draft-ietf-ospf-cap-06.txt   draft-ietf-ospf-cap-07.txt 
Network Working Group A. Lindem (Editor) Network Working Group A. Lindem (Editor)
Internet-Draft Cisco Systems, Inc Internet-Draft N. Shen
Expires: August 8, 2005 N. Shen Expires: November 20, 2005 J. Vasseur
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
R. Aggarwal R. Aggarwal
Juniper Networks Juniper Networks
S. Shaffer S. Shaffer
BridgePort Networks BridgePort Networks
JP. Vasseur May 19, 2005
Cisco Systems, Inc
February 7, 2005
Extensions to OSPF for Advertising Optional Router Capabilities Extensions to OSPF for Advertising Optional Router Capabilities
draft-ietf-ospf-cap-06.txt draft-ietf-ospf-cap-07.txt
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is subject to all provisions By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
of section 3 of RFC 3667. By submitting this Internet-Draft, each applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
which he or she is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
which he or she 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 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
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.
This Internet-Draft will expire on August 8, 2005. This Internet-Draft will expire on November 20, 2005.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).
Abstract Abstract
It is useful for routers in an OSPFv2 or OSPFv3 routing domain to It is useful for routers in an OSPFv2 or OSPFv3 routing domain to
know the capabilities of their neighbors and other routers in the know the capabilities of their neighbors and other routers in the
routing domain. This draft proposes extensions to OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 routing domain. This draft proposes extensions to OSPFv2 and OSPFv3
for advertising optional router capabilities. A new Router for advertising optional router capabilities. A new Router
Information (RI) LSA is proposed for this purpose. Information (RI) LSA is proposed for this purpose. In OSPFv2, the RI
LSA will be implemented with a new opaque LSA type ID. In OSPFv3,
the RI LSA will be implemented with a new LSA type function code. In
both protocols, the RI LSA can be advertised at any of the defined
flooding scopes (link, area, or AS).
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1 Requirements notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. OSPF Router Information (RI) LSA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. OSPF Router Information (RI) LSA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1 OSPFv2 Router Information (RI) Opaque LSA . . . . . . . . 4 2.1 OSPFv2 Router Information (RI) Opaque LSA . . . . . . . . 4
2.2 OSPFv3 Router Information (RI) Opaque LSA . . . . . . . . 5 2.2 OSPFv3 Router Information (RI) Opaque LSA . . . . . . . . 5
2.3 OSPF Router Capabilities TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.3 OSPF Router Informational Capabilities TLV . . . . . . . . 5
2.4 Assiged OSPF Router Capability Bits . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.4 Assigned OSPF Router Informational Capability Bits . . . . 6
2.5 Flooding Scope of the Router Information LSA . . . . . . . 7 2.5 Flooding Scope of the Router Information LSA . . . . . . . 7
3. Router Information LSA Opaque Usage and Applicability . . . . 9 3. Router Information LSA Opaque Usage and Applicability . . . . 8
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.1 Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 6.1 Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.2 Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 6.2 Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . 15 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . 14
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
It is useful for routers in an OSPFv2 [OSPF] or OSPFv3 [OSPFV3] It is useful for routers in an OSPFv2 [OSPF] or OSPFv3 [OSPFV3]
routing domain to know the capabilities of their neighbors and other routing domain to know the capabilities of their neighbors and other
routers in the routing domain. This can be useful for both the routers in the routing domain. This can be useful for both the
advertisement and discovery of OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 capabilities. advertisement and discovery of OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 capabilities.
Throughout this document, OSPF will be used when the specification is Throughout this document, OSPF will be used when the specification is
applicable to both OSPFv2 and OSPFv3. Similiarly, OSPFv2 or OSPFv3 applicable to both OSPFv2 and OSPFv3. Similarly, OSPFv2 or OSPFv3
will be used when the text is protocol specific. will be used when the text is protocol specific.
