draft-ietf-ospf-te-node-addr-05.txt   draft-ietf-ospf-te-node-addr-06.txt 
Network Working Group R. Aggarwal Network Working Group R. Aggarwal
Internet Draft Juniper Networks Internet Draft Juniper Networks
Category: Standards Track Expiration Date: November 2009
Expiration Date: May 2009 K. Kompella K. Kompella
Juniper Networks Juniper Networks
November 18, 2008 May 04, 2009
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-05.txt draft-ietf-ospf-te-node-addr-06.txt
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
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.
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 other
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.
Drafts.
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."
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.
Copyright and License Notice
Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents in effect on the date of
publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document.
This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
Contributions published or made publicly available before November
10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
than English.
Abstract Abstract
OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE) extensions are used to advertise TE OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE) extensions are used to advertise TE
Link State Advertisements (LSAs) containing information about TE- Link State Advertisements (LSAs) containing information about TE-
enabled links. The only addresses belonging to a router that are enabled links. The only addresses belonging to a router that are
advertised in TE LSAs are the local addresses corresponding to TE- advertised in TE LSAs are the local addresses corresponding to TE-
enabled links, and the local address corresponding to the Router ID. enabled links, and the local address corresponding to the Router ID.
In order to allow other routers in a network to compute Multiprotocol In order to allow other routers in a network to compute Multiprotocol
Label Switching (MPLS) traffic engineered Label Switched Paths (TE Label Switching (MPLS) traffic engineered Label Switched Paths (TE
LSPs) to a given router's local addresses, those addresses must also LSPs) to a given router's local addresses, those addresses must also
be advertised by OSPF TE. be advertised by OSPF TE.
This document describes procedures that enhance OSPF TE to advertise This document describes procedures that enhance OSPF TE to advertise
a router's local addresses. a router's local addresses.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1 Specification of requirements ......................... 2 1 Specification of requirements ......................... 3
2 Motivation ............................................ 3 2 Introduction .......................................... 3
3 Rejected Potential Solution ........................... 3 2.1 Motivation ............................................ 3
3 Rejected Potential Solution ........................... 4
4 Solution .............................................. 4 4 Solution .............................................. 4
4.1 Node Attribute TLV .................................... 4 4.1 Node Attribute TLV .................................... 5
4.2 Operation ............................................. 5 4.2 Operation ............................................. 6
5 Security Considerations ............................... 6 5 Security Considerations ............................... 7
6 IANA Considerations ................................... 6 6 IANA Considerations ................................... 7
7 Acknowledgments ....................................... 6 7 Acknowledgements ...................................... 7
8 References ............................................ 6 8 References ............................................ 8
8.1 Normative References .................................. 6 8.1 Normative References .................................. 8
8.2 Informative References ................................ 7 8.2 Informative References ................................ 8
9 Author's Address ...................................... 7 9 Authors' Addresses .................................... 8
10 Intellectual Property Statement ....................... 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. Introduction
2.1. Motivation
In some cases it is desirable to set up constrained shortest path In some cases it is desirable to set up constrained shortest path
first (CSPF) computed Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Traffic first (CSPF) computed Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Traffic
Engineered Label Switched Paths (TE LSPs) to local addresses of a Engineered Label Switched Paths (TE LSPs) to local addresses of a
router, that are not currently advertised in the TE LSAs i.e. router, that are not currently advertised in the TE LSAs i.e.,
loopback and non-TE interface addresses. 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, current routers in an OSPF network can only use CSPF to
compute MPLS TE LSPs to the router ID or the local addresses of TE compute MPLS TE LSPs to the router ID or the local addresses of a
enabled links of a remote router. This restriction arises because remote router's TE enabled links. This restriction arises because
OSPF TE extensions [OSPF-TE, OSPFv3-TE] only advertise the router ID OSPF TE extensions [RFC3630, RFC5329] only advertise the router ID
and the local addresses of TE enabled links of a given router. Other and the local addresses of TE enabled links of a given router. Other
routers in the network can populate their traffic engineering routers in the network can populate their traffic engineering
database (TED) with these local addresses belonging to the database (TED) with these local addresses belonging to the
advertising router. However they cannot populate the TED with other advertising router. However, they cannot populate the TED with the
local addresses of the advertising router i.e. loopback and non-TE advertising router's other local addresses, i.e., loopback and non-TE
interface addresses. OSPFv2 stub links in the router LSA [OSPF], interface addresses. OSPFv2 stub links in the router LSA [RFC2328],
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] are also not sufficient to learn the local addresses. OSPFv3 [RFC5340] 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. Rejected 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
skipping to change at page 5, line 21 skipping to change at page 6, line 15
: . ~ : . ~
~ . ~ .
: . : .
: +-+-+-+-+-++-+-+-+-+-++-+-+-+-+-+ : +-+-+-+-+-++-+-+-+-+-++-+-+-+-+-+
: | Prefix Len n | Prefix n Opt. | : | Prefix Len n | Prefix n Opt. |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv6 Prefix n : | IPv6 Prefix n :
| : | :
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-- +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+--
Each local IPv6 address is encoded using the procedures in [OSPv3]. Each local IPv6 address is encoded using the procedures in [RFC5340].
