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

Versions: (draft-atlas-ospf-mrt) 00 01 02 03

OSPF Working Group                                              A. Atlas
Internet-Draft                                                  S. Hegde
Intended status: Standards Track                               C. Bowers
Expires: January 1, 2018                                Juniper Networks
                                                             J. Tantsura
                                                              Individual
                                                                   Z. Li
                                                     Huawei Technologies
                                                           June 30, 2017


          OSPF Extensions to Support Maximally Redundant Trees
                         draft-ietf-ospf-mrt-03

Abstract

   This document specifies extensions to OSPF to support the distributed
   computation of Maximally Redundant Trees (MRT).  Some example uses of
   the MRTs include IP/LDP Fast-Reroute and global protection or live-
   live for multicast traffic.  The extensions indicate what MRT
   profile(s) each router supports.  Different MRT profiles can be
   defined to support different uses and to allow transitioning of
   capabilities.  An extension is introduced to flood MRT-Ineligible
   links, due to administrative policy.

   The need for a mechanism to allow routers to advertise a worst-case
   FIB compute/install time is well understood for controlling
   convergence.  This specification introduces the Controlled
   Convergence TLV to be carried in the Router Information LSA.

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 January 1, 2018.





Atlas, et al.            Expires January 1, 2018                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft       OSPF Extensions to Support MRT            June 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
   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.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   4.  Overview of OSPF Extensions for MRT . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     4.1.  Supporting MRT Profiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     4.2.  GADAG Root Selection  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     4.3.  Triggering an MRT Computation . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   5.  MRT Profile TLV in Router Information LSA . . . . . . . . . .   5
   6.  Advertising MRT-ineligible links for MRT  . . . . . . . . . .   7
     6.1.  MRT-Ineligible Link sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   7.  Worst-Case Network Convergence Time . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   8.  Backwards Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     8.1.  Handling MRT Capability Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   9.  Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   11. Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   12. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     12.1.  MRT Profile and Controlled Convergence TLVs  . . . . . .  10
     12.2.  MRT-Ineligible Link sub-TLV  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   13. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     13.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     13.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12

1.  Introduction

   This document describes the OSPF extensions necessary to support the
   architecture that defines how IP/LDP Fast-Reroute can use MRTs
   [RFC7812].  At least one common standardized algorithm (such as the
   lowpoint algorithm explained and fully documented in [RFC7811]) is
   required so that the routers supporting MRT computation consistently



Atlas, et al.            Expires January 1, 2018                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft       OSPF Extensions to Support MRT            June 2017


   compute the same MRTs.  MRT can also be used to protect multicast
   traffic via either global protection or local
   protection.[I-D.atlas-rtgwg-mrt-mc-arch]

   IP/LDP Fast-Reroute using MRTs can provide 100% coverage for link and
   node failures in an arbitrary network topology where the failure
   doesn't split the network.  It can also be deployed incrementally
   inside an OSPF area; an MRT Island is formed of connected supporting
   routers and the MRTs are computed inside that island.

   In the default MRT profile, a supporting router both computes the
   MRTs and creates the necessary transit forwarding state necessary to
   provide the two additional forwarding topologies, known as MRT-Blue
   and MRT-Red.

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]

3.  Terminology

   For ease of reading, some of the terminology defined in [RFC7812] is
   repeated here.

   network graph:   A graph that reflects the network topology where all
      links connect exactly two nodes and broadcast links have been
      transformed into the standard pseudo-node representation.

   Redundant Trees (RT):   A pair of trees where the path from any node
      X to the root R along the first tree is node-disjoint with the
      path from the same node X to the root along the second tree.
      These can be computed in 2-connected graphs.

   Maximally Redundant Trees (MRT):   A pair of trees where the path
      from any node X to the root R along the first tree and the path
      from the same node X to the root along the second tree share the
      minimum number of nodes and the minimum number of links.  Each
      such shared node is a cut-vertex.  Any shared links are cut-links.
      Any RT is an MRT but many MRTs are not RTs.

   MRT Island:   From the computing router, the set of routers that
      support a particular MRT profile and are connected via MRT-
      eligible links.






Atlas, et al.            Expires January 1, 2018                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft       OSPF Extensions to Support MRT            June 2017


   GADAG:   Generalized Almost Directed Acyclic Graph - a graph that is
      the combination of the ADAGs of all blocks.  Transforming a
      network graph into a GADAG is part of the MRT algorithm.

