draft-ietf-ospf-te-link-attr-reuse-11.txt   draft-ietf-ospf-te-link-attr-reuse-12.txt 
LSR Working Group P. Psenak, Ed. LSR Working Group P. Psenak, Ed.
Internet-Draft L. Ginsberg Internet-Draft L. Ginsberg
Intended status: Standards Track Cisco Systems Intended status: Standards Track Cisco Systems
Expires: November 8, 2020 W. Henderickx Expires: November 20, 2020 W. Henderickx
Nokia Nokia
J. Tantsura J. Tantsura
Apstra Apstra
J. Drake J. Drake
Juniper Networks Juniper Networks
May 7, 2020 May 19, 2020
OSPF Link Traffic Engineering Attribute Reuse OSPF Link Traffic Engineering Attribute Reuse
draft-ietf-ospf-te-link-attr-reuse-11.txt draft-ietf-ospf-te-link-attr-reuse-12.txt
Abstract Abstract
Existing traffic engineering related link attribute advertisements Existing traffic engineering related link attribute advertisements
have been defined and are used in RSVP-TE deployments. Since the have been defined and are used in RSVP-TE deployments. Since the
original RSVP-TE use case was defined, additional applications (e.g., original RSVP-TE use case was defined, additional applications (e.g.,
Segment Routing Traffic Engineering, Loop Free Alternate) have been Segment Routing Traffic Engineering, Loop Free Alternate) have been
defined which also make use of the link attribute advertisements. In defined which also make use of the link attribute advertisements. In
cases where multiple applications wish to make use of these link cases where multiple applications wish to make use of these link
attributes the current advertisements do not support application attributes the current advertisements do not support application
skipping to change at page 1, line 46 skipping to change at page 1, line 46
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 8, 2020. This Internet-Draft will expire on November 20, 2020.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2020 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
skipping to change at page 4, line 48 skipping to change at page 4, line 48
1. Advertisement of the link attributes does not make the link part 1. Advertisement of the link attributes does not make the link part
of the RSVP-TE topology. It avoids any conflicts and is fully of the RSVP-TE topology. It avoids any conflicts and is fully
compatible with [RFC3630] and [RFC5329]. compatible with [RFC3630] and [RFC5329].
2. The OSPFv2 TE Opaque LSA and OSPFv3 Intra-Area-TE-LSA remains 2. The OSPFv2 TE Opaque LSA and OSPFv3 Intra-Area-TE-LSA remains
truly opaque to OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 as originally defined in truly opaque to OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 as originally defined in
[RFC3630] and [RFC5329] respectively. Their contents are not [RFC3630] and [RFC5329] respectively. Their contents are not
inspected by OSPF, that acts as a pure transport. inspected by OSPF, that acts as a pure transport.
3. There is clear distinction between link attributes used by RSVP- 3. There is a clear distinction between link attributes used by
TE and link attributes used by other OSPFv2 or OSPFv3 RSVP-TE and link attributes used by other OSPFv2 or OSPFv3
applications. applications.
4. All link attributes that are used by other applications are 4. All link attributes that are used by other applications are
advertised in a single LSA, the Extended Link Opaque LSA in advertised in a single LSA, the Extended Link Opaque LSA in
OSPFv2 or the OSPFv3 E-Router-LSA [RFC8362] in OSPFv3. OSPFv2 or the OSPFv3 E-Router-LSA [RFC8362] in OSPFv3.
The disadvantage of this approach is that in rare cases, the same The disadvantage of this approach is that in rare cases, the same
link attribute is advertised in both the TE Opaque and Extended Link link attribute is advertised in both the TE Opaque and Extended Link
Attribute LSAs in OSPFv2 or the Intra-Area-TE-LSA and E-Router-LSA in Attribute LSAs in OSPFv2 or the Intra-Area-TE-LSA and E-Router-LSA in
OSPFv3. OSPFv3.
