[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 RFC 5613

Network Working Group                                           A. Zinin
Internet-Draft                                                   Alcatel
Intended status: Standards Track                             B. Friedman
Expires: July 13, 2007                                            A. Roy
                                                               L. Nguyen
                                                                D. Young
                                                           Cisco Systems
                                                         January 9, 2007


                       OSPF Link-local Signaling
                       draft-ietf-ospf-lls-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 July 13, 2007.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2007).










Zinin, et al.             Expires July 13, 2007                 [Page 1]

Internet-Draft          OSPF Link-local Signaling           January 2007


Abstract

   OSPF is a link-state intra-domain routing protocol.  OSPF routers
   exchange information on a link using packets that follow a well-
   defined fixed format.  The format is not flexible enough to enable
   new features which need to exchange arbitrary data.  This memo
   describes a backward-compatible technique to perform link-local
   signaling, i.e., exchange arbitrary data on a link.


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
     1.1.  Conventions Used In This Document  . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Proposed solution  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     2.1.  Options Field  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     2.2.  LLS Data Block . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     2.3.  LLS TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     2.4.  Extended Options TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     2.5.  Cryptographic Authentication TLV (OSPFv2 ONLY) . . . . . .  7
   3.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   4.  Compatibility Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   5.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   6.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     6.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     6.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   Appendix A.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
   Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 15






















Zinin, et al.             Expires July 13, 2007                 [Page 2]

Internet-Draft          OSPF Link-local Signaling           January 2007


1.  Introduction

   This document describes an extension to OSPFv2 [OSPFV2] and OSPFv3
   [OSPFV3] allowing additional information to be exchanged between
   routers on the same link.  OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 packet formats are fixed
   and do not allow for extension.  This document proposes appending an
   optional data block composed of Type/Length/Value (TLV) triplets to
   existing OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 packets to carry this additional
   information.  Throughout this document, OSPF will be used when the
   specification is applicable to both OSPFv2 and OSPFv3.  Similarly,
   OSPFv2 or OSPFv3 will be used when the text is protocol specific.

   One potential way of solving this task could be introducing a new
   packet type.  However, that would mean introducing extra packets on
   the network which may not be desirable and may cause backward
   compatibility issues.  This document describes how to exchange data
   using standard OSPF packet types.

1.1.  Conventions Used In This Document

   In this document, the key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED",
   "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY",
   and "OPTIONAL" are to be interpreted as described in RFC2119 [KEY].




























Zinin, et al.             Expires July 13, 2007                 [Page 3]

Internet-Draft          OSPF Link-local Signaling           January 2007


2.  Proposed solution

   To perform link-local signaling (LLS), OSPF routers add a special
   data block at the end of OSPF packets or right after the
   authentication data block when cryptographic authentication is used.
   The length of the LLS block is not included into the length of OSPF
   packet, but is included in the IPv4/IPv6 packet length.  Figure 1
   illustrates how the LLS data block is attached.

   +---------------------+ --              --  +---------------------+
   | IP Header           | ^               ^   | IPv6 Header         |
   | Length = HL+X+Y+Z   | | Header Length |   | Length = HL+X+Y     |
   |                     | v               v   |                     |
   +---------------------+ --              --  +---------------------+
   | OSPF Header         | ^               ^   | OSPFv3 Header       |
   | Length = X          | |               |   | Length = X          |
   |.....................| | X             | X |.....................|
   |                     | |               |   |                     |
   | OSPFv2 Data         | |               |   | OSPFv3 Data         |
   |                     | v               v   |                     |
   +---------------------+ --              --  +---------------------+
   |                     | ^               ^   |                     |
   | Authentication Data | | Y             | Y |  LLS Data           |
   |                     | v               v   |                     |
   +---------------------+ --              --  +---------------------+
   |                     | ^
   |  LLS Data           | | Z
   |                     | v
   +---------------------+ --


                Figure 1: LLS Data Block in OSPFv2 and OSPFv3

   The LLS data block MAY be attached to OSPF hello and DD packets.  The
   data included in LLS block attached to a Hello packet MAY be used for
   dynamic signaling, since Hello packets may be sent at any moment in
   time.  However, delivery of LLS data in Hello packets is not
   guaranteed.  The data sent with DBD packets is guaranteed to be
   delivered as part of the adjacency forming process.

   This memo does not specify how the data transmitted by the LLS
   mechanism should be interpreted by OSPF routers.  The interface
   between OSPF LLS component and its clients is implementation
   specific.







Zinin, et al.             Expires July 13, 2007                 [Page 4]

Internet-Draft          OSPF Link-local Signaling           January 2007


2.1.  Options Field

   A new bit, called L (L stands for LLS) is introduced to OSPF Options
   field (see Figure 2a/2b).  Routers set L bit in Hello and DBD packets
   to indicate that the packet contains LLS data block.  In other words,
   LLS data block is only examined if L bit is set.

