draft-ietf-ospf-cap-01.txt   draft-ietf-ospf-cap-02.txt 
Network Working Group Acee Lindem Network Working Group Acee Lindem
Internet Draft Naiming Shen Internet Draft Naiming Shen
Expiration Date: April 2004 Redback Networks Expiration Date: December 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-02.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 By submitting this Internet-Draft, I certify that any applicable
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026, except that the right to patent or IPR claims of which I am aware have been disclosed, and
produce derivative works is not granted. any of which I become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with
RFC 3668.
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
groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. other groups may also distribute working documents as
Internet-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
skipping to change at page 5, line 6 skipping to change at page 5, line 6
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Capabilities | | Capabilities |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 4. OSPF Router Capabilities TLV Figure 4. OSPF Router Capabilities TLV
Type A 16 bit field set to 1. Type A 16 bit field set to 1.
Length A 16 bit field that indicates the length of the value Length A 16 bit field that indicates the length of the value
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
1 and can be increased when there is a need. Each 4 from 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 TLV's that The Router Capabilities TLV MAY be followed by optional TLV's that
further specify a capability. further specify a capability.
skipping to change at page 6, line 16 skipping to change at page 6, line 16
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). An OSPF router MAY LSA(s) into any attached NSSA/stub area(s). An OSPF router MAY
advertise different values in advertised NSSA/stub area type 10 advertise different values in advertised NSSA/stub area type 10
LSA(s) and its AS scoped type 11 opaque LSA. The choice of 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 flooding scope is made by the advertising router and is a matter of
local policy. The originating router MAY advertise multiple Router 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
scope rules will be specified on a per-TLV basis. flooding 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 Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society. 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.
IANA will need to have registries for the Router Information opaque Additionally, IANA will need to have registries for the Router
LSA TLV's. The TLV assignee will be responsible for allocation of Information opaque LSA TLV's. The TLV assignee will be responsible
any sub-TLV's for the IANA assigned TLV. All TLV's and sub-TLV's for allocation of any sub-TLV's for the IANA assigned TLV. All
will be subject to OSPF WG review. TLV's and sub-TLV's 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", RFC 3630, September 2003. Extensions to OSPF", RFC 3630, September 2003.
[5] Moy, J., "OSPF Graceful OSPF Restart", Internet Draft, work in [5] Moy, J., P. Pillay-Esnault and A. Lindem, "OSPF Graceful
progress. OSPF Restart", RFC 3623, November 2003.
[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, J., P. Psenak, "Traffic Engineering Capability TLV
Internet Draft, work in progress. for OSPF", Internet Draft, work in progress.
[8] Vasseur et al, "RSVP Path computation request and reply [8] Vasseur, J., et al, "RSVP Path computation request and reply
messages", draft-vasseur-mpls-computation-rsvp-te-03.txt, messages", draft-vasseur-mpls-computation-rsvp-te-03.txt,
work in progress work in progress
[9] N. Shen, et al, "Point-to-point operation over LAN in [9] N. Shen, et al, "Point-to-point operation over LAN in
link-state-routing protocols", Internet Draft, work in link-state-routing protocols", Internet Draft, work in
progress. progress.
9. Author Information 9. Author Information
Acee Lindem Acee Lindem
 End of changes. 

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