[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits] [IPR]
Versions: (draft-chen-ccamp-ospf-interas-te-extension)
00 01 02 03 04 05 06 RFC 5392
Network work group Mach Chen
Internet Draft Renhai Zhang
Expires: March 2008 Huawei Technologies Co.,Ltd
Category: Standards Track September 6, 2007
OSPF Traffic Engineering (OSPF-TE) Extensions in Support of Inter-AS
Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS)
Traffic Engineering
draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-interas-te-extension-01.txt
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that
any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is
aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she
becomes aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of
BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other
groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
This Internet-Draft will expire on March 6, 2008.
Abstract
This document describes extensions to the OSPF v2 and v3 Traffic
Engineering (OSPF-TE) mechanisms to support Multiprotocol Label
Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering(TE)
for multiple Autonomous Systems (ASes). It defines OSPF-TE extensions
for the flooding of TE information about inter-AS links which can be
used to perform inter-AS TE path computation.
Mach & Renhai Expires March 6, 2008 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Inter-AS TE Link Information September 2007
Conventions used in this document
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 RFC-2119 [RFC2119].
Table of Contents
1. Introduction.................................................2
2. Problem Statement............................................3
2.1. A Note on Non-Objectives................................3
2.2. Per-Domain Path Determination...........................4
2.3. Backward Recursive Path Computation.....................6
3. Extensions to OSPF-TE........................................7
3.1. Remote AS Number Sub-TLV................................7
3.2. Inter-AS Link Type......................................8
3.3. Link ID.................................................8
4. Procedure for Inter-AS TE Links..............................8
5. Security Considerations......................................9
6. IANA Considerations.........................................10
6.1. OSPF LSA Sub-TLVs type.................................10
6.2. OSPF TE Link Type......................................10
7. Acknowledgments.............................................10
8. References..................................................11
8.1. Normative References...................................11
8.2. Informative References.................................11
Authors' Addresses.............................................12
Intellectual Property Statement................................12
Disclaimer of Validity.........................................13
Copyright Statement............................................13
1. Introduction
[OSPF-TE] defines extensions to the OSPF protocol [OSPF] to support
intra-area Traffic Engineering (TE). The extensions provide a way of
encoding the TE information for TE-enabled links within the network
(TE links) and flooding this information within an area. Type 10
opaque LSAs [RFC2370] are used to carry such TE information. Two top-
level TLVs are defined in [OSPF-TE]: Router Address TLV and Link TLV.
The Link TLV has several nested sub-TLVs which describe the TE
attributes for a TE link.
[OSPF-TE-V3] defines similar extensions to OSPFv3 [OSPFV3].
Requirements for establishing Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) TE
Label Switched Paths (LSPs) that cross multiple Autonomous Systems
Mach & Renhai Expires March 6, 2008 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Inter-AS TE Link Information September 2007
(ASes) are described in [INTER-AS-TE-REQ]. As described in [INTER-AS-
TE-REQ], a method SHOULD provide the ability to compute a path
spanning multiple ASes. So a path computation entity that may be the
head-end Label Switching Router (LSR), an AS Border Router (ASBR), or
a Path Computation Element (PCE [PCE]) needs to know the TE
information not only of the links within an AS, but also of the links
that connect to other ASes.
In this document, some extensions to OSPF-TE are defined in support
of carrying inter-AS TE link information for inter-AS Traffic
Engineering. A new sub-TLV is added to the Link TLV and a new link
type is introduced. The extensions are equally applicable to OSPFv2
and OSPFv3 as identical extensions to [OSPF-TE] and [OSPF-TE-V3]. The
detailed definitions and procedures are discussed in the following
sections.
2. Problem Statement
As described in [INTER-AS-TE-REQ], in the case of establishing an
inter-AS TE LSP traversing multiple ASes, the Path message [RFC3209]
may include the following elements in the Explicit Route Object (ERO)
in order to describe the path of the LSP:
- a set of AS numbers as loose hops; and/or
- a set of LSRs including ASBRs as loose hops.
Two methods for determining inter-AS paths are currently discussed.