              +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
              | * | O | DC| L |N/P| MC| E | * |
              +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+-+-+

               Figure 2a: OSPFv2 Options field


   0                   1                         2
   0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4  5 6 7  8  9  0  1  2  3
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+--+-+-+--+--+--+--+--+--+
   | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |L|AF|*|*|DC| R| N|MC| E|V6|
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+--+-+-+--+--+--+--+--+--+

               Figure 2b: OSPFv3 Options field

   The L-bit is only set in Hello and DBD packets.

2.2.  LLS Data Block

   The data block used for link-local signaling is formatted as
   described below (see Figure 3 for illustration).


   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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |            Checksum           |       LLS Data Length         |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   |                           LLS TLVs                            |
   .                                                               .
   .                                                               .
   .                                                               .
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                    Figure 3: Format of LLS Data Block


   The Checksum field contains the standard IP checksum of the entire
   contents of the LLS block.




Zinin, et al.             Expires July 13, 2007                 [Page 5]

Internet-Draft          OSPF Link-local Signaling           January 2007


   The 16-bit LLS Data Length field contains the length (in 32-bit
   words) of the LLS block including the header and payload.
   Implementations MUST NOT use the Length field in the IP packet header
   to determine the length of the LLS data block.

   Note that if the OSPF packet is cryptographically authenticated, the
   LLS data block MUST also be cryptographically authenticated.  In this
   case the regular LLS checksum is not calculated and the LLS block
   will contain a cryptographic authentication TLV (see Section 2.5).

   The rest of the block contains a set of Type/Length/Value (TLV)
   triplets as described in Section 2.3.  All TLVs MUST be 32-bit
   aligned (with padding if necessary).

2.3.  LLS TLVs

   The contents of LLS data block is constructed using TLVs.  See Figure
   4 for the TLV format.

   The type field contains the TLV ID which is unique for each type of
   TLVs.  The Length field contains the length of the Value field (in
   bytes) that is variable and contains arbitrary data.

   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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |            Type               |           Length              |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   .                                                               .
   .                             Value                             .
   .                                                               .
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                       Figure 4: Format of LLS TLVs

   Note that TLVs are always padded to 32-bit boundary, but padding
   bytes are not included in TLV Length field (though it is included in
   the LLS Data Length field of the LLS block header).

2.4.  Extended Options TLV

   This subsection describes a TLV called Extended Options (EO) TLV.
   The format of EO-TLV is shown in Figure 5.

   Bits in the Value field do not have any semantics from the point of
   view of LLS mechanism.  This field MAY be used to announce some OSPF
   capabilities that are link-specific.  Also, other OSPF extensions MAY



Zinin, et al.             Expires July 13, 2007                 [Page 6]

Internet-Draft          OSPF Link-local Signaling           January 2007


   allocate bits in the bit vector to perform boolean link-local
   signaling.

   The length of the Value field in EO-TLV is 4 bytes.

   The value of the type field in EO-TLV is 1.

   EO-TLV MUST only appear once in the LLS data block.

   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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |             1                 |            4                  |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                       Extended Options                        |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                         Figure 5: Format of EO TLV

   Currently, [OOB] and [RESTART] use bits in the Extended Options field
   of the EO-TLV.

   The Extended Options bits are defined in Section 3.

2.5.  Cryptographic Authentication TLV (OSPFv2 ONLY)

   This document defines a special TLV that is used for cryptographic
   authentication (CA-TLV) of the LLS data block.  This TLV MUST be
   included in the LLS block when the cryptographic (MD5) authentication
   is enabled on the corresponding interface.  The message digest of the
   LLS block MUST be calculated using the same key and authentication
   algorithm, as that used for the main OSPFv2 packet.  The
   cryptographic sequence number is included in the TLV and MUST be the
   same as the one in the main OSPFv2 packet for the LLS block to be
   considered authentic.

   The TLV is constructed as shown Figure 6.














Zinin, et al.             Expires July 13, 2007                 [Page 7]

Internet-Draft          OSPF Link-local Signaling           January 2007


   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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |              2                |         AuthLen               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                         Sequence number                       |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   .                                                               .
   .                           AuthData                            .
   .                                                               .
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

          Figure 6: Format of Cryptographic Authentication TLV

   The value of the Type field for CA-TLV is 2.

   The Length field in the header contains the length of the data
   portion of the TLV that includes 4 bytes for the Sequence Number and
   the length of the message digest (MD5) block for the whole LLS block
   in bytes (this will always be 16 bytes for MD5).  So AuthLen field
   will have value of 20.

