draft-ietf-ospf-cap-11.txt   rfc4970.txt 
Network Working Group A. Lindem (Editor) Network Working Group A. Lindem, Ed.
Internet-Draft Redback Networks Request for Comments: 4970 Redback Networks
Intended status: Standards Track N. Shen Category: Standards Track N. Shen
Expires: November 8, 2007 J. Vasseur JP. Vasseur
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
R. Aggarwal R. Aggarwal
Juniper Networks Juniper Networks
S. Shaffer S. Shaffer
BridgePort Networks BridgePort Networks
May 7, 2007
Extensions to OSPF for Advertising Optional Router Capabilities Extensions to OSPF for Advertising Optional Router Capabilities
draft-ietf-ospf-cap-11.txt
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
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
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
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 November 8, 2007. This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007). Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
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 document proposes extensions to OSPFv2 and
for advertising optional router capabilities. A new Router OSPFv3 for advertising optional router capabilities. A new Router
Information (RI) Link State Advertisement (LSA) is proposed for this Information (RI) Link State Advertisement (LSA) is proposed for this
purpose. In OSPFv2, the RI LSA will be implemented with a new opaque 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 ID. In OSPFv3, the RI LSA will be implemented with a new
LSA type function code. In both protocols, the RI LSA can be LSA type function code. In both protocols, the RI LSA can be
advertised at any of the defined flooding scopes (link, area, or AS). advertised at any of the defined flooding scopes (link, area, or
autonomous system (AS)).
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Requirements notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1. Requirements Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. OSPF Router Information (RI) LSA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. OSPF Router Information (RI) LSA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. OSPFv2 Router Information (RI) Opaque LSA . . . . . . . . 4 2.1. OSPFv2 Router Information (RI) Opaque LSA . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. OSPFv3 Router Information (RI) Opaque LSA . . . . . . . . 5 2.2. OSPFv3 Router Information (RI) Opaque LSA . . . . . . . . 5
2.3. OSPF Router Informational Capabilities TLV . . . . . . . . 6 2.3. OSPF Router Informational Capabilities TLV . . . . . . . . 5
2.4. Assigned OSPF Router Informational 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 . . . . 8 3. Router Information LSA Opaque Usage and Applicability . . . . 7
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 15
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. Similarly, 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 OSPFv2, 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 so new optional capabilities cannot be
optional capabilities. This document proposes extensions to OSPF to advertised. This document proposes extensions to OSPF to advertise
advertise these optional capabilities via opaque LSAs in OSPFv2 and these optional capabilities via opaque LSAs in OSPFv2 and new LSAs in
new LSAs in OSPFv3. For existing OSPF capabilities, backward OSPFv3. For existing OSPF capabilities, backward- compatibility
compatibility issues dictate that this advertisement is used issues dictate that this advertisement is used primarily for
primarily for informational purposes. For future OSPF features, this informational purposes. For future OSPF features, this advertisement
advertisement MAY be used as the sole mechanism for advertisement and MAY be used as the sole mechanism for advertisement and discovery.
discovery.
1.1. Requirements notation 1.1. Requirements Notation
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC-KEYWORDS]. document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC-KEYWORDS].
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
skipping to change at page 4, line 24 skipping to change at page 4, line 8
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 AS- OSPFv2 routers will advertise a link scoped, area-scoped, or AS-
scoped Opaque-LSA [OPAQUE]. The OSPFv2 Router Information LSA has an scoped Opaque-LSA [OPAQUE]. The OSPFv2 Router Information LSA has 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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | | |
skipping to change at page 5, line 16 skipping to change at page 4, line 40
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... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
TLV Format 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 0). The TLV
TLV is padded to four-octet alignment; padding is not included in the is padded to 4-octet alignment; padding is not included in the length
length field (so a three octet value would have a length of three, field (so a 3-octet value would have a length of 3, but the total
but the total size of the TLV would be eight octets). Nested TLVs size of the TLV would be 8 octets). Nested TLVs are also 32-bit
are also 32-bit aligned. For example, a one-byte value would have aligned. For example, a 1-byte value would have the length field set
the length field set to 1, and three octets of padding would be added to 1, and 3 octets of padding would be added to the end of the value
to the end of the value portion of the TLV. Unrecognized types are portion of the TLV. Unrecognized types are ignored.
