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

Versions: (draft-retana-ospf-rfc3137bis) 00 01 02 03 04 RFC 6987

Network Working Group                                          A. Retana
Internet-Draft                                                 L. Nguyen
Obsoletes: 3137 (if approved)                        Cisco Systems, Inc.
Intended status: Informational                                  A. Zinin
Expires: October 25, 2013                                Cinarra Systems
                                                                R. White
                                                            D. McPherson
                                                          Verisign, Inc.
                                                          April 23, 2013


                     OSPF Stub Router Advertisement
                     draft-ietf-ospf-rfc3137bis-04

Abstract

   This document describes a backward-compatible technique that may be
   used by OSPF (Open Shortest Path First) implementations to advertise
   a router's unavailability to forward transit traffic, or to lower the
   preference level for the paths through such a router.

   This document obsoletes [RFC3137].

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   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."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on October 25, 2013.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of



Retana, et al.          Expires October 25, 2013                [Page 1]

Internet-Draft       OSPF Stub Router Advertisement           April 2013


   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.1.  OSPFv3-only Solution  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Maximum Link Metric . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  Deployment Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   7.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   8.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     8.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     8.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   Appendix A.  Changes from RFC3137 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   Appendix B.  Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     B.1.  Changes between the -00 and -01 versions. . . . . . . . .   6
     B.2.  Changes between the -01 and -02 versions. . . . . . . . .   6
     B.3.  Changes between the -02 and -03 versions. . . . . . . . .   6
     B.4.  Changes between the -03 and -04 versions  . . . . . . . .   6
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6

1.  Introduction

   In some situations, it may be advantageous to inform routers in a
   network not to use a specific router as a transit point, but still
   route to it.  Possible situations include the following:

   o  The router is in a critical condition (for example, has very high
      CPU load or does not have enough memory to store all Link State
      Advertisements (LSAs) or build the routing table).

   o  Graceful introduction and removal of the router to/from the
      network.

   o  Other (administrative or traffic engineering) reasons.









Retana, et al.          Expires October 25, 2013                [Page 2]

Internet-Draft       OSPF Stub Router Advertisement           April 2013


   Note that the solution introduced in this document does not remove
   the router from the topology view of the network (as could be done by
   just flushing that router's router-LSA), but discourages other
   routers from using it for transit routing, while still routing
   packets to the router's own IP addresses, i.e., the router is
   announced as a stub.

   It must be emphasized that the solution provides real benefits in
   networks designed with at least some level of redundancy so that
   traffic can be routed around the stub router.  Otherwise, traffic
   destined for the networks reachable through such a stub router may
   still be routed through it.

2.  Solutions

   The solution introduced in this document solves two challenges
   associated with the outlined problem.  In the description below,
   router X is the router announcing itself as a stub.

   1)  Making other routers prefer routes around router X while
      performing the Dijkstra calculation.

   2)  Allowing other routers to reach IP prefixes directly connected to
      router X.

   Note that it would be easy to address issue 1) alone by just flushing
   router X's router-LSA from the domain.  However, it does not solve
   problem 2), since other routers will not be able to use links to
   router X in Dijkstra (no back link), and because router X will not
   have links to its neighbors.

   To address both problems, router X announces its router-LSA to the
   neighbors with the costs of all non-stub links (links of the types
   other than 3) set to MaxLinkMetric (defined in Section 3).

   The solution above applies to both OSPFv2 [RFC2328] and OSPFv3
   [RFC5340].

2.1.  OSPFv3-only Solution

   OSPFv3 [RFC5340] introduced additional options to provide similar
   control of the forwarding topology; the R-bit provides an indication
   of whether a router is active and should be used for transit traffic.

   It is left to network operators to decide which technique to use in
   their network.  See Section 4 for more details.





Retana, et al.          Expires October 25, 2013                [Page 3]

Internet-Draft       OSPF Stub Router Advertisement           April 2013


3.  Maximum Link Metric

   Section 2 refers to the cost of all non-stub links as MaxLinkMetric,
   which is a new fixed architectural value introduced in this document.

   MaxLinkMetric
      The metric value indicating that the link described by an LSA
      should not be used as transit.  Used in router-LSAs (see
      Section 2).  It is defined to be the 16-bit binary value of all
      ones: 0xffff.

4.  Deployment Considerations

   When using MaxLinkMetric, some inconsistency may be seen if the
   network is constructed of routers that perform intra-area Dijkstra
   calculation as specified in [RFC1247] (discarding link records in
   router-LSAs that have a MaxLinkMetric cost value) and routers that
   perform it as specified in [RFC1583] and higher (do not treat links
   with MaxLinkMetric cost as unreachable).  Note that this
   inconsistency will not lead to routing loops, because if there are
   some alternate paths in the network, both types of routers will agree
   on using them rather than the path through the stub router.  If the
   path through the stub router is the only one, the routers of the
   first type will not use the stub router for transit (which is the
   desired behavior), while the routers of the second type will still
   use this path.

