draft-ietf-ospf-te-node-addr-04.txt   draft-ietf-ospf-te-node-addr-05.txt 
Network Working Group R. Aggarwal Network Working Group R. Aggarwal
Internet Draft Juniper Networks Internet Draft Juniper Networks
Expiration Date: May 21, 2008 Category: Standards Track
K. Kompella Expiration Date: May 2009 K. Kompella
Juniper Networks Juniper Networks
November 18, 2007 November 18, 2008
Advertising a Router's Local Addresses in OSPF TE Extensions Advertising a Router's Local Addresses in OSPF TE Extensions
draft-ietf-ospf-te-node-addr-04.txt draft-ietf-ospf-te-node-addr-05.txt
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
skipping to change at page 1, line 40 skipping to change at page 1, line 40
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
Abstract Abstract
This document describes procedures that enhance OSPF Traffic OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE) extensions are used to advertise TE
Engineering (TE) extensions for advertising a router's local Link State Advertisements (LSAs) containing information about TE-
addresses. This is needed to enable other routers in a network to enabled links. The only addresses belonging to a router that are
compute traffic engineered MPLS LSPs to a given router's local advertised in TE LSAs are the local addresses corresponding to TE-
addresses. Currently, the only addresses belonging to a router that enabled links, and the local address corresponding to the Router ID.
are advertised in TE LSAs are the local addresses corresponding to TE
enabled links and the local address corresponding to the Router ID. In order to allow other routers in a network to compute Multiprotocol
Label Switching (MPLS) traffic engineered Label Switched Paths (TE
LSPs) to a given router's local addresses, those addresses must also
be advertised by OSPF TE.
This document describes procedures that enhance OSPF TE to advertise
a router's local addresses.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1 Specification of requirements ......................... 2 1 Specification of requirements ......................... 2
2 Motivation ............................................ 2 2 Motivation ............................................ 3
3 A Potential Solution .................................. 3 3 Rejected Potential Solution ........................... 3
4 Proposed Solution ..................................... 3 4 Solution .............................................. 4
4.1 Node Attribute TLV .................................... 3 4.1 Node Attribute TLV .................................... 4
4.2 Operation ............................................. 5 4.2 Operation ............................................. 5
5 Security Considerations ............................... 5 5 Security Considerations ............................... 6
6 IANA Considerations ................................... 5 6 IANA Considerations ................................... 6
7 Acknowledgments ....................................... 5 7 Acknowledgments ....................................... 6
8 References ............................................ 5 8 References ............................................ 6
8.1 Normative References .................................. 6 8.1 Normative References .................................. 6
8.2 Informative References ................................ 6 8.2 Informative References ................................ 7
9 Author's Address ...................................... 6 9 Author's Address ...................................... 7
10 Intellectual Property Statement ....................... 7 10 Intellectual Property Statement ....................... 7
11 Copyright Notice ...................................... 7 11 Copyright Notice ...................................... 8
1. Specification of requirements 1. Specification of requirements
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
2. Motivation 2. Motivation
In some cases it is desirable to setup constrained shortest path In some cases it is desirable to setup constrained shortest path
first (CSPF) computed MPLS TE LSPs to local addresses of a router, first (CSPF) computed Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Traffic
that are not currently advertised in the TE LSAs i.e. loopback and Engineered Label Switched Paths (TE LSPs) to local addresses of a
non-TE interface addresses. router, that are not currently advertised in the TE LSAs i.e.
loopback and non-TE interface addresses.
For instance, in a network carrying VPN and non-VPN traffic, it is For instance, in a network carrying VPN and non-VPN traffic, it is
often desirable to use different MPLS TE LSPs for the VPN traffic and often desirable to use different MPLS TE LSPs for the VPN traffic and
the non-VPN traffic. In this case one loopback address may be used as the non-VPN traffic. In this case one loopback address may be used as
the BGP next-hop for VPN traffic while another may be used as the BGP the BGP next-hop for VPN traffic while another may be used as the BGP
next-hop for non-VPN traffic. It is also possible that different BGP next-hop for non-VPN traffic. It is also possible that different BGP
sessions are used for VPN and non-VPN services. Hence two separate sessions are used for VPN and non-VPN services. Hence two separate
MPLS TE LSPs are desirable, one to each loopback address. MPLS TE LSPs are desirable, one to each loopback address.
