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

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 RFC 4973

Network Working Group                                       P. Srisuresh
INTERNET-DRAFT                                                Consultant
Expires as of August 7, 2003                                   P. Joseph
                                                        Force10 Networks
                                                        February 7, 2003


   OSPF-xTE: An experimental extension to OSPF for Traffic Engineering
                <draft-srisuresh-ospf-te-05.txt>

Status of this Memo

   This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
   all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.

   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.


Abstract

   This document defines OSPF-xTE, an experimental traffic engineering
   (TE) extension to the link-state routing protocol OSPF. New TE LSAs
   are defined to disseminate TE metrics within an autonomous
   System (AS) - intra-area as well as inter-area. An Autonomous
   System may consist of TE and non-TE nodes. Non-TE nodes are
   uneffected by the distribution of TE LSAs. A stand-alone TE Link
   State Database (TE-LSDB), separate from the native OSPF LSDB, is
   generated for the computation of TE circuit paths. OSPF-xTE is
   also extendible to non-packet networks such as SONET/TDM and
   optical networks. A transition path is provided for those using
   [OPQLSA-TE] and wish to adapt OSPF-xTE.





Srisuresh & Joseph                                              [Page 1]

Internet-Draft     Experimental TE extensions to OSPF      February 2003


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction ................................................3
   2.  Principles of traffic engineering ...........................3
   3.  Terminology .................................................4
       3.1. Native OSPF terms ......................................4
       3.2. OSPF-xTE terms .........................................5
  4.   Motivations behind the design of OSPF-xTE ...................8
       4.1. Scalable design ........................................8
       4.2. Operable in mixed and peer networks ....................9
       4.3. Efficient in flooding reach ............................9
       4.4. Ability to reserve TE-exclusive links .................10
       4.5. Extendible design .....................................10
       4.6. Unified for packet and non-packet networks ............10
       4.7. Networks benefiting from the OSPF-xTE design ..........11
   5.  OSPF-xTE solution overview .................................12
       5.1. OSPF-xTE Solution .....................................12
       5.2. Assumptions ...........................................13
   6.  Opaque LSAs to OSPF-xTE transition strategy ................14
   7.  OSPF-xTE router adjacency - TE topology discovery ..........14
       7.1. The OSPF Options field ................................15
       7.2. The Hello Protocol ....................................15
       7.3. Flooding and the Synchronization of Databases .........16
       7.4. The Designated Router .................................16
       7.5. The Backup Designated Router ..........................16
       7.6. The graph of adjacencies ..............................17
   8.  TE LSAs for packet network .................................18
       8.1. TE-Router LSA (0x81) ..................................19
       8.2. TE-incremental-link-Update LSA (0x8d) .................28
       8.3. TE-Circuit-paths LSA (0x8C) ...........................30
       8.4. TE-Summary LSAs .......................................32
       8.5. TE-AS-external LSAs (0x85) ............................35
   9.  TE LSAs for non-packet network .............................37
       9.1. TE-Router LSA (0x81) ..................................37
       9.2. TE-Positional-ring-network LSA (0x82) .................39
       9.3. TE-Router-Proxy LSA (0x8e) ............................41
   10. Abstract topology representation with TE support ...........42
   11. Changes to Data structures in OSPF-xTE routers .............44
       11.1. Changes to Router data structure .....................44
       11.2. Two set of Neighbors .................................44
       11.3. Changes to Interface data structure ..................44
   12. IANA Considerations ........................................45
       12.1. TE LSA type values ...................................45
       12.2. TE TLV tag values ....................................46
   13. Acknowledgements ...........................................46
   14. Security Considerations ....................................47
   15. Normative References .......................................48
   16. Informative References .....................................48



Srisuresh & Joseph                                              [Page 2]

Internet-Draft     Experimental TE extensions to OSPF      February 2003



1. Introduction

   This document defines OSPF-xTE, an experimental traffic
   engineering (TE) extension to the link-state routing protocol
   OSPF. The objective of OSPF-xTE is to discover TE network
   topology and disseminate TE metrics within an autonomous system
   (AS).  A stand-alone TE Link State Database (TE-LSDB), different
   from the native OSPF LSDB, is created to facilitate computation
   of TE circuit paths. Devising algorithms to compute TE circuit
   paths is not an objective of this document.

   OSPF-xTE is different from the Opaque-LSA-based design outlined
   in [OPQLSA-TE]. Section 4 describes the motivations behind the
   design of OSPF-xTE. Section 6 outlines a strategy to transition
   Opaque-LSA based implementations to adapt OSPF-xTE.

   Readers interested in TE extensions for the packet networks
   only may skip section 9.0.


2. Principles of traffic engineering

   The objective of traffic engineering (TE) is to set up circuit
   path(s) between a pair of nodes or links and to forward traffic
   of a certain forwarding equivalency class (FEC) through the
   circuit path. Only the unicast circuit paths are considered
   in this section. Multicast variations are outside the scope.

   A traffic engineered circuit path is uni-directional and may
   be identified by the tuple of (FEC, TE circuit parameters,
   Origin Node/Link, Destination node/Link).

   Forwarding Equivalency Class (FEC) is a grouping of traffic
   that is forwarded in the same manner by a node. A FEC may be
   classified based on a number of criteria as follows.
        a) Traffic arriving on a specific interface,
        b) Traffic arriving at a certain time of day,
        c) Traffic meeting a certain packet based classification
           criteria (ex: based on a match of the fields in the IP
           and transport headers within a packet),
        d) Traffic in a certain priority class,
        e) Traffic arriving on a specific set of TDM (STS) circuits
           on an interface,
        f) Traffic arriving on a certain wavelength of an interface

   Discerning traffic based on the FEC criteria is mandatory for
   Label Edge Routers (LERs). The intermediate Label Switched Routers



Srisuresh & Joseph                                              [Page 3]

Internet-Draft     Experimental TE extensions to OSPF      February 2003


   (LSRs) are transparent to the traffic content. LSRs are merely
   responsible for keeping the circuit in-tact for the circuit
   lifetime. This document will not address defining FEC criteria,
   or the mapping of a FEC to circuit, or the associated signaling to
   set up circuits. [MPLS-TE] and [GMPLS-TE] address the FEC criteria.
   [RSVP-TE] and [CR-LDP] address signaling protocols to set up
   circuits.

   This document is concerned with the collection of TE metrics for
   all the TE enforceable nodes and links within an autonomous system.
   TE metrics for a node may include the following.
        a) Ability to perform traffic prioritization,
        b) Ability to provision bandwidth on interfaces,
        c) Support for Constrained Shortest Path First (CSPF)
           algorithms,
        d) Support for certain TE-Circuit switch type,
        e) Support for a certain type of automatic protection
           switching

   TE metrics for a link may include the following.
        a) Available bandwidth,
        b) Reliability of the link,
        c) Color assigned to the link,
        d) Cost of bandwidth usage on the link,
        e) Membership to a Shared Risk Link Group (SRLG)

   A number of CSPF algorithms may be used to dynamically set up
   TE circuit paths in a TE network.

   OSPF-xTE mandates the originating and the terminating entities of
   a TE circuit path to be identifiable by their IP addresses.


3. Terminology

   Definitions of majority of the terms used in the context of the
   OSPF protocol may be found in [OSPF-V2]. MPLS and traffic
   engineering terms may be found in [MPLS-ARCH]. RSVP-TE and
   CR-LDP signaling specific terms may be found in [RSVP-TE] and
   [CR-LDP] respectively.

   The following subsections describe the native OSPF terms and
   the OSPF-xTE terms used within this document.

3.1. Native OSPF terms

3.1.1. Native node (Non-TE node)




Srisuresh & Joseph                                              [Page 4]

Internet-Draft     Experimental TE extensions to OSPF      February 2003


   A native or non-TE node is an OSPF router capable of IP packet
   forwarding and does not take part in a TE network. A native
   OSPF node forwards IP traffic using the shortest-path
   forwarding algorithm and does not run the OSPF-xTE extensions.

3.1.2. Native link (Non-TE link)

   A native (or non-TE) link is a network attachment to a TE or
   non-TE node used for IP packet traversal.

3.1.3. Native OSPF network (Non-TE network)

   A native OSPF network refers to an OSPF network that does not
   support TE. Non-TE network, native-OSPF network and non-TE
   topology are used synonymously throughout the document.

3.1.4. LSP

   LSP stands for "Label Switched Path". LSP is a TE circuit path
   in a packet network. The terms LSP and TE circuit path are
   used synonymously in the context of packet networks.

3.1.5. LSA

   LSA stands for OSPF "Link State Advertisement".

3.1.6. LSDB

   LSDB stands for "LSA Database". LSDB is a representation of the
   topology of a network. A native LSDB, constituted of native OSPF
   LSAs, represents the topology of a native IP network. TE-LSDB, on
   the other hand, is constituted of TE LSAs and is a representation
   of the TE network topology.

3.2. OSPF-xTE terms

3.2.1. TE node

   TE-Node is a node in the traffic engineered (TE) network. A
   TE-node has a minimum of one TE-link attached to it. Associated
   with each TE node is a set of supported TE metrics. A TE node
   may also participate in a native IP network.

   In a SONET/TDM or photonic cross-connect network, a TE node is
   not required to be an OSPF-xTE node. An external OSPF-xTE node
   may act as proxy for the TE nodes that cannot be routers
   themselves.




Srisuresh & Joseph                                              [Page 5]

Internet-Draft     Experimental TE extensions to OSPF      February 2003


3.2.2. TE link

   TE Link is a network attachment point to a TE-node and is
   intended for traffic engineering use. Associated with each
   TE link is a set of supported TE metrics. A TE link may also
   optionally carry native IP traffic.

   Of the various links attached to a TE-node, only the links that
   take part in a traffic engineered network are called the TE
   links.

3.2.3. TE circuit path

   A TE circuit path is a uni-directional data path, defined by a
   list of TE nodes connected to each other through TE links. A
   TE circuit path is also often referred merely as a circuit path
   or a circuit.

   For the purposes of OSPF-xTE, the originating and terminating
   entities of a TE circuit path must be identifiable by their
   IP addresses. As a general rule, all nodes and links party to a
   Traffic Engineered network should be uniquely identifiable by an
   IP address.

