draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions-13.txt		draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions-14.txt
	Open Shortest Path First IGP P. Psenak, Ed.		Open Shortest Path First IGP P. Psenak, Ed.
	Internet-Draft C. Filsfils		Internet-Draft C. Filsfils
	Intended status: Standards Track Cisco Systems, Inc.		Intended status: Standards Track Cisco Systems, Inc.
	Expires: November 24, 2018 S. Previdi, Ed.		Expires: February 3, 2019 S. Previdi, Ed.
	Individual		Individual
	H. Gredler		H. Gredler
	RtBrick Inc.		RtBrick Inc.
	R. Shakir		R. Shakir
	Google, Inc.		Google, Inc.
	W. Henderickx		W. Henderickx
	Nokia		Nokia
	J. Tantsura		J. Tantsura
	Nuage Networks		Nuage Networks
	May 23, 2018		August 2, 2018
	OSPFv3 Extensions for Segment Routing		OSPFv3 Extensions for Segment Routing
	draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions-13		draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions-14
	Abstract		Abstract
	Segment Routing (SR) allows a flexible definition of end-to-end paths		Segment Routing (SR) allows a flexible definition of end-to-end paths
	within IGP topologies by encoding paths as sequences of topological		within IGP topologies by encoding paths as sequences of topological
	sub-paths, called "segments". These segments are advertised by the		sub-paths, called "segments". These segments are advertised by the
	link-state routing protocols (IS-IS and OSPF).		link-state routing protocols (IS-IS and OSPF).
	This draft describes the OSPFv3 extensions required for Segment		This draft describes the OSPFv3 extensions required for Segment
	Routing.		Routing.
	skipping to change at page 2, line 7 ¶		skipping to change at page 2, line 7 ¶
	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 November 24, 2018.		This Internet-Draft will expire on February 3, 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 50 ¶		skipping to change at page 2, line 50 ¶
	7.1. Intra-area Segment routing in OSPFv3 . . . . . . . . . . 20		7.1. Intra-area Segment routing in OSPFv3 . . . . . . . . . . 20
	7.2. Inter-area Segment routing in OSPFv3 . . . . . . . . . . 22		7.2. Inter-area Segment routing in OSPFv3 . . . . . . . . . . 22
	7.3. Segment Routing for External Prefixes . . . . . . . . . . 23		7.3. Segment Routing for External Prefixes . . . . . . . . . . 23
	7.4. Advertisement of Adj-SID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23		7.4. Advertisement of Adj-SID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
	7.4.1. Advertisement of Adj-SID on Point-to-Point Links . . 23		7.4.1. Advertisement of Adj-SID on Point-to-Point Links . . 23
	7.4.2. Adjacency SID on Broadcast or NBMA Interfaces . . . . 23		7.4.2. Adjacency SID on Broadcast or NBMA Interfaces . . . . 23
	8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24		8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
	8.1. OSPFv3 Extended-LSA TLV Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . 24		8.1. OSPFv3 Extended-LSA TLV Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
	8.2. OSPFv3 Extended-LSA Sub-TLV registry . . . . . . . . . . 24		8.2. OSPFv3 Extended-LSA Sub-TLV registry . . . . . . . . . . 24
	9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24		9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
	10. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25		10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
	11. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25		11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
	12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25		11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
	12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25		11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
	12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26		Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
	Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
	1. Introduction		1. Introduction
	Segment Routing (SR) allows a flexible definition of end-to-end paths		Segment Routing (SR) allows a flexible definition of end-to-end paths
	within IGP topologies by encoding paths as sequences of topological		within IGP topologies by encoding paths as sequences of topological
	sub-paths, called "segments". These segments are advertised by the		sub-paths, called "segments". These segments are advertised by the
	link-state routing protocols (IS-IS and OSPF). Prefix segments		link-state routing protocols (IS-IS and OSPF). Prefix segments
	represent an ECMP-aware shortest-path to a prefix (or a node), as per		represent an ECMP-aware shortest-path to a prefix (or a node), as per
	the state of the IGP topology. Adjacency segments represent a hop		the state of the IGP topology. Adjacency segments represent a hop
	over a specific adjacency between two nodes in the IGP. A prefix		over a specific adjacency between two nodes in the IGP. A prefix
	skipping to change at page 25, line 5 ¶		skipping to change at page 25, line 5 ¶
	[RFC4552] or [RFC7166] SHOULD be used.		[RFC4552] or [RFC7166] SHOULD be used.
