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

Versions: 00 01

Network Working Group                                          S. Bryant
Internet-Draft                                       Huawei Technologies
Intended status: Standards Track                                A. Atlas
Expires: August 31, 2017                                       C. Bowers
                                                        Juniper Networks
                                                       February 27, 2017


                 Synchronisation of Routing Parameters
                    draft-bryant-rtgwg-param-sync-01

Abstract

   This document describes a mechanism for a link state routing protocol
   to coordinate the value of a network-wide routing parameter amongst
   routers in the flooding domain.  The document also defines the
   solution to one specific case: the agreement of a common convergence
   timer value for use in network convergence.

Status of This Memo

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

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

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on August 31, 2017.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of



Bryant, et al.           Expires August 31, 2017                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft           Routing Parameter Sync            February 2017


   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Overview of Mechanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   4.  Protocol Details  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     4.1.  ISIS  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     4.2.  OSPF  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   5.  Convergence Time  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     5.1.  Required Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     5.2.  Definition of the Convergence Timer . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   6.  IANA considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     6.1.  ISIS  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     6.2.  OSPF  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     6.3.  Network Wide Parameter  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   7.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   8.  Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   9.  Contributing Authors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   10. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     10.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     10.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9

1.  Introduction

   There exist use cases where it desirable for a network to use a
   common value for a routing parameter across all nodes.  In the past,
   these use cases have been addressed by setting the parameter to a
   constant value in the protocol definition itself, or by requiring
   that the same value of the parameter be configured at every node.

   Setting the routing parameter to a constant value in the protocol
   definition makes it very difficult to change the parameter, since a
   change would require formal modification to the protocol.  In
   practice, such a change is impractical, so the constant value needs
   to be chosen conservatively.  This may impose a fundamental
   restriction on the eventual use of the protocol.

   Manual or "static" configuration of the parameter is fraught for two
   reasons.  First, it is can be difficult to ensure that the correct,
   identical, value is installed in all of the routers.  Second, if any
   change is introduced into the network that results in a need to
   change the value (for example due to a change in hardware or software
   version) then all of the routers need to be reconfigured to use the
   new parameter value.  Such consistency may be ensured by deploying



Bryant, et al.           Expires August 31, 2017                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft           Routing Parameter Sync            February 2017


   automated means such as enforcing the new value by invoking the
   management interface of all involved routers.  For example, a central
   management entity may be responsible for communicating the new
   configuration value by means of vendor-specific command line
   interface (CLI), NETCONF[RFC6241], etc.  This approach may be
   attractive if all involved nodes expose technology-agnostic and
   vendor-independent interfaces to modify a given network-wide
   configuration parameter.

   This document describes a protocol extension that propagates a
   routing parameter throughout the flooding domain, which can be used
   as an alternative to the centralized approach described above.  The
   method of choosing between one or more different advertised values,
   the flooding scope, and the action to be taken when the parameter
   changes MUST be provided in the definition of the parameter type.

   This document also creates one parameter type: Convergence Timer
   intended for use in IP Fast-reroute applications [RFC5714] [RFC5715].

   Note that this protocol is only intended to be used for the
   propagation of parameters needed to support the operation of the
   routing system.  It MUST NOT be used as a general purpose parameter
   exchange protocol, and in particular it MUST NOT be used as a
   parameter negotiation protocol, since such use may degrade the
   ability of the underlying link-state routing protocol to carry our
   its essential purpose.

2.  Requirements Language

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

3.  Overview of Mechanism

   Routing Parameter values that can be disseminated by means of the
   attribute defined in this specification MUST be defined as a
   configurable parameter or a default parameter in the corresponding
   specification.

   A new information element is introduced into the routing protocol
   that specifies the parameter.  Each router taking part in the
   parameter synchronization is expected to advertise a specific value
   of the parameter, which that router determines based mainly on
   considerations local to that router.  In general, different routers
   in the flooding domain may advertise different values of the
   parameter.  How the values advertised by a router are determined is
   out of scope of this document.



Bryant, et al.           Expires August 31, 2017                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft           Routing Parameter Sync            February 2017


   A router receiving the parameter values advertised by all routers in
   the flooding domain will use a well-defined method to select the
   operational value of the parameter that it uses in the running of the
   protocol.  All routers MUST use the same method applied to the same
   set of advertised parameter values.  All routers SHALL therefore
   choose the same operational value for the parameter.