3.2.4. OSPF-xTE node (OSPF-xTE router)

   An OSPF-xTE node is a TE node that runs the OSPF routing protocol
   and the OSPF-xTE extensions described in this document.

   An autonomous system (AS) may be constituted of a combination of
   native and OSPF-xTE nodes.

3.2.5. TE Control network

   The IP network used by the OSPF-xTE nodes for OSPF-xTE
   communication is referred as the TE control network or simply
   the control network. The control network can be independent of
   the TE data network.

3.2.6. TE network (TE topology)

   A TE network is a network of connected TE-nodes and TE-links
   for the purpose of setting up one or more TE circuit paths.
   The terms TE network, TE data network and TE topology are
   used synonymously throughout the document.

3.2.7. Packet-TE network (Packet network)




Srisuresh & Joseph                                              [Page 6]

Internet-Draft     Experimental TE extensions to OSPF      February 2003


   A packet-TE network is a TE network in which the nodes switch
   MPLS packets. An MPLS packet is defined in [MPLS-TE] as a
   packet with an MPLS header, followed by data octets. The
   intermediary node(s) of a circuit path in a packet-TE network
   perform MPLS label swapping to emulate the circuit.

   Unless specified otherwise, the term packet network is used
   throughout the document to refer a packet-TE network.

3.2.8. Non-packet-TE network (Non-packet network)

   A non-packet-TE network is TE-network in which the nodes
   switch non-packet entities such as an STS time slot, a Lambda
   wavelength or simply an interface.

   SONET/TDM and Fiber cross-connect networks are examples of
   non-packet-TE networks. Circuit emulation in these networks
   is accomplished by the switch fabric in the intermediary
   nodes (based on TDM time slot, fiber interface or Lambda).

   Unless specified otherwise, the term non-packet network is
   used throughout the document to refer a non-packet-TE
   network.

3.2.9. Mixed network

   A mixed network is a network that is constituted of
   packet-TE and non-TE networks combined. Traffic in the
   network is strictly datagram oriented - IP datagrams or
   MPLS packets. Routers in a mixed network may be TE or
   native nodes.

   OSPF-xTE is usable within a packet network or a mixed
   network.

3.2.10. Peer network

   A peer network is a network that is constituted of packet-TE
   and non-packet-TE networks combined. In a peer network, a TE
   node could potentially support TE links for the packet as
   well as non-packet data.

   OSPF-xTE is usable within a packet network or a non-packet
   network or a peer network, which is a combination of the two.

3.2.11. CSPF

   CSPF stands for "Constrained Shortest Path First". Given a TE



Srisuresh & Joseph                                              [Page 7]

Internet-Draft     Experimental TE extensions to OSPF      February 2003


   LSDB and a set of constraints that must be satisfied to form a
   circuit path, there may be several CSPF algorithms to obtain a
   TE circuit path that meets the criteria.

3.2.12. TLV

   A TLV stands for an object in the form of Tag-Length-Value. All
   TLVs are assumed to be of the following format, unless specified
   otherwise. The Tag and length are 16 bits wide each. The length
   includes the 4 octets required for Tag and Length specification.
   All TLVs described in this document are padded to 32-bit
   alignment. Any padding required for alignment will not be a part
   of the length field, however. TLVs are used to describe traffic
   engineering characteristics of the TE nodes, TE links and TE circuit
   paths.


        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
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |            Tag                |     Length (4 or more)        |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                            Value ....                         |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                            ....                               |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

3.2.13. Router-TE TLVs (Router TLVs)

     TLVs used to describe the TE capabilities of a TE-node.

3.2.14. Link-TE TLVs (Link TLVs)

     TLVs used to describe the TE capabilities of a TE-link.


4. Motivations behind the design of OSPF-xTE

   There are several motivations that led to the design of OSPF-xTE.
   OSPF-xTE is scalable, efficient and usable across a variety of
   network topologies. These motivations are explained in detail in
   the following subsections. The last subsection lists real-world
   network scenarios that benefit from the OSPF-xTE.

4.1. Scalable design

   OSPF-xTE area level abstraction provides the scaling required
   for the TE topology in a large autonomous system (AS).



Srisuresh & Joseph                                              [Page 8]

Internet-Draft     Experimental TE extensions to OSPF      February 2003


   An OSPF-xTE area border router will advertise summary LSAs for
   TE and non-TE topologies independent of each other. Readers
   may refer to section 10 for a topological view of the AS from
   the perspective of a OSPF-xTE node in an area.

4.2. Operable in mixed and peer networks

   OSPF-xTE regards an AS as constituted of a TE and non-TE networks
   coexisting within the same bounds. OSPF-xTE dynamically discovers
   TE topology and the associated TE metrics of the nodes and links
   within, just as the native OSPF does of a non-TE network. An
   independent TE-LSDB, representative of the TE topology is
   generated as a result. A stand-alone TE-LSDB allows for speedy
   searches through the database.

   In [OPQLSA-TE], the TE-LSDB is derived from the combination of
   opaque LSAs and native LSDB. Further, the TE-LSDB thus derived has
   no knowledge of the TE capabilities of the routers in the network.

4.3. Efficient in flooding reach

   OSPF-xTE is able to identify the TE topology in a mixed network
   and will limit the flooding of TE LSAs to just the TE-nodes.
   Non-TE nodes are not bombarded with TE LSAs.

   In a TE network, a subset of the TE metrics may be prone to rapid
   change, while others remain largely unchanged. Changes in TE
   metrics must be communicated at the earliest throughout the
   network to ensure that the TE-LSDB is up-to-date within the
   network. As a general rule, a TE network is likely to generate
   significantly more control traffic than a native network. The
   excess traffic is almost directly proportional to the rate at
   which TE circuits are set up and torn down within the TE network.
   The TE database synchronization should occur much quicker compared
   to the aggregate circuit set up and tear-down rates. OSPF-xTE
   defines TE-Incremental-Link-update LSA (section 8.2) to advertise
   just a subset of the metrics that are prone to rapid changes.

   The more frequent and wider the flooding frequency, the larger
   the number of retransmissions and acknowledgements. The same
   information (needed or not) may reach a router through multiple
   links. Even if the router did not forward the information past
   the node, it would still have to send acknowledgements across
   all the various links on which the LSAs tried to converge.
   It is undesirable to flood non-TE nodes with TE information.

   [OPQLSA-TE] uses Opaque LSAs for advertising TE information.
   Opaque LSAs reach all nodes within the network - TE-nodes and



Srisuresh & Joseph                                              [Page 9]

Internet-Draft     Experimental TE extensions to OSPF      February 2003


   non-TE nodes alike. [OPQLSA-TE] also does not have provision
   to advertise just the TLVs that changed. A change in any TLV
   of a link will mandate the entire LSA to be transmitted.

4.4. Ability to reserve TE-exclusive links

   OSPF-xTE draws a clear distinction between TE and non-TE
   links. A TE link may be configured to permit TE traffic
   alone, and not permit best-effort IP traffic on the link.
   This permits TE enforceability on the TE links.

   When links of a TE-topology do not overlap the links of a
   native IP network, OSPF-xTE allows for virtual isolation of
   the two networks. Best-effort IP network and TE network often
   have different service requirements. Keeping the two networks
   physically isolated can be expensive. Combining the two
   networks into a single physically connected network will
   bring economies of scale, while service enforceability
   can be maintained individually for each of the TE and non-TE
   sections of the network.

   [OPQLSA-TE] does not support the ability to isolate best-
   effort IP traffic from TE traffic on a link. All links are
   subject to best-effort IP traffic. An OSPF router could
   potentially select a TE link to be its least cost link and
   inundate the link with best-effort IP traffic, thereby
   rendering the link unusable for TE purposes.

4.5. Extendible design

   OSPF-xTE design is based on the tried and tested OSPF paradigm,
   and inherits all the benefits of the OSPF, present and future.
   TE-LSAs are extendible, just as the native OSPF on which
   OSPF-xTE is founded.

   [OPQLSA-TE], on the other hand, is constrained by the semantics
   of the Opaque LSA on which it is founded. The content within an
   Opaque LSA is restricted to being in the form of TLVs and
   sub-TLVs, some of which are mandatory. Opaque LSAs are also
   restrictive when the flooding scope is required to be different
   from the scope of the opaque LSA itself.

4.6. Unified for packet and non-packet networks

   OSPF-xTE is usable within a packet network or a non-packet
   network or a combination peer network.

   Signaling protocols such as RSVP and LDP work the same across



Srisuresh & Joseph                                             [Page 10]

Internet-Draft     Experimental TE extensions to OSPF      February 2003


   packet and non-packet networks. Signaling protocols merely need
   the TE characteristics of nodes and links so they can signal the
   nodes to formulate TE circuit paths.  In a peer network, the
   underlying control protocol must be capable of providing a
   unified LSDB for all TE nodes (nodes with packet-TE links as well
   as non-packet-TE links) in the network. OSPF-xTE meets this
   requirement.

   [OPQLSA-TE] is limited in scope for packet networks and does
   not have provision to distinguish between node types within
   a TE network.

4.7. Networks benefiting from the OSPF-xTE design

   Below are examples of some real-world network scenarios that
   benefit from OSPF-xTE.

4.7.1. IP providers transitioning to provide TE services

   Providers needing to support MPLS based TE in their IP network
   may choose to transition gradually. Perhaps, add new TE links
   or convert existing links into TE links within an area first
   and progressively advance to offer in the entire AS.

   Not all routers will support TE extensions at the same time
   during the migration process. Use of TE specific LSAs and their
   flooding to OSPF-xTE only nodes will allow the vendor to
   introduce MPLS TE without destabilizing the existing network.
   The native OSPF-LSDB will remain undisturbed while newer TE
   links are added to the network.

4.7.2. Providers offering Best-effort-IP & TE services

   Providers choosing to offer both best-effort-IP and TE based
   packet services simultaneously on the same physically connected
   network will benefit from the OSPF-xTE design. By maintaining
   independent LSDBs for each type of service, TE links are not
   cannibalized in a mixed network.

4.7.3. Large TE networks

   The OSPF-xTE design is advantageous in large TE networks that
   require the AS to be sub-divided into multiple areas. OSPF-xTE
   permits inter-area exchange of TE information, which ensures
   that all nodes in the AS have up-to-date As-wide TE
   reachability knowledge. This in turn will make TE circuit
   setup predictable and computationally bounded.