   The Sequence Number field contains the cryptographic sequence number
   that is used to prevent simple replay attacks.  For the LLS block to
   be considered authentic, the Sequence Number in the CA-TLV MUST match
   the Sequence Number in the OSPFv2 packet.

   The AuthData contains the message digest calculated for the LLS data
   block.

   The CA-TLV MUST only appear once in the the LLS block.  Also, when
   present, this TLV SHOULD be the last TLV in the LLS block.


















Zinin, et al.             Expires July 13, 2007                 [Page 8]

Internet-Draft          OSPF Link-local Signaling           January 2007


3.  IANA Considerations

   LLS TLV types are maintained by the IANA.  Extensions to OSPF which
   require a new LLS TLV type MUST be reviewed by an designated expert
   from the routing area.

   Following the policies outlined in [IANA], LLS type values in the
   range of 0-32767 are allocated through an IETF Consensus action and
   LLS type values in the range of 32768-65536 are reserved for private
   and experimental use.

   This document assigns the following LLS TLV types in OSPFv2/OSPFv3.

   TLV Type    Name                                      Reference
   0       Reserved
   1       Extended Options                          [RFCNNNN]*
   2       Cryptographic Authentication+             [RFCNNNN]*
   3-32767 Reserved for assignment by the IANA
   32768-65535 Private Use

   *[RFCNNNN] refers to the RFC number-to-be for this document.
   + Cryptographic Authentication TLV is only defined for OSPFv2

   This document also assigns the following bits for the Extended
   Options bits field in the EO-TLV outlined in Section 2.5:

   Extended Options Bit    Name                        Reference
   0x00000001              LSDB Resynchronization (LR) [OOB]
   0x00000002              Restart Signal (RS-bit)     [RESTART]

   Other Extended Options bits will be allocated through an IETF
   consensus action.



















Zinin, et al.             Expires July 13, 2007                 [Page 9]

Internet-Draft          OSPF Link-local Signaling           January 2007


4.  Compatibility Issues

   The modifications to OSPF packet formats are compatible with standard
   OSPF because LLS-incapable routers will not consider the extra data
   after the packet; i.e., the LLS data block will be ignored by routers
   which do not support the LLS extension.













































Zinin, et al.             Expires July 13, 2007                [Page 10]

Internet-Draft          OSPF Link-local Signaling           January 2007


5.  Security Considerations

   The described technique provides the same level of security as OSPF
   protocol by allowing LLS data to be authenticated (see Section 2.5
   for more details).

   OSPFv3 has IPSec authentication built in.  There are AH/ESP
   techniques which operate on the whole OSPFv3 payload.  So we do not
   need a separate cryptographic TLV for OSPFv3.










































Zinin, et al.             Expires July 13, 2007                [Page 11]

Internet-Draft          OSPF Link-local Signaling           January 2007


6.  References

6.1.  Normative References

   [IANA]    Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
             IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", RFC 2334,
             October 1998.

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

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

   [OSPFV3]  Coltun, R., Ferguson, D., and J. Moy, "OSPF for IPv6",
             RFC 2740, December 1999.

6.2.  Informative References

   [OOB]      Zinin, A., Roy, A., and L. Nguyen, "OSPF Out-of-band LSDB
              resynchronization", draft-nguyen-ospf-oob-resync-06.txt
              (work in progress), October 2006.

   [RESTART]  Zinin, A., Roy, A., and L. Nguyen, "OSPF Restart
              Signaling", draft-nguyen-ospf-restart-06.txt (work in
              progress), October 2006.


























Zinin, et al.             Expires July 13, 2007                [Page 12]

Internet-Draft          OSPF Link-local Signaling           January 2007


Appendix A.  Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to acknowledge Russ White and Acee Lindem for
   their thoughtful review of this document.















































Zinin, et al.             Expires July 13, 2007                [Page 13]

Internet-Draft          OSPF Link-local Signaling           January 2007


Authors' Addresses

   Alex Zinin
   Alcatel
   Sunnyvale
   USA

   Email: zinin@psg.com


   Barry Friedman
   Cisco Systems
   170 West Tasman Drive
   San Jose, CA  95134
   USA

   Email: friedman@cisco.com


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

   Email: akr@cisco.com


   Liem Nguyen
   Cisco Systems
   170 West Tasman Drive
   San Jose, CA  95134
   USA

   Email: lhnguyen@cisco.com


   Derek Young
   Cisco Systems
   170 West Tasman Drive
   San Jose, CA  95134
   USA

   Email: myeung@cisco.com







Zinin, et al.             Expires July 13, 2007                [Page 14]

Internet-Draft          OSPF Link-local Signaling           January 2007


Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2007).

   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 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).





Zinin, et al.             Expires July 13, 2007                [Page 15]


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