-TE-v2 LSA and Inter-
AS-TE-v3 LSA. Three new sub-TLVs are added to the Link TLV to carry
the information about the neighboring AS and the remote ASBR.

3.1. LSA Definitions

3.1.1. Inter-AS-TE-v2 LSA

For the advertisement of OSPFv2 inter-AS TE links, a new Opaque LSA,
the Inter-AS-TE-v2 LSA, is defined in this document. The Inter-AS-TE-
v2 LSA has the same format as "Traffic Engineering LSA" which is
defined in [OSPF-TE].

The inter-AS TE link advertisement SHOULD be carried in a Type 10
Opaque LSA if the flooding scope is to be limited to within the
single IGP area to which the ASBR belongs, or MAY be carried in a
Type 11 Opaque LSA if the information is intended to reach all
routers (including area border routers, ASBRs, and PCEs) in the AS.
The choice between the use of a Type 10 or Type 11 Opaque LSA is a
network-wide policy choice, and configuration control of it SHOULD be
provided in ASBR implementations that support the advertisement of
inter-AS TE links.

The Link State ID of an Opaque LSA as defined in [RFC2370] is divided
into two parts. One of them is the Opaque type (8-bit), the other is
the Opaque ID (24-bit). The suggested value for the Opaque type of
Inter-AS-TE-v2 LSA is TBD and will be assigned by IANA (see Section
6.1). We suggest the value 6. The Opaque ID (in this document called
the Instance) of the Inter-AS-TE-v2 LSA is an arbitrary value used to
uniquely identify Traffic Engineering LSAs. The Link State ID has no
topological significance.

The TLVs within the body of an Inter-AS-TE-v2 LSA have the same
format as used in OSPF-TE. The payload of the TLVs consists of one or
more nested Type/Length/Value triplets. New sub-TLVs specifically for
inter-AS TE Link advertisement are described in Section 3.2.

3.1.2. Inter-AS-TE-v3 LSA

In this document, a new LS type is defined for OSPFv3 inter-AS TE
link advertisement. The new LS type function code is 11 (which needs
to be confirmed by IANA see Section 6.1).

The format of an Inter-AS-TE-v3 LSA follows the standard definition
of an OSPFv3 LSA as defined in [OSPFV3].

The high-order three bits of the LS type field of the OSPFv3 LSA
header encode generic properties of the LSA and are termed the U-bit,
S2-bit, and S1-bit [OSPFV3]. The remainder of the LS type carries the
LSA function code.

For the Inter-AS-TE-v3-LSA the bits are set as follows:

The U-bit is always set to 1 to indicate that an OSPFv3 router MUST
flood the LSA at its defined flooding scope even if it does not
recognize the LS type.

The S2 and S1 bits indicate the flooding scope of an LSA. For the
Inter-AS-TE-v3-LSA the S2 and S1 bits SHOULD be set to 01 to indicate
that the flooding scope is to be limited to within the single IGP
area to which the ASBR belongs, but MAY be set to 10 if the
information should reach all routers (including area border routers,
ASBRs, and PCEs) in the AS. The choice between the use of 01 or 10 is
a network-wide policy choice, and configuration control SHOULD be
provided in ASBR implementations that support the advertisement of
inter-AS TE links.

The Link State ID of the Inter-AS-TE-v3 LSA is an arbitrary value
used to uniquely identify Traffic Engineering LSAs. The LSA ID has no
topological significance.

The TLVs with the body of an Inter-AS-TE-v3 LSA have the same format
and semantic as defined above in [OSPF-V3-TE]. New sub-TLVs
specifically for inter-AS TE Link advertisement are described in
Section 3.2.

3.2. LSA Payload

Both Inter-AS-TE-v2 LSA and Inter-AS-TE-v3 LSA contain one top level
TLV:

2 - Link TLV

For the Inter-AS-TE-v2 LSA this TLV is defined in [OSPF-TE] and for
the Inter-AS-TE-v3 LSA this TLV is defined in [OSPF-V3-TE]. The sub-
TLVs carried in this TLV are described in the following sections.