   MRT-Red:   MRT-Red is used to describe one of the two MRTs; it is
      used to described the associated forwarding topology and MT-ID.
      Specifically, MRT-Red is the decreasing MRT where links in the
      GADAG are taken in the direction from a higher topologically
      ordered node to a lower one.

   MRT-Blue:   MRT-Blue is used to describe one of the two MRTs; it is
      used to described the associated forwarding topology and MT-ID.
      Specifically, MRT-Blue is the increasing MRT where links in the
      GADAG are taken in the direction from a lower topologically
      ordered node to a higher one.

4.  Overview of OSPF Extensions for MRT

   There are two separate aspects that need to be advertised in OSPF.
   Both derive from the need for all routers supporting an MRT profile
   to compute the same pair of MRTs to each destination.  By executing
   the same algorithm on the same network graph, distributed routers
   will compute the same MRTs.  Convergence considerations are discussed
   in [RFC7812].

   The first aspect that must be advertised is which MRT profile(s) are
   supported and the associated GADAG Root Selection Priority.  The
   second aspect that must be advertised is any links that are not
   eligible, due to administrative policy, to be part of the MRTs.  This
   must be advertised consistently across the area so that all routers
   in the MRT Island use the same network graph.

4.1.  Supporting MRT Profiles

   An MRT Profile defines the exact MRT Algorithm, the MRT-Red LDP MT-
   ID, the MRT-Blue LDP MT-ID, and the forwarding mechanisms supported
   for the transit MRT-Red and MRT-Blue forwarding topologies.  Finally,
   the MRT Profile defines exact behavioral rules such as:

   o  how reconvergence is handled,

   o  inter-area forwarding behavior,

   A router that advertises support for an MRT Profile MUST provide the
   specified forwarding mechanism for its MRT-Red and MRT-Blue
   forwarding topologies.  A router that advertises support for an MRT
   Profile MUST implement an algorithm that produces the same set of
   MRT-Red and MRT-Blue next-hops for its MRT-Red and MRT-Blue



Atlas, et al.            Expires January 1, 2018                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft       OSPF Extensions to Support MRT            June 2017


   topologies as is provided by the algorithm specified in the MRT
   Profile.

   A router MAY indicate support for multiple MRT Profiles.  A router
   computes its local MRT Island for each separate MRT Profile that the
   router supports.  Supporting multiple MRT Profiles also provides a
   mechanism for transitioning from one profile to another.  Different
   uses of MRT forwarding topologies may behave better on different MRT
   profiles.

   The default MRT Profile is defined in [RFC7812].  Its behavior is
   intended to support IP/LDP unicast and multicast fast-reroute.

4.2.  GADAG Root Selection

   One aspect of the MRT algorithms is that the selection of the GADAG
   root can affect the alternates and the traffic through that GADAG
   root.  Therefore, it is important to provide an operator with control
   over which router will play the role of GADAG root.  A measure of the
   centrality of a node may help determine how good a choice a
   particular node is.

   The GADAG Root Selection Policy (defined as part of an MRT profile)
   may make use of the GADAG Root Selection Priority value advertised in
   the MRT Profile TLV of the Router Information LSA.  For example, the
   GADAG Root Selection Policy for the default MRT profile is the
   following: Among the routers in the MRT Island and with the highest
   priority advertised, an implementation MUST pick the router with the
   highest Router ID to be the GADAG root.

4.3.  Triggering an MRT Computation

   When an MRT Computation is triggered, it is triggered for a given MRT
   Profile in a given area.  First, the associated MRT Island is
   determined.  Then, the GADAG Root is selected.  Finally, the actual
   MRT algorithm is run to compute the transit MRT-Red and MRT-Blue
   topologies.  Additionally, the router MAY choose to compute MRT-FRR
   alternates or make other use of the MRT computation results.

   Prefixes can be attached and detached and have their associated MRT-
   Red and MRT-Blue next-hops computed without requiring a new MRT
   computation.

5.  MRT Profile TLV in Router Information LSA

   A router may advertise an MRT Profile TLV to indicate support for one
   or more MRT Profiles.  The MRT Profile TLV is advertised within the




Atlas, et al.            Expires January 1, 2018                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft       OSPF Extensions to Support MRT            June 2017


   OSPF router information LSA which is defined for both OSPFv2 and
   OSPFv3 in [RFC7770].  The RI LSA MUST have area scope.

   Note that the presence of the MRT Profile TLV indicates support for a
   given MRT profile in the default topology (MT-ID = 0).  The
   extensions in this document do not define a method to advertise
   support for MRT profiles in topologies with non-zero MT-ID.