OSPF uses the options field in LSAs and hello packets to advertise OSPF uses the options field in LSAs and hello packets to advertise
optional router capabilities. In the case of OSFPv2, all the bits in optional router capabilities. In the case of OSPFv2, all the bits in
this field have been allocated and there is no way to advertise new this field have been allocated and there is no way to advertise new
optional capabilities. This document proposes extensions to OSPF to optional capabilities. This document proposes extensions to OSPF to
advertise these optional capabilities. For existing OSPF advertise these optional capabilities via opaque LSAs in OSPFv2 and
capabilities, backward compatibility issues dictate that this new LSAs in OSPFv3. For existing OSPF capabilities, backward
advertisement is used primarily for informational purposes. For compatibility issues dictate that this advertisement is used
future OSPF features, this advertimsement MAY be used as the sole primarily for informational purposes. For future OSPF features, this
mechanism for advertisement and discovery. advertisement MAY be used as the sole mechanism for advertisement and
discovery.
1.1 Requirements notation
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 [RFC2119].
2. OSPF Router Information (RI) LSA 2. OSPF Router Information (RI) LSA
OSPF routers MAY optionally advertise their optional capabilities in OSPF routers MAY optionally advertise their optional capabilities in
a link-scoped, area-scoped, or AS-scoped LSA. For existing OSPF a link-scoped, area-scoped, or AS-scoped LSA. For existing OSPF
capabilities, this advertisement will be used primarily for capabilities, this advertisement will be used primarily for
informational purposes. Future OSPF features could the RI LSA as the informational purposes. Future OSPF features could use the RI LSA as
sole mechanism for advertisement and discovery. The RI LSA will be the sole mechanism for advertisement and discovery. The RI LSA will
originated initially when an OSPF router instance is created and be originated initially when an OSPF router instance is created and
whenever one of the advertised capabilities is configured or changed. whenever one of the advertised capabilities is configured or changed.
2.1 OSPFv2 Router Information (RI) Opaque LSA 2.1 OSPFv2 Router Information (RI) Opaque LSA
OSPFv2 routers will advertise a link scoped, area-scoped, or OSPFv2 routers will advertise a link scoped, area-scoped, or AS-
AS-scoped Opaque-LSA [OPAQUE]. The OSPFv2 Router Information LSA has scoped Opaque-LSA [OPAQUE]. The OSPFv2 Router Information LSA has an
an Opaque type of 4 and Opaque ID of 0. Opaque type of 4 and Opaque ID of 0.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LS age | Options | 9, 10 or 11 | | LS age | Options | 9, 10 or 11 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 4 | 0 | | 4 | 0 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Advertising Router | | Advertising Router |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LS sequence number | | LS sequence number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LS checksum | length | | LS checksum | length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | | |
+- TLV's -+ +- TLVs -+
| ... | | ... |
The format of the TLV's within the body of a router information LSA The format of the TLVs within the body of an RI LSA is the same as
is the same as the format used by the Traffic Engineering Extensions the format used by the Traffic Engineering Extensions to OSPF [TE].
to OSPF [TE]. The LSA payload consists of one or more nested Type/ The LSA payload consists of one or more nested Type/Length/Value
Length/Value (TLV) triplets. The format of each TLV is: (TLV) triplets. The format of 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... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
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
TLV's are also 32-bit aligned. For example, a one byte value would TLVs are also 32-bit aligned. For example, a one byte value would
have the length field set to 1, and three octets of padding would be have the length field set to 1, and three octets of padding would be
added to the end of the value portion of the TLV. Unrecognized types added to the end of the value portion of the TLV. Unrecognized types
are ignored. are ignored.
2.2 OSPFv3 Router Information (RI) Opaque LSA 2.2 OSPFv3 Router Information (RI) Opaque LSA
The OSPFv3 Router Information LSA has a function code of 12 while the The OSPFv3 Router Information LSA has a function code of 12 while the
S1/S2 bit are dependent on the desired flooding scope for the LSA. S1/S2 bit are dependent on the desired flooding scope for the LSA.
The U bit will be set indicating the OSPFv3 RI LSA should be flooded The U bit will be set indicating the OSPFv3 RI LSA should be flooded
even if it is not understood. The Link State ID (LSID) value for even if it is not understood. The Link State ID (LSID) value for
skipping to change at page 6, line 16 skipping to change at page 5, line 34
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LS age |1|S12| 12 | | LS age |1|S12| 12 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 0 (Link State ID) | | 0 (Link State ID) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Advertising Router | | Advertising Router |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LS sequence number | | LS sequence number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LS checksum | length | | LS checksum | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | | |
+- TLV's -+ +- TLVs -+
| ... | | ... |
The format of the TLV's within the body of a router information LSA The format of the TLVs within the body of an RI LSA as defined in
as defined in Section 2.1 Section 2.1
When a new Router Information LSA TLV is defined, the specification When a new Router Information LSA TLV is defined, the specification
MUST explicitly state whether the TLV is applicable to OSPFv2 only, MUST explicitly state whether the TLV is applicable to OSPFv2 only,
OSPFv3 only, or both OSPFv2 and OSPFv3. OSPFv3 only, or both OSPFv2 and OSPFv3.