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 bits 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 that the OSPFv3 RI LSA should be
even if it is not understood. The Link State ID (LSID) value for flooded even if it is not understood. The Link State ID (LSID) value
this LSA is 0. This is unambiguous since an OSPFv3 router will only for this LSA is 0. This is unambiguous since an OSPFv3 router will
advertise a single RI LSA per flooding scope. only advertise a single RI LSA per flooding scope.
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 |1|S12| 12 | | LS age |1|S12| 12 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 0 (Link State ID) | | 0 (Link State ID) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Advertising Router | | Advertising Router |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
skipping to change at page 6, line 4 skipping to change at page 5, line 30
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Advertising Router | | Advertising Router |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LS sequence number | | LS sequence number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LS checksum | Length | | LS checksum | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | | |
+- TLVs -+ +- TLVs -+
| ... | | ... |
OSPFv3 Router Information LSA OSPFv3 Router Information LSA
The format of the TLVs within the body of an RI LSA as defined in The format of the TLVs within the body of an RI LSA is 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 Informational 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
Informational Capabilities TLV. A router advertising an RI LSA MAY Informational Capabilities TLV. A router advertising an RI LSA MAY
include the Router Informational Capabilities TLV. If included, it include the Router Informational Capabilities TLV. If included, it
MUST be the first TLV in the LSA. Additionally, the TLV MUST MUST be the first TLV in the LSA. Additionally, the TLV MUST
accurately reflect the OSPF router's capabilities in the scope accurately reflect the OSPF router's capabilities in the scope
advertised. However, the informational capabilities advertised have advertised. However, the informational capabilities advertised have
no impact on the OSPFs operation - they are advertised purely for no impact on the OSPF protocol's operation -- they are advertised
informational purposes purely for informational purposes.
The format of the Router Informational Capabilities TLV is as The format of the Router Informational Capabilities TLV is as
follows: 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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Informational Capabilities | | Informational Capabilities |
skipping to change at page 6, line 36 skipping to change at page 6, line 17
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Informational 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. dependent on the number of capabilities advertised.
Initially, the length will be 4 denoting 4 octets of Initially, the length will be 4, denoting 4 octets of
informational capability bits. informational capability bits.
Value A variable length sequence of capability bits rounded Value A variable length sequence of capability bits rounded
to a multiple of 4 octets padded with undefined bits. to a multiple of 4 octets padded with undefined bits.
Initially, there are 4 octets of capability bits. Bits Initially, there are 4 octets of capability bits. Bits
are numbered left-to-right starting with the most are numbered left-to-right starting with the most
significant bit being bit zero. significant bit being bit 0.
OSPF Router Informational Capabilities TLV OSPF Router Informational Capabilities TLV
The Router Informational Capabilities TLV MAY be followed by optional The Router Informational Capabilities TLV MAY be followed by optional
TLVs that further specify a capability. TLVs that further specify a capability.