       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              |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      | Profile ID(1) |GADAG Priority |         Reserved              |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                         ..............                        |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      | Profile ID(n) |GADAG Priority |         Reserved              |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

      TYPE:  TBA-MRT-OSPF-1 (To Be Allocated by IANA)
      LENGTH: 4 * (number of Profiles)
      Profile ID :  1 byte
      GADAG Priority: 1 byte


                 MRT Profile TLV in Router Information LSA

   Each Profile ID listed indicates support for a given MRT Profile, as
   defined in [RFC7812].  A Profile ID value of 0 corresponds to the
   Default MRT profile.

   The GADAG Priority is the GADAG Root Selection Priority associated
   with the advertising router in the MRT Island for the associated MRT
   Profile, as indicated by the Profile ID.  An implementation SHOULD
   send a default value of 128 for the GADAG Root Selection Priority if
   another value is not explicitly configured.

   The length of this TLV depends on the number of MRT profiles
   supported.  The ordering of the profiles inside the TLV is not
   significant.  Multiple appearances of this TLV is not an error.

   An advertising router MUST NOT advertise the same Profile ID multiple
   times in one or more TLVs.  If a receiving router receives multiple
   appearances of the same Profile ID for the same router, it MUST treat
   the advertising router as NOT supporting the MRT Profile associated



Atlas, et al.            Expires January 1, 2018                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft       OSPF Extensions to Support MRT            June 2017


   with that Profile ID.  This is the case even if the multiple
   appearances of the same Profile ID have the same GADAG Priority
   values.  However, other Profile IDs advertised by the same
   advertising router that are not repeated should continue to be
   honored by the receiving router.  The receiving router SHOULD also
   log an error message regarding the multiple appearances of the same
   Profile ID for the same router.

6.  Advertising MRT-ineligible links for MRT

   Due to administrative policy, some otherwise eligible links in the
   network topology may need to be excluded from the network graph upon
   which the MRT algorithm is run.  Since the same network graph must be
   used across the area, it is critical for OSPF to flood which links to
   exclude from the MRT calculation.  This is done by introducing a new
   MRT-Ineligible Link sub-TLV.  For OSPFv2, this sub-TLV is carried in
   the Extended Link TLV defined in [I-D.ietf-ospf-prefix-link-attr].
   For OSPFv3, this sub-TLV is carried in the Router-Link TLV defined in
   [I-D.ietf-ospf-ospfv3-lsa-extend].

   If a link is marked by administrative policy as MRT-Ineligible, then
   a router MUST flood the OSPFv2 Extended Link TLV (or OSPFv3 Router-
   Link TLV) for that link, including the MRT-Ineligible Link sub-TLV.
   The OSPVv2 Extended Link TLV and OSPFv3 Router-Link TLV have area
   wide scope.

   Note that a router that advertises support for MRT with the MRT
   Profile TLV MUST also support receipt of the MRT-Ineligible Link sub-
   TLVs.  This ensures that all routers participating in a given MRT
   Island have the same view of the links included in the MRT Island.

6.1.  MRT-Ineligible Link sub-TLV


       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               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

      TYPE:  TBA-MRT-OSPF-2 in OSPFv2 Extended Link TLV
             TBA-MRT-OSPF-3 in OSPFv3 Router-Link TLV
             (To Be Allocated by IANA)
      LENGTH: 0


                        MRT-Ineligible Link sub-TLV




Atlas, et al.            Expires January 1, 2018                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft       OSPF Extensions to Support MRT            June 2017


   This zero-length sub-TLV can appear in the OSPFv2 Extended Link TLV
   or the OSPFv3 Router-Link TLV.  Its presence indicates that the
   associated link MUST NOT be used in the MRT calculation for all
   profiles.

7.  Worst-Case Network Convergence Time

   As part of converging the network after a single failure,
   Section 12.2 of [RFC7812] describes the need to wait for a configured
   or advertised period for all routers to be using their new SPTs.
   Similarly, some proposals to avoid micro-forwarding loops during
   convergence[RFC5715] require determining the maximum among all
   routers in the area of the worst-case route computation and FIB
   installation time.  More details on the specific reasoning and need
   for flooding it are given in [I-D.atlas-bryant-shand-lf-timers].


       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              |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |         Reserved              |    FIB compute/install time   |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

      TYPE:  TBA-MRT-OSPF-4 (To Be Allocated by IANA)
      LENGTH: 4
      FIB compute/install time:  This is the worst-case time the router
          may take to compute and install all OSPF routes in the area
          after a change to a stable network.  The value is
          in milliseconds.