   On the other hand, clearing the R-bit will consistently result in the
   router not being used as transit.

   The use of MaxLinkMetric or the R-bit in a network depends on the
   objectives of the operator.  One of the possible considerations for
   selecting one or the other is in the desired behavior if the path
   through the stub router is the only one available.  Using
   MaxLinkMetric allows for that path to be used, while the R-bit
   doesn't.

5.  Security Considerations

   The technique described in this document does not introduce any new
   security issues into the OSPF protocol.

6.  IANA Considerations

   This document has no actions for IANA.

7.  Acknowledgements




Retana, et al.          Expires October 25, 2013                [Page 4]

Internet-Draft       OSPF Stub Router Advertisement           April 2013


   The authors of this document do not make any claims on the
   originality of the ideas described.  Among other people, we would
   like to acknowledge Henk Smit for being part of one of the initial
   discussions around this topic.

   We would like to thank Shishio Tsuchiya, Gunter Van de Velde,
   Tomohiro Yamagata, Faraz Shamim and Acee Lindem who provided
   significant input for the latest version of this document.  Dave
   Cridland and Tom Yu also provided valuable comments.

8.  References

8.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2328]  Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328, April 1998.

   [RFC5340]  Coltun, R., Ferguson, D., Moy, J., and A. Lindem, "OSPF
              for IPv6", RFC 5340, July 2008.

8.2.  Informative References

   [RFC1247]  Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", RFC 1247, July 1991.

   [RFC1583]  Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", RFC 1583, March 1994.

   [RFC3137]  Retana, A., Nguyen, L., White, R., Zinin, A., and D.
              McPherson, "OSPF Stub Router Advertisement", RFC 3137,
              June 2001.

Appendix A.  Changes from RFC3137

   This document obsoletes [RFC3137].

   In addition to editorial updates, this documents defines a new
   architectural constant (MaxLinkMetric in Section 3) to eliminate any
   confusion about the interpretation of LSInfinity.  It also
   incorporates and explains the use of the R-bit [RFC5340] as a
   solution to the problem addressed in the text.

Appendix B.  Change Log

   This section should be removed by the RFC Editor before publication.









Retana, et al.          Expires October 25, 2013                [Page 5]

Internet-Draft       OSPF Stub Router Advertisement           April 2013


B.1.  Changes between the -00 and -01 versions.

   o  Defined a new architectural constant (MaxLinkMetric) to eliminate
      any confusion about the interpretation of LSInfinity.

   o  Added a section to reference the R-bit and V6-bit in OSPFv3.

   o  Updated acks and contact information.

B.2.  Changes between the -01 and -02 versions.

   o  Took out references to not having a standard solution and
      incorporated the R-bit solution as part of the (renamed)
      "Solutions" section.

   o  Various minor edits and reordered sections.

B.3.  Changes between the -02 and -03 versions.

   o  Updated contact information.

   o  Renamed the 'Motivation' section to 'Introduction' becuase of an
      error in idnits.

   o  Took out the rfc2119 references as none of the keywords are used
      in the text.

   o  Added an 'IANA Considerations' section to indicate that there are
      no actions required.

B.4.  Changes between the -03 and -04 versions

   o  Clearly indicated in the text that this document obsoletes
      RFC3137.

   o  Various minor edits.

   o  Clarified the use of the R-bit and included text in the
      "Deployment Considerations" section about it.

   o  Updated acks.

   o  Ordered the References section to provide some Normative ones.

   o  Added an Appendix summarizing the changes form RFC3137.

Authors' Addresses




Retana, et al.          Expires October 25, 2013                [Page 6]

Internet-Draft       OSPF Stub Router Advertisement           April 2013


   Alvaro Retana
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   7025 Kit Creek Rd.
   Research Triangle Park, NC  27709
   USA

   Email: aretana@cisco.com


   Liem Nguyen
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   3750 Cisco Way
   San Jose, CA  95134
   USA

   Email: lhnguyen@cisco.com


   Alex Zinin
   Cinarra Systems
   Menlo Park, CA
   USA

   Email: alex.zinin@gmail.com


   Russ White
   Verisign, Inc.
   12061 Bluemont Way
   Reston, VA  20190
   USA

   Email: riwhite@verisign.com


   Danny McPherson
   Verisign, Inc.
   21345 Ridgetop Circle
   Dulles, VA  20166
   USA

   Email: dmcpherson@verisign.com








Retana, et al.          Expires October 25, 2013                [Page 7]


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