[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 draft-ietf-ospf-multi-instance

Network Working Group                                          A. Lindem
Internet-Draft                                          Redback Networks
Intended status: Standards Track                                  A. Roy
Expires: March 25, 2009                                    Cisco Systems
                                                            S. Mirtorabi
                                                           Nuova Systems
                                                      September 21, 2008


                     OSPF Multi-Instance Extensions
                 draft-acee-ospf-multi-instance-02.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
   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 March 25, 2009.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).











Lindem, et al.           Expires March 25, 2009                 [Page 1]

Internet-Draft       OSPF Multi-Instance Extensions       September 2008


Abstract

   OSPFv3 includes a mechanism for supporting multiple instances on the
   same link.  OSPFv2 could benefit from such a mechanism in order to
   support multiple routing domains on the same subnet.  The OSPFv2
   instance ID is reserved for support of separate OSPFv2 protocol
   instances.  This is different from OSPFv3 where it could be used for
   other purposes such as putting the same link in multiple areas.
   OSPFv2 supports this capability using a separate subnet or the OSPF
   multi-area adjacency capability.


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
     1.1.  Requirements notation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  OSPFv2 Instance Packet Encoding  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   3.  OSPF Interface Instance ID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     3.1.  Sending and Receiving OSPF packets . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   4.  State Sharing Optimizations between OSPF instances . . . . . .  7
   5.  Backward Compatibility and Deployment Considerations . . . . .  8
   6.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   7.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   8.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   Appendix A.  Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 14
























Lindem, et al.           Expires March 25, 2009                 [Page 2]

Internet-Draft       OSPF Multi-Instance Extensions       September 2008


1.  Introduction

   OSPFv3 [OSPFV3] includes a mechanism for supporting multiple
   instances on the same link.  OSPFv2 [OSPFV2] could benefit from such
   a mechanism in order to support multiple routing domains on the same
   subnet.  The OSPFv2 instance ID is reserved for support of separate
   OSPFv2 protocol instances.  This is different from OSPFv3 where it
   could be used for other purposes such as putting the same link in
   multiple areas.  OSPFv2 supports this capability using a separate
   subnet or the OSPF multi-area adjacency capability [MULTI-AREA].

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 [RFC-KEYWORDS].



































Lindem, et al.           Expires March 25, 2009                 [Page 3]

Internet-Draft       OSPF Multi-Instance Extensions       September 2008


2.  OSPFv2 Instance Packet Encoding

   OSPFv2 currently doesn't offer a mechanism to differentiate packets
   for different instances sent and received on the same interface.  In
   support of this capability, this document introduces a modified
   packet header format when the Authentication Type field is split into
   an instance ID and type.


       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
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |   Version #   |     Type      |         Packet length         |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                         Router ID                             |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                          Area ID                              |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |          Checksum             |  Instance ID  |  AuType       |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                     Authentication                            |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                     Authentication                            |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                         The OSPFv2 Packet Header


   Version #
      The OSPFv2 version number - 2

   Type
      The OSPFv2 packet type as specified [OSPFV2].

   Packet length
      The length of the OSPF protocol packet in bytes.  This length
      includes the standard OSPF header.

   Router ID
      The Router ID of the packet's source.

   Area ID
      A 32-bit number identifying the area corresponding the packet as
      specified in [OSPFV2].







Lindem, et al.           Expires March 25, 2009                 [Page 4]

Internet-Draft       OSPF Multi-Instance Extensions       September 2008


   Checksum
      OSPFv2 standard checksum calculation as specified in specified in
      [OSPFV2].

   Instance ID
      Enables multiple instances of OSPF to be run over a single link.
      Each protocol instance would be assigned a separate Instance ID;
      the Instance ID has local subnet significance only.  Received
      packets with an Instance ID not equal to one of the configured
      OSPF Instance IDs on the receiving interface MUST be discarded.

   AuType
      OSPFv2 authentication type as specified in specified in [OSPFV2].

   Authentication
      A 64-bit field for Authentication type dependent authentication
      data.


































Lindem, et al.           Expires March 25, 2009                 [Page 5]

Internet-Draft       OSPF Multi-Instance Extensions       September 2008


3.  OSPF Interface Instance ID

   OSPF [OSPFV2] describes the conceptual interface data structure in
   section 9.  The OSPF Interface ID will be added to this structure.
   The Interface Instance ID will default to 0.  Its setting to a non-
   zero value may be accomplished through configuration or implied by
   some usage beyond the scope of this document.