2.3 OSPF Router Capabilities TLV 2.3 OSPF Router Informational Capabilities TLV
The first defined TLV in the body of an RI LSA is the Router The first defined TLV in the body of an RI LSA is the Router
Capabilities TLV. A router advertising an RI LSA MUST include the Informational Capabilities TLV. A router advertising an RI LSA MAY
Router Capabilities TLV and it MUST be the first TLV in the LSA. include the Router Informational Capabilities TLV. If included, it
Additionally, the TLV MUST accurately reflect the OSPF router's MUST be the first TLV in the LSA. Additionally, the TLV MUST
capabilities in the scope it is advertised. accurately reflect the OSPF router's capabilities in the scope it is
advertised. However, the informational capabilities advertised have
no impact on the OSPF's operation - they are advertised purely for
informational purposes
The format of the Router Capabilities TLV is as follows: The format of the Router Informational Capabilities TLV is as
follows:
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Capabilities | | Informational Capabilities |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
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 octets and will be a multiple of 4 octets portion in octets and will be a multiple of 4 octets
dependent on the number of capabilities advertised. In dependent on the number of capabilities advertised.
this revision the length will be 4 denoting 4 octets of Initially, the length will be 4 denoting 4 octets of
capability bits. informational capability bits.
Value A variable length sequence of capability flags rounded Value A variable length sequence of capability bits rounded
to a multiple of 4 octects padded with undefined bits. to a multiple of 4 octets padded with undefined bits.
In this revision, there are 4 octets of capability bits. Initially, there are 4 octets of capability bits.
The Router Capabilities TLV MAY be followed by optional TLV's that The Router Informational Capabilities TLV MAY be followed by optional
further specify a capability. TLVs that further specify a capability.
2.4 Assiged OSPF Router Capability Bits 2.4 Assigned OSPF Router Informational Capability Bits
The following bits in the first capability flag have been assigned: The following informational capability bits assigned:
Bit Capabilities Bit Capabilities
0-3 Unassigned 1 OSPF graceful restart capable [GRACE]
4 OSPF graceful restart capable [GRACE] 2 OSPF graceful restart helper [GRACE]
5 OSPF graceful restart helper [GRACE] 3 OSPF Stub Router support [STUB]
6 OSPF Stub Router support [STUB] 4 OSPF Traffic Engineering support [TE]
7 OSPF Traffic Engineering support [TE] 5 OSPF point-to-point over LAN [P2PLAN]
8 OSPF point-to-point over LAN [P2PLAN] 6-31 Future assignments
9 OSPF Experimental TE [EXPTE]
10-31 Future assignments
2.5 Flooding Scope of the Router Information LSA 2.5 Flooding Scope of the Router Information LSA
The flooding scope for a Router Information LSA is determined by the The flooding scope for a Router Information LSA is determined by the
LSA type. For OSPFv2, type 9 (link-scope), type 10 (area-scoped), or LSA type. For OSPFv2, type 9 (link-scoped), type 10 (area-scoped),
a type 11 (AS-scoped) opaque LSA may be flooded. For OSPFv3, the or a type 11 (AS-scoped) opaque LSA may be flooded. For OSPFv3, the
flooding scope is determined by the S1 and S2 bits in the LSA type. flooding scope is determined by the S1 and S2 bits in the LSA type.
