draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-05.txt   draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-06.txt 
Network Working Group P. Psenak, Ed. Network Working Group P. Psenak, Ed.
Internet-Draft Cisco Systems Internet-Draft Cisco Systems
Intended status: Standards Track S. Hegde Intended status: Standards Track S. Hegde
Expires: May 7, 2020 Juniper Networks, Inc. Expires: August 24, 2020 Juniper Networks, Inc.
C. Filsfils C. Filsfils
K. Talaulikar K. Talaulikar
Cisco Systems, Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc.
A. Gulko A. Gulko
Thomson Reuters Thomson Reuters
November 4, 2019 February 21, 2020
IGP Flexible Algorithm IGP Flexible Algorithm
draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-05.txt draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo-06.txt
Abstract Abstract
IGP protocols traditionally compute best paths over the network based IGP protocols traditionally compute best paths over the network based
on the IGP metric assigned to the links. Many network deployments on the IGP metric assigned to the links. Many network deployments
use RSVP-TE based or Segment Routing based Traffic Engineering to use RSVP-TE based or Segment Routing based Traffic Engineering to
enforce traffic over a path that is computed using different metrics enforce traffic over a path that is computed using different metrics
or constraints than the shortest IGP path. This document proposes a or constraints than the shortest IGP path. This document proposes a
solution that allows IGPs themselves to compute constraint based solution that allows IGPs themselves to compute constraint based
paths over the network. This document also specifies a way of using paths over the network. This document also specifies a way of using
skipping to change at page 1, line 44 skipping to change at page 1, line 44
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on May 7, 2020. This Internet-Draft will expire on August 24, 2020.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
skipping to change at page 2, line 35 skipping to change at page 2, line 35
4. Flexible Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4. Flexible Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Flexible Algorithm Definition Advertisement . . . . . . . . . 5 5. Flexible Algorithm Definition Advertisement . . . . . . . . . 5
5.1. ISIS Flexible Algorithm Definition Sub-TLV . . . . . . . 6 5.1. ISIS Flexible Algorithm Definition Sub-TLV . . . . . . . 6
5.2. OSPF Flexible Algorithm Definition TLV . . . . . . . . . 7 5.2. OSPF Flexible Algorithm Definition TLV . . . . . . . . . 7
5.3. Common Handling of Flexible Algorithm Definition TLV . . 8 5.3. Common Handling of Flexible Algorithm Definition TLV . . 8
6. Sub-TLVs of ISIS FAD Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6. Sub-TLVs of ISIS FAD Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.1. ISIS Flexible Algorithm Exclude Admin Group Sub-TLV . . . 9 6.1. ISIS Flexible Algorithm Exclude Admin Group Sub-TLV . . . 9
6.2. ISIS Flexible Algorithm Include-Any Admin Group Sub-TLV . 10 6.2. ISIS Flexible Algorithm Include-Any Admin Group Sub-TLV . 10
6.3. ISIS Flexible Algorithm Include-All Admin Group Sub-TLV . 11 6.3. ISIS Flexible Algorithm Include-All Admin Group Sub-TLV . 11
6.4. ISIS Flexible Algorithm Definition Flags Sub-TLV . . . . 11 6.4. ISIS Flexible Algorithm Definition Flags Sub-TLV . . . . 11
7. Sub-TLVs of OSPF FAD TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 6.5. ISIS Flexible Algorithm Exclude SRLG Sub-TLV . . . . . . 12
7.1. OSPF Flexible Algorithm Exclude Admin Group Sub-TLV . . . 12 7. Sub-TLVs of OSPF FAD TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7.2. OSPF Flexible Algorithm Include-Any Admin Group Sub-TLV . 13 7.1. OSPF Flexible Algorithm Exclude Admin Group Sub-TLV . . . 13
7.3. OSPF Flexible Algorithm Include-All Admin Group Sub-TLV . 13 7.2. OSPF Flexible Algorithm Include-Any Admin Group Sub-TLV . 14
7.4. OSPF Flexible Algorithm Definition Flags Sub-TLV . . . . 13 7.3. OSPF Flexible Algorithm Include-All Admin Group Sub-TLV . 14
8. ISIS Flex-Algorithm Prefix Metric Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . 14 7.4. OSPF Flexible Algorithm Definition Flags Sub-TLV . . . . 14
9. OSPF Flex-Algorithm Prefix Metric Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . 15 7.5. OSPF Flexible Algorithm Exclude SRLG Sub-TLV . . . . . . 15
10. Advertisement of Node Participation in a Flex-Algorithm . . . 16 8. ISIS Flex-Algorithm Prefix Metric Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . 16
10.1. Advertisement of Node Participation for Segment Routing 17 9. OSPF Flex-Algorithm Prefix Metric Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . 17
10. Advertisement of Node Participation in a Flex-Algorithm . . . 18
10.1. Advertisement of Node Participation for Segment Routing 18
10.2. Advertisement of Node Participation for Other 10.2. Advertisement of Node Participation for Other
Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