Srisuresh & Joseph                                             [Page 11]

Internet-Draft     Experimental TE extensions to OSPF      February 2003


4.7.4. Non-packet networks and Peer networks

   Vendors may also use OSPF-xTE for their non-packet TE networks.
   OSPF-xTE defines the following functions in support of
   non-packet TE networks.
      (a) "Positional-Ring" type network LSA and
      (b) Router Proxying - allowing a router to advertise on behalf
          of other nodes (that are not Packet/OSPF capable).


5. OSPF-xTE solution overview

5.1. OSPF-xTE Solution

   A new TE flag is introduced within the OSPF options field to
   to enable discovery of TE topology. Section 8.0 describes the
   semantics of the TE flag. TE LSAs are designed for use by the
   OSPF-xTE nodes. Section 9.0 describes the TE LSAs in detail.
   Changes required of the OSPF data structures to support
   OSPF-xTE are described in section 11.0. A new TE-neighbors data
   structure will be used to flood TE LSAs along TE-topology.

   An OSPF-xTE node will have the native LSDB and the TE-LSDB,
   A native OSPF node will have just the native LSDB.
   Consider the following OSPF area constituted of OSPF-xTE and
   native OSPF routers. Nodes RT1, RT2, RT3 and RT6 are OSPF-xTE
   routers with TE and non-TE link attachments. Nodes RT4 and RT5
   are native OSPF routers with no TE links. When the LSA database
   is synchronized, all nodes will share the same native LSDB
   OSPF-xTE nodes alone will have the additional TE-LSDB.





















Srisuresh & Joseph                                             [Page 12]

Internet-Draft     Experimental TE extensions to OSPF      February 2003


                    +---+
                    |   |--------------------------------------+
                    |RT6|\\                                    |
                    +---+  \\                                  |
                     ||      \\                                |
                     ||        \\                              |
                     ||          \\                            |
                     ||          +---+                         |
                     ||          |   |----------------+        |
                     ||          |RT1|\\              |        |
                     ||          +---+  \\            |        |
                     ||          //|      \\          |        |
                     ||        //  |        \\        |        |
                     ||      //    |          \\      |        |
                    +---+  //      |            \\  +---+      |
                    |RT2|//        |              \\|RT3|------+
                    |   |----------|----------------|   |
                    +---+          |                +---+
                                   |                  |
                                   |                  |
                                   |                  |
                                 +---+              +---+
                                 |RT5|--------------|RT4|
                                 +---+              +---+
         Legend:
              --   Native(non-TE) network link
              |    Native(non-TE) network link
              \\   TE network link
              ||   TE network link

                    Figure 6: A (TE + native) OSPF network topology

5.2. Assumptions

   OSPF-xTE is an extension to the native OSPF protocol and does not
   mandate changes to the existing OSPF. OSPF-xTE design makes the
   following assumptions.

   1. An OSPF-xTE node will need to establish router adjacency with
      at least one other OSPF-xTE node in the area in order for the
      router's TE-database to be synchronized within the area.
      Failing this, the OSPF router will not be in the TE
      calculations of other TE routers in the area.

      It is the responsibility of the network administrator(s) to
      ensure connectedness of the TE network. Otherwise, there can
      be disjoint TE topologies within a network.




Srisuresh & Joseph                                             [Page 13]

Internet-Draft     Experimental TE extensions to OSPF      February 2003


   2. OSPF-xTE nodes must advertise the link state of its TE-links.
      TE-links are not obligated to support native IP traffic.
      Hence, an OSPF-xTE node cannot be required to synchronize
      its link-state database with neighbors on all its links.
      The only requirement is to have the TE LSDB synchronized
      across all OSPF-xTE nodes in the area.

   3. A link in a packet network may be designated as a TE-link or
      a native-IP link or both. For example, a link may be used for
      both TE and non-TE traffic, so long as the link is
      under-subscribed in bandwidth for TE traffic - say, 50% of
      the link capacity is set aside for TE traffic.

   4. Non-packet TE sub-topologies must have a minimum of one node
      running OSPF-xTE protocol.  For example, a SONET/SDH TDM ring
      must have a minimum of one Gateway Network Element(GNE)
      running OSPF-xTE. The OSPF-xTE node will advertise on behalf
      of all the TE nodes in the ring.


6. Opaque LSAs to OSPF-xTE transition strategy

   Below is a strategy to transition implementations using opaque
   LSAs ([OPQLSA-TE]) to adapt OSPF-xTE in a gradual fashion.

   1. Restrict the use of Opaque-LSAs to within an area.

   2. Use the TE option flag to construct the TE topologies
      area-wise. By doing this, the TE topology for the AS will
      be available at area level abstraction.

   3. Use TE-Summary LSAs and TE-AS-external-LSAs for inter-area
      Communication. Make use of the TE-topology within an area to
      summarize the TE networks in the area and advertise the same
      to all TE-nodes in the backbone. The TE-ABRs on the backbone
      area will in-turn advertise these summaries within their
      connected areas.


7. OSPF-xTE router adjacency - TE topology discovery

   OSPF creates adjacencies between neighboring routers for the purpose
   of exchanging routing information. In the following subsections, we
   describe modifications to the OSPF options field and the use of
   Hello protocol to establish TE capability compliance between
   neighboring routers in an area. The capability is used as the basis
   to build TE topology.




Srisuresh & Joseph                                             [Page 14]

Internet-Draft     Experimental TE extensions to OSPF      February 2003


7.1. The OSPF Options field

   A new TE flag is introduced within the options field to identify TE
   extensions to the OSPF. This bit will be used to distinguish routers
   that support OSPF-xTE. The OSPF options field is present in OSPF
   Hello packets, Database Description packets, and all link state
   advertisements. The TE bit, however, is a requirement only for the
   Hello packets. Use of TE-bit is optional in Database Description
   packets and LSAs.

   Below is a description of the TE-Bit. Refer [OSPF-V2], [OSPF-NSSA]
   and [OPAQUE] for a description of the remaining bits in the
   options field.

                   --------------------------------------
                   |TE | O | DC | EA | N/P | MC | E | * |
                   --------------------------------------
                   The OSPF options field - TE support


   TE-Bit: This bit is set to indicate support for traffic engineering
           extensions to the OSPF. The Hello protocol which is used for
           establishing router adjacency will use the TE-bit to
           establish OSPF-xTE adjacency. Two routers will not become
           TE-neighbors unless they agree on the state of the TE-bit.
           TE-compliant OSPF extensions are advertised only to the
           TE-compliant routers. All other routers may simply ignore
           the advertisements.

   There is however a caveat with the above use of the last remaining
   reserved bit in the options field. OSPF v2 will have no more
   reserved bits left for future option extensions. If deemed
   necessary to leave this bit as is, the OPAQUE-9 LSA (local scope)
   can be used on each interface to communicate the support for
   OSPF-xTE. For the reminder of the document, we will assume the
   above defined TE-bit in options filed is permissible.

7.2.  The Hello Protocol

   The Hello Protocol is primarily responsible for dynamically
   establishing and maintaining neighbor adjacencies. In a TE network,
   it is not required for all links and neighbors to establish
   adjacency using this protocol. The Hello protocol will use the
   TE-bit to establish traffic engineering capability between two
   OSPF routers.

   For NBMA and broadcast networks, this protocol is responsible for
   electing the Designated Router and the Backup Designated Router.



Srisuresh & Joseph                                             [Page 15]

Internet-Draft     Experimental TE extensions to OSPF      February 2003


   Routers supporting the TE option shall be given a higher
   precedence for becoming a designated router over those that do
   not support TE.

7.3.  The Designated Router

   When a router's non-TE link first becomes functional, it checks to
   see whether there is currently a Designated Router for the network.
   If there is one, it accepts that Designated Router, regardless of
   its Router Priority, so long as the current designated router is
   TE compliant. Otherwise, the router itself becomes Designated
   Router if it has the highest Router Priority on the network and is
   TE compliant.

   OSPF-xTE must be implemented on the most robust routers, as they
   become likely candidates to take on the role as designated router.

7.4.  The Backup Designated Router

   The Backup Designated Router is also elected by the Hello
   Protocol.  Each Hello Packet has a field that specifies the
   Backup Designated Router for the network. Once again, TE-compliance
   must be weighed in conjunction with router priority in electing
   the backup designated router.

7.5. Flooding and the Synchronization of Databases

   In OSPF, adjacent routers within an area are required to
   synchronize their databases. However, a more concise requirement
   is that all routers in an area must converge on the same LSDB.
   However, as stated in item 2 of section 5.2, a basic assertion
   by OSPF-xTE is that the links used by the OSPF-xTE control
   network for flooding must not be required to match the links
   used by the data network for real-time data forwarding. For
   instance, it should not be required to run the OSPF-xTE messages
   over a TE-link that is configured not to permit non-TE traffic.
   However, the control network must be setup such that a minimum
   of one path exists between any two OSPF or OSPF-xTE routers
   within the network for flooding purposes. This revised control
   network connectivity requirement does not jeopardize
   convergence of LSDB within an area.

   In a mixed network, where some of the neighbors are TE
   compliant and others are not, the designated OSPF-xTE router
   will exchange different sets of LSAs with its neighbors.
   TE LSAs are exchanged only with the TE neighbors. Native
   LSAs are exchanged with all neighbors (TE and non-TE alike).
   Restricting the scope of TE LSA flooding to just the



Srisuresh & Joseph                                             [Page 16]

Internet-Draft     Experimental TE extensions to OSPF      February 2003


   OSPF-xTE nodes will not effect the native nodes that coexist
   with the OSPF-xTE nodes.

   The control traffic for a TE network (i.e., TE LSA
   advertisement) is likely to be higher than that of a native
   OSPF network. This is because the TE metrics may vary with each
   TE circuit setup and the corresponding state change must be
   advertised at the earliest, not exceeding the MinLSInterval
   of 5 seconds. To minimize advertising repetitive content,
   OSPF-xTE defines a new TE-incremental-Link-update LSA
   (section 8.2) that would advertise just the TLVs that changed
   for a link.

   A new OSPFIGP-TE multicast address 224.0.0.24 may be used for
   the exchange of TE compliant database descriptors during
   database synchronization.