3.2.1. Link TLV

The Link TLV describes a single link and consists a set of sub-TLVs.
The sub-TLVs for inclusion in the Link TLV of the Inter-AS-TE-v2 LSA
and Inter-AS-TE-v3 LSA are defined respectively in [OSPF-TE] and
[OSPF-V3-TE] and the list of sub-TLVs may be extended by other
documents. However, this document defines one exception as follows.

The Link ID sub-TLV [OSPF-TE] MUST NOT be used in the Link TLV of an
Inter-AS-TE-v2 LSA, and the Neighbor ID sub-TLV [OSPF-V3-TE] MUST NOT
be used in the Link TLV of an Inter-AS-TE-v3 LSA. This is because the
address of the link-end or neighbor is an address in another AS that
may operate a different address space; such an address is of no value
to routing within the AS where this Link TLV is used.

Instead, the remote ASBR is identified by the inclusion of the
following new sub-TLVs defined in this document and described in the
subsequent sections.

21 - Remote AS Number sub-TLV

22 - IPv4 Remote ASBR ID sub-TLV

23 - IPv6 Remote ASBR ID sub-TLV

The Remote-AS-Number sub-TLV MUST be included in the Link TLV of both
the Inter-AS-TE-v2 LSA and Inter-AS-TE-v3 LSA. At least one of the
IPv4-Remote-ASBR-ID sub-TLV and the IPv6-Remote-ASBR-ID sub-TLV
SHOULD be included in the Link TLV of the Inter-AS-TE-v2 LSA and
Inter-AS-TE-v3 LSA. Note that it is possible to include the IPv6-
Remote-ASBR-ID sub-TLV in the Link TLV of the Inter-AS-TE-v2 LSA, and
to include the IPv4-Remote-ASBR-ID sub-TLV in the Link TLV of the
Inter-AS-TE-v3 LSA because the sub-TLVs refer to ASBRs that are in a
different addressing scope (that is, a different AS) from that where
the OSPF LSA is used.

3.3. Sub-TLV Detail

3.3.1. Remote AS Number Sub-TLV

A new sub-TLV, the Remote AS Number sub-TLV is defined for inclusion
in the Link TLV when advertising inter-AS links. The Remote AS Number
sub-TLV specifies the AS number of the neighboring AS to which the
advertised link connects. The Remote AS number sub-TLV is REQUIRED in
a Link TLV that advertises an inter-AS TE link.

The Remote AS number sub-TLV is TLV type 21 (which needs to be
confirmed by IANA), and is four octets in length. The format 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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Remote AS Number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

The Remote AS number field has 4 octets. When only two octets are
used for the AS number, as in current deployments, the left (high-
order) two octets MUST be set to zero.

3.3.2. IPv4 Remote ASBR ID Sub-TLV

A new sub-TLV, which is referred to as the IPv4 Remote ASBR ID sub-
TLV, can be included in the Link TLV when advertising inter-AS links.
The IPv4 Remote ASBR ID sub-TLV specifies the IPv4 identifier of the
remote ASBR to which the advertised inter-AS link connects. This
could be any stable and routable IPv4 address of the remote ASBR. Use
of the TE Router ID is RECOMMENDED.

The IPv4 Remote ASBR ID sub-TLV is TLV type 22 (which needs to be
confirmed by IANA), and is four octets in length. Its format 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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Remote ASBR ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

In OSPFv2 advertisements, the Link TLV is defined to carry IPv4 Remote ASBR ID sub-TLV MUST be
included if the
information about neighboring ASBR has an IPv4 address. If the
neighboring AS. The extensions are equally
applicable to ASBR does not have an IPv4 address (not even an IPv4 TE distribution using OSPFv2
Router ID), the IPv6 Remote ASBR ID sub-TLV MUST be included instead.
An IPv4 Remote ASBR ID sub-TLV and OSPFv3.

3.1. IPv6 Remote AS Number Sub-TLV

As described ASBR ID sub-TLV MAY
both be present in [OSPF-TE], the a Link TLV describes a single link and
consists of a set of sub-TLVs. in OSPFv2 or OSPFv3.