3.1.  Sending and Receiving OSPF packets

   When sending OSPF packets, if the interface instance ID has a non-
   zero value, it will be set in the OSPF packet header.  When receiving
   OSPF packets, the OSPFv2 Header Instance ID will be used to aid in
   demultiplexing the packet and routing it to the correct OSPFv2
   instance.  Received packets with an Instance ID not equal to one of
   the configured OSPF Instance IDs on the receiving interface MUST be
   discarded.


































Lindem, et al.           Expires March 25, 2009                 [Page 6]

Internet-Draft       OSPF Multi-Instance Extensions       September 2008


4.  State Sharing Optimizations between OSPF instances

   This is beyond the scope of this draft and is an area for further
   study.















































Lindem, et al.           Expires March 25, 2009                 [Page 7]

Internet-Draft       OSPF Multi-Instance Extensions       September 2008


5.  Backward Compatibility and Deployment Considerations

   When there are OSPF routers that support this capability on the same
   broadcast capable link as those that do not, packets with non-zero
   Instance IDs will be received by those legacy routers.  Since the
   authentication type will be unknown to them they will not process the
   packet.  This is exactly what is desired.

   Previously, a concern was that some implementations will log every
   single authentication type mismatch.  However, discussions with
   implementers have led us to the conclusion that this is not as
   current a problem as we'd first thought and it will be even less of a
   problem by the time the mechanism in this draft is standardized,
   implemented, and deployed.  Hence, the controversial mechanisms to
   avoid legacy routers receiving multicast OSPF packets with a non-zero
   instance ID have been removed.



































Lindem, et al.           Expires March 25, 2009                 [Page 8]

Internet-Draft       OSPF Multi-Instance Extensions       September 2008


6.  Security Considerations

   The enhancement described herein doesn't add any additional security
   considerations to OSPFv2.  Security considerations for OSPFv2 are
   described in [OSPFV2].

   Given that only three OSPFv2 authentication types have been
   standardized, it seems reasonable to reduce the OSPF packet header
   field to 8 bits.










































Lindem, et al.           Expires March 25, 2009                 [Page 9]

Internet-Draft       OSPF Multi-Instance Extensions       September 2008


7.  IANA Considerations

   A new registry will be added for OSPF Instance IDs.  The allocation
   is TBD.

   Dependent on the approach, two new multicast addresses from the IPv4
   Multicast Addresses registry would need to be allocated.

   Dependent on the approach, a new protocol ID may need to be allocated
   from the Protocol Numbers registry.









































Lindem, et al.           Expires March 25, 2009                [Page 10]

Internet-Draft       OSPF Multi-Instance Extensions       September 2008


8.  Normative References

   [MULTI-AREA]
              Mirtorabi, S., Psenak, P., Lindem, A., and A. Oswal, "OSPF
              Multi-Area Adjacency", RFC 5185, May 2008.

   [OSPFV2]   Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", RFC 2328, April 1998.

   [OSPFV3]   Coltun, R., Ferguson, D., Moy, J., and A. Lindem, "OSPF
              for IPv6", RFC 5340, July 2008.

   [RFC-KEYWORDS]
              Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFC's to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, March 1997.





































Lindem, et al.           Expires March 25, 2009                [Page 11]

Internet-Draft       OSPF Multi-Instance Extensions       September 2008


Appendix A.  Acknowledgments

   The RFC text was produced using Marshall Rose's xml2rfc tool.

   Thanks to Paul Wells for commenting on the backward compatibility
   issues.













































Lindem, et al.           Expires March 25, 2009                [Page 12]

Internet-Draft       OSPF Multi-Instance Extensions       September 2008


Authors' Addresses

   Acee Lindem
   Redback Networks
   102 Carric Bend Court
   Cary, NC  27519
   USA

   Email: acee@redback.com


   Abhay Roy
   Cisco Systems
   225 West Tasman Drive
   San Jose, CA  95134
   USA

   Email: akr@cisco.com


   Sina Mirtorabi
   Nuova Systems
   3 West Plumeria Drive
   San Jose, CA  95134
   USA

   Email: sina@nuovasystems.com
























Lindem, et al.           Expires March 25, 2009                [Page 13]

Internet-Draft       OSPF Multi-Instance Extensions       September 2008


Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).

   This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
   contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
   retain all their rights.

   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
   OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
   THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM 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.


Intellectual Property

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   Intellectual Property Rights 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; nor does it represent that it has
   made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information
   on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
   found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat 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 implementers or users of this
   specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
   http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at
   ietf-ipr@ietf.org.


Acknowledgment

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
   Administrative Support Activity (IASA).





Lindem, et al.           Expires March 25, 2009                [Page 14]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.107, available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/