11. Advertisement of Link Attributes for Flex-Algorithm . . . . . 17 11. Advertisement of Link Attributes for Flex-Algorithm . . . . . 19
12. Calculation of Flexible Algorithm Paths . . . . . . . . . . . 18 12. Calculation of Flexible Algorithm Paths . . . . . . . . . . . 20
12.1. Multi-area and Multi-domain Considerations . . . . . . . 19 12.1. Multi-area and Multi-domain Considerations . . . . . . . 21
13. Flex-Algorithm and Forwarding Plane . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 13. Flex-Algorithm and Forwarding Plane . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
13.1. Segment Routing MPLS Forwarding for Flex-Algorithm . . . 20 13.1. Segment Routing MPLS Forwarding for Flex-Algorithm . . . 22
13.2. SRv6 Forwarding for Flex-Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . 21 13.2. SRv6 Forwarding for Flex-Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . 23
13.3. Other Applications' Forwarding for Flex-Algorithm . . . 22 13.3. Other Applications' Forwarding for Flex-Algorithm . . . 24
14. Backward Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
14. Backward Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 15. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
15. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 16. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
16. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 16.1. IGP IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
16.1. IGP IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 16.1.1. IGP Algorithm Types Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
16.1.1. IGP Algorithm Types Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 16.1.2. Flexible Algorithm Definition Metric-Type Registry . 25
16.1.2. Flexible Algorithm Definition Metric-Type Registry . 23 16.2. Flex-Algorithm Definition Flags Registry . . . . . . . . 26
16.2. Flex-Algorithm Definition Flags Registry . . . . . . . . 24 16.3. ISIS IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
16.3. ISIS IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 16.3.1. Sub TLVs for Type 242 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
16.3.1. Sub TLVs for Type 242 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 16.3.2. Sub TLVs for for TLVs 135, 235, 236, and 237 . . . . 26
16.3.2. Sub TLVs for for TLVs 135, 235, 236, and 237 . . . . 24
16.3.3. Sub-Sub-TLVs for Flexible Algorithm Definition Sub- 16.3.3. Sub-Sub-TLVs for Flexible Algorithm Definition Sub-
TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
16.4. OSPF IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 16.4. OSPF IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
16.4.1. OSPF Router Information (RI) TLVs Registry . . . . . 25 16.4.1. OSPF Router Information (RI) TLVs Registry . . . . . 27
16.4.2. OSPFv2 Extended Prefix TLV Sub-TLVs . . . . . . . . 26 16.4.2. OSPFv2 Extended Prefix TLV Sub-TLVs . . . . . . . . 28
16.4.3. OSPFv3 Extended-LSA Sub-TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 16.4.3. OSPFv3 Extended-LSA Sub-TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
16.4.4. OSPF Flexible Algorithm Definition TLV Sub-TLV 16.4.4. OSPF Flexible Algorithm Definition TLV Sub-TLV
Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
16.4.5. Link Attribute Applications Registry . . . . . . . . 27 16.4.5. Link Attribute Applications Registry . . . . . . . . 29
17. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 17. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
18. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 18. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
18.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 18.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
18.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 18.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
An IGP computed path based on the shortest IGP metric must often be An IGP computed path based on the shortest IGP metric must often be
replaced by a traffic engineered path due to the traffic requirements replaced by a traffic engineered path due to the traffic requirements
which are not reflected by the IGP metric. Some networks engineer which are not reflected by the IGP metric. Some networks engineer
the IGP metric assignments in a way that the IGP Metric reflects the the IGP metric assignments in a way that the IGP Metric reflects the
link bandwidth or delay. If, for example, the IGP metric is link bandwidth or delay. If, for example, the IGP metric is
reflecting the bandwidth on the link and the application traffic is reflecting the bandwidth on the link and the application traffic is
delay sensitive, the best IGP path may not reflect the best path from delay sensitive, the best IGP path may not reflect the best path from
skipping to change at page 12, line 26 skipping to change at page 12, line 31
Bits that are NOT transmitted MUST be treated as if they are set to 0 Bits that are NOT transmitted MUST be treated as if they are set to 0
on receipt. on receipt.
