draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions-25.txt   draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions-26.txt 
Open Shortest Path First IGP P. Psenak, Ed. Open Shortest Path First IGP P. Psenak, Ed.
Internet-Draft S. Previdi, Ed. Internet-Draft S. Previdi, Ed.
Intended status: Standards Track C. Filsfils Intended status: Standards Track C. Filsfils
Expires: October 22, 2018 Cisco Systems, Inc. Expires: May 24, 2019 Cisco Systems, Inc.
H. Gredler H. Gredler
RtBrick Inc. RtBrick Inc.
R. Shakir R. Shakir
Google, Inc. Google, Inc.
W. Henderickx W. Henderickx
Nokia Nokia
J. Tantsura J. Tantsura
Individual Apstra, Inc.
April 20, 2018 November 20, 2018
OSPF Extensions for Segment Routing OSPF Extensions for Segment Routing
draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions-25 draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions-26
Abstract Abstract
Segment Routing (SR) allows a flexible definition of end-to-end paths Segment Routing (SR) allows a flexible definition of end-to-end paths
within IGP topologies by encoding paths as sequences of topological within IGP topologies by encoding paths as sequences of topological
sub-paths, called "segments". These segments are advertised by the sub-paths, called "segments". These segments are advertised by the
link-state routing protocols (IS-IS and OSPF). link-state routing protocols (IS-IS and OSPF).
This draft describes the OSPFv2 extensions required for Segment This draft describes the OSPFv2 extensions required for Segment
Routing. Routing.
skipping to change at page 2, line 4 skipping to change at page 2, line 4
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at https://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."
This Internet-Draft will expire on October 22, 2018. This Internet-Draft will expire on May 24, 2019.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2018 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 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 4, line 39 skipping to change at page 4, line 39
The receiving router MUST ignore the SID/Label Sub-TLV if the The receiving router MUST ignore the SID/Label Sub-TLV if the
length is other then 3 or 4. length is other then 3 or 4.
3. Segment Routing Capabilities 3. Segment Routing Capabilities
Segment Routing requires some additional router capabilities to be Segment Routing requires some additional router capabilities to be
advertised to other routers in the area. advertised to other routers in the area.
These SR capabilities are advertised in the Router Information Opaque These SR capabilities are advertised in the Router Information Opaque
LSA (defined in [RFC7770]). LSA (defined in [RFC7770]). The TLVs defined below are applicable to
both OSPFv2 and OSPFv3; see also
[I-D.ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions]
3.1. SR-Algorithm TLV 3.1. SR-Algorithm TLV
The SR-Algorithm TLV is a top-level TLV of the Router Information The SR-Algorithm TLV is a top-level TLV of the Router Information
Opaque LSA (defined in [RFC7770]). Opaque LSA (defined in [RFC7770]).
The SR-Algorithm TLV is optional. It SHOULD only be advertised once The SR-Algorithm TLV is optional. It SHOULD only be advertised once
in the Router Information Opaque LSA. If the SR-Algorithm TLV is not in the Router Information Opaque LSA. If the SR-Algorithm TLV is not
advertised by the node, such node is considered as not being segment advertised by the node, such node is considered as not being segment
routing capable. routing capable.
skipping to change at page 26, line 44 skipping to change at page 26, line 44
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing] [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing]
Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Ginsberg, L., Decraene, B., Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Ginsberg, L., Decraene, B.,
Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment Routing Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment Routing
Architecture", draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-15 (work Architecture", draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-15 (work
in progress), January 2018. in progress), January 2018.
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop] [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop]
Bashandy, A., Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Decraene, B., and Bashandy, A., Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Decraene, B., and
S. Litkowski, "Segment Routing interworking with LDP", S. Litkowski, "Segment Routing interworking with LDP",
draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop-11 (work in draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop-15 (work in
progress), April 2018. progress), September 2018.
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls] [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls]
Bashandy, A., Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Decraene, B., Bashandy, A., Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Decraene, B.,
Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment Routing with MPLS Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment Routing with MPLS
data plane", draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls-13 data plane", draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls-15
(work in progress), April 2018. (work in progress), October 2018.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC2328] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328, [RFC2328] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2328, April 1998, DOI 10.17487/RFC2328, April 1998,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2328>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2328>.
skipping to change at page 27, line 49 skipping to change at page 27, line 49
Router Capabilities", RFC 7770, DOI 10.17487/RFC7770, Router Capabilities", RFC 7770, DOI 10.17487/RFC7770,
February 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7770>. February 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7770>.
[RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for [RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017, RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
13.2. Informative References 13.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions]
Psenak, P. and S. Previdi, "OSPFv3 Extensions for Segment
Routing", draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-
extensions-18 (work in progress), November 2018.
[RFC7474] Bhatia, M., Hartman, S., Zhang, D., and A. Lindem, Ed., [RFC7474] Bhatia, M., Hartman, S., Zhang, D., and A. Lindem, Ed.,
"Security Extension for OSPFv2 When Using Manual Key "Security Extension for OSPFv2 When Using Manual Key
Management", RFC 7474, DOI 10.17487/RFC7474, April 2015, Management", RFC 7474, DOI 10.17487/RFC7474, April 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7474>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7474>.
[RFC7855] Previdi, S., Ed., Filsfils, C., Ed., Decraene, B., [RFC7855] Previdi, S., Ed., Filsfils, C., Ed., Decraene, B.,
Litkowski, S., Horneffer, M., and R. Shakir, "Source Litkowski, S., Horneffer, M., and R. Shakir, "Source
Packet Routing in Networking (SPRING) Problem Statement Packet Routing in Networking (SPRING) Problem Statement
and Requirements", RFC 7855, DOI 10.17487/RFC7855, May and Requirements", RFC 7855, DOI 10.17487/RFC7855, May
2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7855>. 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7855>.
skipping to change at page 28, line 41 skipping to change at page 29, line 4
Cisco Systems, Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc.
Brussels Brussels
Belgium Belgium
Email: cfilsfil@cisco.com Email: cfilsfil@cisco.com
Hannes Gredler Hannes Gredler
RtBrick Inc. RtBrick Inc.
Email: hannes@rtbrick.com Email: hannes@rtbrick.com
Rob Shakir Rob Shakir
Google, Inc. Google, Inc.
1600 Amphitheatre Parkway 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway
Mountain View, CA 94043 Mountain View, CA 94043
US US
Email: robjs@google.com Email: robjs@google.com
Wim Henderickx Wim Henderickx
Nokia Nokia
Copernicuslaan 50 Copernicuslaan 50
Antwerp 2018 Antwerp 2018
BE BE
Email: wim.henderickx@nokia.com Email: wim.henderickx@nokia.com
Jeff Tantsura Jeff Tantsura
Individual Apstra, Inc.
US
Email: jefftant.ietf@gmail.com Email: jefftant.ietf@gmail.com
 End of changes. 11 change blocks. 
13 lines changed or deleted 19 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.47. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/