The per-domain method [PD-PATH] determines the path one domain at a
time. The backward recursive method [BRPC] uses cooperation between
PCEs to determine an optimum inter-domain path. The sections that
follow examine how inter-AS TE link information could be useful in
both cases.
2.1. A Note on Non-Objectives
It is important to note that this document does not make any change
to the confidentiality and scaling assumptions surrounding the use of
ASes in the Internet. In particular, this document is conformant to
the requirements set out in [INTER-AS-TE-REQ].
The following lists of features are explicit exclusions.
o There is no attempt to distribute TE information from within one
AS to another AS.
Mach & Renhai Expires March 6, 2008 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Inter-AS TE Link Information September 2007
o There is no mechanism proposed to distribute any form of TE
reachability information for destinations outside the AS.
o There is no proposed change to the PCE architecture or usage.
o TE aggregation is not supported or recommended.
o There is no exchange of private information between ASes.
o No OSPF adjacencies are formed on the inter-AS link.
Note further that the extensions proposed in this document are
limited to use for information about inter-AS TE links. L1VPN Auto-
Discovery [L1VPN-OSPF-AD] defines how TE information about links
between Customer Edge (CE) equipment and Provider Edge (PE) equipment
can be advertised in OSPF-TE alongside the auto-discovery information
for the CE-PE links. That is separate functionality and does not
overlap with the function defined in this document.
2.2. Per-Domain Path Determination
In the per-domain method of determining an inter-AS path for an MPLS-
TE LSP, when an LSR that is an entry-point to an AS receives a PATH
message from an upstream AS with an ERO containing a next hop that is
an AS number, it needs to find which LSRs (ASBRs) within the local AS
are connected to the downstream AS so that it can compute a TE LSP
segment across the AS to one of those LSRs and forward the PATH
message to the LSR and hence into the next AS. See the figure below
for an example:
R1------R3----R5-----R7------R9-----R11
| | \ | / |
| | \ | ---- |
| | \ | / |
R2------R4----R6 --R8------R10----R12
: :
<-- AS1 -->:<---- AS2 --->:<--- AS3 --->
Figure 1: Inter-AS Reference Model
The figure shows three ASes (AS1, AS2, and AS3) and twelve LSRs (R1
through R12). R3 and R4 are ASBRs in AS1. R5, R6, R7, and R8 are
ASBRs in AS2. R9 and R10 are ASBRs in AS3.
If an inter-AS TE LSP is planned to be established from R1 to R12,
the AS sequence is limited as: AS1, AS2, AS3.
Mach & Renhai Expires March 6, 2008 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Inter-AS TE Link Information September 2007
Suppose that the Path message enters AS2 from R3. The next hop in the
ERO shows AS3, and R5 must determine a path segment across AS2 to
reach AS3. It has a choice of three exit points from AS2 (R6, R7, and
R8) and it needs to know which of these provide TE connectivity to
AS3, and whether the TE connectivity (for example, available
bandwidth) is adequate for the requested LSP.
Alternatively, if the next hop in the ERO is the entry ASBR for AS3
(say R9), R5 needs to know which of its exit ASBRs has a TE link that
connects to R9. Since there may be multiple exist ASBRs that are
connected to R9 (both R7 and R8 in this example), R5 also needs to
know the TE properties of the inter-AS TE links so that it can select
the correct exit ASBR.
Once the path message reaches the exit ASBR, any choice of inter-AS
TE link can be made by the ASBR if not already made by entry ASBR
that computed the segment.
More details can be found in the Section 4.0 of [PD-PATH], which
clearly points out why advertising of inter-AS links is desired.
To enable R5 to make the correct choice of exit ASBR the following
information is needed:
o List of all inter-AS TE links for the local AS.
o TE properties of each inter-AS TE link.
o AS number of the neighboring AS connected to by each inter-AS TE
link.
o Identity (TE Router ID) of the neighboring ASBR connected to by
each inter-AS TE link.
In GMPLS networks further information may also be required to select
the correct TE links as defined in [GMPLS-TE].
The example above shows how this information is needed at the entry
point ASBRs for each AS (or the PCEs that provide computation
services for the ASBRs), but this information is also needed
throughout the local AS if path computation function is fully
distributed among LSRs in the local AS, for example to support LSPs
that have start points (ingress nodes) within the AS.
