draft-ietf-ospf-te-node-addr-07.txt   rfc5786.txt 
Network Working Group R. Aggarwal Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) R. Aggarwal
Internet Draft Juniper Networks Request for Comments: 5786 K. Kompella
Expiration Date: June 2010 Updates: 3630 Juniper Networks
K. Kompella Category: Standards Track March 2010
Juniper Networks ISSN: 2070-1721
December 02, 2009 Advertising a Router's Local Addresses
in OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE) Extensions
Advertising a Router's Local Addresses in OSPF TE Extensions Abstract
draft-ietf-ospf-te-node-addr-07.txt OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE) extensions are used to advertise TE
Link State Advertisements (LSAs) containing information about TE-
enabled links. The only addresses belonging to a router that are
advertised in TE LSAs are the local addresses corresponding to TE-
enabled links, and the local address corresponding to the Router ID.
Status of this Memo 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 Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the This document describes procedures that enhance OSPF TE to advertise
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. a router's local addresses.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Status of This Memo
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other
groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months This is an Internet Standards Track document.
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5786.
Copyright and License Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2010 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 in effect on the date of Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info). (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights publication of this document. Please review these documents
and restrictions with respect to this document. carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
Contributions published or made publicly available before November Contributions published or made publicly available before November
10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this 10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process. modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
than English. than English.
Abstract
OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE) extensions are used to advertise TE
Link State Advertisements (LSAs) containing information about TE-
enabled links. The only addresses belonging to a router that 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 ......................... 3 1. Introduction ....................................................3
2 Introduction .......................................... 3 1.1. Motivation .................................................3
2.1 Motivation ............................................ 3 2. Specification of Requirements ...................................3
3 Rejected Potential Solution ........................... 4 3. Rejected Potential Solution .....................................4
4 Solution .............................................. 4 4. Solution ........................................................4
4.1 Node Attribute TLV .................................... 5 4.1. Node Attribute TLV .........................................4
4.2 Operation ............................................. 6 4.2. Operation ..................................................5
5 Security Considerations ............................... 7 5. Security Considerations .........................................6
6 IANA Considerations ................................... 7 6. IANA Considerations .............................................6
7 Acknowledgements ...................................... 7 7. Acknowledgements ................................................6
8 References ............................................ 8 8. References ......................................................7
8.1 Normative References .................................. 8 8.1. Normative References .......................................7
8.2 Informative References ................................ 8 8.2. Informative References .....................................7
9 Authors' Addresses .................................... 8
1. Specification of requirements
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
2. Introduction 1. Introduction
2.1. Motivation 1.1. 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
the BGP next-hop for VPN traffic while another may be used as the BGP as the BGP next-hop for VPN traffic while another may be used as the
next-hop for non-VPN traffic. It is also possible that different BGP BGP next-hop for non-VPN traffic. It is also possible that different
sessions are used for VPN and non-VPN services. Hence two separate BGP sessions are used for VPN and non-VPN services. Hence, two
MPLS TE LSPs are desirable, one to each loopback address. separate MPLS TE LSPs are desirable -- one to each loopback address.
However, current 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 a compute MPLS TE LSPs to the router ID or the local addresses of a
remote router's TE enabled links. This restriction arises because remote router's TE-enabled links. This restriction arises because
OSPF TE extensions [RFC3630, RFC5329] 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 the advertising router. However, they cannot populate the TED with the
advertising router's other local addresses, 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 [RFC2328], 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 the stub link ID is the neighbor address. Intra-prefix LSAs in
OSPFv3 [RFC5340] are also not sufficient to learn the local OSPFv3 [RFC5340] are also not sufficient to learn the local
addresses. addresses.
For the above reasons this document defines an enhancement to OSPF TE For the above reasons, this document defines an enhancement to OSPF
extensions to advertise the local addresses of a node. TE extensions to advertise the local addresses of a node.
3. Rejected Potential Solution 2. Specification of Requirements
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
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. Solution 4. Solution
The solution is to advertise the local addresses of a router in a new The solution is to advertise the local addresses of a router in a new
OSPF TE LSA node attribute TLV. It is anticipated that the node OSPF TE LSA Node Attribute TLV. It is anticipated that the Node
attribute TLV will also prove more generally useful. Attribute TLV will also prove more generally 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 5 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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Prefix Len 1 | IPv4 Prefix 1 | | Prefix Len 1 | IPv4 Prefix 1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Prefix 1 cont. | : |Prefix 1 cont. | :
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ~ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ~
: . : : . :
~ . +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ~ . +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
: . | Prefix Len n | : . | Prefix Len n |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv4 Prefix n | | IPv4 Prefix n |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Each local IPv4 address is encoded as a <Prefix Length, Prefix> Each local IPv4 address is encoded as a <Prefix Length, Prefix>
tuple. Prefix 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. Prefix is an IPv4 address in the Address and can be at most 32. Prefix is an IPv4 address
prefix and is encoded in 4 bytes with zero bits as necessary. prefix and is encoded in 4 bytes with zero bits as necessary.
The Node IPv4 Local Address sub-TLV length is in octets. It is the The Node IPv4 Local Address sub-TLV length is in octets. It is the
sum of the lengths of all n IPv4 Address encodings in the sub-TLV sum of the lengths of all n IPv4 Address encodings in the sub-TLV,
where n is the number of local addresses included in the sub-TLV. where n is the 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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Prefix Len 1 | Prefix 1 Opt. | IPv6 Prefix 1 | | Prefix Len 1 | Prefix 1 Opt. | IPv6 Prefix 1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv6 Prefix 1 cont. : | IPv6 Prefix 1 cont. :
: . ~ : . ~
~ . ~ .