If AS wide flooding scope is chosen, the originating router should If AS wide flooding scope is chosen, the originating router should
also advertise area scoped LSA(s) into any attached NSSA area(s). An also advertise area scoped LSA(s) into any attached NSSA area(s). An
OSPF router MAY advertise different capabilities when both NSSA area OSPF router MAY advertise different capabilities when both NSSA area
scoped LSA(s) and an AS scoped LSA is advertised. This allows scoped LSA(s) and an AS scoped LSA is advertised. This allows
functional capabilities to be limited in scope. For example, a functional capabilities to be limited in scope. For example, a
router may be an area border router but only support traffic router may be an area border router but only support traffic
engineering (TE) in a subset of its attached areas. The choice of engineering (TE) in a subset of its attached areas. Another example
flooding scope is made by the advertising router and is a matter of relates to the capability of a node to be part of a specific MPLS
local policy. The originating router MAY advertise multiple RI LSAs Traffic Engineering mesh group. When the mesh group is contained
as long as the flooding scopes differ. TLV flooding scope rules will within an OSPF area, the flooding scope of such capability should be
be specified on a per-TLV basis and MUST be specified in the restricted to the corresponding OSPF area. Conversely, some mesh
accompanying specifications for new Router Information LSA TLVs. groups may require routing domain flooding scope (see [TE-AUTO]).
The choice of flooding scope is made by the advertising router and is
a matter of local policy. The originating router MAY advertise
multiple RI LSAs as long as the flooding scopes differ. TLV flooding
scope rules will be specified on a per-TLV basis and MUST be
specified in the accompanying specifications for new Router
Information LSA TLVs.
3. Router Information LSA Opaque Usage and Applicability 3. Router Information LSA Opaque Usage and Applicability
The purpose of the Router Information (RI) LSA is to advertise The purpose of the Router Information (RI) LSA is to advertise
information relating to the aggregate OSPF router. Normally, this information relating to the aggregate OSPF router. Normally, this
should be confined to TLVs with a single value or very few values. should be confined to TLVs with a single value or very few values.
It is not meant to be a generic container to carry any and all It is not meant to be a generic container to carry any and all
information. The intent is to both limit the size of the RI LSA to information. The intent is to both limit the size of the RI LSA to
the point where an OSPF router will always be able to contain the the point where an OSPF router will always be able to contain the
TLVs in a single LSA and to keep the task of determining what has TLVs in a single LSA and to keep the task of determining what has
changed between LSA instances reasonably simple. Hence, discretion changed between LSA instances reasonably simple. Hence, discretion
and sound engineering judgement MUST be adhered to when deciding and sound engineering judgment MUST be adhered to when deciding
whether newly proposed TLV(s) in support of a new application are whether newly proposed TLV(s) in support of a new application are
advertised in the RI LSA or warrent the creation of an application advertised in the RI LSA or warrant the creation of an application
specific LSA. specific LSA.
4. Security Considerations 4. Security Considerations
The function described in this document does not create any new The function described in this document does not create any new
security issues for the OSPF protocol. Security considerations for security issues for the OSPF protocol. Security considerations for
the base OSPF protocol are covered in [OSPF]. the base OSPF protocol are covered in [OSPF] and [OSPFV3].
5. IANA Considerations 5. IANA Considerations
The following IANA assignments are to be made from existing The following IANA assignments are to be made from existing
registries: registries:
1. The OSPFv2 opaque LSA type 4 will need to be reserved for the 1. The OSPFv2 opaque LSA type 4 will need to be reserved for the
OSPFv2 RI opaque LSA. OSPFv2 RI opaque LSA.
2. The OSPFv2 LSA type function code 18 will need to be reserved for 2. The OSPFv2 LSA type function code 18 will need to be reserved for
the OSPFv3 RI LSA. the OSPFv3 RI LSA.
New registries are defined for the following purposes: New registries are defined for the following purposes:
1. Registry for OSPF RI TLVs - The value of 1 for the capabilities 1. Registry for OSPF RI TLVs - The value of 1 for the capabilities
TLV is defined herein. All TLV additions are subject to OSPF WG TLV is defined herein. All TLV additions are subject to OSPF WG
review. review.
2. Registry for OSPF Router Capability Flags - The values defined in
Section 2.3. All Router Capability TLV additions are subject to 2. Registry for OSPF Router Informational Capability Bits - The
OSPF WG review. values defined in Section 2.3. All Router Informational
Capability TLV additions are subject to OSPF WG review.
6. References 6. References
6.1 Normative References 6.1 Normative References
[OPAQUE] Coltun, R., "The OSPF Opaque LSA Option", RFC 2370, July [OPAQUE] Coltun, R., "The OSPF Opaque LSA Option", RFC 2370,
1998. July 1998.
[OSPF] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", RFC 2328, April 1998. [OSPF] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", RFC 2328, April 1998.