3.3.3. IPv6 Remote ASBR ID Sub-TLV

A new sub-TLV, the Remote AS Number
sub-TLV which is added referred to as the IPv6 Remote ASBR ID sub-
TLV, can be included in the Link TLV when advertising inter-AS links.
The IPv6 Remote AS Number ASBR ID sub-TLV specifies the AS number identifier of the neighboring
AS
remote ASBR to which the advertised inter-AS link connects. The Remote AS number sub-
TLV is mandatory for an inter-AS This
could be any stable, routable and global IPv6 address of the remote
ASBR. Use of the TE link. Router ID is RECOMMENDED.

The IPv6 Remote AS number ASBR ID sub-TLV is TLV type 21 23 (which needs to be
confirmed by IANA), and is four sixteen octets in length. The Its format 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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Remote AS Number ASBR ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

The
| Remote AS number field has 4 octets. When only two octets are
used for the AS number, as in current deployments, the left (high-
order) two octets MUST be set to zero.

3.2. Inter-AS Link Type

To identify a link as an inter-AS link and allow easy identification
of these new advertisements, a new Link Type value is defined for use
in the Link Type sub-TLV. The value of the Link Type for an inter-AS
point-to-point link is 3 (which needs to be confirmed by IANA).

The use of multi-access inter-AS TE links is for future study.

3.3. Link ASBR ID

For an inter-AS link, the Link (continued) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Remote ASBR ID carried in (continued) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Remote ASBR ID (continued) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

In OSPFv3 advertisements, the Link IPv6 Remote ASBR ID sub-TLV is MUST be
included if the remote neighboring ASBR identifier which could be any address of has an IPv6 address. If the remote
ASBR(e.g.,
neighboring ASBR does not have an IPv6 address, the TE Router ID, Router IPv4 Remote ASBR
ID or interface address of the
remote sub-TLV MUST be included instead. An IPv4 Remote ASBR reached through this inter-AS link). The TE Router ID is
RECOMMENDED. sub-TLV
and IPv6 Remote ASBR ID sub-TLV MAY both be present in a Link TLV in
OSPFv2 or OSPFv3.

4. Procedure for Inter-AS TE Links

When TE is enabled on an inter-AS link and the link is up, the ASBR
SHOULD advertise this link using the normal procedures for OSPF-TE
[OSPF-TE]. When either the link is down or TE is disabled on the
link , the ASBR SHOULD withdraw the advertisement. When there are
changes to the TE parameters for the link (for example, when the
available bandwidth changes) the ASBR SHOULD re-advertise the link,
but the ASBR MUST take precautions against excessive re-
advertisements as described in [OSPF-TE].

Hellos MUST NOT be exchanged (and consequently, over the inter-AS link, and
consequently , an OSPF adjacency MUST NOT be formed) over the inter-AS link. formed.

The information advertised comes from the ASBR's knowledge of the TE
capabilities of the link, the ASBR's knowledge of the current status
and usage of the link, and configuration at the ASBR of the remote AS
number and remote ASBR TE Router ID.

The TE link advertisement SHOULD be carried in a Type 10 Opaque LSA
if the flooding scope is to be limited to within the single IGP area
to which the ASBR belongs, or MAY be carried in a Type 11 Opaque LSA
if the information should reach all routers (including area border
routers, ASBRs, and PCEs) in the AS. The choice between the use of a
Type 10 or Type 11 Opaque LSA is a network-wide policy choice, and
configuration control SHOULD be provided in ASBR implementations that
support the advertisement of inter-AS TE links.

Legacy routers receiving an advertisement for an inter-AS TE link are
able to ignore it because the Link Type carries an unknown value.
They will continue to flood the LSA, but will not attempt to use the
information received as if the link were an intra-AS TE link.