However currently routers in an OSPF network can only use CSPF to However currently routers in an OSPF network can only use CSPF to
skipping to change at page 3, line 25 skipping to change at page 3, line 41
provide stub reachability information to the router but are not provide stub reachability information to the router but are not
sufficient to learn all the local addresses of a router. In sufficient to learn all the local addresses of a router. In
particular for a subnetted point-to-point (P2P) interface the stub particular for a subnetted point-to-point (P2P) interface the stub
link ID is the subnet address, while for a non-subnetted interface link ID is the subnet address, while for a non-subnetted interface
the stub link ID is the neighbor address. Intra-prefix LSAs in OSPFv3 the stub link ID is the neighbor address. Intra-prefix LSAs in OSPFv3
[OSPFv3] are also not sufficient to learn the local addresses. [OSPFv3] are also not sufficient to learn the local addresses.
For the above reasons this document proposes an enhancement to OSPF For the above reasons this document proposes an enhancement to OSPF
TE extensions to advertise the local addresses of a node. TE extensions to advertise the local addresses of a node.
3. A Potential Solution 3. Rejected Potential Solution
A potential solution would be to advertise a TE link TLV for each A potential solution would be to advertise a TE link TLV for each
local address, possibly with a new link type. However, this is local address, possibly with a new link type. However, this is
inefficient since the only meaningful information is the address. inefficient since the only meaningful information is the address.
Furthermore, this would require implementations to process these TE Furthermore, this would require implementations to process these TE
link TLVs differently from others; for example, the TE metric is link TLVs differently from others; for example, the TE metric is
normally considered a mandatory sub-TLV, but would have no meaning normally considered a mandatory sub-TLV, but would have no meaning
for a local address. for a local address.
4. Proposed Solution 4. Solution
The proposed solution is to advertise the local addresses of a router The solution is to advertise the local addresses of a router in a new
in a new OSPF TE LSA node attribute TLV. node attribute TLV. It is OSPF TE LSA node attribute TLV. It is anticipated that the node
anticipated that a node attribute TLV will also prove more generally attribute TLV will also prove more generally useful.
useful.
4.1. Node Attribute TLV 4.1. Node Attribute TLV
The node attribute TLV carries the attributes associated with a The node attribute TLV carries the attributes associated with a
router. The TLV type is TBD and the length is variable. It contains router. The TLV type is TBD and the length is variable. It contains
one or more sub-TLVs. This document defines the following sub-TLVs: one or more sub-TLVs. This document defines the following sub-TLVs:
1. Node IPv4 Local Address sub-TLV 1. Node IPv4 Local Address sub-TLV
2. Node IPv6 Local Address sub-TLV 2. Node IPv6 Local Address sub-TLV
The node IPv4 local address sub-TLV has a type of 1 and contains one The node IPv4 local address sub-TLV has a type of 1 and contains one
or more local IPv4 addresses. It has the following format: or more local IPv4 addresses. It has the following 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 1 | Length | | 1 | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv4 Address 1 | | Prefix Len 1 | IPv4 Prefix 1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
. . . |Prefix 1 cont. | :
. . . +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ~
: . :
~ . +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
: . | Prefix Len n |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv4 Address n | | IPv4 Prefix n |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Each local IPv4 address is encoded as a <Address Length, Address> Each local IPv4 address is encoded as a <Prefix Length, Prefix>
tuple. Address Length is encoded in 1 byte. It is the number of bits tuple. Prefix Length is encoded in 1 byte. It is the number of bits
in the Address and can be at most 32. Address is an IPv4 address in the Address and can be at most 32. Prefix is an IPv4 address
prefix and can be at most 4 bytes. prefix and is encoded in 4 bytes with zero bits as necessary.
The Node IPv4 Local Address sub-TLV length is the sum of all n IPv4 The Node IPv4 Local Address sub-TLV length is in octets. It is the
Address encodings in the sub-TLV where n is the number of local sum of all n IPv4 Address encodings in the sub-TLV where n is the
addresses included in the sub-TLV. number of local addresses included in the sub-TLV.
The node IPv6 local address sub-TLV has a type of 2 and contains one The node IPv6 local address sub-TLV has a type of 2 and contains one
or more local IPv6 addresses. It has the following format: or more local IPv6 addresses. It has the following 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 2 | Length | | 2 | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv6 Address 1 | | Prefix Len 1 | Prefix 1 Opt. | IPv6 Prefix 1 |
| |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
. . . | IPv6 Prefix 1 cont. :
. . . : . ~
~ .
: .
: +-+-+-+-+-++-+-+-+-+-++-+-+-+-+-+
: | Prefix Len n | Prefix n Opt. |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv6 Address n | | IPv6 Prefix n :
| | | :
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-- +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+--
Each local IPv6 address is encoded as a <Address Length, Address> Each local IPv6 address is encoded using the procedures in [OSPv3].
tuple. Address Length is encoded in 1 byte. It is the number of bits Each IPv6 address MUST be represented by a combination of three
in the address and can be at most 128. Address is an IPv6 address fields: PrefixLength, PrefixOptions, and Address Prefix. PrefixLength
prefix and can be at most 16 bytes. is the length in bits of the prefix and is an 8 bit field.