Mach & Renhai Expires March 6, 2008 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Inter-AS TE Link Information September 2007
2.3. Backward Recursive Path Computation
Another scenario using PCE techniques has the same problem. [BRPC]
defines a PCE-based TE LSP computation method (called Backward
Recursive Path Computation) to compute optimal inter-domain
constrained MPLS-TE or GMPLS LSPs. In this path computation method, a
specific set of traversed domains (ASes) are assumed to be selected
before computation starts. Each downstream PCE in domain(i) returns
to its upstream neighbor PCE in domain(i-1) a multipoint-to-point
tree of potential paths. Each tree consists of the set of paths from
all Boundary Nodes located in domain(i) to the destination where each
path satisfies the set of required constraints for the TE LSP
(bandwidth, affinities, etc.).
So a PCE needs to select Boundary Nodes (that is, ASBRs) that provide
connectivity from the upstream AS. In order that the tree of paths
provided by one PCE to its neighbor can be correlated, the identities
of the ASBRs for each path need to be referenced, so the PCE must
know the identities of the ASBRs in the remote AS reached by any
inter-AS TE link, and, in order that it provides only suitable paths
in the tree, the PCE must know the TE properties of the inter-AS TE
links. See the following figure as an example:
PCE1<------>PCE2<-------->PCE3
/ : :
/ : :
R1------R3----R5-----R7------R9-----R11
| | \ | / |
| | \ | ---- |
| | \ | / |
R2------R4----R6 --R8------R10----R12
: :
<-- AS1 -->:<---- AS2 --->:<--- AS3 --->
Figure 2: BRPC for Inter-AS Reference Model
The figure shows three ASes (AS1, AS2, and AS3), three PCEs (PCE1,
PCE2, and PCE3), and twelve LSRs (R1 through R12). R3 and R4 are
ASBRs in AS1. R5, R6, R7, and R8 are ASBRs in AS2. R9 and R10 are
ASBRs in AS3. PCE1, PCE2, and PCE3 cooperate to perform inter-AS path
computation and are responsible for path segment computation within
their own domains.
If an inter-AS TE LSP is planned to be established from R1 to R12,
the traversed domains are assumed to be selected: AS1->AS2->AS3, and
the PCE chain is: PCE1->PCE2->PCE3. First, the path computation
request originated from the PCC (R1) is relayed by PCE1 and PCE2
Mach & Renhai Expires March 6, 2008 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Inter-AS TE Link Information September 2007
along the PCE chain to PCE3, then PCE3 begins to compute the path
segments from the entry boundary nodes that provide connection from
AS2 to the destination (R12). But, to provide suitable path segments,
PCE3 must determine which entry boundary nodes provide connectivity
to its upstream neighbor AS (identified by its AS number), and must
know the TE properties of the inter-AS TE links. In the same way,
PCE2 also needs to determine the entry boundary nodes according to
its upstream neighbor AS and the inter-AS TE link capabilities.
Thus, to support Backward Recursive Path Computation the same
information as listed in Section 2.2 is required.
3. Extensions to OSPF-TE
Note that this document does not define mechanisms for distribution
of TE information from one AS to another, does not distribute any
form of TE reachability information for destinations outside the AS,
does not change the PCE architecture or usage, does not suggest or
recommend any form of TE aggregation, and does not feed private
information between ASes. See section 2.1.
The extensions defined in this document allow an inter-AS TE link
advertisement to be easily identified as such by the use of a new
link type. A new sub-TLV to the Link TLV is defined to carry the
information about the neighboring AS. The extensions are equally
applicable to TE distribution using OSPFv2 and OSPFv3.
3.1. Remote AS Number Sub-TLV
As described in [OSPF-TE], the Link TLV describes a single link and
consists of a set of sub-TLVs. A new sub-TLV, the Remote AS Number
sub-TLV is added to the Link TLV when advertising inter-AS links. The
Remote AS Number sub-TLV specifies the AS number of the neighboring
AS to which the advertised link connects. The Remote AS number sub-
TLV is mandatory for an inter-AS TE link.