ISIS FADF Sub-TLV MAY NOT appear more then once in an ISIS FAD Sub- ISIS FADF Sub-TLV MAY NOT appear more then once in an ISIS FAD Sub-
TLV. If it appears more then once, the ISIS FAD Sub-TLV MUST be TLV. If it appears more then once, the ISIS FAD Sub-TLV MUST be
ignored by the receiver. ignored by the receiver.
If the ISIS FADF Sub-TLV is not present inside the ISIS FAD Sub-TLV, If the ISIS FADF Sub-TLV is not present inside the ISIS FAD Sub-TLV,
all the bits are assumed to be set to 0. all the bits are assumed to be set to 0.
6.5. ISIS Flexible Algorithm Exclude SRLG Sub-TLV
The Flexible-Algorithm definition can specify Shared Risk Link Groups
(SRLGs) that the operator wants to exclude during the Flex-Algorithm
path computation.
ISIS Flexible Algorithm Exclude SRLG Sub-TLV (FAESRLG) is used to
advertise the exclude rule that is used during the Flex-Algorithm
path calculation as specified in Section 12.
ISIS FAESRLG Sub-TLV is a Sub-TLV of the ISIS FAD Sub-TLV. It 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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Shared Risk Link Group Value |
+- -+
| ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
where:
Type: 5
Length: variable, dependent on number of SRLG values. MUST be a
multiple of 4 octets.
Shared Risk Link Group Value: SRLG value as defined in [RFC5307].
ISIS FAESRLG Sub-TLV MAY NOT appear more then once in an ISIS FAD
Sub-TLV. If it appears more then once, the ISIS FAD Sub-TLV MUST be
ignored by the receiver.
7. Sub-TLVs of OSPF FAD TLV 7. Sub-TLVs of OSPF FAD TLV
7.1. OSPF Flexible Algorithm Exclude Admin Group Sub-TLV 7.1. OSPF Flexible Algorithm Exclude Admin Group Sub-TLV
Flexible Algorithm Exclude Admin Group Sub-TLV (FAEAG Sub-TLV) is a Flexible Algorithm Exclude Admin Group Sub-TLV (FAEAG Sub-TLV) is a
Sub-TLV of the OSPF FAD TLV. It's usage is described in Section 6.1. Sub-TLV of the OSPF FAD TLV. It's usage is described in Section 6.1.
It has the following format: It has the following format:
0 1 2 3 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 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
skipping to change at page 14, line 38 skipping to change at page 15, line 38
Bits that are NOT transmitted MUST be treated as if they are set to 0 Bits that are NOT transmitted MUST be treated as if they are set to 0
on receipt. on receipt.
OSPF FADF Sub-TLV MAY NOT appear more then once in an OSPF FAD TLV. OSPF FADF Sub-TLV MAY NOT appear more then once in an OSPF FAD TLV.
If it appears more then once, the OSPF FAD TLV MUST be ignored by the If it appears more then once, the OSPF FAD TLV MUST be ignored by the
receiver. receiver.
If the OSPF FADF Sub-TLV is not present inside the OSPF FAD TLV, all If the OSPF FADF Sub-TLV is not present inside the OSPF FAD TLV, all
the bits are assumed to be set to 0. the bits are assumed to be set to 0.
7.5. OSPF Flexible Algorithm Exclude SRLG Sub-TLV
OSPF Flexible Algorithm Exclude SRLG Sub-TLV (FAESRLG Sub-TLV) is a
Sub-TLV of the OSPF FAD TLV. It's usage is described in Section 6.5.
It 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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Shared Risk Link Group Value |
+- -+
| ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
where:
Type: 5
Length: variable, dependent on the number of SRLGs. MUST be a
multiple of 4 octets.
Shared Risk Link Group Value: SRLG value as defined in [RFC4203].