           Controlled Convergence TLV in Router Information LSA

   The Controlled Convergence TLV is carried in the Router Information
   LSA and flooded with area-wide scope.  The FIB compute/install time
   value sent by a router SHOULD be an estimate taking into account
   network scale or real-time measurements, or both.  Advertisements
   SHOULD be dampened to avoid frequent communication of small changes
   in the FIB compute/install time.

   A router receiving the Controlled Convergence TLV SHOULD estimate the
   network convergence time as the maximum of the FIB compute/install
   times advertised by the routers in an area, including itself.  In
   order to account for routers that do not advertise the Controlled
   Convergence TLV, a router MAY use a locally configured minimum
   network convergence time as a lower bound on the computed network



Atlas, et al.            Expires January 1, 2018                [Page 8]


Internet-Draft       OSPF Extensions to Support MRT            June 2017


   convergence time.  A router MAY use a locally configured maximum
   network convergence time as an upper bound on the computed network
   convergence time.

8.  Backwards Compatibility

   The MRT Profile TLV, the MRT-Ineligible Link sub-TLV, the OSPFv3 MRT-
   Ineligible Link sub-TLV, and the Controlled Convergence TLV are
   defined in this document.  A router that does not understand the MRT
   Profile TLV will ignore it.  A router that does not advertise an MRT
   Profile TLV with a Profile ID may do so either because it doesn't
   understand the MRT Profile TLV, or because it understands these
   extensions, but chooses not to advertise support for any MRT profile.
   Routers that support the MRT Profile TLV will treat either case in
   the same manner, by excluding the router not advertising the MRT
   Profile from the particular MRT Island.

   The MRT-Ineligible Link sub-TLVs will be ignored by a router that
   doesn't understand MRT, and a router supporting MRT must support
   receipt of the MRT-Ineligible Link sub-TLVs.

   Finally, applications that utilize the Controlled Convergence TLV can
   use local configuration to account for routers that do not understand
   the Controlled Convergence TLV.

8.1.  Handling MRT Capability Changes

   When a router that is running a version of software supporting MRT is
   downgraded to software that does not support MRT, it is important
   that the routers still running MRT do not continue to use the Router
   Information LSA (RI LSA) containing the MRT Profile TLV advertised by
   the downgraded router before the downgrade.  As long as the
   downgraded router supports Opaque LSAs, the downgraded router will
   purge the old RI LSA containing the MRT Profile TLV that it
   originated before the downgrade.  This will occur when the downgraded
   router receives the self-originated RI LSA after restarting, as
   described in Section 13.4 and 14.1 of [RFC2328].  This behavior is
   clearly required when the downgraded router supports the RI LSA.

   It is also reasonable to expect this behavior even when the software
   on the downgraded router does not understand the RI LSA.  Although
   this precise behavior is not explicitly described in [RFC2328] , it
   is reasonable to infer from the documents.  As long as the downgraded
   router supports Opaque LSAs, it is required to flood link-state type
   10 (area-local scope) Opaque LSAs, even those that it does not
   understand [RFC5250].  So, when a restarting router receives a self-
   originated link-state type 10 Opaque LSA whose Option Type it does
   not recognize, it can (in principle) flood it or purge it.  Purging



Atlas, et al.            Expires January 1, 2018                [Page 9]


Internet-Draft       OSPF Extensions to Support MRT            June 2017


   an unknown self-originated Opaque LSA is the most reasonable thing to
   do.

9.  Implementation Status

   [RFC Editor: please remove this section prior to publication.]

   Please see [RFC7812] for details on implementation status.

10.  Security Considerations

   This OSPF extension is not believed to introduce new security
   concerns.  It relies upon the security architecture already provided
   for Router LSAs and Router Information LSAs.

11.  Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to thank Anil Kumar SN for his suggestions and
   review.

12.  IANA Considerations

12.1.  MRT Profile and Controlled Convergence TLVs

   IANA is requested to allocate values for the following OSPF Router
   Information TLV Types [RFC7770]: MRT Profile TLV (TBA-MRT-OSPF-1),
   and Controlled Convergence TLV (TBA-MRT-OSPF-4).  The requested
   entries in the OSPF Router Information (RI) TLVs registry are shown
   below.