7.6. The graph of adjacencies

   If two routers have multiple networks in common, they may have
   multiple adjacencies between them. The adjacency may be one of
   two types - native OSPF adjacency and TE adjacency. OSPF-xTE
   routers will form both types of adjacency.

   Two types of adjacency graphs are possible depending on whether
   a Designated Router is elected for the network. On physical
   point-to-point networks, Point-to-Multipoint networks and
   Virtual links, neighboring routers become adjacent whenever they
   can communicate directly.  The adjacency can be one of
   (a) TE-compliant or (b) native. In contrast, on broadcast and
   NBMA networks the designated router and the backup designated
   router may maintain two sets of adjacency. The remaining routers
   will form either TE-compliant or native adjacency. In the
   Broadcast network below, routers RT7 and RT3 are chosen as the
   designated and backup routers respectively. Routers RT3, RT4
   and RT7 are TE-compliant. RT5 and RT6 are not. So, RT4 will
   have TE-compliant adjacency with the designated and backup
   routers. RT5 and RT6 will only have native adjacency with the
   designated and backup routers.












Srisuresh & Joseph                                             [Page 17]

Internet-Draft     Experimental TE extensions to OSPF      February 2003



            Network                     Adjacency


      +---+            +---+
      |RT1|------------|RT2|            o--------------------o
      +---+    N1      +---+           RT1                  RT2



                                                 RT7
                                                  o:::::
            +---+   +---+   +---+                /|    :
            |RT7|   |RT3|   |RT4|               / |    :
            +---+   +---+   +---+              /  |    :
              |       |       |               /   |    :
         +-----------------------+        RT5o RT6o    oRT4
                  |       |     N2            *   *    :
                +---+   +---+                  *  *    :
                |RT5|   |RT6|                   * *    :
                +---+   +---+                    **    :
                                                  o:::::
                                                 RT3

                            Adjacency Legend:
                               ----- Native adjacency (primary)
                               ***** Native adjacency (Backup)
                               ::::: TE-compliant adjacency (primary)
                               ;;;;; TE-compliant adjacency (Backup)


       Figure 6: The graph of adjacencies with TE-compliant routers.


8. TE LSAs for packet network

   The OSPFv2 protocol, as of now, has a total of 11 LSA types.
   LSA types 1 through 5 are defined in [OSPF-v2]. LSA types 6, 7
   and 8 are defined in [MOSPF], [NSSA] and [BGP-OSPF] respectively.
   LSA types 9 through 11 are defined in [OPAQUE].

   Each LSA type has a unique flooding scope. Opaque LSA types
   9 through 11 are general purpose LSAs, with flooding
   scope set to link-local, area-local and AS-wide (except stub
   areas) respectively.

   In the following subsections, we define new LSAs for traffic
   engineering (TE) use. The Values for the new TE LSA types are



Srisuresh & Joseph                                             [Page 18]

Internet-Draft     Experimental TE extensions to OSPF      February 2003


   assigned such that the high bit of the LSA-type octet is set
   to 1. The new TE LSAs are largely modeled after the existing
   LSAs for content format and have a unique flooding scope.

   TE-router LSA is defined to advertise TE characteristics of
   an OSPF-xTE router and all the TE-links attached to the
   router. TE-incremental-Link-Update LSA is defined to
   advertise incremental updates to the metrics of a TE link.
   Flooding scope for both these LSAs is restricted to an area.

   TE-Summary network and router LSAs are defined to advertise
   the reachability of area-specific TE networks and Area Border
   Routers (along with router TE characteristics) to external
   areas. Flooding Scope of the TE-Summary LSAs is the TE topology
   in the entire AS less the non-backbone area for which the
   the advertising router is an ABR. Just as with native OSPF
   summary LSAs, the TE-summary LSAs do not reveal the topological
   details of an area to external areas.

   TE-AS-external LSA and TE-Circuit-Path LSA are defined to
   advertise AS external network reachability and pre-engineered
   TE circuits respectively. While flooding scope for both these
   LSAs can be the entire AS, flooding scope for the
   pre-engineered TE circuit LSA may optionally be restricted to
   just the TE topology within an area.

8.1. TE-Router LSA (0x81)

   The TE-router LSA (0x81) is modeled after the router LSA and has the
   same flooding scope as the router-LSA. However, the scope is
   restricted to only the OSPF-xTE nodes within the area. The TE-router
   LSA describes the TE metrics of the router as well as the TE-links
   attached to the router. Below is the format of the TE-router LSA.
   Unless specified explicitly otherwise, the fields carry the same
   meaning as they do in a router LSA. Only the differences are
   explained below. Router-TE flags, Router-TE TLVs, Link-TE options,
   and Link-TE TLVs are each described in the following sub-sections.

        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
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |            LS age             |     Options   |     0x81      |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                        Link State ID                          |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                     Advertising Router                        |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                     LS sequence number                        |



Srisuresh & Joseph                                             [Page 19]

Internet-Draft     Experimental TE extensions to OSPF      February 2003


       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |         LS checksum           |             length            |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |    0    |V|E|B|      0        |       Router-TE flags         |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |  Router-TE flags (contd.)     |       Router-TE TLVs          |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                     ....                                      |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                     ....      |            # of TE links      |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                          Link ID                              |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                         Link Data                             |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |     Type      |        0      |    Link-TE flags              |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |   Link-TE flags (contd.)      |  Zero or more Link-TE TLVs    |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                          Link ID                              |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                         Link Data                             |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                              ...                              |



   Option
        In TE-capable router nodes, the TE-bit may be set to 1.

8.1.1. Router-TE flags - TE capabilities of the router

   The following flags are used to describe the TE capabilities of an
   OSPF-xTE router. The remaining bits of the 32-bit word are reserved
   for future use.


       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |L|L|P| | | |                                             |L|S|C|
       |S|E|S| | | |                                             |S|I|S|
       |R|R|C| | | |                                             |P|G|P|
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |<---- Boolean TE flags ------->|<- TE flags pointing to TLVs ->|


       Bit LSR
           When set, the router is considered to have LSR capability.




Srisuresh & Joseph                                             [Page 20]

Internet-Draft     Experimental TE extensions to OSPF      February 2003


       Bit LER
           When set, the router is considered to have LER capability.
           All MPLS border routers will be required to have the LER
           capability. When the E bit is also set, that indicates an
           AS Boundary router with LER capability. When the B bit is
           also set, that indicates an area border router with LER
           capability.

       Bit PSC
           Indicates the node is Packet Switch Capable.

       Bit LSP
           MPLS Label switch TLV TE-NODE-TLV-MPLS-SWITCHING follows.
           This is applicable only when the PSC flag is set.

       Bit SIG
           MPLS Signaling protocol support TLV
           TE-NODE-TLV-MPLS-SIG-PROTOCOLS follows.

       BIT CSPF
           CSPF algorithm support TLV TE-NODE-TLV-CSPF-ALG follows.


8.1.2. Router-TE TLVs

   The following Router-TE TLVs are defined.

8.1.2.4. TE-NODE-TLV-MPLS-SWITCHING

   MPLS switching TLV is applicable only for packet switched nodes. The
   TLV specifies the MPLS packet switching capabilities of the TE
   node.

        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
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |            Tag = 0x8001       |     Length = 6                |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       | Label depth   |  QOS          |                               |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   'Label depth' is the depth of label stack the node is capable of
   processing on its ingress interfaces. An octet is used to represent
   label depth. A default value of 1 is assumed when the TLV is not
   listed. Label depth is relevant when an LER has to pop off multiple
   labels off the MPLS stack.

   'QOS' is a single octet field that may be assigned '1' or '0'. Nodes



Srisuresh & Joseph                                             [Page 21]

Internet-Draft     Experimental TE extensions to OSPF      February 2003


   supporting QOS are able to interpret the EXP bits in the MPLS header
   to prioritize multiple classes of traffic through the same LSP.

















































Srisuresh & Joseph                                             [Page 22]

Internet-Draft     Experimental TE extensions to OSPF      February 2003


8.1.2.2. TE-NODE-TLV-MPLS-SIG-PROTOCOLS

   MPLS signaling protocols TLV lists all the signaling protocol
   supported by the node. An octet is used to list each signaling
   protocol supported.

        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
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |            Tag = 0x8002       |     Length = 5, 6 or 7        |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |   Protocol-1  |   ...         |      ....                     |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   RSVP-TE protocol is represented as 1, CR-LDP as 2 and LDP as 3.
   These are the only permitted signaling protocols at this time.

8.1.2.3. TE-NODE-TLV-CSPF-ALGORITHMS

   The CSPF algorithms TLV lists all the CSPF algorithm codes
   supported. Support for CSPF algorithms makes the node eligible to
   compute complete or partial circuit paths. Support for CSPF
   algorithms can also be beneficial in knowing whether or not a node
   is capable of expanding loose routes (in an MPLS signaling request)
   into a detailed circuit path.

   Two octets are used to list each CSPF algorithm code. The algorithm
   codes may be vendor defined and unique within an Autonomous System.
   If the node supports 'n' CSPF algorithms, the Length would be
   (4 + 4 * ((n+1)/2)) octets.

        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
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |            Tag = 0x8003       |     Length = 4(1 + (n+1)/2)   |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                    CSPF-1     |      ....                     |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                    CSPF-n     |                               |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

8.1.2.4. TE-NODE-TLV-NULL

   When a TE-Router or a TE-link has multiple TLVs to describe the
   metrics, the NULL TLV is used to terminate the TLV list.


        0                   1                   2                   3



Srisuresh & Joseph                                             [Page 23]

Internet-Draft     Experimental TE extensions to OSPF      February 2003


        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
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |            Tag = 0x8888       |     Length = 4                |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+















































Srisuresh & Joseph                                             [Page 24]

Internet-Draft     Experimental TE extensions to OSPF      February 2003


8.1.3. Link-TE flags - TE capabilities of a link

   The following flags are used to describe the TE capabilities of a
   link. The remaining bits of the 32-bit word are reserved for
   future use.

       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |T|N|P| | | |D|                                         |S|L|B|C|
       |E|T|K| | | |B|                                         |R|U|W|O|
       | |E|T| | | |S|                                         |L|G| |L|
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |<---- Boolean TE flags ------->|<- TE flags pointing to TLVs ->|


       TE       - Indicates whether TE is permitted on the link. A link
                  can be denied for TE use by setting the flag to 0.