   Note the operational value for the parameter selected SHOULD NOT
   directly affect the value for the parameter advertised by a router,
   since this introduces a form of negotiation leading to additional
   routing protocol traffic and possibly to instability in the routing
   protocol.

   The method of selecting from a range of advertised parameter values
   MUST be provided in the parameter definition.

   The definition of the parameter MUST specify the action to be taken
   when a new parameter value is advertised that would cause a change in
   the selected value.

   The definition of the parameter MUST specify the action to be taken
   in the legacy/migration case, where not all routers advertise the
   parameter.

4.  Protocol Details

   This section describes the protocol extensions needed to implement
   this functionality.

4.1.  ISIS

   A new Network Wide Parameter (NWP) sub-TLV is introduced into the IS-
   IS Router CAPABILITY TLV (TLV #242 defined in [RFC7981]).  The
   setting of the S-bit in TLV #242 (indicating whether the parameter
   should be leaked between levels) MUST be included in the specific NWP
   definition.

       Network Wide Parameter Sub-TLV
       TYPE: <TBD>
       Length: As defined by parameter definition.

           Sub-sub-TLV
           NWP Type: (16 bits) as defined in NWP Registry
           NWP Value: As defined by parameter definition







Bryant, et al.           Expires August 31, 2017                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft           Routing Parameter Sync            February 2017


4.2.  OSPF

   THIS NEEDS CHECKING OVER BY AN OSPF EXPERT

   A new OSPF Router Information LSA TLV is defined.  This may be
   carried in a type 10 or type 11 OSPF Opaque LSA depending on the
   required flooding scope.

       Network Wide Parameter TLV
       TYPE: <TBD>
       Length: As defined by parameter definition.

           Sub-TLV
           NWP Type: (16 bits) as defined in NWP Registry
           NWP Value: As defined by parameter definition

5.  Convergence Time

   Routers running a fast-reroute mechanism such as Maximally Redundant
   Tree (MRT) [RFC7812] fast re-route require a network wide convergence
   time value so that know how long they need continue using the repair
   path before it is safe to use the base path.  This time is set to be
   the worst case time that any router will take to calculate the new
   topology, and to make the necessary changes to the FIB.

   The time taken by a router to complete each phase of the transition
   will be dependent on the size of the network and the design and
   implementation of the router.  It can therefore be expected that the
   optimum delay will need to be tuned from time to time as the network
   evolves.

5.1.  Required Properties

   The Convergence Time mechanism MUST have the following properties:

















Bryant, et al.           Expires August 31, 2017                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft           Routing Parameter Sync            February 2017


   o The operational convergence delay time MUST be consistent among
     all routers that are converging on the new topology.

   o The operational convergence delay time MUST be the highest delay
     time advertised by any router in the new topology.

   o The mechanism MUST increase the delay when a new router in
     introduced to the network that requires a higher delay than
     is currently in use.

   o When the router that had the longest delay requirements is
     removed from the topology, the convergence delay timer
     value MUST, within some reasonable time, be reduced to
     the longest delay required by the remaining routers.

   o It MUST be possible for a router to change the
     convergence delay timer value that it requires.

   o A router which is in multiple routing areas, or is running
     multiple routing protocols MAY signal a different loop-free
     convergence delay for each area.

   How a router determines the time that it needs to execute each
   convergence phase is an implementation issue, and outside the scope
   of this specification.  However a router that dynamically determines
   its proposed delay value must do so in such a way that it does not
   cause the synchronized value to continually fluctuate.

5.2.  Definition of the Convergence Timer

   The NWP value is 16 bits and is specified in milliseconds; this gives
   a maximum value of about 65s.

   The NWP value selected is the largest value advertised.

   If a routing protocol message is issued that changes the Convergence
   Timer value, but does not change the topology, the new timer value
   MUST be taken into consideration during the next network transition,
   but MUST NOT instigate a new transition.

   If a routing protocol message is issued that changes both the
   Convergence Timer value and the topology, a transition is instigated
   and the new timer value MUST be taken into consideration.

   The convergence mechanism MUST specify the action to be taken if a
   timer change (only) message and a topology change message are
   independently generated during the hold-off time.




Bryant, et al.           Expires August 31, 2017                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft           Routing Parameter Sync            February 2017


   All routers that support controlled convergence MUST advertise an NWP
   specifying their required Convergence Time.