OSPF FAESRLG Sub-TLV MAY NOT appear more then once in an OSPF FAD
TLV. If it appears more then once, the OSPF FAD TLV MUST be ignored
by the receiver.
8. ISIS Flex-Algorithm Prefix Metric Sub-TLV 8. ISIS Flex-Algorithm Prefix Metric Sub-TLV
ISIS Flex-Algorithm Prefix Metric (FAPM) Sub-TLV supports the ISIS Flex-Algorithm Prefix Metric (FAPM) Sub-TLV supports the
advertisement of a Flex-Algorithm specific prefix metric associated advertisement of a Flex-Algorithm specific prefix metric associated
with a given prefix advertisement. with a given prefix advertisement.
ISIS FAPM Sub-TLV is a sub-TLV of TLVs 135, 235, 236, and 237 and has ISIS FAPM Sub-TLV is a sub-TLV of TLVs 135, 235, 236, and 237 and has
the following format: the following format:
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
skipping to change at page 17, line 7 skipping to change at page 18, line 48
Paths computed for a specific Flex-Algorithm MAY be used by various Paths computed for a specific Flex-Algorithm MAY be used by various
applications, each potentially using its own specific data plane for applications, each potentially using its own specific data plane for
forwarding the data over such paths. To guarantee the presence of forwarding the data over such paths. To guarantee the presence of
the application specific forwarding state associated with a the application specific forwarding state associated with a
particular Flex-Algorithm, a router MUST advertise its participation particular Flex-Algorithm, a router MUST advertise its participation
for a particular Flex-Algorithm for each application specifically. for a particular Flex-Algorithm for each application specifically.
10.1. Advertisement of Node Participation for Segment Routing 10.1. Advertisement of Node Participation for Segment Routing
[I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions], [RFC8667], [RFC8665] and [RFC8666] (IGP Segment Routing extensions)
[I-D.ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions] and describe how SR-Algorithm is used to define how the best path is
[I-D.ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions] (IGP Segment computed by the IGP.
Routing extensions) describe how SR-Algorithm is used to define how
the best path is computed by the IGP.
Routers advertise the support for the SR-Algorithm as a node Routers advertise the support for the SR-Algorithm as a node
capability as described in the above mentioned IGP Segment Routing capability as described in the above mentioned IGP Segment Routing
extensions. To advertise participation for a particular Flex- extensions. To advertise participation for a particular Flex-
Algorithm for Segment Routing, including both SR MPLS and SRv6, the Algorithm for Segment Routing, including both SR MPLS and SRv6, the
Flex-Algorithm value MUST be advertised in the SR-Algorithm TLV Flex-Algorithm value MUST be advertised in the SR-Algorithm TLV
(OSPF) or sub-TLV (ISIS). (OSPF) or sub-TLV (ISIS).
Segment Routing Flex-Algorithm participation advertisement is Segment Routing Flex-Algorithm participation advertisement is
topology independent. When a router advertises participation in an topology independent. When a router advertises participation in an
skipping to change at page 19, line 10 skipping to change at page 20, line 50
Rules, in the order as specified below, MUST be used to prune links Rules, in the order as specified below, MUST be used to prune links
from the topology during the Flex-Algorithm computation. from the topology during the Flex-Algorithm computation.
For all links in the topology: For all links in the topology:
1. Check if any exclude rule is part of the Flex-Algorithm 1. Check if any exclude rule is part of the Flex-Algorithm
definition. If such exclude rule exists, check if any color that definition. If such exclude rule exists, check if any color that
is part of the exclude rule is also set on the link. If such a is part of the exclude rule is also set on the link. If such a
color is set, the link MUST be pruned from the computation. color is set, the link MUST be pruned from the computation.
2. Check if any include-any rule is part of the Flex-Algorithm 2. Check if any exclude SRLG rule is part of the Flex-Algorithm
definition. If such exclude rule exists, check if the link is
part of any SRLG that is also part of the SRLG exclude rule. If
the link is part of such SRLG, the link MUST be pruned from the
computation.
4. Check if any include-any rule is part of the Flex-Algorithm
definition. If such include-any rule exists, check if any color definition. If such include-any rule exists, check if any color
that is part of the include-any rule is also set on the link. If that is part of the include-any rule is also set on the link. If
no such color is set, the link MUST be pruned from the no such color is set, the link MUST be pruned from the
computation. computation.
