draft-ietf-ospf-lls-interface-id-04.txt   draft-ietf-ospf-lls-interface-id-05.txt 
Open Shortest Path First IGP P. Psenak, Ed. Open Shortest Path First IGP P. Psenak, Ed.
Internet-Draft K. Talaulikar Internet-Draft K. Talaulikar
Intended status: Standards Track Cisco Systems, Inc. Intended status: Standards Track Cisco Systems, Inc.
Expires: January 2, 2019 W. Henderickx Expires: January 19, 2019 W. Henderickx
Nokia Nokia
P. Pillay-Esnault P. Pillay-Esnault
Huawei Huawei
July 1, 2018 July 18, 2018
OSPF LLS Extensions for Local Interface ID Advertisement OSPF LLS Extensions for Local Interface ID Advertisement
draft-ietf-ospf-lls-interface-id-04 draft-ietf-ospf-lls-interface-id-05
Abstract Abstract
Every OSPF interface is assigned an identifier, Interface ID, which Every OSPF interface is assigned an identifier, Interface ID, which
uniquely identifies the interface on the router. In some cases it is uniquely identifies the interface on the router. In some cases it is
useful to know the Interface ID assigned by the adjacent router on useful to know the Interface ID assigned by the adjacent router on
its side of the adjacency (Remote Interface ID). its side of the adjacency (Remote Interface ID).
This draft describes the extensions to OSPF link-local signalling to This draft describes the extensions to OSPF link-local signalling to
advertise the Local Interface Identifier. advertise the Local Interface Identifier.
Requirements Language Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
[BCP14] [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all BCP14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here. capitals, as shown here.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
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 January 2, 2019. This Internet-Draft will expire on January 19, 2019.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2018 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
skipping to change at page 2, line 31 skipping to change at page 2, line 31
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Interface ID Exchange using TE Opaque LSA . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Interface ID Exchange using TE Opaque LSA . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Interface ID Exchange using OSPF LLS . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Interface ID Exchange using OSPF LLS . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1. Local Interface Identifier TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3.1. Local Interface Identifier TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Backward Compatibility with RFC 4203 . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. Backward Compatibility with RFC 4203 . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
7. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 7. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
9. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
Every OSPF interface is assigned an Interface ID, which uniquely Every OSPF interface is assigned an Interface ID, which uniquely
identifies the interface on the router. For example, some identifies the interface on the router. For example, some
implementations MAY be able to use the MIB-II IfIndex [RFC2863] as implementations MAY be able to use the MIB-II IfIndex [RFC2863] as
the Interface ID. the Interface ID.
Local/Remote Interface Identifiers MAY be flooded by OSPF [RFC2328] Local/Remote Interface Identifiers MAY be flooded by OSPF [RFC2328]
skipping to change at page 4, line 47 skipping to change at page 4, line 47
This specification allocates a single code point from the "Open This specification allocates a single code point from the "Open
Shortest Path First (OSPF) Link Local Signalling (LLS) - Type/Length/ Shortest Path First (OSPF) Link Local Signalling (LLS) - Type/Length/
Value Identifiers (TLV)" registry. Value Identifiers (TLV)" registry.
Following values is allocated: Following values is allocated:
o 18 - Local Interface Identifier TLV o 18 - Local Interface Identifier TLV
6. Security Considerations 6. Security Considerations
The security considerations for "OSPF Link-Local Signaling" [RFC5613]
also apply to the Local Interface Identifier TLV described herein.
The current usage of a neighbor's Local Interface Identifier is to
disambiguate parallel links between OSPF routers. Hence,
modification of the advertised Local Interface Identifier TLV may
result in the wrong neighbor interface identifier being advertised in
the OSPFv2 Extended Link LSA [RFC8379] and could prevent the link
from being used. If authentication is being used in the OSPF routing
domain [RFC5709], then the Cryptographic Authentication TLV [RFC5613]
SHOULD also be used to protect that contents of the Link-Local
Signaling (LLS) block.
Implementations must assure that malformed LLS TLVs and Sub-TLVs Implementations must assure that malformed LLS TLVs and Sub-TLVs
permutations do not result in errors which cause hard OSPF failures. permutations do not result in errors which cause hard OSPF failures.
7. Contributors 7. Contributors
8. Acknowledgements 8. Acknowledgements
Thanks to Tony Przygienda for his extensive review and useful Thanks to Tony Przygienda for his extensive review and useful
comments. comments.
9. Normative References 9. References
[BCP14] , <https://tools.ietf.org/html/bcp14>.
[ISO10589] 9.1. Normative References
International Organization for Standardization,
"Intermediate system to Intermediate system intra-domain
routeing information exchange protocol for use in
conjunction with the protocol for providing the
connectionless-mode Network Service (ISO 8473)", ISO/
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>.
[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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2328>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2328>.
[RFC2863] McCloghrie, K. and F. Kastenholz, "The Interfaces Group
MIB", RFC 2863, DOI 10.17487/RFC2863, June 2000,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2863>.
[RFC3630] Katz, D., Kompella, K., and D. Yeung, "Traffic Engineering [RFC3630] Katz, D., Kompella, K., and D. Yeung, "Traffic Engineering
(TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC 3630, (TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC 3630,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3630, September 2003, DOI 10.17487/RFC3630, September 2003,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3630>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3630>.
[RFC4203] Kompella, K., Ed. and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "OSPF Extensions in [RFC4203] Kompella, K., Ed. and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "OSPF Extensions in
Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS)", RFC 4203, DOI 10.17487/RFC4203, October 2005, (GMPLS)", RFC 4203, DOI 10.17487/RFC4203, October 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4203>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4203>.
[RFC5613] Zinin, A., Roy, A., Nguyen, L., Friedman, B., and D. [RFC5613] Zinin, A., Roy, A., Nguyen, L., Friedman, B., and D.
Yeung, "OSPF Link-Local Signaling", RFC 5613, Yeung, "OSPF Link-Local Signaling", RFC 5613,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5613, August 2009, DOI 10.17487/RFC5613, August 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5613>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5613>.
[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>.
9.2. Informative References
[RFC2863] McCloghrie, K. and F. Kastenholz, "The Interfaces Group
MIB", RFC 2863, DOI 10.17487/RFC2863, June 2000,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2863>.
[RFC5709] Bhatia, M., Manral, V., Fanto, M., White, R., Barnes, M.,
Li, T., and R. Atkinson, "OSPFv2 HMAC-SHA Cryptographic
Authentication", RFC 5709, DOI 10.17487/RFC5709, October
2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5709>.
[RFC8379] Hegde, S., Sarkar, P., Gredler, H., Nanduri, M., and L.
Jalil, "OSPF Graceful Link Shutdown", RFC 8379,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8379, May 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8379>.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Peter Psenak (editor) Peter Psenak (editor)
Cisco Systems, Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc.
Apollo Business Center Apollo Business Center
Mlynske nivy 43 Mlynske nivy 43
Bratislava 821 09 Bratislava 821 09
Slovakia Slovakia
Email: ppsenak@cisco.com Email: ppsenak@cisco.com
 End of changes. 11 change blocks. 
20 lines changed or deleted 38 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/