	Implementations MUST assure that malformed TLV and Sub-TLV defined in		Implementations MUST assure that malformed TLV and Sub-TLV defined in
	this document are detected and do not provide a vulnerability for		this document are detected and do not provide a vulnerability for
	attackers to crash the OSPFv3 router or routing process. Reception		attackers to crash the OSPFv3 router or routing process. Reception
	of a malformed TLV or Sub-TLV SHOULD be counted and/or logged for		of a malformed TLV or Sub-TLV SHOULD be counted and/or logged for
	further analysis. Logging of malformed TLVs and Sub-TLVs SHOULD be		further analysis. Logging of malformed TLVs and Sub-TLVs SHOULD be
	rate-limited to prevent a Denial of Service (DoS) attack (distributed		rate-limited to prevent a Denial of Service (DoS) attack (distributed
	or otherwise) from overloading the OSPFv3 control plane.		or otherwise) from overloading the OSPFv3 control plane.
	10. Contributors		10. Acknowledgements
	Acee Lindem gave a substantial contribution to the content of this
	document.
	11. Acknowledgements		Thanks to Acee Lindem for his substantial contribution to the content
			of this document.
	We would like to thank Anton Smirnov for his contribution.		We would like to thank Anton Smirnov for his contribution as well.
	12. References		11. References
	12.1. Normative References		11.1. Normative References
	[I-D.ietf-ospf-ospfv3-lsa-extend]		[I-D.ietf-ospf-ospfv3-lsa-extend]
	Lindem, A., Roy, A., Goethals, D., Vallem, V., and F.		Lindem, A., Roy, A., Goethals, D., Vallem, V., and F.
	Baker, "OSPFv3 LSA Extendibility", draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-		Baker, "OSPFv3 LSA Extendibility", draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-
	lsa-extend-23 (work in progress), January 2018.		lsa-extend-23 (work in progress), January 2018.
	[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing]		[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing]
	Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Ginsberg, L., Decraene, B.,		Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Ginsberg, L., Decraene, B.,
	Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment Routing		Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment Routing
	Architecture", draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-15 (work		Architecture", draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-15 (work
	in progress), January 2018.		in progress), January 2018.
	[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop]		[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop]
	Bashandy, A., Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Decraene, B., and		Bashandy, A., Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Decraene, B., and
	S. Litkowski, "Segment Routing interworking with LDP",		S. Litkowski, "Segment Routing interworking with LDP",
	draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop-11 (work in		draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop-14 (work in
	progress), April 2018.		progress), July 2018.
	[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls]		[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls]
	Bashandy, A., Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Decraene, B.,		Bashandy, A., Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Decraene, B.,
	Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment Routing with MPLS		Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment Routing with MPLS
	data plane", draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls-13		data plane", draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls-14
	(work in progress), April 2018.		(work in progress), June 2018.
	[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>.
	[RFC3031] Rosen, E., Viswanathan, A., and R. Callon, "Multiprotocol		[RFC3031] Rosen, E., Viswanathan, A., and R. Callon, "Multiprotocol
	Label Switching Architecture", RFC 3031,		Label Switching Architecture", RFC 3031,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC3031, January 2001,		DOI 10.17487/RFC3031, January 2001,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3031>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3031>.
	skipping to change at page 26, line 32 ¶		skipping to change at page 26, line 28 ¶
	[RFC7770] Lindem, A., Ed., Shen, N., Vasseur, JP., Aggarwal, R., and		[RFC7770] Lindem, A., Ed., Shen, N., Vasseur, JP., Aggarwal, R., and
	S. Shaffer, "Extensions to OSPF for Advertising Optional		S. Shaffer, "Extensions to OSPF for Advertising Optional
	Router Capabilities", RFC 7770, DOI 10.17487/RFC7770,		Router Capabilities", RFC 7770, DOI 10.17487/RFC7770,
	February 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7770>.		February 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7770>.
	[RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for		[RFC8126] 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,
	RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,		RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
	12.2. Informative References		11.2. Informative References
	[RFC4552] Gupta, M. and N. Melam, "Authentication/Confidentiality		[RFC4552] Gupta, M. and N. Melam, "Authentication/Confidentiality
	for OSPFv3", RFC 4552, DOI 10.17487/RFC4552, June 2006,		for OSPFv3", RFC 4552, DOI 10.17487/RFC4552, June 2006,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4552>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4552>.
	[RFC7166] Bhatia, M., Manral, V., and A. Lindem, "Supporting		[RFC7166] Bhatia, M., Manral, V., and A. Lindem, "Supporting
	Authentication Trailer for OSPFv3", RFC 7166,		Authentication Trailer for OSPFv3", RFC 7166,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC7166, March 2014,		DOI 10.17487/RFC7166, March 2014,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7166>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7166>.
End of changes. 13 change blocks.
	23 lines changed or deleted		20 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/