PrefixOptions is an 8-bit field describing various capabilities
associated with the prefix [OSPFv3]. Address Prefix is an encoding of
the prefix itself as an even multiple of 32-bit words, padding with
zero bits as necessary. This encoding consumes (PrefixLength + 31) /
32) 32-bit words.
The Node IPv6 Local Address sub-TLV length is the sum of all n IPv6 The Node IPv6 Local Address sub-TLV length is in octets. It is the
Address encodings in the sub-TLV where n is the number of local sum of all n IPv6 Address encodings in the sub-TLV where n is the
addresses included in the sub-TLV. number of local addresses included in the sub-TLV.
4.2. Operation 4.2. Operation
A router announces one or more local addresses in the node attribute A router announces one or more local addresses in the node attribute
TLV. The local addresses that can be learned from TE LSAs i.e. TLV. The local addresses that can be learned from TE LSAs i.e.
router address and TE interface addresses SHOULD not be advertised in router address and TE interface addresses SHOULD NOT be advertised in
the node local address sub-TLV. The local addresses advertised will the node local address sub-TLV. The local addresses advertised will
depend on the local configuration of the advertising router. The depend on the local configuration of the advertising router. The
default behavior MAY be to advertise all the loopback interface default behavior MAY be to advertise all the loopback interface
addresses. addresses.
The node attribute TLV must appear in exactly one TE LSA originated
by a router. Further only one node attribute TLV must be advertised
in such a LSA. A node attribute TLV must carry at most one Node IPv4
Local Address sub-TLV and at most one Node IPv6 Local Address sub-
TLV.
5. Security Considerations 5. Security Considerations
This document does not introduce any further security issues other This document does not introduce any further security issues other
than those discussed in [OSPF-TE, OSPFv3-TE]. than those discussed in [OSPF-TE, OSPFv3-TE].
6. IANA Considerations 6. IANA Considerations
The Node Attribute TLV type has to be IANA assigned from the range 3 The Node Attribute TLV type has to be IANA assigned from the range 3
- 32767 as specified in [OSPF-TE]. - 32767 as specified in [OSPF-TE], from the top level types in TE
LSAs registry maintained by IANA at [IANA-OSPF-TE].
IANA is requested to maintain the registry for the sub-TLVs of the
node attribute TLV and reserve value 1 for Node IPv4 Local Address
sub-TLV and value 2 for Node IPv6 Local Address sub-TLV.
7. Acknowledgments 7. Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Nischal Sheth for his contribution to this We would like to thank Nischal Sheth for his contribution to this
work. We woud also like to thank Jean Philippe Vasseur, Acee Lindem, work. We woud also like to thank Jean Philippe Vasseur, Acee Lindem,
Venkata Naidu and Dimitri Papadimitriou for their comments. Venkata Naidu, Dimitri Papadimitriou and Adrian Farrel for their
comments.
8. References 8. References
8.1. Normative References 8.1. Normative References
[OSPF] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", RFC 2328, April 1998. [OSPF] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", RFC 2328, April 1998.
[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, March 1997. Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
skipping to change at page 6, line 25 skipping to change at page 7, line 11
[OSPFv3] R. Coltun, D. Ferguson, J. Moy, "OSPF for IPv6", [OSPFv3] R. Coltun, D. Ferguson, J. Moy, "OSPF for IPv6",
RFC 2740. RFC 2740.
8.2. Informative References 8.2. Informative References
[OSPFv3-TE] K. Ishiguro, T. Takada, "Traffic Engineering [OSPFv3-TE] K. Ishiguro, T. Takada, "Traffic Engineering
Extensions to OSPF version 3", Extensions to OSPF version 3",
draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-traffic-09.txt. draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-traffic-09.txt.
[IANA-OSPF-TE] http://www.iana.org/assignments/ospf-traffic-eng-tlvs
9. Author's Address 9. Author's Address
Rahul Aggarwal Rahul Aggarwal
Juniper Networks Juniper Networks
1194 North Mathilda Ave. 1194 North Mathilda Ave.
Sunnyvale, CA 94089 Sunnyvale, CA 94089
Phone: +1-408-936-2720 Phone: +1-408-936-2720
Email: rahul@juniper.net Email: rahul@juniper.net
skipping to change at page 7, line 31 skipping to change at page 8, line 11
http://www.ietf.org/ipr. http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf- this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-
ipr@ietf.org. ipr@ietf.org.
11. Copyright Notice 11. Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007). Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights. retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
 End of changes. 29 change blocks. 
63 lines changed or deleted 91 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.35. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/