The Remote AS number sub-TLV is TLV type 21 (which needs to be
confirmed by IANA), and is four octets in length. The format is as
follows:
Mach & Renhai Expires March 6, 2008 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Inter-AS TE Link Information September 2007
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Remote AS Number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The Remote AS number field has 4 octets. When only two octets are
used for the AS number, as in current deployments, the left (high-
order) two octets MUST be set to zero.
3.2. Inter-AS Link Type
To identify a link as an inter-AS link and allow easy identification
of these new advertisements, a new Link Type value is defined for use
in the Link Type sub-TLV. The value of the Link Type for an inter-AS
point-to-point link is 3 (which needs to be confirmed by IANA).
The use of multi-access inter-AS TE links is for future study.
3.3. Link ID
For an inter-AS link, the Link ID carried in the Link ID sub-TLV is
the remote ASBR identifier which could be any address of the remote
ASBR(e.g., the TE Router ID, Router ID or interface address of the
remote ASBR reached through this inter-AS link). The TE Router ID is
RECOMMENDED.
4. Procedure for Inter-AS TE Links
When TE is enabled on an inter-AS link and the link is up, the ASBR
SHOULD advertise this link using the normal procedures for OSPF-TE
[OSPF-TE]. When either the link is down or TE is disabled on the
link , the ASBR SHOULD withdraw the advertisement. When there are
changes to the TE parameters for the link (for example, when the
available bandwidth changes) the ASBR SHOULD re-advertise the link,
but the ASBR MUST take precautions against excessive re-
advertisements as described in [OSPF-TE].
Hellos MUST NOT be exchanged (and consequently, an OSPF adjacency
MUST NOT be formed) over the inter-AS link.
The information advertised comes from the ASBR's knowledge of the TE
capabilities of the link, the ASBR's knowledge of the current status
and usage of the link, and configuration at the ASBR of the remote AS
number and remote ASBR TE Router ID.
Mach & Renhai Expires March 6, 2008 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Inter-AS TE Link Information September 2007
The TE link advertisement SHOULD be carried in a Type 10 Opaque LSA
if the flooding scope is to be limited to within the single IGP area
to which the ASBR belongs, or MAY be carried in a Type 11 Opaque LSA
if the information should reach all routers (including area border
routers, ASBRs, and PCEs) in the AS. The choice between the use of a
Type 10 or Type 11 Opaque LSA is a network-wide policy choice, and
configuration control SHOULD be provided in ASBR implementations that
support the advertisement of inter-AS TE links.
Legacy routers receiving an advertisement for an inter-AS TE link are
able to ignore it because the Link Type carries an unknown value.
They will continue to flood the LSA, but will not attempt to use the
information received as if the link were an intra-AS TE link.
Since there is no OSPF adjacency running on the inter-AS link, the
local ASBR SHOULD do a "proxy" advertisement for the backward
direction of an inter-AS TE link, which facilitates a path
computation entity to do a 2-way check before including the link in a
path computation. As the objective of such a "proxy" advertisement is
to avoid using an inter-AS TE link when the backward direction of the
inter-AS TE link is unavailable or unsuitable, only some mandatory or
essential TE information needs to be advertised, i.e. the Link ID,
the Link Type, and the Remote AS number of an inter-AS TE link.
Routers or PCEs that are capable of processing advertisements of
inter-AS TE links SHOULD NOT use such links to compute paths that
exit an AS to a remote ASBR and then immediately re-enter the AS
through another TE link. Such paths would constitute extremely rare
occurrences and SHOULD NOT be allowed except as the result of
specific policy configurations at the router or PCE computing the
path.
5. Security Considerations
The protocol extensions defined in this document are relatively minor
and can be secured within the AS in which they are used by the
existing OSPF security mechanisms.
There is no exchange of information between ASes, and no change to
the OSPF security relationship between the ASes. In particular, since
no OSPF adjacency is formed on the inter-AS links, there is no
requirement for OSPF security between the ASes.