Extended Link Opaque LSA [RFC7684] and E-Router-LSA [RFC8362] are Extended Link Opaque LSA [RFC7684] and E-Router-LSA [RFC8362] are
used to advertise any link attributes used for non-RSVP-TE used to advertise any link attributes used for non-RSVP-TE
applications in OSPFv2 or OSPFv3 respectively, including those that applications in OSPFv2 or OSPFv3 respectively, including those that
have been originally defined for RSVP-TE applications (See have been originally defined for RSVP-TE applications (See
Section 6). Section 6).
TE link attributes used for RSVP-TE/GMPLS continue use OSPFv2 TE TE link attributes used for RSVP-TE/GMPLS continue to use OSPFv2 TE
Opaque LSA [RFC3630] and OSPFv3 Intra-Area-TE-LSA [RFC5329]. Opaque LSA [RFC3630] and OSPFv3 Intra-Area-TE-LSA [RFC5329].
The format of the link attribute TLVs that have been defined for The format of the link attribute TLVs that have been defined for
RSVP-TE applications will be kept unchanged even when they are used RSVP-TE applications will be kept unchanged even when they are used
for non-RSVP-TE applications. Unique code points are allocated for for non-RSVP-TE applications. Unique code points are allocated for
these link attribute TLVs from the OSPFv2 Extended Link TLV Sub-TLV these link attribute TLVs from the OSPFv2 Extended Link TLV Sub-TLV
Registry [RFC7684] and from the OSPFv3 Extended LSA Sub-TLV Registry Registry [RFC7684] and from the OSPFv3 Extended LSA Sub-TLV Registry
[RFC8362], as specified in Section 14. [RFC8362], as specified in Section 14.
5. Advertisement of Application Specific Values 5. Advertisement of Application Specific Values
skipping to change at page 6, line 12 skipping to change at page 6, line 12
Extended Link TLV and OSPFv3 Router-Link TLV. It has the following Extended Link TLV and OSPFv3 Router-Link TLV. It has the following
format: 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length | | Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| SABM Length | UDABM Length | Reserved | | SABM Length | UDABM Length | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Standard Application Identifier Bit-Mask | | Standard Application Identifier Bit Mask |
+- -+ +- -+
| ... | | ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| User Defined Application Identifier Bit-Mask | | User Defined Application Identifier Bit Mask |
+- -+ +- -+
| ... | | ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Link Attribute sub-sub-TLVs | | Link Attribute sub-sub-TLVs |
+- -+ +- -+
| ... | | ... |
where: where:
Type: 10 (OSPFv2), 11 (OSPFv3) Type: 10 (OSPFv2), 11 (OSPFv3)
Length: variable Length: variable
SABM Length: Standard Application Identifier Bit-Mask Length in SABM Length: Standard Application Identifier Bit Mask Length in
octets. The legal values are 0, 4 or 8. If the Standard octets. The value MUST be 0, 4 or 8. If the Standard Application
Application Bit-Mask is not present, the Standard Application Bit- Bit Mask is not present, the Standard Application Bit Mask Length
Mask Length MUST be set to 0. MUST be set to 0.
UDABM Length: User Defined Application Identifier Bit-Mask Length UDABM Length: User Defined Application Identifier Bit Mask Length
in octets. The legal values are 0, 4 or 8. If the User Defined in octets. The legal values are 0, 4 or 8. If the User Defined
Application Bit-Mask is not present, the User Defined Application Application Bit Mask is not present, the User Defined Application
Bit-Mask Length MUST be set to 0. Bit Mask Length MUST be set to 0.
Standard Application Identifier Bit-Mask: Optional set of bits, Standard Application Identifier Bit Mask: Optional set of bits,
where each bit represents a single standard application. Bits are where each bit represents a single standard application. Bits are
defined in [I-D.ietf-isis-te-app]. The bits are repeated here for defined in [I-D.ietf-isis-te-app]. The bits are repeated here for
informational purpose: informational purpose:
Bit-0 (R-bit): RSVP-TE Bit-0 (R-bit): RSVP-TE
Bit-1 (S-bit): Segment Routing TE Bit-1 (S-bit): Segment Routing TE
Bit-2 (F-bit): Loop Free Alternate (LFA). Includes all LFA Bit-2 (F-bit): Loop Free Alternate (LFA). Includes all LFA
types types
User Defined Application Identifier Bit-Mask: Optional set of User Defined Application Identifier Bit Mask: Optional set of
bits, where each bit represents a single user defined application. bits, where each bit represents a single user defined application.