Since there is no OSPF adjacency running on

In the inter-AS link, current operation of TE OSPF, the
local ASBR SHOULD LSRs at each end of a TE
link emit LSAs describing the link. The databases in the LSRs then
have two entries (one locally generated, the other from the peer)
that describe the different 'directions' of the link. This enables
CSPF to do a "proxy" advertisement for two-way check on the backward
direction link when performing path
computation and eliminate it from consideration unless both
directions of the link satisfy the required constraints.

In the case we are considering here(i.e., of an inter-AS TE link, which facilitates a path TE link to another AS)
there is, by definition, no IGP peering and hence no bi-directional
TE link information. In order for the CSPF route computation entity
to do a 2-way check before including include the link in as a
path computation. As the objective of such candidate path, we have to find a "proxy" advertisement is way to avoid using an inter-AS get
LSAs describing its (bidirectional) TE link when properties into the backward direction TE
database.

This is achieved by the ASBR advertising, internally to its AS,
information about both directions of the
inter-AS TE link is unavailable or unsuitable, only to the next AS. The
ASBR will normally generate an LSA describing its own side of a link;
here we have it 'proxy' for the ASBR at the edge of the other AS and
generate an additional LSA that describes that device's 'view' of the
link.

Only some mandatory or essential TE information for the link needs to be advertised, i.e. the Link ID,
advertised; i.e., the Link Type, and the Remote AS number of an inter-AS TE link. and the Remote
ASBR ID. Routers or PCEs that are capable of processing
advertisements of inter-AS TE links SHOULD NOT use such links to
compute paths that exit an AS to a remote ASBR and then immediately
re-enter the AS through another TE link. Such paths would constitute
extremely rare occurrences and SHOULD NOT be allowed except as the
result of specific policy configurations at the router or PCE
computing the path.

4.1. Origin of Proxied TE Information

Section 4 describes how to an ASBR advertises TE link information as
a proxy for its neighbor ASBR, but does not describe where this
information comes from.

Although the source of this information is outside the scope of this
document, it is possible that it will be a configuration requirement
at the ASBR, as are other, local, properties of the TE link. Further,
where BGP is used to exchange IP routing information between the
ASBRs, a certain amount of additional local configuration about the
link and the remote ASBR is likely to be available.

We note further that it is possible, and may be operationally
advantageous, to obtain some of the required configuration
information from BGP. Whether and how to utilize these possibilities
is an implementation matter.

5. Security Considerations

The protocol extensions defined in this document are relatively minor
and can be secured within the AS in which they are used by the
existing OSPF security mechanisms.

There is no exchange of information between ASes, and no change to
the OSPF security relationship between the ASes. In particular, since
no OSPF adjacency is formed on the inter-AS links, there is no
requirement for OSPF security between the ASes.

It should be noted, however, that some

Some of the information included in these new advertisements(the advertisements (e.g.,
the remote AS number and the remote ASBR ID)
are is obtained manually
from a neighboring administration and cannot be verified
in anyway. Since the means of delivery of this information is likely
to be as part of a commercial relationship, the relationship.
The source and content of the this information should be carefully
checked before it is entered as configuration information at the ASBR
responsible for advertising the inter-AS TE links.

It is worth noting that in the scenario we are considering a Border
Gateway Protocol (BGP) peering may exist between the two ASBRs and
this could be used to detect inconsistencies in configuration. For
example, if a different remote AS number is received in a BGP OPEN
[BGP] from that locally configured into OSPF-TE, as we describe here,
then something is amiss. Note, further, that if BGP is used to
exchange TE information as described in Section 4.1, the inter-AS BGP
session will need to be fully secured.

6. IANA Considerations

IANA is requested to make the following allocations from registries
under its control.

6.1. Inter-AS TE OSPF LSA

IANA is requested to assign a new Opaque LSA type (TBD) to Inter-AS-
TE-v2 LSA and a new OSPFv3 LSA type function code (TBD) to Inter-AS-
TE-v3 LSA. We suggest that the value 6 be assigned for the new Opaque
LSA type, and the value 11 be assigned for the new OSPV3 LSA type
function code.

