draft-ietf-ospf-transport-instance-03.txt   draft-ietf-ospf-transport-instance-04.txt 
Network Working Group A. Lindem Network Working Group A. Lindem
Internet-Draft Ericsson Internet-Draft Ericsson
Intended status: Standards Track A. Roy Intended status: Standards Track A. Roy
Expires: April 8, 2010 S. Mirtorabi Expires: October 20, 2010 S. Mirtorabi
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
October 5, 2009 April 18, 2010
OSPF Transport Instance Extensions OSPF Transport Instance Extensions
draft-ietf-ospf-transport-instance-03.txt draft-ietf-ospf-transport-instance-04.txt
Abstract
OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 include a reliable flooding mechanism to
disseminate routing topology and Traffic Engineering (TE) information
within a routing domain. Given the effectiveness of these
mechanisms, it is convenient to envision using the same mechanism for
dissemination of other types of information within the domain.
However, burdening OSPF with this additional information will impact
intra-domain routing convergence and possibly jeopardize the
stability of the OSPF routing domain. This document presents
mechanism to relegate this ancillary information to a separate OSPF
instance and minimize the impact.
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and 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). Note that other groups may also distribute
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts. Drafts is at http://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."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at This Internet-Draft will expire on October 20, 2010.
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on April 8, 2010.
Copyright 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
Abstract 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.
OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 include a reliable flooding mechanism to This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
disseminate routing topology and Traffic Engineering (TE) information Contributions published or made publicly available before November
within a routing domain. Given the effectiveness of these 10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
mechanisms, it is convenient to envision using the same mechanism for material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
dissemination of other types of information within the domain. modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
However, burdening OSPF with this additional information will impact Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
intra-domain routing convergence and possibly jeopardize the the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
stability of the OSPF routing domain. This document presents outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
mechanism to relegate this ancillary information to a separate OSPF not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
instance and minimize the impact. it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
than English.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.1. Requirements notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1. Requirements notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. OSPF Transport Instance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. OSPF Transport Instance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1. OSPFv2 Transport Instance Packets Differentiation . . . . 4 2.1. OSPFv2 Transport Instance Packets Differentiation . . . . 5
2.2. OSPFv3 Transport Instance Packets Differentiation . . . . 4 2.2. OSPFv3 Transport Instance Packets Differentiation . . . . 5
2.3. Instance Relationship to Normal OSPF Instances . . . . . . 4 2.3. Instance Relationship to Normal OSPF Instances . . . . . . 5
2.3.1. Ships in the Night Relationship to Normal OSPF 2.3.1. Ships in the Night Relationship to Normal OSPF
Instances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Instances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.3.2. Tighter Coupling with Normal OSPF Instances . . . . . 5 2.3.2. Tighter Coupling with Normal OSPF Instances . . . . . 6
2.4. Network Prioritization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.4. Network Prioritization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.5. OSPF Transport Instance Omission of Routing Calculation . 5 2.5. OSPF Transport Instance Omission of Routing Calculation . 6
2.6. Non-routing Instance Separation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.6. Non-routing Instance Separation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.7. Non-Routing Sparse Topologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.7. Non-Routing Sparse Topologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.7.1. Remote OSPF Neighbor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.7.1. Remote OSPF Neighbor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3. OSPF Transport Instance Information Encoding . . . . . . . . . 8 3. OSPF Transport Instance Information Encoding . . . . . . . . . 9
3.1. OSPFv2 Transport Instance Information Encoding . . . . . . 8 3.1. OSPFv2 Transport Instance Information Encoding . . . . . . 9
3.2. OSPFv3 Transport Instance Information Encoding . . . . . . 8 3.2. OSPFv3 Transport Instance Information Encoding . . . . . . 9
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
OSPFv2 [OSPFV2] and OSPFv3 [OSPFV3] include a reliable flooding OSPFv2 [OSPFV2] and OSPFv3 [OSPFV3] include a reliable flooding
mechanism to disseminate routing topology and Traffic Engineering mechanism to disseminate routing topology and Traffic Engineering
(TE) information within a routing domain. Given the effectiveness of (TE) information within a routing domain. Given the effectiveness of
these mechanisms, it is convenient to envision using the same these mechanisms, it is convenient to envision using the same
mechanism for dissemination of other types of information within the mechanism for dissemination of other types of information within the
domain. However, burdening OSPF with this additional information domain. However, burdening OSPF with this additional information
will impact intra-domain routing convergence and possibly jeopardize will impact intra-domain routing convergence and possibly jeopardize
skipping to change at page 11, line 12 skipping to change at page 12, line 12
No new IANA assignments are required for this draft. No new IANA assignments are required for this draft.
6. References 6. References
6.1. Normative References 6.1. Normative References
[MULTI-INST] [MULTI-INST]
Lindem, A., Mirtorabi, S., and A. Roy, "OSPF Multi- Lindem, A., Mirtorabi, S., and A. Roy, "OSPF Multi-
Instance Extensions", Instance Extensions",
draft-acee-ospf-multi-instance-01.txt (work in progress). draft-ietf-ospf-multi-instance-02.txt (work in progress).
[OPAQUE] Berger, L., Bryskin, I., Zinin, A., and R. Coltun, "The [OPAQUE] Berger, L., Bryskin, I., Zinin, A., and R. Coltun, "The
OSPF Opaque LSA Option", RFC 5250, July 2008. OSPF Opaque LSA Option", RFC 5250, July 2008.
[OSPFV2] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", RFC 2328, April 1998. [OSPFV2] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", RFC 2328, April 1998.
[OSPFV3] Coltun, R., Ferguson, D., Moy, J., and A. Lindem, "OSPF [OSPFV3] Coltun, R., Ferguson, D., Moy, J., and A. Lindem, "OSPF
for IPv6", RFC 5340, July 2008. for IPv6", RFC 5340, July 2008.
[RFC-KEYWORDS] [RFC-KEYWORDS]
skipping to change at page 11, line 34 skipping to change at page 12, line 34
Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, March 1997. Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, March 1997.
[TE] Katz, D., Yeung, D., and K. Kompella, "Traffic Engineering [TE] Katz, D., Yeung, D., and K. Kompella, "Traffic Engineering
Extensions to OSPF", RFC 3630, September 2003. Extensions to OSPF", RFC 3630, September 2003.
6.2. Informative References 6.2. Informative References
[ISIS-GEN-APP] [ISIS-GEN-APP]
Ginsberg, L., Previdi, S., and M. Shand, "Advertising Ginsberg, L., Previdi, S., and M. Shand, "Advertising
Generic Information in IS-IS", Generic Information in IS-IS",
draft-ietf-isis-genapp-01.txt (work in progress). draft-ietf-isis-genapp-02,txt (work in progress).
Appendix A. Acknowledgments Appendix A. Acknowledgments
The RFC text was produced using Marshall Rose's xml2rfc tool. The RFC text was produced using Marshall Rose's xml2rfc tool.
Although very different mechanisms are utilized, the concept of using Although very different mechanisms are utilized, the concept of using
a separate instance to advertise non-routing information in an IGP a separate instance to advertise non-routing information in an IGP
was first introduced in "Advertising Generic Information in IS-IS" was first introduced in "Advertising Generic Information in IS-IS"
[ISIS-GEN-APP]. [ISIS-GEN-APP].
 End of changes. 13 change blocks. 
56 lines changed or deleted 66 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/