       NTE      - Indicates whether non-TE traffic is permitted on the
                  TE link. This flag is relevant only when the TE
                  flag is set.

       PKT      - Indicates whether or not the link is capable of IP
                  packet processing.

       DBS      - Indicates whether or not Database synchronization
                  is permitted on this link.

       SRLG Bit - Shared Risk Link Group TLV TE-LINK-TLV-SRLG follows.

       LUG  bit - Link usage cost metric TLV TE-LINK-TLV-LUG follows.

       BW   bit - One or more Link bandwidth TLVs follow

       COL bit  - Link Color TLV TE-LINK-TLV-COLOR follows.

8.1.4. Link-TE TLVs

8.1.4.1. TE-LINK-TLV-SRLG

   The SRLG describes the list of Shared Risk Link Groups (SRLG) the
   link belongs to. Two octets are used to list each SRLG. If the link
   belongs to 'n' SRLGs, the Length would be (4 + 4 * ((n+1)/2)) octets.

        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
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |            Tag = 0x0001       |     Length = 4(1 + (n+1)/2)   |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+



Srisuresh & Joseph                                             [Page 25]

Internet-Draft     Experimental TE extensions to OSPF      February 2003


       |                    SRLG-1     |      ....                     |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                    SRLG-n     |                               |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

8.1.4.2. TE-LINK-TLV-BANDWIDTH-MAX

   The bandwidth TLV specifies maximum bandwidth of the link as follows.

        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
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |            Tag = 0x0002       |     Length = 8                |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                      Maximum Bandwidth                        |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Bandwidth is expressed in units of 32 bytes/sec (256 bits/sec).
   A 32-bit field for bandwidth would permit specification not exceeding
   1 tera-bits/sec.

   'Maximum bandwidth' is be the maximum link capacity expressed in
   bandwidth units. Portions or all of this bandwidth may be used for
   TE use.

8.1.4.3. TE-LINK-TLV-BANDWIDTH-MAX-FOR-TE

   The bandwidth TLV specifies maximum bandwidth available for TE use
   as follows.

        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
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |            Tag = 0x0003       |     Length = 8                |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |              Maximum Bandwidth available for TE use           |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Bandwidth is expressed in units of 32 bytes/sec (256 bits/sec).
   A 32-bit field for bandwidth would permit specification not exceeding
   1 tera-bits/sec.

   'Maximum bandwidth available for TE use' is the total reservable
   bandwidth on the link for use by all the TE circuit paths traversing
   the link. The link is oversubscribed when this field is more than
   the 'Maximum Bandwidth'. When the field is less than the
   'Maximum Bandwidth', the remaining bandwidth on the link may
   be used for non-TE traffic in a mixed network.



Srisuresh & Joseph                                             [Page 26]

Internet-Draft     Experimental TE extensions to OSPF      February 2003



8.1.4.4. TE-LINK-TLV-BANDWIDTH-TE

   The bandwidth TLV specifies the bandwidth reserved for TE as follows.

        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
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |            Tag = 0x0004       |     Length = 8                |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                      TE Bandwidth subscribed                  |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


   Bandwidth is expressed in units of 32 bytes/sec (256 bits/sec).
   A 32-bit field for bandwidth would permit specification not exceeding
   1 tera-bits/sec.

   'TE Bandwidth subscribed' is the bandwidth that is currently
   subscribed from of the link. 'TE Bandwidth subscribed' must be less
   than the 'Maximum bandwidth available for TE use'. New TE circuit
   paths are able to claim no more than the difference between the
   two bandwidths for reservation.

8.1.4.5. TE-LINK-TLV-LUG

   The link usage cost TLV specifies Bandwidth unit usage cost,
   TE circuit set-up cost, and any time constraints for setup and
   teardown of TE circuits on the link.


        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
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |            Tag = 0x0005       |     Length = 28               |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                      Bandwidth unit usage cost                |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                      TE circuit set-up cost                   |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                      TE circuit set-up time constraint        |
       |                                                               |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                      TE circuit tear-down time constraint     |
       |                                                               |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Circuit Setup time constraint



Srisuresh & Joseph                                             [Page 27]

Internet-Draft     Experimental TE extensions to OSPF      February 2003


       This 64-bit number specifies the time at or after which a
       TE-circuit path may be set up on the link. The set-up time
       constraint is specified as the number of seconds from the start
       of January 1, 1970 UTC. A reserved value of 0 implies no circuit
       setup time constraint.

   Circuit Teardown time constraint
       This 64-bit number specifies the time at or before which all
       TE-circuit paths using the link must be torn down. The teardown
       time constraint is specified as the number of seconds from the
       start of January 1 1970 UTC. A reserved value of 0 implies no
       circuit teardown time constraint.

8.1.4.6. TE-LINK-TLV-COLOR

   The color TLV is similar to the SRLG TLV, in that an Autonomous
   System may choose to issue colors to a TE-link meeting certain
   criteria. The color TLV can be used to specify one or more colors
   assigned to the link as follows. Two octets are used to list each
   color. If the link belongs to 'n' number of colors, the Length
   would be (4 + 4 * ((n+1)/2)) octets.



        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
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |            Tag = 0x0006       |     Length = 4(1 + (n+1)/2)   |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                    Color-1    |      ....                     |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                    Color-n    |                               |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

8.1.4.7. TE-LINK-TLV-NULL

   When a TE-link has multiple TLVs to describe its metrics, the NULL
   TLV is used to terminate the TLV list. The TE-LINK-TLV-NULL is same
   as the TE-NODE-TLV-NULL described in section 8.1.2.4

8.2. TE-incremental-link-Update LSA (0x8d)

   A significant difference between a native OSPF network and a TE
   network is that the latter may be subject to frequent real-time
   circuit pinning and is likely to undergo TE-state updates. Some
   links might undergo changes more frequently than others. Flooding
   the network with TE-router LSAs at the aggregated speed of all
   link metric changes is simply not desirable. A smaller in size,



Srisuresh & Joseph                                             [Page 28]

Internet-Draft     Experimental TE extensions to OSPF      February 2003


   TE-incremental-link-update LSA is designed to advertise only the
   incremental link updates.

   TE-incremental-link-Update LSA will be advertised as frequently
   as the link state is changed (not exceeding once every
   MinLSInterval seconds). The TE-link sequence is largely the
   advertisement of a sub-portion of router LSA. The sequence number on
   this will be incremented with the TE-router LSA's sequence as the
   basis. When an updated TE-router LSA is advertised within 30 minutes
   of the previous advertisement, the updated TE-router LSA will assume
   a sequence no. that is larger than the most frequently updated of
   its links.

   Below is the format of the TE-incremental-link-update LSA.


        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
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |            LS age             |     Options   |     0x8d      |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                        Link State ID (same as Link ID)        |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                     Advertising Router                        |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                     LS sequence number                        |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |         LS checksum           |             length            |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                         Link Data                             |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |     Type      |        0      |    Link-TE options            |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |     Link-TE options           | Zero or more Link-TE TLVs     |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |     # TOS     |                            metric             |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                              ...                              |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |      TOS      |        0      |          TOS  metric          |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Link State ID
       This would be exactly the same as would have been specified as
       as Link ID for a link within the router-LSA.

   Link Data
       This specifies the router ID the link belongs to. In majority of



Srisuresh & Joseph                                             [Page 29]

Internet-Draft     Experimental TE extensions to OSPF      February 2003


       cases, this would be same as the advertising router. This choice
       for Link Data is primarily to facilitate proxy advertisement for
       incremental link updates.

       Say, a router-proxy-LSA was used to advertise the TE-router-LSA
       of a SONET/TDM node. Say, the proxy router is now required to
       advertise incremental-link-update for the same SONET/TDM node.
       Specifying the actual router-ID the link in the
       incremental-link-update-LSA belongs to helps receiving nodes in
       finding the exact match for the LSA in their database.

   The tuple of (LS Type, LSA ID, Advertising router) uniquely identify
   the LSA and replace LSAs of the same tuple with an older sequence
   number. However, there is an exception to this rule in the context
   of TE-link-update LSA. TE-Link update LSA will initially assume the
   sequence number of the TE-router LSA it belongs to. Further, when a
   new TE-router LSA update with a larger sequence number is advertised,
   the newer sequence number is assumed by al the link LSAs.

8.3. TE-Circuit-path LSA (0x8C)

    TE-Circuit-path LSA may be used to advertise the availability of
    pre-engineered TE circuit path(s) originating from any router
    in the network. The flooding scope may be Area wide or AS wide.

        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
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |            LS age             |     Options   |      0x84     |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                       Link State ID                           |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                     Advertising Router                        |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                     LS sequence number                        |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |         LS checksum           |             length            |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |      0    |G|E|B|D|S|T|CktType| Circuit Duration (Optional)   |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                 Circuit Duration cont...                      |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       | Circuit Duration cont..       | Circuit Setup time (Optional) |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                 Circuit Setup time cont...                    |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       | Circuit Setup time cont..     |Circuit Teardown time(Optional)|
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+



Srisuresh & Joseph                                             [Page 30]

Internet-Draft     Experimental TE extensions to OSPF      February 2003


       |                 Circuit Teardown time cont...                 |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       | Circuit Teardown time cont..  |  No. of TE circuit paths      |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                          Circuit-TE ID                        |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                         Circuit-TE Data                       |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |     Type      |        0      |    Circuit-TE flags           |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |   Circuit-TE flags (contd.)   |  Zero or more Circuit-TE TLVs |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                          Circuit-TE ID                        |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                         Circuit-TE Data                       |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                              ...                              |



   Link State ID
       The ID of the far-end router or the far-end Link-ID to which the
       TE circuit path(s) is being advertised.

   TE-circuit-path(s) flags

       Bit G - When set, the flooding scope is set to be AS wide.
               Otherwise, the flooding scope is set to be area wide.

       Bit E - When set, the advertised Link-State ID is an AS boundary
               router (E is for external). The advertising router and
               the Link State ID belong to the same area.

       Bit B - When set, the advertised Link state ID is an Area border
               router (B is for Border)

       Bit D - When set, this indicates that the duration of circuit
               path validity follows.

       Bit S - When set, this indicates that Setup-time of the circuit
               path follows.

       Bit T - When set, this indicates that teardown-time of the
               circuit path follows.