3. Check if any include-all rule is part of the Flex-Algorithm 4. Check if any include-all rule is part of the Flex-Algorithm
definition. If such include-all rule exists, check if all colors definition. If such include-all rule exists, check if all colors
that are part of the include-all rule are also set on the link. that are part of the include-all rule are also set on the link.
If all such colors are not set on the link, the link MUST be If all such colors are not set on the link, the link MUST be
pruned from the computation. pruned from the computation.
4. If the Flex-Algorithm definition uses other than IGP metric 5. If the Flex-Algorithm definition uses other than IGP metric
(Section 5), and such metric is not advertised for the particular (Section 5), and such metric is not advertised for the particular
link in a topology for which the computation is done, such link link in a topology for which the computation is done, such link
MUST be pruned from the computation. A metric of value 0 MUST NOT MUST be pruned from the computation. A metric of value 0 MUST NOT
be assumed in such case. be assumed in such case.
12.1. Multi-area and Multi-domain Considerations 12.1. Multi-area and Multi-domain Considerations
Any IGP Shortest Path Tree calculation is limited to a single area. Any IGP Shortest Path Tree calculation is limited to a single area.
This applies to Flex-Algorithm calculations as well. Given that the This applies to Flex-Algorithm calculations as well. Given that the
computing router does not have the visibility of the topology of next computing router does not have the visibility of the topology of next
skipping to change at page 21, line 47 skipping to change at page 23, line 47
This section describes how Flex-Algorithm paths are used with SRv6 This section describes how Flex-Algorithm paths are used with SRv6
forwarding. forwarding.
In SRv6 a node is provisioned with topology/algorithm specific In SRv6 a node is provisioned with topology/algorithm specific
locators for each of the topology/algorithm pairs supported by that locators for each of the topology/algorithm pairs supported by that
node. Each locator is a covering prefix for all SIDs provisioned on node. Each locator is a covering prefix for all SIDs provisioned on
that node which have the matching topology/algorithm. that node which have the matching topology/algorithm.
SRv6 locator advertisement in IGPs SRv6 locator advertisement in IGPs
([I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions] ([I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions]
[I-D.li-ospf-ospfv3-srv6-extensions]) includes the MTID value that [I-D.ietf-lsr-ospfv3-srv6-extensions]) includes the MTID value that
associates the locator with a specific topology. SRv6 locator associates the locator with a specific topology. SRv6 locator
advertisements also includes an Algorithm value that explicitly advertisements also includes an Algorithm value that explicitly
associates the locator with a specific algorithm. When the algorithm associates the locator with a specific algorithm. When the algorithm
value advertised with a locator represents a Flex-Algorithm, the value advertised with a locator represents a Flex-Algorithm, the
paths to the locator prefix MUST be calculated using the specified paths to the locator prefix MUST be calculated using the specified
Flex-Algorithm in the associated topology. Flex-Algorithm in the associated topology.
Forwarding entries for the locator prefixes advertised in IGPs MUST Forwarding entries for the locator prefixes advertised in IGPs MUST
be installed in the forwarding plane of the receiving SRv6 capable be installed in the forwarding plane of the receiving SRv6 capable
routers when the associated topology/algorithm is participating in routers when the associated topology/algorithm is participating in
skipping to change at page 25, line 35 skipping to change at page 27, line 35
Description: Flexible Algorithm Include-All Admin Group Description: Flexible Algorithm Include-All Admin Group
Reference: This document (Section 6.3). Reference: This document (Section 6.3).
Type: 4 Type: 4
Description: Flexible Algorithm Definition Flags Description: Flexible Algorithm Definition Flags
Reference: This document (Section 6.4). Reference: This document (Section 6.4).
Type: 5
Description: Flexible Algorithm Exclude SRLG
Reference: This document (Section 6.5).
16.4. OSPF IANA Considerations 16.4. OSPF IANA Considerations
16.4.1. OSPF Router Information (RI) TLVs Registry 16.4.1. OSPF Router Information (RI) TLVs Registry
This specification updates the OSPF Router Information (RI) TLVs This specification updates the OSPF Router Information (RI) TLVs
Registry. Registry.
