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/