If the SABM or UDABM length is other than 0, 4, or 8, the ASLA sub- If the SABM or UDABM length is other than 0, 4, or 8, the ASLA sub-
TLV MUST be ignored by the receiver. TLV MUST be ignored by the receiver.
Standard Application Identifier Bits are defined/sent starting with Standard Application Identifier Bits are defined/sent starting with
Bit 0. Undefined bits MUST be transmitted as 0 and MUST be ignored Bit 0. Undefined bits MUST be transmitted as 0 and MUST be ignored
on receipt. Bits that are NOT transmitted MUST be treated as if they on receipt. Bits that are NOT transmitted MUST be treated as if they
are set to 0 on receipt. Bits that are not supported by an are set to 0 on receipt. Bits that are not supported by an
implementation MUST be ignored on receipt. implementation MUST be ignored on receipt.
User Defined Application Identifier Bits have no relationship to User Defined Application Identifier Bits have no relationship to
Standard Application Identifier Bits and are NOT managed by IANA or Standard Application Identifier Bits and are NOT managed by IANA or
any other standards body. It is recommended that bits are used any other standards body. It is recommended that bits are used
starting with Bit 0 so as to minimize the number of octets required starting with Bit 0 so as to minimize the number of octets required
to advertise all UDAs. to advertise all UDAs.
If the link attribute advertisement is limited to be used by a If the link attribute advertisement is limited to be used by a
specific set of applications, corresponding Bit-Masks MUST be present specific set of applications, corresponding Bit Masks MUST be present
and application specific bit(s) MUST be set for all applications that and application specific bit(s) MUST be set for all applications that
use the link attributes advertised in the ASLA sub-TLV. use the link attributes advertised in the ASLA sub-TLV.
Application Bit-Masks apply to all link attributes that support Application Bit Masks apply to all link attributes that support
application specific values and are advertised in the ASLA sub-TLV. application specific values and are advertised in the ASLA sub-TLV.
The advantage of not making the Application Bit-Masks part of the The advantage of not making the Application Bit Masks part of the
attribute advertisement itself is that the format of any previously attribute advertisement itself is that the format of any previously
defined link attributes can be kept and reused when advertising them defined link attributes can be kept and reused when advertising them
in the ASLA sub-TLV. in the ASLA sub-TLV.
If the same attribute is advertised in more than single ASLA sub-TLVs If the same attribute is advertised in more than single ASLA sub-TLVs
with the application listed in the Application Bit-Masks, the with the application listed in the Application Bit Masks, the
application SHOULD use the first instance of advertisement and ignore application SHOULD use the first instance of advertisement and ignore
any subsequent advertisements of that attribute. any subsequent advertisements of that attribute.
This document defines the initial set of link attributes that MUST This document defines the initial set of link attributes that MUST
use the ASLA sub-TLV if advertised in the OSPFv2 Extended Link TLV or use the ASLA sub-TLV if advertised in the OSPFv2 Extended Link TLV or
in the OSPFv3 Router-Link TLV. Documents which define new link in the OSPFv3 Router-Link TLV. Documents which define new link
attributes MUST state whether the new attributes support application attributes MUST state whether the new attributes support application
specific values and as such MUST be advertised in an ASLA sub-TLV. specific values and as such MUST be advertised in an ASLA sub-TLV.
The link attributes that MUST be advertised in ASLA sub-TLVs are: The link attributes that MUST be advertised in ASLA sub-TLVs are:
skipping to change at page 10, line 46 skipping to change at page 10, line 46
8. Considerations for Extended TE Metrics 8. Considerations for Extended TE Metrics
[RFC7471] defines a number of dynamic performance metrics associated [RFC7471] defines a number of dynamic performance metrics associated
with a link. It is conceivable that such metrics could be measured with a link. It is conceivable that such metrics could be measured
specific to traffic associated with a specific application. specific to traffic associated with a specific application.
