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

Versions: (draft-raggarwa-ospf-te-node-addr) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 RFC 5786

Network Working Group                                        R. Aggarwal
Internet Draft                                          Juniper Networks
Expiration Date: November 2009
                                                             K. Kompella
                                                        Juniper Networks

                                                            May 04, 2009


      Advertising a Router's Local Addresses in OSPF TE Extensions


                  draft-ietf-ospf-te-node-addr-06.txt

Status of this Memo

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

Copyright and License Notice

   Copyright (c) 2009 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 in effect on the date of
   publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
   Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
   and restrictions with respect to this document.

   This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
   Contributions published or made publicly available before November
   10, 2008.  The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this



Raggarwa & Kompella                                             [Page 1]

Internet Draft     draft-ietf-ospf-te-node-addr-06.txt          May 2009


   material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
   modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
   Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
   the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
   outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
   not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
   it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
   than English.

Abstract

   OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE) extensions are used to advertise TE
   Link State Advertisements (LSAs) containing information about TE-
   enabled links. The only addresses belonging to a router that are
   advertised in TE LSAs are the local addresses corresponding to TE-
   enabled links, and the local address corresponding to the Router ID.

   In order to allow other routers in a network to compute Multiprotocol
   Label Switching (MPLS) traffic engineered Label Switched Paths (TE
   LSPs) to a given router's local addresses, those addresses must also
   be advertised by OSPF TE.

   This document describes procedures that enhance OSPF TE to advertise
   a router's local addresses.



























Raggarwa & Kompella                                             [Page 2]

Internet Draft     draft-ietf-ospf-te-node-addr-06.txt          May 2009


Table of Contents

 1          Specification of requirements  .........................   3
 2          Introduction  ..........................................   3
 2.1        Motivation  ............................................   3
 3          Rejected Potential Solution  ...........................   4
 4          Solution  ..............................................   4
 4.1        Node Attribute TLV  ....................................   5
 4.2        Operation  .............................................   6
 5          Security Considerations  ...............................   7
 6          IANA Considerations  ...................................   7
 7          Acknowledgements  ......................................   7
 8          References  ............................................   8
 8.1        Normative References  ..................................   8
 8.2        Informative References  ................................   8
 9          Authors' Addresses  ....................................   8






1. Specification of requirements

   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 [RFC2119].


2. Introduction

2.1. Motivation

   In some cases it is desirable to set up constrained shortest path
   first (CSPF) computed Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Traffic
   Engineered Label Switched Paths (TE LSPs) to local addresses of a
   router, that are not currently advertised in the TE LSAs i.e.,
   loopback and non-TE interface addresses.

   For instance, in a network carrying VPN and non-VPN traffic, it is
   often desirable to use different MPLS TE LSPs for the VPN traffic and
   the non-VPN traffic. In this case one loopback address may be used as
   the BGP next-hop for VPN traffic while another may be used as the BGP
   next-hop for non-VPN traffic. It is also possible that different BGP
   sessions are used for VPN and non-VPN services. Hence two separate



Raggarwa & Kompella                                             [Page 3]

Internet Draft     draft-ietf-ospf-te-node-addr-06.txt          May 2009


   MPLS TE LSPs are desirable, one to each loopback address.

   However, current routers in an OSPF network can only use CSPF to
   compute MPLS TE LSPs to the router ID or the local addresses of a
   remote router's TE enabled links. This restriction arises because
   OSPF TE extensions [RFC3630, RFC5329] only advertise the router ID
   and the local addresses of TE enabled links of a given router. Other
   routers in the network can populate their traffic engineering
   database (TED) with these local addresses belonging to the
   advertising router. However, they cannot populate the TED with the
   advertising router's other local addresses, i.e., loopback and non-TE
   interface addresses. OSPFv2 stub links in the router LSA [RFC2328],
   provide stub reachability information to the router but are not
   sufficient to learn all the local addresses of a router. In
   particular for a subnetted point-to-point (P2P) interface the stub
   link ID is the subnet address. While for a non-subnetted interface
   the stub link ID is the neighbor address.  Intra-prefix LSAs in
   OSPFv3 [RFC5340] are also not sufficient to learn the local
   addresses.

   For the above reasons this document proposes an enhancement to OSPF
   TE extensions to advertise the local addresses of a node.


3. Rejected Potential Solution

   A potential solution would be to advertise a TE link TLV for each
   local address, possibly with a new link type.  However, this is
   inefficient since the only meaningful information is the address.
   Furthermore, this would require implementations to process these TE
   link TLVs differently from others; for example, the TE metric is
   normally considered a mandatory sub-TLV, but would have no meaning
   for a local address.


4. Solution

   The solution is to advertise the local addresses of a router in a new
   OSPF TE LSA node attribute TLV. It is anticipated that the node
   attribute TLV will also prove more generally useful.











Raggarwa & Kompella                                             [Page 4]

Internet Draft     draft-ietf-ospf-te-node-addr-06.txt          May 2009


4.1. Node Attribute TLV

   The node attribute TLV carries the attributes associated with a
   router. The TLV type is TBD and the length is variable. It contains
   one or more sub-TLVs. This document defines the following sub-TLVs:

     1. Node IPv4 Local Address sub-TLV
     2. Node IPv6 Local Address sub-TLV

   The node IPv4 local address sub-TLV has a type of 1 and contains one
   or more local IPv4 addresses. It has the following format:

       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                |             Length            |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      | Prefix Len 1  |          IPv4 Prefix 1                        |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |Prefix 1 cont. |                                               :
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+                                               ~
      :                               .                               :
      ~                               .               +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      :                               .               | Prefix Len n  |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                          IPv4 Prefix n                        |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Each local IPv4 address is encoded as a <Prefix Length, Prefix>
   tuple.  Prefix Length is encoded in 1 byte. It is the number of bits
   in the Address and can be at most 32. Prefix is an IPv4 address
   prefix and is encoded in 4 bytes with zero bits as necessary.