   If the parameter is carried in ISIS the S-bit is set to zero
   indicating that the Convergence Timer NWP MUST NOT be leaked between
   levels.

   If the parameter is carried in OSPF it is only carried in a type 10
   Opaque LSA which prevents propagation outside the OSPF area.

6.  IANA considerations

6.1.  ISIS

   IANA is requested to allocate a new Sub-TLVs for TLV 242 from the IS-
   IS TLV Codepoints name space.

   Value    Description                 Reference
   ----------------------------------------------
   TBD      Network Wide Parameter      This Document

6.2.  OSPF

   IANA is requested to allocate a new OSPF Router Information (RI) TLV
   from the Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) Parameters name space

   Value      TLV Name                  Reference
   --------------------------------------------------
   TBD        Network Wide Parameter    This document

   A value in the range 12 to 32767 is requested.

6.3.  Network Wide Parameter

   IANA is requested to create a new Network Wide Parameter Registry
   within its own name space, and to allocate one value from it.

   Value        Name                      Reference
   ------------------------------------------------
   0            Reserved                  This document
   1            Convergence Timer         This document
   2..65535     Reserved                  This document

   Allocations within this registry require IETF Consensus.







Bryant, et al.           Expires August 31, 2017                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft           Routing Parameter Sync            February 2017


7.  Security Considerations

   The introduction of this parameter advertising mechanism does not
   introduce a significant vulnerability into the base routing protocol
   and is secured in exactly the same way as the other TLVs that are
   carried.

   In specifying a new parameter, consideration must be given to the
   impact of the additional parameter, and in particular the rate of
   change of that parameter, on the dynamics of the link-state routing
   protocol in use.  In the specific case of the Convergence Timer, the
   amount of data being carried and the rate of change of the parameter
   value will have a negligible impact on the link-state routing
   protocol in use.

   A rouge router deliberately introducing an anomalous parameter value
   is just as capable of introducing many other anomalies into the
   routing domain.

   As far as possible, care should be taken to validate that the
   parameter is reasonable.

   In the specific case of the Convergence Time NWP, the following
   considerations apply.

   If an abnormally large timer value is proposed by a router, the there
   is a danger that the convergence process will take an excessive time.
   If during that time the routing protocol signals the need for another
   transition, the transition will be abandoned and the default best
   case (traditional) convergence mechanism used.

   The maximum value that can be specified in the LSP/LSA is limited
   through the use of a 16 bit field to about 65 seconds.

8.  Acknowledgments

   The authors than Mohamed Boucadair for his review comments and
   proposed text.

9.  Contributing Authors

   Mike Shand
   Independent
   mike@mshand.org.uk







Bryant, et al.           Expires August 31, 2017                [Page 8]


Internet-Draft           Routing Parameter Sync            February 2017


10.  References

10.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC7981]  Ginsberg, L., Previdi, S., and M. Chen, "IS-IS Extensions
              for Advertising Router Information", RFC 7981,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7981, October 2016,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7981>.

10.2.  Informative References

   [RFC5714]  Shand, M. and S. Bryant, "IP Fast Reroute Framework",
              RFC 5714, DOI 10.17487/RFC5714, January 2010,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5714>.

   [RFC5715]  Shand, M. and S. Bryant, "A Framework for Loop-Free
              Convergence", RFC 5715, DOI 10.17487/RFC5715, January
              2010, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5715>.

   [RFC6241]  Enns, R., Ed., Bjorklund, M., Ed., Schoenwaelder, J., Ed.,
              and A. Bierman, Ed., "Network Configuration Protocol
              (NETCONF)", RFC 6241, DOI 10.17487/RFC6241, June 2011,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6241>.

   [RFC7812]  Atlas, A., Bowers, C., and G. Enyedi, "An Architecture for
              IP/LDP Fast Reroute Using Maximally Redundant Trees (MRT-
              FRR)", RFC 7812, DOI 10.17487/RFC7812, June 2016,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7812>.

Authors' Addresses

   Stewart Bryant
   Huawei Technologies

   Email: stewart.bryant@gmail.com


   Alia Atlas
   Juniper Networks

   Email: akatlas@gmail.com





Bryant, et al.           Expires August 31, 2017                [Page 9]


Internet-Draft           Routing Parameter Sync            February 2017


   Chris Bowers
   Juniper Networks

   Email: cbowers@juniper.net















































Bryant, et al.           Expires August 31, 2017               [Page 10]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.121, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/