Therefore this document includes support for advertising these link Therefore this document includes support for advertising these link
attributes specific to a given application. However, in practice it attributes specific to a given application. However, in practice it
may well be more practical to have these metrics reflect the may well be more practical to have these metrics reflect the
performance of all traffic on the link regardless of application. In performance of all traffic on the link regardless of application. In
such cases, advertisements for these attributes can be associated such cases, advertisements for these attributes can be associated
with all of the applications utilizing that link, for example, by with all of the applications utilizing that link. This can be done
listing all applications in the Application Bit-Mask. either by explicitly specifying the applications in the Application
Identifier Bit Mask or by using a zero length Application Identifier
Bit Mask.
9. Local Interface IPv6 Address Sub-TLV 9. Local Interface IPv6 Address Sub-TLV
The Local Interface IPv6 Address Sub-TLV is an application The Local Interface IPv6 Address Sub-TLV is an application
independent attribute of the link that is defined in [RFC5329]. independent attribute of the link that is defined in [RFC5329].
Because it is an application independent attribute, it MUST NOT be Because it is an application independent attribute, it MUST NOT be
advertised in the ASLA sub-TLV. Instead, it MAY be advertised as a advertised in the ASLA sub-TLV. Instead, it MAY be advertised as a
sub-TLV of the OSPFv3 E-Router-LSA Router-Link TLV [RFC8362]. sub-TLV of the OSPFv3 E-Router-LSA Router-Link TLV [RFC8362].
To advertise the Local Interface IPv6 Address Sub-TLV in the OSPFv3 To advertise the Local Interface IPv6 Address Sub-TLV in the OSPFv3
skipping to change at page 12, line 34 skipping to change at page 12, line 34
12. Deployment Considerations 12. Deployment Considerations
12.1. Use of Legacy RSVP-TE LSA Advertisements 12.1. Use of Legacy RSVP-TE LSA Advertisements
Bit Identifiers for Standard Applications are defined in Section 5. Bit Identifiers for Standard Applications are defined in Section 5.
All of the identifiers defined in this document are associated with All of the identifiers defined in this document are associated with
applications which were already deployed in some networks prior to applications which were already deployed in some networks prior to
the writing of this document. Therefore, such applications have been the writing of this document. Therefore, such applications have been
deployed using the RSVP-TE LSA advertisements. The Standard deployed using the RSVP-TE LSA advertisements. The Standard
Applications defined in this document MAY continue to use RSVP-TE LSA Applications defined in this document may continue to use RSVP-TE LSA
advertisements for a given link so long as at least one of the advertisements for a given link so long as at least one of the
following conditions is true: following conditions is true:
The application is RSVP-TE The application is RSVP-TE
The application is SRTE or LFA and RSVP-TE is not deployed The application is SRTE or LFA and RSVP-TE is not deployed
anywhere in the network anywhere in the network
The application is SRTE or LFA, RSVP-TE is deployed in the The application is SRTE or LFA, RSVP-TE is deployed in the
network, and both the set of links on which SRTE and/or LFA network, and both the set of links on which SRTE and/or LFA
skipping to change at page 18, line 38 skipping to change at page 18, line 38
Thanks to Alvaro Retana for his detailed review and comments. Thanks to Alvaro Retana for his detailed review and comments.
17. References 17. References
17.1. Normative References 17.1. Normative References
[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-12 (work in progress), March 2020. ietf-isis-te-app-13 (work in progress), May 2020.
[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>.
skipping to change at page 20, line 8 skipping to change at page 20, line 8
[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>.
17.2. Informative References 17.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy] [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy]
Filsfils, C., Sivabalan, S., Voyer, D., Bogdanov, A., and Filsfils, C., Sivabalan, S., Voyer, D., Bogdanov, A., and
P. Mattes, "Segment Routing Policy Architecture", draft- P. Mattes, "Segment Routing Policy Architecture", draft-
ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy-06 (work in progress), ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy-07 (work in progress),
December 2019. May 2020.
[RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V., [RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.,
and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
Tunnels", RFC 3209, DOI 10.17487/RFC3209, December 2001, Tunnels", RFC 3209, DOI 10.17487/RFC3209, December 2001,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3209>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3209>.
[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>.
 End of changes. 21 change blocks. 
28 lines changed or deleted 30 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/