draft-ietf-ospf-cap-00.txt   draft-ietf-ospf-cap-01.txt 
Network Working Group Acee Lindem Network Working Group Acee Lindem
Internet Draft Naiming Shen Internet Draft Naiming Shen
Expiration Date: January 2004 Redback Networks Expiration Date: April 2004 Redback Networks
Rahul Aggarwal Rahul Aggarwal
Juniper Networks Juniper Networks
Scott Shaffer Scott Shaffer
Level 3 Communications Level 3 Communications
JP Vasseur JP Vasseur
Cisco Systems, Inc Cisco Systems, Inc
Extensions to OSPF for Advertising Optional Router Capabilities Extensions to OSPF for Advertising Optional Router Capabilities
draft-ietf-ospf-cap-00.txt draft-ietf-ospf-cap-01.txt
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026, except that the right to all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026, except that the right to
produce derivative works is not granted. produce derivative works is not granted.
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 other Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other
groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.
skipping to change at page 3, line 35 skipping to change at page 3, line 35
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 4 | 0 | | 4 | 0 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Advertising Router | | Advertising Router |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LS sequence number | | LS sequence number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LS checksum | length | | LS checksum | length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | | |
+- TLVs -+ +- TLV's -+
| ... | | ... |
Figure 2. OSPF Router Information LSA Figure 2. OSPF Router Information LSA
The format of the TLVs within the body of a router information LSA The format of the TLV's within the body of a router information LSA
is the same as the format used by the Traffic Engineering is the same as the format used by the Traffic Engineering
Extensions to OSPF [4]. The LSA payload consists of one or Extensions to OSPF [4]. The LSA payload consists of one or
more nested Type/Length/Value (TLV) triplets. The format of more nested Type/Length/Value (TLV) triplets. The format of
each TLV is: each TLV is:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length | | Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Value... | | Value... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3. TLV Format Figure 3. TLV Format
The Length field defines the length of the value portion in octets The Length field defines the length of the value portion in octets
(thus a TLV with no value portion would have a length of zero). The (thus a TLV with no value portion would have a length of zero). The
TLV is padded to four-octet alignment; padding is not included in TLV is padded to four-octet alignment; padding is not included in
the length field (so a three octet value would have a length of the length field (so a three octet value would have a length of
three, but the total size of the TLV would be eight octets). Nested three, but the total size of the TLV would be eight octets). Nested
TLVs are also 32-bit aligned. For example, a one byte value TLV's are also 32-bit aligned. For example, a one byte value
would have the length field set to 1, and three bytes of padding would have the length field set to 1, and three bytes of padding
would be added to the end of the value portion of the TLV. would be added to the end of the value portion of the TLV.
Unrecognized types are ignored. Unrecognized types are ignored.
2.1 OSPF Router Capabilities TLV 2.1 OSPF Router Capabilities TLV
The first defined TLV in the body of a RI opaque LSA is The first defined TLV in the body of a RI opaque LSA is
the Router Capabilities TLV. A router advertising a RI opaque LSA the Router Capabilities TLV. A router advertising a RI opaque LSA
SHOULD include the Router Capabilities TLV and SHOULD correctly SHOULD include the Router Capabilities TLV and SHOULD correctly
identify the status of the capabilities defined in section 2.2. identify the status of the capabilities defined in section 2.2.
skipping to change at page 5, line 16 skipping to change at page 5, line 16
portion in bytes. Its set to N x 4 octets. N starts from portion in bytes. Its set to N x 4 octets. N starts from
1 and can be increased when there is a need. Each 4 1 and can be increased when there is a need. Each 4
octets are referred to as a capability flag. octets are referred to as a capability flag.
Value This comprises one or more capability flags. For each 4 Value This comprises one or more capability flags. For each 4
octets, the bits are indexed from the most significant octets, the bits are indexed from the most significant
to the least significant, where each bit represents one to the least significant, where each bit represents one
router capability. When the first 32 capabilities are router capability. When the first 32 capabilities are
defined, a new capability flag will be used to defined, a new capability flag will be used to
accommodate the next capability. accommodate the next capability.
The Router Capabilities TLV MAY be followed by optional TLVs that The Router Capabilities TLV MAY be followed by optional TLV's that
further specify a capability. further specify a capability.