   CktType
       This 4-bit field specifies the Circuit type of the Forward
       Equivalency Class (FC).



Srisuresh & Joseph                                             [Page 31]

Internet-Draft     Experimental TE extensions to OSPF      February 2003


                0x01 - Origin is Router, Destination is Router.
                0x02 - Origin is Link,   Destination is Link.
                0x04 - Origin is Router, Destination is Link.
                0x08 - Origin is Link,   Destination is Router.

   Circuit Duration (Optional)
       This 64-bit number specifies the seconds from the time of the
       LSA advertisement for which the pre-engineered circuit path
       will be valid. This field is specified only when the D-bit is
       set in the TE-circuit-path flags.

   Circuit Setup time (Optional)
       This 64-bit number specifies the time at which the TE-circuit
       path may be set up. This field is specified only when the
       S-bit is set in the TE-circuit-path flags. The set-up time is
       specified as the number of seconds from the start of January
       1 1970 UTC.

   Circuit Teardown time (Optional)
       This 64-bit number specifies the time at which the TE-circuit
       path may be torn down. This field is specified only when the
       T-bit is set in the TE-circuit-path flags. The teardown time
       is specified as the number of seconds from the start of
       January 1 1970 UTC.

   No. of TE Circuit paths
       This specifies the number of pre-engineered TE circuit paths
       between the advertising router and the router specified in the
       link state ID.

   Circuit-TE ID
       This is the ID of the far-end router for a given TE-circuit
       path segment.

   Circuit-TE Data
       This is the virtual link identifier on the near-end router for
       a given TE-circuit path segment. This can be a private
       interface or handle the near-end router uses to identify the
       virtual link.

       The sequence of (circuit-TE ID, Circuit-TE Data) list the
       end-point nodes and links in the LSA as a series.

   Circuit-TE flags
        This lists the Zero or more TE-link TLVs that all member
        elements of the LSP meet.





Srisuresh & Joseph                                             [Page 32]

Internet-Draft     Experimental TE extensions to OSPF      February 2003


8.4. TE-Summary LSAs

    TE-Summary-LSAs are the Type 0x83 and 0x84 LSAs. These LSAs are
    originated by area border routers. TE-Summary-network-LSA (0x83)
    describes the  reachability of TE networks in a non-backbone
    area, advertised by the Area Border Router. Type 0x84
    summary-LSA describes the reachability of Area Border Routers
    and AS border routers and their TE capabilities.

    One of the benefits of having multiple areas within an AS is
    that frequent TE advertisements within the area do not impact
    outside the area. Only the TE abstractions befitting the
    external areas are advertised.

8.4.1. TE-Summary Network LSA (0x83)

    TE-summary network LSA may be used to advertise reachability of
    TE-networks accessible to areas external to the originating
    area. The content and the flooding scope of a TE-Summary LSA
    is different from that of a native summary LSA.

    The scope of flooding for a TE-summary network is AS wide, with
    the exception of the originating area and the stub areas. The
    area border router for each non-backbone area is responsible
    for advertising the reachability of backbone networks into the
    area.

    Unlike a native-summary network LSA, TE-summary network LSA does
    not advertise summary costs to reach networks within an area.
    This is because TE parameters are not necessarily additive or
    comparative. The parameters can be varied in their expression.
    For example, a TE-summary network LSA will not summarize a
    network whose links do not fall under an SRLG (Shared-Risk Link
    Group). This way, the TE-summary LSA merely advertises the
    reachability of TE networks within an area. The specific circuit
    paths can be computed by the BDRs. Pre-engineered circuit paths
    are advertised using TE-Circuit-path LSA (refer section 8.3).


        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
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |            LS age             |     Options   |    0x83       |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                  Link State ID  (IP Network Number)           |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |            Advertising Router (Area Border Router)            |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+



Srisuresh & Joseph                                             [Page 33]

Internet-Draft     Experimental TE extensions to OSPF      February 2003


       |                     LS sequence number                        |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |         LS checksum           |             length            |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                         Network Mask                          |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                         Area-ID                               |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


8.4.2. TE-Summary router LSA (0x84)

    TE-summary router LSA may be used to advertise the availability of
    Area Border Routers (ABRs) and AS Border Routers (ASBRs) that are
    TE capable. The TE-summary router LSAs are originated by the Area
    Border Routers. The scope of flooding for the TE-summary router LSA
    is the non-backbone area the advertising ABR belongs to.

        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
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |            LS age             |     Options   |      0x84     |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                     Link State ID                             |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                     Advertising Router (ABR)                  |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                     LS sequence number                        |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |         LS checksum           |             length            |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |    0      |E|B|      0        |       No. of Areas            |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                     Area-ID                                   |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                       ...                                     |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                   Router-TE flags                             |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                   Router-TE TLVs                              |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                     ....                                      |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


   Link State ID
       The ID of the Area border router or the AS border router whose
       TE capability is being advertised.



Srisuresh & Joseph                                             [Page 34]

Internet-Draft     Experimental TE extensions to OSPF      February 2003



   Advertising Router
       The ABR that advertises its TE capabilities (and the OSPF areas
       it belongs to) or the TE capabilities of an ASBR within one of
       the areas the ABR is a border router of.

   No. of Areas
       Specifies the number of OSPF areas the link state ID belongs to.

   Area-ID
       Specifies the OSPF area(s) the link state ID belongs to. When
       the link state ID is same as the advertising router ID, the
       Area-ID lists all the areas the ABR belongs to. In the case
       the link state ID is an ASBR, the Area-ID simply lists the
       area the ASBR belongs to. The advertising router is assumed to
       be the ABR from the same area the ASBR is located in.

   Summary-router-TE flags

       Bit E - When set, the advertised Link-State ID is an AS boundary
               router (E is for external). The advertising router and
               the Link State ID belong to the same area.

       Bit B - When set, the advertised Link state ID is an Area
               border router (B is for Border)

   Router-TE flags,
   Router-TE TLVs  (TE capabilities of the link-state-ID router)

       TE Flags and TE TLVs are as applicable to the ABR/ASBR
       specified in the link state ID. The semantics is same as
       specified in the Router-TE LSA.

8.5. TE-AS-external LSAs (0x85)

   TE-AS-external-LSAs are the Type 0x85 LSAs. This is modeled after
   AS-external LSA format and flooding scope. TE-AS-external LSAs are
   originated by AS boundary routers with TE extensions, and describe
   the TE networks and pre-engineered circuit paths external to the
   AS. As with AS-external LSA, the flooding scope of the
   TE-AS-external LSA is AS wide, with the exception of stub areas.


        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
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |            LS age             |     Options   |      0x85     |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+



Srisuresh & Joseph                                             [Page 35]

Internet-Draft     Experimental TE extensions to OSPF      February 2003


       |                        Link State ID                          |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                     Advertising Router                        |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                     LS sequence number                        |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |         LS checksum           |             length            |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                         Network Mask                          |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                       Forwarding address                      |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                      External Route Tag                       |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |  #  of Virtual TE links       |                 0             |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                      Link-TE flags                            |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                      Link-TE TLVs                             |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                              ...                              |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                      TE-Forwarding address                    |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                      External Route TE Tag                    |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                              ...                              |

    Network Mask
        The IP address mask for the advertised TE destination.  For
        example, this can be used to specify access to a specific
        TE-node or TE-link with an mask of 0xffffffff. This can also
        be used to specify access to an aggregated set of destinations
        using a different mask. ex: 0xff000000.

    Link-TE flags,
    Link-TE TLVs
        The TE attributes of this route. These fields are optional and
        are provided only when one or more pre-engineered circuits can
        be specified with the advertisement. Without these fields,
        the LSA will simply state TE reachability info.

    Forwarding address
        Data traffic for the advertised destination will be forwarded to
        this address.  If the Forwarding address is set to 0.0.0.0, data
        traffic will be forwarded instead to the LSA's originator (i.e.,
        the responsible AS boundary router).




Srisuresh & Joseph                                             [Page 36]

Internet-Draft     Experimental TE extensions to OSPF      February 2003


    External Route Tag
        A 32-bit field attached to each external route.  This is not
        used by the OSPF protocol itself.  It may be used to communicate
        information between AS boundary routers; the precise nature of
        such information is outside the scope of this specification.


9. TE LSAs for non-packet network

   A non-packet network would use the TE LSAs described in the
   previous section for a packet network with some variations.
   These variations are described in the following subsections.

   Two new LSAs, TE-Positional-ring-network LSA and
   TE-Router-Proxy LSA are defined for explicit use in
   non-packet TE networks.

   Readers may refer to [SONET-SDH] for a detailed description of
   the terms used in the context of SONET/SDH TDM networks,

9.1. TE-Router LSA (0x81)

   The following fields are used to describe each router link (i.e.,
   interface). Each router link is typed (see the below Type field).
   The Type field indicates the kind of link being described.

   Type
        A new link type "Positional-Ring Type" (value 5) is defined.
        This is essentially a connection to a TDM-Ring. TDM ring network
        is different from LAN/NBMA transit network in that nodes on the
        TDM ring do not necessarily have a terminating path between
        themselves. Secondly, the order of links is important in
        determining the circuit path. Third, the protection switching
        and the number of fibers from a node going into a ring are
        determined by the ring characteristics. I.e., 2-fiber vs
        4-fiber ring and UPSR vs BLSR protected ring.

                 Type   Description
                 __________________________________________________
                 1      Point-to-point connection to another router
                 2      Connection to a transit network
                 3      Connection to a stub network
                 4      Virtual link
                 5      Positional-Ring Type.

   Link ID
        Identifies the object that this router link connects to.
        Value depends on the link's Type. For a positional-ring type,



Srisuresh & Joseph                                             [Page 37]

Internet-Draft     Experimental TE extensions to OSPF      February 2003


        the Link ID shall be IP Network/Subnet number just as the case
        with a broadcast transit network. The following table
        summarizes the updated Link ID values.

                       Type   Link ID
                       ______________________________________
                       1      Neighboring router's Router ID
                       2      IP address of Designated Router
                       3      IP network/subnet number
                       4      Neighboring router's Router ID
                       5      IP network/subnet number

   Link Data
        This depends on the link's Type field. For type-5 links, this
        specifies the router interface's IP address.

9.1.1. Router-TE flags - TE capabilities of the router

   Flags specific to non-packet TE-nodes are described below.