[OSPFV3] Coltun, R., Ferguson, D. and J. Moy, "OSPF for IPv6", RFC [OSPFV3] Coltun, R., Ferguson, D., and J. Moy, "OSPF for IPv6",
2740, April 1998. RFC 2740, December 1999.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFC's to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFC's to Indicate
Requirement Levels", RFC 2328, March 1977. 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
[EXPTE] Srisuresh, P. and P. Joseph, "OSPF OSPF-TE: An [GRACE] Moy, J., Pillay-Esnault, P., and A. Lindem, "Graceful OSPF
experimental extension to OSPF for Traffic Engineering",
draft-srisuresh-ospf-te-07.txt (work in progress).
[GRACE] Moy, J., Pillay-Esnault, P. and A. Lindem, "Graceful OSPF
Restart", RFC 3623, November 2003. Restart", RFC 3623, November 2003.
[P2PLAN] Shen, N. and A. Zinin, "Point-to-point operation over LAN [P2PLAN] Shen, N. and A. Zinin, "Point-to-point operation over LAN
in link-state routing protocols", in link-state routing protocols",
draft-ietf-isis-igp-p2p-over-lan-05.txt (work in progress). draft-ietf-isis-igp-p2p-over-lan-05.txt (work in
progress).
[STUB] Retana, A., Nguyen, L., White, R., Zinin, A. and D. [STUB] Retana, A., Nguyen, L., White, R., Zinin, A., and D.
McPherson, "OSPF Stub Router Advertisement", RFC 3137, June McPherson, "OSPF Stub Router Advertisement", RFC 3137,
2001. June 2001.
[T3CAP] Vasseur, JP., Psenak, P., Yasukawa, S. and JL. Le Roux, [TE-AUTO] Vasseur, J. and J. Le Roux, "Routing extensions for
"OSPF MPLS Traffic Engineering Capabilities", discovery of Multiprotocol (MPLS) Label Switch Router
draft-vasseur-ospf-te-caps-00.txt (work in progress). (LSR) Traffic Engineering (TE) mesh membership",
draft-vasseur-ccamp-automesh-00.txt (work in progress).
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Acee Lindem Acee Lindem
Cisco Systems, Inc Cisco Systems
7025 Kit Creek Road 7025 Kit Creek Road
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
USA USA
EMail: acee@cisco.com Email: acee@cisco.com
Naiming Shen Naiming Shen
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
225 West Tasman Drive 225 West Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA 95134 San Jose, CA 95134
USA USA
EMail: naiming@cisco.com Email: naiming@cisco.com
Jean-Philippe Vasseur
Cisco Systems
300 Beaver Brook Road
Boxborough, MA 01719
USA
Email: jpv@cisco.com
Rahul Aggarwal Rahul Aggarwal
Juniper Networks Juniper Networks
1194 N. Mathilda Ave. 1194 N. Mathilda Ave.
Sunnyvale, CA 94089 Sunnyvale, CA 94089
USA USA
EMail: rahul@juniper.net Email: rahul@juniper.net
Scott Shaffer Scott Shaffer
BridgePort Networks BridgePort Networks
One Main Street, 7th Floor One Main Street, 7th Floor
Cambridge, MA 02142 Cambridge, MA 02142
USA USA
EMail: sshafferl@bridgeport-networks.com Email: sshafferl@bridgeport-networks.com
Jean-Philippe Vasseur
Cisco Systems, Inc
300 Beaver Brook Road
Boxborough, MA 01719
USA
EMail: jpv@cisco.com
Appendix A. Acknowledgments Appendix A. 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 comments would like to thanks Peter Psenak for his review and helpful comments
early versions of the draft. on early versions of the draft.
Comments from Abhay Roy, Vishwas Manral, Vivek Dubey, and Adrian Comments from Abhay Roy, Vishwas Manral, Vivek Dubey, and Adrian
Farrel were incorporated into the final draft version. Farrel have been incorporated into later draft versions.
The RFC text was produced using Marshall Rose's xml2rfc tool. The RFC text was produced using Marshall Rose's xml2rfc tool.
Intellectual Property Statement Intellectual Property Statement
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights 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 might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
 End of changes. 

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