   Type Value      Capabilities                  Reference
   -------------   ----------------------        ------------
   TBA-MRT-OSPF-1  MRT Profile TLV               [This draft]
   TBA-MRT-OSPF-4  Controlled Convergence TLV    [This draft]

12.2.  MRT-Ineligible Link sub-TLV

   IANA is requested to allocate a value from the OSPF Extended Link TLV
   sub-TLV registry defined in [I-D.ietf-ospf-prefix-link-attr] for the
   MRT-Ineligible Link sub-TLV (TBA-MRT-OSPF-2).  The OSPF Extended Link
   TLV sub-TLV registry after implementing the above request is shown
   below.









Atlas, et al.            Expires January 1, 2018               [Page 10]


Internet-Draft       OSPF Extensions to Support MRT            June 2017


  Value           Description                   Reference
  -------------   ----------------------        ------------
  0               Reserved                      [prefix-link-attr-draft]
  TBA-MRT-OSPF-2  MRT-Ineligible Link sub-TLV   [This draft]
  2-32767         Unassigned                    [prefix-link-attr-draft]
  32768-33023     Reserved for Experimental Use [prefix-link-attr-draft]
  33024-65535     Reserved                      [prefix-link-attr-draft]

   IANA is requested to allocate a value from the OSPFv3 Extended-LSA
   sub-TLV registry [I-D.ietf-ospf-ospfv3-lsa-extend] for the MRT-
   Ineligible Link sub-TLV (TBA-MRT-OSPF-3).  The OSPFv3 Extended-LSA
   sub-TLV registry has not yet been created by IANA.

13.  References

13.1.  Normative References

   [I-D.ietf-ospf-ospfv3-lsa-extend]
              Lindem, A., Roy, A., Goethals, D., Vallem, V., and F.
              Baker, "OSPFv3 LSA Extendibility", draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-
              lsa-extend-14 (work in progress), April 2017.

   [I-D.ietf-ospf-prefix-link-attr]
              Psenak, P., Gredler, H., rjs@rob.sh, r., Henderickx, W.,
              Tantsura, J., and A. Lindem, "OSPFv2 Prefix/Link Attribute
              Advertisement", draft-ietf-ospf-prefix-link-attr-13 (work
              in progress), August 2015.

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

   [RFC5250]  Berger, L., Bryskin, I., Zinin, A., and R. Coltun, "The
              OSPF Opaque LSA Option", RFC 5250, DOI 10.17487/RFC5250,
              July 2008, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5250>.

   [RFC7770]  Lindem, A., Ed., Shen, N., Vasseur, JP., Aggarwal, R., and
              S. Shaffer, "Extensions to OSPF for Advertising Optional
              Router Capabilities", RFC 7770, DOI 10.17487/RFC7770,
              February 2016, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7770>.

   [RFC7811]  Enyedi, G., Csaszar, A., Atlas, A., Bowers, C., and A.
              Gopalan, "An Algorithm for Computing IP/LDP Fast Reroute
              Using Maximally Redundant Trees (MRT-FRR)", RFC 7811,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7811, June 2016,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7811>.





Atlas, et al.            Expires January 1, 2018               [Page 11]


Internet-Draft       OSPF Extensions to Support MRT            June 2017


   [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>.

13.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.atlas-bryant-shand-lf-timers]
              K, A. and S. Bryant, "Synchronisation of Loop Free Timer
              Values", draft-atlas-bryant-shand-lf-timers-04 (work in
              progress), February 2008.

   [I-D.atlas-rtgwg-mrt-mc-arch]
              Atlas, A., Kebler, R., Wijnands, I., Csaszar, A., and G.
              Envedi, "An Architecture for Multicast Protection Using
              Maximally Redundant Trees", draft-atlas-rtgwg-mrt-mc-
              arch-02 (work in progress), July 2013.

   [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>.

   [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>.

Authors' Addresses

   Alia Atlas
   Juniper Networks
   10 Technology Park Drive
   Westford, MA  01886
   USA

   Email: akatlas@juniper.net


   Shraddha Hegde
   Juniper Networks
   Embassy Business Park
   Bangalore, KA  560093
   India

   Email: shraddha@juniper.net






Atlas, et al.            Expires January 1, 2018               [Page 12]


Internet-Draft       OSPF Extensions to Support MRT            June 2017


   Chris Bowers
   Juniper Networks
   1194 N. Mathilda Ave.
   Sunnyvale, CA  94089
   USA

   Email: cbowers@juniper.net


   Jeff Tantsura
   Individual
   USA

   Email: jefftant.ietf@gmail.com


   Zhenbin Li
   Huawei Technologies
   Huawei Bld., No.156 Beiqing Rd.
   Beijing  100095
   China

   Email: lizhenbin@huawei.com




























Atlas, et al.            Expires January 1, 2018               [Page 13]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.126, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/