       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |L|L|P|T|L|F|                                           |S|S|S|C|
       |S|E|S|D|S|S|                                           |T|E|I|S|
       |R|R|C|M|C|C|                                           |A|L|G|P|
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |<---- Boolean TE flags ------->|<- TE flags pointing to TLVs ->|


       Bit TDM
           Indicates the node is TDM circuit switch capable.

       Bit LSC
           Indicates the node is Lambda switch Capable.

       Bit FSC
           Indicates the node is Fiber (can also be a non-fiber link
           type) switch capable.

9.1.2. Link-TE options - TE capabilities of a TE-link

       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |T|N|P|T|L|F|D|                                         |S|L|B|C|
       |E|T|K|D|S|S|B|                                         |R|U|W|O|
       | |E|T|M|C|C|S|                                         |L|G|A|L|
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |<---- Boolean TE flags ------->|<- TE flags pointing to TLVs ->|




Srisuresh & Joseph                                             [Page 38]

Internet-Draft     Experimental TE extensions to OSPF      February 2003



       TDM, LSC, FSC bits
                - Same as defined for router TE options.

9.2. TE-Positional-ring-network LSA (0x82)

   Network LSA is adequate for packet TE networks. A new
   TE-Positional-Ring-network-LSA is defined to represent type-5
   link networks, found in non-packet networks such as SONET/SDH
   TDM rings. A type-5 ring is a collection of network elements
   (NEs) forming a closed loop. Each NE is connected to two
   adjacent NEs via a duplex connection to provide redundancy
   in the ring. The sequence in which the NEs are placed on the
   Ring is pertinent. The NE that provides the OSPF-xTE
   functionality is termed the Gateway Network Element (GNE).
   The GNE selection criteria is outside the scope of this
   document. The GNE is also termed the Designated Router for
   the ring.

   The TE-Positional-ring-network LSA (0x82) is modeled after the
   network LSA and has the same flooding scope as the network-LSA
   amongst the OSPF-xTE nodes within the area. Below is the format
   of the TE-Positional-ring-network LSA. Unless specified
   explicitly otherwise, the fields carry the same meaning as they
   do in a network LSA. Only the differences are explained below.
   TE-Positional-ring-network-LSA is originated for each
   Positional-Ring type network in the area. The tuple of (Link
   State ID, Network Mask) below uniquely represents a ring. The
   TE option must be set in the Options flag while propagating
   the LSA.


        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
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |            LS age             |      Options  |     0x82      |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                        Link State ID                          |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                     Advertising Router                        |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                     LS sequence number                        |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |         LS checksum           |             length            |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                         Network Mask                          |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |  Ring Type    | Capacity Unit |        Reserved               |



Srisuresh & Joseph                                             [Page 39]

Internet-Draft     Experimental TE extensions to OSPF      February 2003


       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                           Ring capacity                       |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                   Network Element Node Id                     |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                              ...                              |



    Link State ID
        This is the IP interface address of the network's Gateway
        Network Element, which is also the designated router.

    Advertising Router
        Router ID of the network's Designated Router.

    Ring type

        There are 8 types of SONET/SDH rings defined as follows.

        1 - A Unidirectional Line Switched 2-fiber ring (2-fiber ULSR)
        2 - A bi-directional Line switched 2-fiber ring (2-fiber BLSR)
        3 - A Unidirectional Path Switched 2-fiber ring (2-fiber UPSR)
        4 - A bi-directional Path switched 2-fiber ring (2-fiber BPSR)
        5 - A Unidirectional Line Switched 4-fiber ring (4-fiber ULSR)
        6 - A bi-directional Line switched 4-fiber ring (4-fiber BLSR)
        7 - A Unidirectional Path Switched 4-fiber ring (4-fiber UPSR)
        8 - A bi-directional Path switched 4-fiber ring (4-fiber BPSR)

    Capacity unit
        Two units are defined at this time as follows.
        1 - Synchronous Transport Signal (STS), which is the basic
            signal rate for SONET signals. The rate of an STS signal
            is 51.84 Mbps
        2 - Synchronous Transport Multiplexer(STM), which is the
            basic signal rate for SDH signals. The rate of an STM
            signal is 155.52 Mbps

    Ring capacity
        Ring capacity expressed in number of Capacity units.

    Network Element Node Id

        The Router ID of each of the routers in the positional-ring
        network. The list must start with the designated router as
        the first element. The Network Elements (NEs) must be listed
        in strict clockwise order as they appear on the ring,
        starting with the Gateway Network Element (GNE). The number



Srisuresh & Joseph                                             [Page 40]

Internet-Draft     Experimental TE extensions to OSPF      February 2003


        of NEs in the ring can be deduced from the LSA header's
        length field.

9.3. TE-Router-Proxy LSA (0x8e)

   This is a variation to the TE-router LSA in that the TE-router LSA
   is not advertised by the network element, but rather by a trusted
   TE-router Proxy. This is typically the scenario in a non-packet
   TE network, where some of the nodes do not have OSPF functionality
   and count on a helper node to do the advertisement for them. One
   such example would be the SONET/SDH ADM nodes in a TDM ring. The
   nodes may principally depend upon the GNE (Gateway Network
   Element) to do the advertisement for them. TE-router-Proxy LSA
   shall not be used to advertise Area Border Routers and/or AS border
   Routers.


        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
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |            LS age             |     Options   |     0x8e      |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |      Link State ID  (Router ID of the TE Network Element)     |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                     Advertising Router                        |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                     LS sequence number                        |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |         LS checksum           |             length            |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                 0             |       Router-TE flags         |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |  Router-TE flags (contd.)     |       Router-TE TLVs          |
       +---------------------------------------------------------------+
       |                     ....                                      |
       +---------------------------------------------------------------+
       |                     ....      |      # of TE links            |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                          Link ID                              |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                         Link Data                             |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |     Type      |        0      |    Link-TE options            |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |   Link-TE flags               |  Zero or more Link-TE TLVs    |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                          Link ID                              |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+



Srisuresh & Joseph                                             [Page 41]

Internet-Draft     Experimental TE extensions to OSPF      February 2003


       |                         Link Data                             |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                              ...                              |


10. Abstract topology representation with TE support

   Below, we consider a TE network composed of three OSPF areas -
   Area-1, Area-2 and Area-3, attached together through the backbone
   area. Area-1 an has a single area border router, ABR-A1 and no
   ASBRs. Area-2 has an area border router ABR-A2 and an AS border
   router ASBR-S1. Area-3 has two area border routers ABR-A2 and
   ABR-A3 and an AS border router ASBR-S2. The following network
   also assumes a pre-engineered TE circuit path between ABR-A1
   and ABR-A2; between ABR-A1 and ABR-A3; between ABR-A2 and
   ASBR-S1; and between ABR-A3 and ASBR-S2.

   The following figure is an inter-area topology abstraction
   from the perspective of routers in Area-1. The abstraction
   illustrates reachability of TE networks and nodes within area
   to the external areas in the same AS and to the external ASes.
   The abstraction also illustrates pre-engineered TE circuit
   paths advertised by ABRs and ASBRs.




























Srisuresh & Joseph                                             [Page 42]

Internet-Draft     Experimental TE extensions to OSPF      February 2003



                           +-------+
                           |Area-1 |
                           +-------+
    +-------------+            |
    |Reachable TE |       +--------+
    |networks in  |-------| ABR-A1 |
    |backbone area|       +--------+
    +-------------+          | | |
              +--------------+ | +-----------------+
              |                |                   |
    +-----------------+        |            +-----------------+
    |Pre-engineered TE|    +----------+     |Pre-engineered TE|
    |circuit path(s)  |    | Backbone |     |circuit path(s)  |
    |to ABR-A2        |    | Area     |     |to ABR-A3        |
    +-----------------+    +----------+     +-----------------+
              |               |   |                 |
              +----------+    |   +--------------+  |
    +-----------+        |    |                  |  |     +-----------+
    |Reachable  |      +--------+             +--------+  |Reachable  |
    |TE networks|------| ABR-A2 |             | ABR-A3 |--|TE networks|
    |in Area A2 |      +--------+             +--------+  |in Area A3 |
    +-----------+       | | | |                   | |     +-----------+
          +-------------+ | | +-----------------+ | +----------+
          |               | +-----------+       | |            |
    +-----------+ +--------------+      |       | |    +--------------+
    |Reachable  | |Pre-engineered|      |       | |    |Pre-engineered|
    |TE networks| |TE Ckt path(s)|  +------+  +------+ |TE Ckt path(s)|
    |in Area A3 | |to ASBR-S1    |  |Area-2|  |Area-3| |to ASBR-S2    |
    +-----------+ +--------------+  +------+  +------+ +--------------+
                           |            |       |              |
                           |   +--------+       |  +-----------+
    +-------------+        |   |                |  |
    |AS external  |    +---------+          +---------+
    |TE-network   |----| ASBR-S1 |          | ASBR-S2 |
    |reachability |    +---------+          +---------+
    |from ASBR-S1 |        |                    |  |
    +-------------+    +---+            +-------+  +-----------+
                       |                |                     |
           +-----------------+   +-------------+   +-----------------+
           |Pre-engineered TE|   |AS External  |   |Pre-engineered TE|
           |circuit path(s)  |   |TE-Network   |   |circuit path(s)  |
           |reachable from   |   |reachability |   |reachable from   |
           |ASBR-S1          |   |from ASBR-S2 |   |ASBR-S2          |
           +-----------------+   +-------------+   +-----------------+

   Figure 9: Inter-Area Abstraction as viewed by Area-1 TE-routers




Srisuresh & Joseph                                             [Page 43]

Internet-Draft     Experimental TE extensions to OSPF      February 2003



11. Changes to Data structures in OSPF-xTE nodes

11.1. Changes to Router data structure

   An OSPF-xTE router must be able to include the router-TE
   capabilities (as specified in section 8.1) in the router data
   structure. OSPF-xTE routers providing proxy service to other TE
   routers must also track the router and associated interface data
   structures for all the TE client nodes for which the proxy
   service is being provided. Presumably, the interaction between
   the Proxy server and the proxy clients is out-of-band.


11.2. Two sets of Neighbors

   Two sets of neighbor data structures are required. TE-neighbors
   set is used to advertise TE LSAs. Only the TE-nodes will be
   members of the TE-neighbor set. Native neighbors set will be used
   to advertise native LSAs. All neighboring nodes supporting
   non-TE links are part of the Native neighbors set.