2.4. Assigned OSPF Router Informational Capability Bits 2.4. Assigned OSPF Router Informational Capability Bits
The following informational capability bits assigned: The following informational capability bits are assigned:
Bit Capabilities Bit Capabilities
0 OSPF graceful restart capable [GRACE] 0 OSPF graceful restart capable [GRACE]
1 OSPF graceful restart helper [GRACE] 1 OSPF graceful restart helper [GRACE]
2 OSPF Stub Router support [STUB] 2 OSPF Stub Router support [STUB]
3 OSPF Traffic Engineering support [TE] 3 OSPF Traffic Engineering support [TE]
4 OSPF point-to-point over LAN [P2PLAN] 4 OSPF point-to-point over LAN [P2PLAN]
5 OSPF Experimental TE [EXP-TE] 5 OSPF Experimental TE [EXP-TE]
6-31 Future assignments 6-31 Unassigned (Standards Action)
OSPF Router Informational Capabilities Bits OSPF Router Informational Capabilities Bits
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-scoped), type 10 (area-scoped), LSA type. For OSPFv2, type 9 (link-scoped), type 10 (area-scoped),
or 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
S1 and S2 bits in the LSA type determine flooding scope. If AS wide S1 and S2 bits in the LSA type determine the flooding scope. If AS-
flooding scope is chosen, the originating router should also wide flooding scope is chosen, the originating router should also
advertise area scoped LSA(s) into any attached NSSA area(s). An OSPF advertise area-scoped LSA(s) into any attached Not-So-Stubby Area
router MAY advertise different capabilities when both NSSA area (NSSA) area(s). An OSPF router MAY advertise different capabilities
scoped LSA(s) and an AS scoped LSA are advertised. This allows when both NSSA area scoped LSA(s) and an AS-scoped LSA are
functional capabilities to be limited in scope. For example, a advertised. This allows functional capabilities to be limited in
router may be an area border router but only support traffic scope. For example, a router may be an area border router but only
engineering (TE) in a subset of its attached areas. support traffic engineering (TE) in a subset of its attached areas.
The choice of flooding scope is made by the advertising router and is The choice of flooding scope is made by the advertising router and is
a matter of local policy. The originating router MAY advertise a matter of local policy. The originating router MAY advertise
multiple RI LSAs as long as the flooding scopes differ. TLV flooding 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 scope rules will be specified on a per-TLV basis and MUST be
specified in the accompanying specifications for new Router specified in the accompanying specifications for new Router
Information LSA TLVs. Information LSA TLVs.
3. Router Information LSA Opaque Usage and Applicability 3. Router Information LSA Opaque Usage and Applicability
skipping to change at page 10, line 7 skipping to change at page 8, line 7
capability bits. The latter TLV is less critical than the topology capability bits. The latter TLV is less critical than the topology
information currently advertised by the base OSPF protocol. The information currently advertised by the base OSPF protocol. The
security considerations for the generic mechanism are dependent on security considerations for the generic mechanism are dependent on
the future application and, as such, should be described as the future application and, as such, should be described as
additional capabilities are proposed for advertisement. Security additional capabilities are proposed for advertisement. Security
considerations for the base OSPF protocol are covered in [OSPF] and considerations for the base OSPF protocol are covered in [OSPF] and
[OSPFV3]. [OSPFV3].
5. IANA Considerations 5. IANA Considerations
The following IANA assignments are to be made from existing The following IANA assignment was made from an existing registry:
registries:
1. The OSPFv2 opaque LSA type 4 will need to be reserved for the The OSPFv2 opaque LSA type 4 has been reserved for the OSPFv2 RI
OSPFv2 RI opaque LSA. opaque LSA.
New registries will need to be defined for the following purposes: The following registries have been defined for the following
purposes:
1. Registry for OSPFv3 LSA Function Codes - This new top-level 1. Registry for OSPFv3 LSA Function Codes - This new top-level
registry will be comprised of the fields Value, LSA function code registry will be comprised of the fields Value, LSA function code
name, and Document Reference. The OSPFv3 LSA function code is name, and Document Reference. The OSPFv3 LSA function code is
defined in section A.4.2.1 of [OSPFV3]. The OSPFv3 LSA function defined in section A.4.2.1 of [OSPFV3]. The OSPFv3 LSA function
code 12 will need to be reserved for the OSPFv3 Router code 12 has been reserved for the OSPFv3 Router Information (RI)
Information (RI) LSA. LSA.