It should be noted, however, that some of the information included in
these new advertisements(the remote AS number and the remote ASBR ID)
are obtained from a neighboring administration and cannot be verified
in anyway. Since the means of delivery of this information is likely
Mach & Renhai Expires March 6, 2008 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Inter-AS TE Link Information September 2007
to be part of a commercial relationship, the source of the
information should be carefully checked before it is entered as
configuration information at the ASBR responsible for advertising the
inter-AS TE links.
6. IANA Considerations
IANA is requested to make the following allocations from registries
under its control.
6.1. OSPF LSA Sub-TLVs type
IANA maintains the "Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) Traffic
Engineering TLVs" registry with sub-registry "Types for sub-TLVs in a
TE Link TLV". IANA is requested to assign a new sub-TLV as follows.
The number 21 is suggested as shown in Section 3.1.
Value Meaning
21 Remote AS Number sub-TLV.
6.2. OSPF TE Link Type
IANA is requested to create a new sub-registry "TE Link Types" of the
registry "Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) Traffic Engineering TLVs"
to track TE Link Types.
The sub-registry should read as follows:
[OSPF-TE] defines the Link Type sub-TLV of the Link TLV. The
following values are defined.
Value Meaning Reference
1 Point-to-point link [OSPF-TE]
2 Multi-access link [OSPF-TE]
3 Inter-AS link [this document]
New allocations from this registry are by IETF Standards Action.
7. Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Adrian Farrel, Acee Lindem, JP
Vasseur, Dean Cheng, and Jean-Louis Le Roux for their review and
comments to this document.
Mach & Renhai Expires March 6, 2008 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Inter-AS TE Link Information September 2007
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.,
and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001.
[RFC2370] R. Coltun, "The OSPF Opaque LSA Option", RFC2370, July
1998.
[OSPF] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328, April 1998.
[OSPF-TE] Katz, D., Kompella, K., and Yeung, D., "Traffic Engineering
(TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC 3630, September
2003.
[GMPLS-TE] Rekhter, Y., and Kompella, K., "OSPF Extensions in Support
of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)", RFC
4203, October 2005.
8.2. Informative References
[INTER-AS-TE-REQ] Zhang and Vasseur, "MPLS Inter-AS Traffic
Engineering Requirements", RFC4216, November 2005.
[PD-PATH] Ayyangar, A., Vasseur, JP., and Zhang, R., "A Per-domain
path computation method for establishing Inter-domain",
draft-ietf-ccamp-inter-domain-pd-path-comp, (work in
progress).
[BRPC] JP. Vasseur, Ed., R. Zhang, N. Bitar, JL. Le Roux, "A Backward
Recursive PCE-based Computation (BRPC) procedure to compute
shortest inter-domain Traffic Engineering Label Switched
Paths ", draft-ietf-pce-brpc, (work in progress)
[PCE] Farrel, A., Vasseur, JP., and Ash, J., "A Path Computation
Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC4655, August 2006.
[OSPF-TE-V3] Ishiguro K., Manral V., Davey A., and Lindem A. "Traffic
Engineering Extensions to OSPF version 3", draft-ietf-ospf-
ospfv3-traffic, {work in progress}.
Mach & Renhai Expires March 6, 2008 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Inter-AS TE Link Information September 2007
[OSPFV3] Coltun, R., Ferguson, D., and J. Moy, "OSPF for IPv6", RFC
2740, April 1998.
[L1VPN-OSPF-AD] Bryskin, I., and Berger, L., "OSPF Based L1VPN Auto-
Discovery", draft-ietf-l1vpn-ospf-auto-discovery, (work in
progress).
Authors' Addresses
Mach Chen
Huawei Technologies Co.,Ltd
KuiKe Building, No.9 Xinxi Rd.,
Hai-Dian District
Beijing, 100085
P.R. China
Email: mach@huawei.com
Renhai Zhang
Huawei Technologies Co.,Ltd
KuiKe Building, No.9 Xinxi Rd.,
Hai-Dian District
Beijing, 100085
P.R. China
Email: zhangrenhai@huawei.com
Intellectual Property Statement
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
Mach & Renhai Expires March 6, 2008 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Inter-AS TE Link Information September 2007
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Disclaimer of Validity
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
Mach & Renhai Expires March 6, 2008 [Page 13]
Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129c, available from
https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/