Each IPv6 address MUST be represented by a combination of three Each IPv6 address MUST be represented by a combination of three
fields: PrefixLength, PrefixOptions, and Address Prefix. PrefixLength fields: PrefixLength, PrefixOptions, and Address Prefix. PrefixLength
is the length in bits of the prefix and is an 8 bit field. is the length in bits of the prefix and is an 8 bit field.
PrefixOptions is an 8-bit field describing various capabilities PrefixOptions is an 8-bit field describing various capabilities
associated with the prefix [OSPFv3]. Address Prefix is an encoding of associated with the prefix [RFC5340]. Address Prefix is an encoding
the prefix itself as an even multiple of 32-bit words, padding with of the prefix itself as an even multiple of 32-bit words, padding
zero bits as necessary. This encoding consumes (PrefixLength + 31) / with zero bits as necessary. This encoding consumes (PrefixLength +
32) 32-bit words. 31) / 32) 32-bit words.
The Node IPv6 Local Address sub-TLV length is in octets. It is the The Node IPv6 Local Address sub-TLV length is in octets. It is the
sum of all n IPv6 Address encodings in the sub-TLV where n is the sum of all n IPv6 Address encodings in the sub-TLV where n is the
number of local 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 The node attribute TLV must appear in exactly one TE LSA originated
by a router. Further only one node attribute TLV must be advertised by a router. Furthermore, only one node attribute TLV must be
in such a LSA. A node attribute TLV must carry at most one Node IPv4 advertised in such a LSA. A node attribute TLV must carry at most one
Local Address sub-TLV and at most one Node IPv6 Local Address sub- Node IPv4 Local Address sub-TLV and at most one Node IPv6 Local
TLV. 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 [RFC3630, RFC5329].
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], from the top level types in TE - 32767 as specified in [RFC3630], from the top level types in TE
LSAs registry maintained by IANA at [IANA-OSPF-TE]. LSAs registry maintained by IANA at [IANA-OSPF-TE].
IANA is requested to maintain the registry for the sub-TLVs of the 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 node attribute TLV and reserve value 1 for Node IPv4 Local Address
sub-TLV and value 2 for Node IPv6 Local Address sub-TLV. sub-TLV and value 2 for Node IPv6 Local Address sub-TLV.
7. Acknowledgments The guidelines for the assignment of types for sub-TLVs of the node
attribute TLV are as follows:
o Types in the range 3-32767 are to be assigned via Standards
Action.
o Types in the range 32768-32777 are for experimental use; these
will not be registered with IANA, and MUST NOT be mentioned by
RFCs.
o Types in the range 32778-65535 are not to be assigned at this
time. Before any assignments can be made in this range, there
MUST be a Standards Track RFC that specifies IANA
Considerations that covers the range being assigned.
7. Acknowledgements
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 would also like to thank Jean Philippe Vasseur, Acee Lindem,
Venkata Naidu, Dimitri Papadimitriou and Adrian Farrel for their Venkata Naidu, Dimitri Papadimitriou and Adrian Farrel for their
comments. comments.
8. References 8. References
8.1. Normative References 8.1. Normative References
[OSPF] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", RFC 2328, April 1998. [RFC2328] 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.
[OSPF-TE] D. Katz, K. Kompella, D. Yeung, "Traffic Engineering [RFC3630] D. Katz, K. Kompella, D. Yeung, "Traffic Engineering
Extensions to OSPF version 2", RFC 3630, Extensions to OSPF version 2", RFC 3630,
September 2003. September 2003.
[OSPFv3] R. Coltun, D. Ferguson, J. Moy, "OSPF for IPv6", [RFC5340] R. Coltun, et. al.,"OSPF for IPv6", RFC 5340.
RFC 2740.
8.2. Informative References 8.2. Informative References
[OSPFv3-TE] K. Ishiguro, T. Takada, "Traffic Engineering [RFC5329] K. Ishiguro, T. Takada, "Traffic Engineering
Extensions to OSPF version 3", Extensions to OSPF version 3", RFC 5329
draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-traffic-09.txt.
[IANA-OSPF-TE] http://www.iana.org/assignments/ospf-traffic-eng-tlvs [IANA-OSPF-TE] http://www.iana.org/assignments/ospf-traffic-eng-tlvs
9. Author's Address 9. Authors' Addresses
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
Kireeti Kompella Kireeti Kompella
Juniper Networks Juniper Networks
1194 North Mathilda Ave. 1194 North Mathilda Ave.
Sunnyvale, CA 94089 Sunnyvale, CA 94089
Email: kireeti@juniper.net Email: kireeti@juniper.net
10. Intellectual Property Statement
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-
ipr@ietf.org.
11. Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
 End of changes. 27 change blocks. 
59 lines changed or deleted 94 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/