   The Node IPv4 Local Address sub-TLV length is in octets. It is the
   sum of all n IPv4 Address encodings in the sub-TLV where n is the
   number of local addresses included in the sub-TLV.

   The node IPv6 local address sub-TLV has a type of 2 and contains one
   or more local IPv6 addresses. It has the following format:

       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                |             Length            |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      | Prefix Len 1  | Prefix 1 Opt. | IPv6 Prefix 1                 |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |   IPv6 Prefix 1 cont.                                         :



Raggarwa & Kompella                                             [Page 5]

Internet Draft     draft-ietf-ospf-te-node-addr-06.txt          May 2009


      :                               .                               ~
      ~                               .
      :                               .
      :                               +-+-+-+-+-++-+-+-+-+-++-+-+-+-+-+
      :                               | Prefix Len n  | Prefix n Opt. |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                         IPv6  Prefix n                        :
      |                                                               :
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+--

   Each local IPv6 address is encoded using the procedures in [RFC5340].
   Each IPv6 address MUST be represented by a combination of three
   fields: PrefixLength, PrefixOptions, and Address Prefix. PrefixLength
   is the length in bits of the prefix and is an 8 bit field.
   PrefixOptions is an 8-bit field describing various capabilities
   associated with the prefix [RFC5340]. Address Prefix is an encoding
   of the prefix itself as an even multiple of 32-bit words, padding
   with zero bits as necessary.  This encoding consumes (PrefixLength +
   31) / 32) 32-bit words.

   The Node IPv6 Local Address sub-TLV length is in octets. It is the
   sum of all n IPv6 Address encodings in the sub-TLV where n is the
   number of local addresses included in the sub-TLV.


4.2. Operation

   A router announces one or more local addresses in the node attribute
   TLV.  The local addresses that can be learned from TE LSAs i.e.,
   router address and TE interface addresses SHOULD NOT be advertised in
   the node local address sub-TLV. The local addresses advertised will
   depend on the local configuration of the advertising router. The
   default behavior MAY be to advertise all the loopback interface
   addresses.

   The node attribute TLV must appear in exactly one TE LSA originated
   by a router. Furthermore, only one node attribute TLV must be
   advertised in such a LSA. A node attribute TLV must carry at most one
   Node IPv4 Local Address sub-TLV and at most one Node IPv6 Local
   Address sub-TLV.











Raggarwa & Kompella                                             [Page 6]

Internet Draft     draft-ietf-ospf-te-node-addr-06.txt          May 2009


5. Security Considerations

   This document does not introduce any further security issues other
   than those discussed in [RFC3630, RFC5329].


6. IANA Considerations

   The Node Attribute TLV type has to be IANA assigned from the range 3
   - 32767 as specified in [RFC3630], from the top level types in TE
   LSAs registry maintained by IANA at [IANA-OSPF-TE].

   IANA is requested to maintain the registry for the sub-TLVs of the
   node attribute TLV and reserve value 1 for Node IPv4 Local Address
   sub-TLV and value 2 for Node IPv6 Local Address sub-TLV.

   The guidelines for the assignment of types for sub-TLVs of the node
   attribute TLV are as follows:

       o  Types in the range 3-32767 are to be assigned via Standards
          Action.

       o  Types in the range 32768-32777 are for experimental use; these
          will not be registered with IANA, and MUST NOT be mentioned by
          RFCs.

       o  Types in the range 32778-65535 are not to be assigned at this
          time.  Before any assignments can be made in this range, there
          MUST be a Standards Track RFC that specifies IANA
          Considerations that covers the range being assigned.


7. Acknowledgements

   We would like to thank Nischal Sheth for his contribution to this
   work. We would also like to thank Jean Philippe Vasseur, Acee Lindem,
   Venkata Naidu, Dimitri Papadimitriou and Adrian Farrel for their
   comments.













Raggarwa & Kompella                                             [Page 7]

Internet Draft     draft-ietf-ospf-te-node-addr-06.txt          May 2009


8. References

8.1. Normative References

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

   [RFC2119]      Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
                  Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC3630]      D. Katz, K. Kompella, D. Yeung, "Traffic Engineering
                  Extensions to OSPF version 2", RFC 3630,
                  September 2003.

   [RFC5340]      R. Coltun, et. al.,"OSPF for IPv6", RFC 5340.


8.2. Informative References

   [RFC5329]    K. Ishiguro, T. Takada, "Traffic Engineering
                  Extensions to OSPF version 3", RFC 5329

   [IANA-OSPF-TE] http://www.iana.org/assignments/ospf-traffic-eng-tlvs


9. Authors' Addresses

   Rahul Aggarwal
   Juniper Networks
   1194 North Mathilda Ave.
   Sunnyvale, CA 94089

   Phone: +1-408-936-2720
   Email: rahul@juniper.net


   Kireeti Kompella
   Juniper Networks
   1194 North Mathilda Ave.
   Sunnyvale, CA 94089
   Email: kireeti@juniper.net











Raggarwa & Kompella                                             [Page 8]

Internet Draft     draft-ietf-ospf-te-node-addr-06.txt          May 2009





















































Raggarwa & Kompella                                             [Page 9]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.108, available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/