draft-ietf-ospf-xaf-te-02.txt   draft-ietf-ospf-xaf-te-03.txt 
LSR A. Smirnov LSR A. Smirnov
Internet-Draft Cisco Systems, Inc. Internet-Draft Cisco Systems, Inc.
Updates: 5786 (if approved) A. Retana Updates: 5786 (if approved) A. Retana
Intended status: Standards Track Huawei R&D USA Intended status: Standards Track Huawei R&D USA
Expires: October 20, 2018 M. Barnes Expires: April 6, 2019 M. Barnes
Cisco Systems, Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc.
April 18, 2018 October 3, 2018
OSPF Routing with Cross-Address Family Traffic Engineering Tunnels OSPF Routing with Cross-Address Family Traffic Engineering Tunnels
draft-ietf-ospf-xaf-te-02 draft-ietf-ospf-xaf-te-03
Abstract Abstract
When using Traffic Engineering (TE) in a dual-stack IPv4/IPv6 network When using Traffic Engineering (TE) in a dual-stack IPv4/IPv6 network
the Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) TE Label Switched Paths the Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) TE Label Switched Paths
(LSP) infrastructure may be duplicated, even if the destination IPv4 (LSP) infrastructure may be duplicated, even if the destination IPv4
and IPv6 addresses belong to the same remote router. In order to and IPv6 addresses belong to the same remote router. In order to
achieve an integrated MPLS TE LSP infrastructure, OSPF routes must be achieve an integrated MPLS TE LSP infrastructure, OSPF routes must be
computed over MPLS TE tunnels created using information propagated in computed over MPLS TE tunnels created using information propagated in
another OSPF instance. This is solved by advertising cross-address another OSPF instance. This is solved by advertising cross-address
skipping to change at page 1, line 43 skipping to change at page 1, line 43
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 October 20, 2018. This Internet-Draft will expire on April 6, 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 24 skipping to change at page 2, line 24
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Backward Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4. Backward Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
TE Extensions to OSPFv2 [RFC3630] and to OSPFv3 [RFC5329] have been TE Extensions to OSPFv2 [RFC3630] and to OSPFv3 [RFC5329] have been
described to support intra-area TE in IPv4 and IPv6 networks, described to support intra-area TE in IPv4 and IPv6 networks,
respectively. In both cases the TE database provides a tight respectively. In both cases the TE database provides a tight
coupling between the routed protocol and TE signaling information in coupling between the routed protocol and TE signaling information in
it. In other words, any use of the TE link state database is limited it. In other words, any use of the TE link state database is limited
to IPv4 for OSPFv2 [RFC2328] and IPv6 for OSPFv3 [RFC5340]. to IPv4 for OSPFv2 [RFC2328] and IPv6 for OSPFv3 [RFC5340].
skipping to change at page 6, line 23 skipping to change at page 6, line 23
separately. separately.
* If Node Local Address sub-TLV belongs to the same address * If Node Local Address sub-TLV belongs to the same address
family as instance of OSPF protocol advertising it then address family as instance of OSPF protocol advertising it then address
carried in the sub-TLV MUST be treated as described in carried in the sub-TLV MUST be treated as described in
[RFC5786]. [RFC5786].
* Otherwise the address is used for X-AF tunnel tail-end mapping * Otherwise the address is used for X-AF tunnel tail-end mapping
as defined by this document. as defined by this document.
Only routers that serve as endpoints for one or more TE tunnels MUST
be upgraded to support procedures described in this document:
o Tunnel tailends need to advertise Node IPv4 Local Address and/or
Node IPv6 Local Address sub-TLVs as described in this
specification
o Tunnel headends need to perform X-AF routing calculation as
described in this specification
Other routers in the network do not need to support X-AF procedures.
5. Security Considerations 5. Security Considerations
This document introduces no new security concerns. Security This document introduces no new security concerns. Security
considerations of using Node Attribute TLV are discussed in considerations of using Node Attribute TLV are discussed in
[RFC5786]. [RFC5786].
6. IANA Considerations 6. IANA Considerations
This document has no IANA actions. This document has no IANA actions.
 End of changes. 7 change blocks. 
7 lines changed or deleted 19 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/