+-----------+--------------------+ +-----------+-------------------------------------+
| Range | Assignment Policy | | Range | Assignment Policy |
+-----------+--------------------+ +-----------+-------------------------------------+
| 0 | Not to be assigned | | 0 | Reserved (not to be assigned) |
| | | | | |
| 1-9 | Already assigned | | 1-9 | Already assigned |
| | | | | |
| 10-255 | Standards Action | | 10-11 | Unassigned (Standards Action) |
| | | | | |
| 256-8175 | Reserved | | 12 | OSPFv3 RI LSA (Assigned herein) |
| | | | | |
| 8176-8183 | Experimentation | | 13-255 | Unassigned (Standards Action) |
| | | | | |
| 8184-8191 | Vendor Private Use | | 256-8175 | Reserved (No assignments) |
+-----------+--------------------+ | | |
| 8176-8183 | Experimentation (No assignments) |
| | |
| 8184-8191 | Vendor Private Use (No assignments) |
+-----------+-------------------------------------+
OSPFv3 LSA Function Codes OSPFv3 LSA Function Codes
* OSPFv3 LSA function codes in the range 256-8175 are not to be * OSPFv3 LSA function codes in the range 256-8175 are not to be
assigned at this time. Before any assignments can be made in assigned at this time. Before any assignments can be made in
this range, there MUST be a Standards Track RFC that specifies this range, there MUST be a Standards Track RFC that specifies
IANA Considerations that covers the range being assigned. IANA Considerations that cover the range being assigned.
* OSPFv3 LSA function codes in the range 8176-8181 are for * OSPFv3 LSA function codes in the range 8176-8181 are for
experimental use; these will not be registered with IANA and experimental use; these will not be registered with IANA and
MUST NOT be mentioned by RFCs. MUST NOT be mentioned by RFCs.
* OSPFv3 LSAs with an LSA Function Code in the Vendor Private * OSPFv3 LSAs with an LSA Function Code in the Vendor Private
Use range 8184-8191 MUST include the Vendor Enterprise Code as Use range 8184-8191 MUST include the Vendor Enterprise Code as
the first four octets following the 20 octets of LSA header. the first 4 octets following the 20 octets of LSA header.
* If a new LSA Function Code is documented, the documentation * If a new LSA Function Code is documented, the documentation
MUST include the valid combinations of the U, S2 and S1 bits MUST include the valid combinations of the U, S2, and S1 bits
for the LSA. It SHOULD also describe how the Link State ID is for the LSA. It SHOULD also describe how the Link State ID is
to be assigned. to be assigned.
2. Registry for OSPF RI TLVs - This top-level registry will be 2. Registry for OSPF RI TLVs - This top-level registry will be
comprised of the fields Value, TLV Name, and Document Reference. comprised of the fields Value, TLV Name, and Document Reference.
The value of 1 for the capabilities TLV is defined herein. The value of 1 for the capabilities TLV is defined herein.
+-------------+--------------------+ +-------------+-----------------------------------+
| Range | Assignment Policy | | Range | Assignment Policy |
+-------------+--------------------+ +-------------+-----------------------------------+
| 0 | Not to be assigned | | 0 | Reserved (not to be assigned) |
| | | | | |
| 1 | Already assigned | | 1 | Already assigned |
| | | | | |
| 2-32767 | Standards Action | | 2-32767 | Unassigned (Standards Action) |
| | | | | |
| 32768-32777 | Experimentation | | 32768-32777 | Experimentation (No assignements) |
| | | | | |
| 32778-65535 | Reserved | | 32778-65535 | Reserved (Not to be assigned) |
+-----------+----------------------+ +-----------+-------------------------------------+
OSPF RI TLVs OSPF RI TLVs
* Types in the range 32768-32777 are for experimental use; these * 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.
* Types in the range 32778-65535 are not to be assigned at this * Types in the range 32778-65535 are reserved and are not to be
time. Before any assignments can be made in this range, there assigned at this time. Before any assignments can be made in
MUST be a Standards Track RFC that specifies IANA this range, there MUST be a Standards Track RFC that specifies
Considerations that covers the range being assigned. IANA Considerations that covers the range being assigned.
