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

Versions: (draft-ppsenak-ospf-lls-interface-id) 00 01 02 03 04 05

Open Shortest Path First IGP                              P. Psenak, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                             K. Talaulikar
Intended status: Standards Track                     Cisco Systems, Inc.
Expires: November 16, 2018                                 W. Henderickx
                                                                   Nokia
                                                       P. Pillay-Esnault
                                                                  Huawei
                                                            May 15, 2018


        OSPF LLS Extensions for Local Interface ID Advertisement
                  draft-ietf-ospf-lls-interface-id-02

Abstract

   This draft describes the extensions to OSPF link-local signaling to
   advertise Local Interface Identifier.

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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

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 https://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 November 16, 2018.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2018 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



Psenak, et al.          Expires November 16, 2018               [Page 1]


Internet-Draft    OSPF LLS Extensions for Interface ID          May 2018


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

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Interface ID Exchange using TE Opaque LSA . . . . . . . . . .   2
   3.  Interface ID Exchange using OSPF LLS  . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     3.1.  Local Interface Identifier TLV  . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   4.  Backward Compatibility with RFC 4203  . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   5.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   7.  Contributors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   8.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   9.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5

1.  Introduction

   Every interface is assigned an Interface ID, which uniquely
   identifies the interface on the router.  For example, some
   implementations MAY be able to use the MIB-II IfIndex [RFC2863] as
   the Interface ID.

   Local/Remote Interface Identifiers MAY be flooded by OSPF [RFC2328]
   as defined in [RFC4203].  From the perspective of the advertising
   router, the Local Interface Identifier is a known value, however the
   Remote Interface Identifier needs to be learnt before it can be
   advertised.  [RFC4203] suggests to use TE Link Local LSA [RFC3630] to
   communicate Local Interface Identifier to neighbors on the link.
   Though such mechanism works, it has some drawbacks.

   This draft proposes an extension to OSPF link-local signaling (LLS)
   [RFC5613] to advertise the Local Interface Identifier.

2.  Interface ID Exchange using TE Opaque LSA

   Usage of the Link Local TE Opaque LSA to propagate the Local
   Interface Identifier to the neighbors on the link is described in
   [RFC4203].  This mechanism has following problems:

      LSAs can only be flooded over an existing adjacency that is in
      Exchange state or greater.  The adjacency state machine progresses



Psenak, et al.          Expires November 16, 2018               [Page 2]


Internet-Draft    OSPF LLS Extensions for Interface ID          May 2018


      independently on each side of the adjacency and, as such, may
      reach the Full state on one side before the TE Link Opaque LSA
      arrives.  The consequence is that link can be initially advertised
      without the Remote Interface Identifier.  Later when the TE Link
      Opaque LSA arrives, the link must be advertised again, this time
      with the valid Remote Interface Identifier.  Implementation may
      choose to wait before advertising the link, but there is no
      guarantee that the neighbor will ever advertise the TE Link Opaque
      LSA with the Interface Identifier.  In summary, the existing
      mechanism does not guarantee that Remote Interface Identifier is
      known at the time the link is advertised.

      TE Opaque LSA is defined for MPLS Traffic Engineering, but the
      knowledge of the Remote Interface Identifier is useful for other
      cases where MPLS TE is not used.  One example is the lack of valid
      2-way connectivity check for remote parallel point-to-point links
      in OSPF.  In such case, TE Opaque LSAs are not exchanged solely
      for 2-way connectivity correctness.

3.  Interface ID Exchange using OSPF LLS

   To address the problems described earlier and to allow the Interface
   Identifiers exchange to be part of the neighbor discovery process, we
   propose to extend OSPF link-local signaling to advertise the Local
   Interface Identifier in OSPF Hello packets.

3.1.  Local Interface Identifier TLV

   The Local Interface Identifier TLV is a new LLS TLV.  It has
   following format:

    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |              Type             |             Length            |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                   Local Interface Identifier                  |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   where:

      Type: TBD, suggested value 18

      Length: 4 octet

      Local Interface Identifier: The value of the local Interface
      Identifier.




Psenak, et al.          Expires November 16, 2018               [Page 3]


Internet-Draft    OSPF LLS Extensions for Interface ID          May 2018


   Local Interface Identifier TLV MUST be present in all Hello packets
   on all link types, except packets that are sent to the remote end of
   the virtual-link.

4.  Backward Compatibility with RFC 4203

   Implementations which support Local Interface ID signalling using LLS
   MUST prefer the Local Interface ID value received through LLS over
   the value received through the Link Local TE Opaque LSAs.

   Implementations which also support the Local Interface ID signalling
   via Link Local TE Opaque LSA MAY continue to do so to ensure backward
   compatibility and they MUST signal the same local interface id via
   both mechanisms.

   During the rare conditions, when the Local Interface ID changes, a
   timing interval may exist, where the received values of the Local
   Interface ID advertised through LLS and Link Local TE Opaque LSA may
   differ.  Such situation is temporary and received values via both
   mechanisms should become equal as soon as the next Hello and/or Link
   Local TE Opaque LSA is re-generated by the originator.

5.  IANA Considerations

   This specification updates Link Local Signalling TLV Identifiers
   registry.

   Following values is allocated:

   o 18 - Local Interface Identifier TLV

6.  Security Considerations

   Implementations must assure that malformed LLS TLV and Sub-TLV
   permutations do not result in errors which cause hard OSPF failures.

7.  Contributors

8.  Acknowledgements

   Thanks to Tony Przygienda for his extensive review and useful
   comments.

9.  Normative References







Psenak, et al.          Expires November 16, 2018               [Page 4]


Internet-Draft    OSPF LLS Extensions for Interface ID          May 2018


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

   [RFC2328]  Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2328, April 1998,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2328>.

   [RFC2863]  McCloghrie, K. and F. Kastenholz, "The Interfaces Group
              MIB", RFC 2863, DOI 10.17487/RFC2863, June 2000,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2863>.

   [RFC3630]  Katz, D., Kompella, K., and D. Yeung, "Traffic Engineering
              (TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC 3630,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3630, September 2003,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3630>.

   [RFC4203]  Kompella, K., Ed. and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "OSPF Extensions in
              Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
              (GMPLS)", RFC 4203, DOI 10.17487/RFC4203, October 2005,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4203>.

   [RFC5340]  Coltun, R., Ferguson, D., Moy, J., and A. Lindem, "OSPF
              for IPv6", RFC 5340, DOI 10.17487/RFC5340, July 2008,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5340>.

   [RFC5613]  Zinin, A., Roy, A., Nguyen, L., Friedman, B., and D.
              Yeung, "OSPF Link-Local Signaling", RFC 5613,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5613, August 2009,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5613>.

Authors' Addresses

   Peter Psenak (editor)
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   Apollo Business Center
   Mlynske nivy 43
   Bratislava  821 09
   Slovakia

   Email: ppsenak@cisco.com









Psenak, et al.          Expires November 16, 2018               [Page 5]


Internet-Draft    OSPF LLS Extensions for Interface ID          May 2018


   Ketan Jivan Talaulikar
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   S.No. 154/6, Phase I, Hinjawadi
   PUNE, MAHARASHTRA   411 057
   India

   Email: ketant@cisco.com


   Wim Henderickx
   Nokia
   Copernicuslaan 50
   Antwerp  2018
   BE

   Email: wim.henderickx@nokia.com


   Padma Pillay-Esnault
   Huawei
   2330 Central Expressway
   Santa Clara,  CA 95050
   USA

   Email: padma@huawei.com


























Psenak, et al.          Expires November 16, 2018               [Page 6]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.127, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/