2.2 Reserved OSPF Router Capability Bits 2.2 Reserved OSPF Router Capability Bits
The following bits in the first capability flag have been The following bits in the first capability flag have been
assigned: assigned:
Bit Capabilities Bit Capabilities
0-3 Reserved 0-3 Reserved
skipping to change at page 6, line 11 skipping to change at page 6, line 11
8 OSPF point-to-point over LAN [9] 8 OSPF point-to-point over LAN [9]
9 OSPF Path Computation Server discovery [7, 8] 9 OSPF Path Computation Server discovery [7, 8]
10-31 Future assignments 10-31 Future assignments
2.3 Flooding Scope of the Router Information LSA 2.3 Flooding Scope of the Router Information LSA
The flooding scope of the Router Information opaque LSA is determined The flooding scope of the Router Information opaque LSA is determined
by the LSA type. A type 9 (link-scope), type 10 (area-scoped), or a by the LSA type. A type 9 (link-scope), type 10 (area-scoped), or a
type 11 (AS-scoped) opaque LSA may be used. If a type 11 opaque LSA type 11 (AS-scoped) opaque LSA may be used. If a type 11 opaque LSA
is chosen, the originating router should also advertise type 10 is chosen, the originating router should also advertise type 10
LSA(s) into any attached NSSA/stub area(s). The choice of flooding LSA(s) into any attached NSSA/stub area(s). An OSPF router MAY
scope is made by the advertising router and is a matter of local advertise different values in advertised NSSA/stub area type 10
policy. The originating router MAY advertise multiple Router LSA(s) and its AS scoped type 11 opaque LSA. The choice of
flooding scope is made by the advertising router and is a matter of
local policy. The originating router MAY advertise multiple Router
Information LSAs as long as the flooding scope differs. TLV flooding Information LSAs as long as the flooding scope differs. TLV flooding
scope rules will be specified on a per-TLV basis. scope rules will be specified on a per-TLV basis.
3. Security Consideration 3. Security Consideration
This memo does not create any new security issues for the OSPF This memo does not create any new security issues for the OSPF
protocol. Security considerations for the base OSPF protocol are protocol. Security considerations for the base OSPF protocol are
covered in [1]. covered in [1].
4. Acknowledgments 4. Acknowledgments
The idea for this work grew out of a conversation with Andrew Partan The idea for this work grew out of a conversation with Andrew Partan
and we would like to thank him for his contribution. The authors and we would like to thank him for his contribution. The authors
would like to thanks Peter Psenak for his review and helpful would like to thanks Peter Psenak for his review and helpful
comments early versions of the draft. comments early versions of the draft.
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
5. IANA Considerations 5. IANA Considerations
A new opaque LSA type will need to be assigned by IANA. Additionally, A new opaque LSA type will need to be assigned by IANA. Additionally,
IANA will need to have registries for the Router Information opaque IANA will need to have registries for the Router Information opaque
LSA TLVs. The TLV assignee will be responsible for allocation of LSA TLV's. The TLV assignee will be responsible for allocation of
any sub-TLVs for the IANA assigned TLV. All TLVs and sub-TLVs will any sub-TLV's for the IANA assigned TLV. All TLV's and sub-TLV's
be subject to OSPF WG review. will be subject to OSPF WG review.
6. References 6. References
Normative References Normative References
[1] Coltun, R., "The OSPF Opaque LSA Option", RFC 2370, July [1] Coltun, R., "The OSPF Opaque LSA Option", RFC 2370, July
1998. 1998.
[2] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", RFC 2328, April 1998. [2] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", RFC 2328, April 1998.
[3] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement [3] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
Level", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. Level", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
Informative References Informative References
[4] Katz, D., D. Yeung and K. Kompella, "Traffic Engineering [4] Katz, D., D. Yeung and K. Kompella, "Traffic Engineering
Extensions to OSPF", Internet Draft, work in progress. Extensions to OSPF", RFC 3630, September 2003.
[5] Moy, J., "OSPF Graceful OSPF Restart", Internet Draft, work in [5] Moy, J., "OSPF Graceful OSPF Restart", Internet Draft, work in
progress. progress.
[6] Retana, A., et al, "OSPF Stub Router Advertisement", [6] Retana, A., et al, "OSPF Stub Router Advertisement",
RFC 3137, June 2001. RFC 3137, June 2001.
[7] Vasseur, Psenak, "Traffic Engineering Capability TLV for OSPF", [7] Vasseur, Psenak, "Traffic Engineering Capability TLV for OSPF",
Internet Draft, work in progress. Internet Draft, work in progress.
skipping to change at line 288 skipping to change at page 9, line 4
Scott Shaffer Scott Shaffer
Level 3 Communications Level 3 Communications
e-mail: scott.shaffer@level3.com e-mail: scott.shaffer@level3.com
JP Vasseur JP Vasseur
Cisco Systems, Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc.
300 Apollo Drive 300 Apollo Drive
Chelmsford, MA 01824 Chelmsford, MA 01824
e-mail: jpv@cisco.com e-mail: jpv@cisco.com
10. IPR Notice
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
intellectual property 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; neither does it represent that it
has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the
IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and
standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11. Copies of
claims of rights made available for publication 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 implementors or users of this specification can
be obtained from the IETF Secretariat.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive
Director.
11. Full Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved.
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
English.
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS 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. 

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.23, available from http://www.levkowetz.com/ietf/tools/rfcdiff/