3. Registry for OSPF Router Informational Capability Bits - This 3. Registry for OSPF Router Informational Capability Bits - This
sub-registry of the OSPF RI TLV registry will be comprised of the sub-registry of the OSPF RI TLV registry will be comprised of the
fields Bit Number, Capability Name, and Document Reference. The fields Bit Number, Capability Name, and Document Reference. The
values are defined in Section 2.3. All Router Informational values are defined in Section 2.4. All Router Informational
Capability TLV additions are to be assigned through standards Capability TLV additions are to be assigned through standards
action. action.
6. References 6. References
6.1. Normative References 6.1. Normative References
[OPAQUE] Coltun, R., "The OSPF Opaque LSA Option", RFC 2370, [OPAQUE] Coltun, R., "The OSPF Opaque LSA Option", RFC 2370,
July 1998. July 1998.
[OSPF] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", RFC 2328, April 1998. [OSPF] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328,
April 1998.
[OSPFV3] Coltun, R., Ferguson, D., and J. Moy, "OSPF for IPv6", [OSPFV3] Coltun, R., Ferguson, D., and J. Moy, "OSPF for
RFC 2740, December 1999. IPv6", RFC 2740, December 1999.
[RFC-KEYWORDS] [RFC-KEYWORDS] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFC's to Indicate
Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFC's to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, March 1997.
[TE] Katz, D., Yeung, D., and K. Kompella, "Traffic Engineering [TE] Katz, D., Kompella, K., and D. Yeung, "Traffic
Extensions to OSPF", RFC 3630, September 2003. Engineering Extensions to OSPF", RFC 3630,
September 2003.
6.2. Informative References 6.2. Informative References
[EXP-TE] Srisuresh, P. and P. Joseph, "OSPF OSPF-TE: An [EXP-TE] Srisuresh, P. and P. Joseph, "OSPF-xTE: Experimental
experimental extension to OSPF for Traffic Engineering", Extension to OSPF for Traffic Engineering", RFC 4973,
draft-srisuresh-ospf-te-07.txt (work in progress). July 2007.
[GRACE] Moy, J., Pillay-Esnault, P., and A. Lindem, "Graceful OSPF [GRACE] Moy, J., Pillay-Esnault, P., and A. Lindem, "Graceful
Restart", RFC 3623, November 2003. OSPF 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
in link-state routing protocols", LAN in link-state routing protocols", Work
draft-ietf-isis-igp-p2p-over-lan-05.txt (work in in Progress, April 2006.
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, McPherson, "OSPF Stub Router Advertisement",
June 2001. RFC 3137, June 2001.
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
on early versions of the draft. on early versions of the document.
Comments from Abhay Roy, Vishwas Manral, Vivek Dubey, and Adrian Comments from Abhay Roy, Vishwas Manral, Vivek Dubey, and Adrian
Farrel have been incorporated into later draft versions. Farrel have been incorporated into later versions.
The RFC text was produced using Marshall Rose's xml2rfc tool. The RFC text was produced using Marshall Rose's xml2rfc tool.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Acee Lindem Acee Lindem (editor)
Redback Networks Redback Networks
102 Carric Bend Court 102 Carric Bend Court
Cary, NC 27519 Cary, NC 27519
USA USA
Email: acee@redback.com EMail: acee@redback.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 Jean-Philippe Vasseur
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
300 Beaver Brook Road 1414 Massachusetts Avenue
Boxborough, MA 01719 Boxborough, MA 01719
USA USA
Email: jpv@cisco.com 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: sshaffer@bridgeport-networks.com
Full Copyright Statement Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007). Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights. retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
skipping to change at page 15, line 45 skipping to change at page 13, line 45
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr. http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org. ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Acknowledgment Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Administrative Support Activity (IASA). Internet Society.
 End of changes. 65 change blocks. 
144 lines changed or deleted 129 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.34. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/