11.3. Changes to Interface data structure

   The following new fields are introduced to the interface data
   structure.

   TePermitted
       If the value of the flag is TRUE, the interface may be
       advertised as a TE-enabled interface.

   NonTePermitted
       If the value of the flag is TRUE, the interface permits non-TE
       traffic on the interface. Specifically, this is applicable to
       packet networks, where data links may permit both TE and IP
       packets. For FSC and LSC TE networks, this flag is set to
       FALSE.

   FloodingPermitted
       If the value of the flag is TRUE, the interface may be used
       for OSPF and OSPF-xTE packet exchange to synchronize the
       LSDB across all adjacent neighbors. This is TRUE by default
       to all NonTePermitted interfaces that are enabled for OSPF.
       However, it is possible to set this to FALSE
       for some of the interfaces.

   TE-TLVs



Srisuresh & Joseph                                             [Page 44]

Internet-Draft     Experimental TE extensions to OSPF      February 2003


       Each interface may define any number of TLVS that describe
       the link characteristics.

   The following existing fields in Interface data structure will take
   on additional values to support TE extensions.

   Type
       The OSPF interface type can also be of type "Positional-RING".
       The Positional-ring type is different from other types (such
       as broadcast and NBMA) in that the exact location of the nodes
       on the ring is relevant, even though they are all on the same
       ring. SONET ADM ring is a good example of this. Complete ring
       positional-ring description may be provided by the GNE on a
       ring as a TE-network LSA for the ring.

   List of Neighbors
       The list may be statically defined for an interface without
       requiring the use of Hello protocol.


12. IANA Considerations

   This document proposes that TE LSA types and TE TLVs be
   maintained by the IANA. The document also proposes an OSPFIGP-TE
   multicast address be assigned by the IANA for the exchange of
   TE database descriptors.

   OSPFIGP-TE multicast address is suggested a value of 224.0.0.24
   so as not to conflict with the recognized multicast address
   definitions, as defined in
   http://www.iana.org/assignments/multicast-addresses

   The following sub-section explains the criteria to be used by the
   IANA to assign TE LSA types and TE TLVs.


12.1. TE LSA type values

   LSA type is an 8-bit field required by each LSA. TE LSA types
   will have the high bit set to 1. TE LSAs can range from 0x80
   through 0xFF. The following values are defined in sections
   8.0 and 9.0. The remaining values are available for assignment
   by the IANA with IETF Consensus [Ref 11].


      TE LSA Type                        Value
      _________________________________________




Srisuresh & Joseph                                             [Page 45]

Internet-Draft     Experimental TE extensions to OSPF      February 2003


      TE-Router LSA                      0x81
      TE-Positional-ring-network LSA     0x82
      TE-Summary Network LSA             0x83
      TE-Summary router LSA              0x84
      TE-AS-external LSAs                0x85
      TE-Circuit-paths LSA               0x8C
      TE-incremental-link-Update LSA     0x8d
      TE-Router-Proxy LSA                0x8e


12.2. TE TLV tag values

   TLV type is a 16-bit field required by each TE TLV. TLV type
   shall be unique across the router and link TLVs. A TLV type
   can range from 0x0001 through 0xFFFF. TLV type 0 is reserved
   and unassigned. The following TLV types are defined in sections
   8.0 and 9.0. The remaining values are available for assignment
   by the IANA with IETF Consensus [Ref 11].

      TE TLV Tag                         Reference       Value
                                         Section
      _________________________________________________________

      TE-LINK-TLV-SRLG                 Section 8.1.4.1  0x0001
      TE-LINK-TLV-BANDWIDTH-MAX        Section 8.1.4.2  0x0002
      TE-LINK-TLV-BANDWIDTH-MAX-FOR-TE Section 8.1.4.3  0x0003
      TE-LINK-TLV-BANDWIDTH-TE         Section 8.1.4.4  0x0004
      TE-LINK-TLV-LUG                  Section 8.1.4.5  0x0005
      TE-LINK-TLV-COLOR                Section 8.1.4.6  0x0006
      TE-LINK-TLV-NULL                 Section 8.1.4.7  0x8888
      TE-NODE-TLV-MPLS-SWITCHING       Section 8.1.2.1  0x8001
      TE-NODE-TLV-MPLS-SIG-PROTOCOLS   Section 8.1.2.2  0x8002
      TE-NODE-TLV-CSPF-ALG             Section 8.1.2.3  0x8003
      TE-NODE-TLV-NULL                 Section 8.1.2.4  0x8888


13. Acknowledgements

   The authors wish to specially thank Chitti Babu and his team
   for verifying several portions of the specification in a
   mixed packet network. The authors also wish to thank Vishwas
   Manral, Riyad Hartani and Tricci So for their valuable
   comments and feedback on the draft. Lastly, the authors wish
   to thank Alex Zinin and Mike Shand for their draft (now
   defunct) titled "Flooding optimizations in link state routing
   protocols". The draft provided inspiration to the authors to
   be sensitive to the high flooding rate, likely in TE networks.




Srisuresh & Joseph                                             [Page 46]

Internet-Draft     Experimental TE extensions to OSPF      February 2003



14. Security Considerations

   Security considerations for the base OSPF protocol are covered
   in [OSPF-v2] and [SEC-OSPF]. This memo does not create any new
   security issues for the OSPF protocol. Security measures
   applied to the native OSPF (refer [SEC-OSPF]) are directly
   applicable to the TE LSAs described in the document. Discussed
   below are the security considerations in processing TE LSAs.

   Secure communication between OSPF-xTE nodes has a number of
   components.  Authorization, authentication, integrity and
   confidentiality.  Authorization refers to whether a particular
   OSPF-xTE node is authorized to receive or propagate the TE LSAs
   to its neighbors. Failing the authorization process might
   indicate a resource theft attempt or unauthorized resource
   advertisement. In either case, the OSPF-xTE nodes should take
   proper measures to audit/log such attempts so as to alert the
   administrator to take necessary action. OSPF-xTE nodes may
   refuse to communicate with the neighboring nodes that fail to
   prompt the required credentials.

   Authentication refers to confirming the identity of an originator
   for the datagrams received from the originator.  Lack of strong
   credentials for authentication of OSPF-xTE LSAs can seriously
   jeopardize the TE service rendered by the network. A consequence
   of not authenticating a neighbor would be that an attacker could
   spoof the identity of a "legitimate" OSPF-xTE node and manipulate
   the state, and the TE database including the topology and
   metrics collected. This could potentially cause
   denial-of-service on the TE network. Another consequence of not
   authenticating is that an attacker could pose as OSPF-xTE
   neighbor and respond in a manner that would divert TE data to the
   attacker.

   Integrity is required to ensure that an OSPF-xTE message has not
   been accidentally or maliciously altered or destroyed. The result
   of a lack of data integrity enforcement in an untrusted environment
   could be that an imposter will alter the messages sent by a
   legitimate adjacent neighbor and bring the OSPF-xTE on a node and
   the whole network to a halt or cause a denial of service for the
   TE circuit paths effected by the alteration.

   Confidentiality of MIDCOM messages ensure that the TE LSAs are
   accessible only to the authorized entities. When OSPF-xTE is
   deployed in an untrusted environment, lack of confidentiality will
   allow an intruder to perform traffic flow analysis and snoop the
   TE control network to monitor the traffic metrics and the rate at



Srisuresh & Joseph                                             [Page 47]

Internet-Draft     Experimental TE extensions to OSPF      February 2003


   which circuit paths are being setup and torn-down.  The intruder
   could cannibalize a lesser secure OSPF-xTE node and destroy or
   compromise the state and TE-LDSB on the node. Needless to say, the
   least secure OSPF-xTE will become the Achilles heel and make the
   TE network vulnerable to security attacks.


15. Normative References

   [IETF-STD] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC 1700] J. Reynolds and J. Postel, "Assigned Numbers",
              RFC 1700

   [RFC 2434] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for
              writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs",
              BCP 26, RFC 2434, October 1998.

   [MPLS-TE]  Awduche, D., et al, "Requirements for Traffic
              Engineering Over MPLS," RFC 2702, September 1999.

   [OSPF-v2]  Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", RFC 2328, April 1998.

   [SEC-OSPF] Murphy, S., Badger, M., and B. Wellington, "OSPF with
              Digital Signatures", RFC 2154, June 1997


16. Informative References

   [RSVP-TE]  Awduche, D., L. Berger, D. Gan, T. Li, V. Srinivasan,
              and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
              Tunnels", RFC3209, IETF, December 2001

   [CR-LDP]   Jamoussi, B. et al, "Constraint-Based LSP Setup
              using LDP", draft-ietf-mpls-cr-ldp-06.txt,
              Work in Progress.

   [MOSPF]    Moy, J., "Multicast Extensions to OSPF", RFC 1584,
              March 1994.

   [NSSA]     Coltun, R., V. Fuller and P. Murphy, "The OSPF NSSA
              Option", draft-ietf-ospf-nssa-update-11.txt, Work in
              Progress.

   [OPAQUE]   Coltun, R., "The OSPF Opaque LSA Option," RFC 2370,
              July 1998.




Srisuresh & Joseph                                             [Page 48]

Internet-Draft     Experimental TE extensions to OSPF      February 2003


   [OPQLSA-TE] Katz, D., D. Yeung and K. Kompella, "Traffic
              Engineering Extensions to OSPF", work in progress,
              <draft-katz-yeung-ospf-traffic-09.txt>

   [SONET-SDH] Ming-CHwan Chow, "Understanding SONET/SDH Standards
              and Applications" - A paperback or bound book,
              Published by Andan publisher.

   [GMPLS-TE]  P.A. Smith et. al, "Generalized MPLS - Signaling
              Functional Description", work in progress,
              draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-signaling-09.txt


Authors' Addresses

   Pyda Srisuresh
   Consultant
   849 Erie circle
   Milpitas, CA 95035
   U.S.A.
   EMail: srisuresh@yahoo.com

   Paul Joseph
   Force10 Networks
   1440 McCarthy Boulevard
   Milpitas, CA 95035
   U.S.A.
   EMail: pjoseph@Force10Networks.com























Srisuresh & Joseph                                             [Page 49]


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