Type: 16 Type: 16
Description: Flexible Algorithm Definition TLV. Description: Flexible Algorithm Definition TLV.
skipping to change at page 27, line 20 skipping to change at page 29, line 23
Description: Flexible Algorithm Include-All Admin Group Description: Flexible Algorithm Include-All Admin Group
Reference: This document (Section 7.3). Reference: This document (Section 7.3).
Type: 4 Type: 4
Description: Flexible Algorithm Definition Flags Description: Flexible Algorithm Definition Flags
Reference: This document (Section 7.4). Reference: This document (Section 7.4).
Type: 5
Description: Flexible Algorithm Exclude SRLG
Reference: This document (Section 7.5).
Types in the range 32768-33023 are for experimental use; these will Types in the range 32768-33023 are for experimental use; these will
not be registered with IANA, and MUST NOT be mentioned by RFCs. not be registered with IANA, and MUST NOT be mentioned by RFCs.
Types in the range 33024-65535 are not to be assigned at this time. Types in the range 33024-65535 are not to be assigned at this time.
Before any assignments can be made in the 33024-65535 range, there Before any assignments can be made in the 33024-65535 range, there
MUST be an IETF specification that specifies IANA Considerations that MUST be an IETF specification that specifies IANA Considerations that
covers the range being assigned. covers the range being assigned.
16.4.5. Link Attribute Applications Registry 16.4.5. Link Attribute Applications Registry
skipping to change at page 28, line 11 skipping to change at page 30, line 19
phase of the solution definition. phase of the solution definition.
Thanks to Kenji Kumaki for his comments. Thanks to Kenji Kumaki for his comments.
18. References 18. References
18.1. Normative References 18.1. Normative References
[BCP14] , <https://tools.ietf.org/html/bcp14>. [BCP14] , <https://tools.ietf.org/html/bcp14>.
[I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions]
Previdi, S., Ginsberg, L., Filsfils, C., Bashandy, A.,
Gredler, H., and B. Decraene, "IS-IS Extensions for
Segment Routing", draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-
extensions-25 (work in progress), May 2019.
[I-D.ietf-isis-te-app] [I-D.ietf-isis-te-app]
Ginsberg, L., Psenak, P., Previdi, S., Henderickx, W., and Ginsberg, L., Psenak, P., Previdi, S., Henderickx, W., and
J. Drake, "IS-IS TE Attributes per application", draft- J. Drake, "IS-IS TE Attributes per application", draft-
ietf-isis-te-app-09 (work in progress), October 2019. ietf-isis-te-app-10 (work in progress), February 2020.
[I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions] [I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions]
Psenak, P., Filsfils, C., Bashandy, A., Decraene, B., and Psenak, P., Filsfils, C., Bashandy, A., Decraene, B., and
Z. Hu, "IS-IS Extension to Support Segment Routing over Z. Hu, "IS-IS Extension to Support Segment Routing over
IPv6 Dataplane", draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions-03 IPv6 Dataplane", draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions-05
(work in progress), October 2019. (work in progress), February 2020.
[I-D.ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions]
Psenak, P. and S. Previdi, "OSPFv3 Extensions for Segment
Routing", draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-
extensions-23 (work in progress), January 2019.
[I-D.ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions] [I-D.ietf-lsr-ospfv3-srv6-extensions]
Psenak, P., Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Gredler, H., Li, Z., Hu, Z., Cheng, D., Talaulikar, K., and P. Psenak,
Shakir, R., Henderickx, W., and J. Tantsura, "OSPF "OSPFv3 Extensions for SRv6", draft-ietf-lsr-
Extensions for Segment Routing", draft-ietf-ospf-segment- ospfv3-srv6-extensions-00 (work in progress), February
routing-extensions-27 (work in progress), December 2018. 2020.
[I-D.ietf-ospf-te-link-attr-reuse] [I-D.ietf-ospf-te-link-attr-reuse]
Psenak, P., Ginsberg, L., Henderickx, W., Tantsura, J., Psenak, P., Ginsberg, L., Henderickx, W., Tantsura, J.,
and J. Drake, "OSPF Link Traffic Engineering Attribute and J. Drake, "OSPF Link Traffic Engineering Attribute
Reuse", draft-ietf-ospf-te-link-attr-reuse-10 (work in Reuse", draft-ietf-ospf-te-link-attr-reuse-10 (work in
progress), October 2019. progress), October 2019.