: . : .
: +-+-+-+-+-++-+-+-+-+-++-+-+-+-+-+ : +-+-+-+-+-++-+-+-+-+-++-+-+-+-+-+
: | Prefix Len n | Prefix n Opt. | : | Prefix Len n | Prefix n Opt. |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv6 Prefix n : | IPv6 Prefix n :
| : | :
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-- +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+--
skipping to change at page 6, line 17 skipping to change at page 5, line 32
: . : .
: +-+-+-+-+-++-+-+-+-+-++-+-+-+-+-+ : +-+-+-+-+-++-+-+-+-+-++-+-+-+-+-+
: | 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 [RFC5340]. 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.
is the length in bits of the prefix and is an 8 bit field. PrefixLength is the length in bits of the prefix and is an 8-bit
PrefixOptions is an 8-bit field describing various capabilities field. PrefixOptions is an 8-bit field describing various
associated with the prefix [RFC5340]. Address Prefix is an encoding capabilities associated with the prefix [RFC5340]. Address Prefix is
of the prefix itself as an even multiple of 32-bit words, padding an encoding of the prefix itself as an even multiple of 32-bit words,
with zero bits as necessary. This encoding consumes (PrefixLength + padding with zero bits as necessary. This encoding consumes
31) / 32) 32-bit words. (PrefixLength + 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 the lengths of all n IPv6 Address encodings in the sub-TLV sum of the lengths of all n IPv6 Address encodings in the sub-TLV,
where n is the number of local addresses included in the sub-TLV. where n is the 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 NOT appear in more than one TE LSA The Node Attribute TLV MUST NOT appear in more than one TE LSA
originated by a router. Furthermore, such a LSA MUST NOT include more originated by a router. Furthermore, such an LSA MUST NOT include
than one node attribute TLV. A node attribute TLV MUST NOT carry more more than one Node Attribute TLV. A Node Attribute TLV MUST NOT
than one Node IPv4 Local Address sub-TLV. A node attribute TLV MUST carry more than one Node IPv4 Local Address sub-TLV. A Node
NOT carry more than one Node IPv6 Local Address sub-TLV. Attribute TLV MUST NOT carry more than 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 [RFC3630, RFC5329]. than those discussed in [RFC3630] and [RFC5329].
6. IANA Considerations 6. IANA Considerations
The Node Attribute TLV type has to be IANA assigned from the range 3 IANA has assigned the Node Attribute TLV (value 5) type from the
- 32767 as specified in [RFC3630], from the top level types in TE range 3-32767 as specified in [RFC3630], from the top level types in
LSAs registry maintained by IANA at [IANA-OSPF-TE]. TE LSAs registry maintained by IANA at http://www.iana.org.
IANA is requested to maintain the registry for the sub-TLVs of the IANA has created and now maintains the registry for the sub-TLVs of
node attribute TLV and reserve value 1 for Node IPv4 Local Address the Node Attribute TLV. Value 1 is reserved for Node IPv4 Local
sub-TLV and value 2 for Node IPv6 Local Address sub-TLV. Address sub-TLV and value 2 for Node IPv6 Local Address sub-TLV.
The guidelines for the assignment of types for sub-TLVs of the node The guidelines for the assignment of types for sub-TLVs of the Node
attribute TLV are as follows: Attribute TLV are as follows:
o Types in the range 3-32767 are to be assigned via Standards o Types in the range 3-32767 are to be assigned via Standards
Action. Action.
o Types in the range 32768-32777 are for experimental use; these o Types in the range 32768-32777 are for experimental use; these
will not be registered with IANA, and MUST NOT be mentioned by will not be registered with IANA, and MUST NOT be mentioned by
RFCs. RFCs.
o Types in the range 32778-65535 are not to be assigned at this 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 time. Before any assignments can be made in this range, there
MUST be a Standards Track RFC that specifies IANA MUST be a Standards Track RFC that specifies IANA
Considerations that covers the range being assigned. Considerations that covers the range being assigned.
7. Acknowledgements 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 would also like to thank Jean Philippe Vasseur, Acee Lindem, work. We would also like to thank Jean Philippe Vasseur, Acee
Venkata Naidu, Dimitri Papadimitriou and Adrian Farrel for their Lindem, Venkata Naidu, Dimitri Papadimitriou, and Adrian Farrel for
comments. their comments.
8. References 8. References
8.1. Normative References 8.1. Normative References
[RFC2328] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", RFC 2328, April 1998. [RFC2328] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, 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.
[RFC3630] D. Katz, K. Kompella, D. Yeung, "Traffic Engineering [RFC3630] Katz, D., Kompella, K., and D. Yeung, "Traffic Engineering
Extensions to OSPF version 2", RFC 3630, (TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC 3630, September
September 2003. 2003.
[RFC5340] R. Coltun, et. al.,"OSPF for IPv6", RFC 5340. [RFC5340] Coltun, R., Ferguson, D., Moy, J., and A. Lindem, "OSPF
for IPv6", RFC 5340, July 2008.
8.2. Informative References 8.2. Informative References
[RFC5329] K. Ishiguro, T. Takada, "Traffic Engineering [RFC5329] Ishiguro, K., Manral, V., Davey, A., and A. Lindem, Ed.,
Extensions to OSPF version 3", RFC 5329 "Traffic Engineering Extensions to OSPF Version 3", RFC
5329, September 2008.
[IANA-OSPF-TE] http://www.iana.org/assignments/ospf-traffic-eng-tlvs
9. Authors' Addresses 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
 End of changes. 64 change blocks. 
160 lines changed or deleted 154 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.38. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/