6.2. OSPF LSA Sub-TLVs type

IANA maintains the "Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) Traffic
Engineering TLVs" registry with sub-registry "Types for sub-TLVs in a
TE Link TLV". IANA is requested to assign a new sub-TLV as follows.
The following number 21 is are suggested as shown in Section 3.1. (see section 3.3):

Value Meaning

21 Remote AS Number sub-TLV.

6.2. OSPF TE Link Type

IANA is requested to create a new sub-registry "TE Link Types" of the
registry "Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) Traffic Engineering TLVs"
to track TE Link Types.

The sub-registry should read as follows:

[OSPF-TE] defines the Link Type sub-TLV of the Link TLV. The
following values are defined.

Value Meaning Reference

1 Point-to-point link [OSPF-TE]

2 Multi-access link [OSPF-TE]

3 Inter-AS link [this document]

New allocations from this registry are by IETF Standards Action.

22 IPv4 Remote ASBR ID sub-TLV

23 IPv6 Remote ASBR ID sub-TLV

7. Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Adrian Farrel, Acee Lindem, JP
Vasseur, Dean Cheng, and Jean-Louis Le Roux for their review and
comments to this document.

8. References

8.1. Normative References

[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

[RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.,
and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001.

[RFC2370] R. Coltun, "The OSPF Opaque LSA Option", RFC2370, July
1998.

[OSPF] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328, April 1998.

[OSPF-TE] Katz, D., Kompella, K., and Yeung, D., "Traffic Engineering
(TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC 3630, September
2003.

[OSPF-V3-TE] Ishiguro K., Manral V., Davey A., and Lindem A. "Traffic
Engineering Extensions to OSPF version 3", draft-ietf-ospf-
ospfv3-traffic, {work in progress}.

[GMPLS-TE] Rekhter, Y., and Kompella, K., "OSPF Extensions in Support
of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)", RFC
4203, October 2005.

[OSPFV3] Coltun, R., Ferguson, D., and J. Moy, "OSPF for IPv6",
RFC 2740, April 1998.

8.2. Informative References

[INTER-AS-TE-REQ] Zhang and Vasseur, "MPLS Inter-AS Traffic
Engineering Requirements", RFC4216, November 2005.

[PD-PATH] Ayyangar, A., Vasseur, JP., and Zhang, R., "A Per-domain
path computation method for establishing Inter-domain",
draft-ietf-ccamp-inter-domain-pd-path-comp, (work in
progress).

[BRPC] JP. Vasseur, Ed., R. Zhang, N. Bitar, JL. Le Roux, "A Backward
Recursive PCE-based Computation (BRPC) procedure to compute
shortest inter-domain Traffic Engineering Label Switched
Paths ", draft-ietf-pce-brpc, (work in progress)

[PCE] Farrel, A., Vasseur, JP., and Ash, J., "A Path Computation
Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC4655, August 2006.

[OSPF-TE-V3] Ishiguro K., Manral V., Davey A., and Lindem A. "Traffic
Engineering Extensions to OSPF version 3", draft-ietf-ospf-
ospfv3-traffic, {work in progress}.

[OSPFV3] Coltun, R., Ferguson, D., and J. Moy, "OSPF for IPv6", RFC
2740, April 1998.

[L1VPN-OSPF-AD] Bryskin, I., and Berger, L., "OSPF Based L1VPN Auto-
Discovery", draft-ietf-l1vpn-ospf-auto-discovery, (work in
progress).

[BGP] Rekhter, Li, Hares, "A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)",
RFC4271, January 2006

Authors' Addresses

Mach Chen
Huawei Technologies Co.,Ltd
KuiKe Building, No.9 Xinxi Rd.,
Hai-Dian District
Beijing, 100085
P.R. China

Email: mach@huawei.com

Renhai Zhang
Huawei Technologies Co.,Ltd
KuiKe Building, No.9 Xinxi Rd.,
Hai-Dian District
Beijing, 100085
P.R. China

Email: zhangrenhai@huawei.com

Xiaodong Duan
China Mobile
53A,Xibianmennei Ave,Xunwu District
Beijing, China

Email: duanxiaodong@chinamobile.com

Intellectual Property Statement

The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.

Disclaimer of Validity

This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.