[I-D.li-ospf-ospfv3-srv6-extensions]
Li, Z., Hu, Z., Cheng, D., Talaulikar, K., and P. Psenak,
"OSPFv3 Extensions for SRv6", draft-li-ospf-
ospfv3-srv6-extensions-05 (work in progress), August 2019.
[ISO10589] [ISO10589]
International Organization for Standardization, International Organization for Standardization,
"Intermediate system to Intermediate system intra-domain "Intermediate system to Intermediate system intra-domain
routeing information exchange protocol for use in routeing information exchange protocol for use in
conjunction with the protocol for providing the conjunction with the protocol for providing the
connectionless-mode Network Service (ISO 8473)", ISO/ connectionless-mode Network Service (ISO 8473)", ISO/
IEC 10589:2002, Second Edition, Nov 2002. IEC 10589:2002, Second Edition, Nov 2002.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC4203] Kompella, K., Ed. and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "OSPF Extensions in
Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS)", RFC 4203, DOI 10.17487/RFC4203, October 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4203>.
[RFC5307] Kompella, K., Ed. and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "IS-IS Extensions
in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS)", RFC 5307, DOI 10.17487/RFC5307, October 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5307>.
[RFC7308] Osborne, E., "Extended Administrative Groups in MPLS [RFC7308] Osborne, E., "Extended Administrative Groups in MPLS
Traffic Engineering (MPLS-TE)", RFC 7308, Traffic Engineering (MPLS-TE)", RFC 7308,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7308, July 2014, DOI 10.17487/RFC7308, July 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7308>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7308>.
[RFC7684] Psenak, P., Gredler, H., Shakir, R., Henderickx, W., [RFC7684] Psenak, P., Gredler, H., Shakir, R., Henderickx, W.,
Tantsura, J., and A. Lindem, "OSPFv2 Prefix/Link Attribute Tantsura, J., and A. Lindem, "OSPFv2 Prefix/Link Attribute
Advertisement", RFC 7684, DOI 10.17487/RFC7684, November Advertisement", RFC 7684, DOI 10.17487/RFC7684, November
2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7684>. 2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7684>.
skipping to change at page 29, line 47 skipping to change at page 32, line 5
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>. May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC8362] Lindem, A., Roy, A., Goethals, D., Reddy Vallem, V., and [RFC8362] Lindem, A., Roy, A., Goethals, D., Reddy Vallem, V., and
F. Baker, "OSPFv3 Link State Advertisement (LSA) F. Baker, "OSPFv3 Link State Advertisement (LSA)
Extensibility", RFC 8362, DOI 10.17487/RFC8362, April Extensibility", RFC 8362, DOI 10.17487/RFC8362, April
2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8362>. 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8362>.
[RFC8665] Psenak, P., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Filsfils, C., Gredler,
H., Shakir, R., Henderickx, W., and J. Tantsura, "OSPF
Extensions for Segment Routing", RFC 8665,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8665, December 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8665>.
[RFC8666] Psenak, P., Ed. and S. Previdi, Ed., "OSPFv3 Extensions
for Segment Routing", RFC 8666, DOI 10.17487/RFC8666,
December 2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8666>.
[RFC8667] Previdi, S., Ed., Ginsberg, L., Ed., Filsfils, C.,
Bashandy, A., Gredler, H., and B. Decraene, "IS-IS
Extensions for Segment Routing", RFC 8667,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8667, December 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8667>.
18.2. Informative References 18.2. Informative References
[I-D.gulkohegde-routing-planes-using-sr] [I-D.gulkohegde-routing-planes-using-sr]
Hegde, S. and a. arkadiy.gulko@thomsonreuters.com, Hegde, S. and a. arkadiy.gulko@thomsonreuters.com,
"Separating Routing Planes using Segment Routing", draft- "Separating Routing Planes using Segment Routing", draft-
gulkohegde-routing-planes-using-sr-00 (work in progress), gulkohegde-routing-planes-using-sr-00 (work in progress),
March 2017. March 2017.
[RFC2328] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328, [RFC2328] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2328, April 1998, DOI 10.17487/RFC2328, April 1998,
 End of changes. 25 change blocks. 
78 lines changed or deleted 168 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.47. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/