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

Versions: (draft-keyupate-ospf-ospfv2-hbit) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06

OSPF                                                            K. Patel
Internet-Draft                                                    Arrcus
Updates: 2328 (if approved)                            P. Pillay-Esnault
Intended status: Standards Track                     Huawei Technologies
Expires: February 28, 2019                                   M. Bhardwaj
                                                            S. Bayraktar
                                                           Cisco Systems
                                                         August 27, 2018


                        H-bit Support for OSPFv2
                     draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv2-hbit-06

Abstract

   OSPFv3 defines an option bit for router-LSAs known as the R-bit in
   RFC5340.  If the R-bit is clear, an OSPFv3 router can participate in
   OSPF topology flooding, however it will not be used as a transit
   router.  In such cases, other routers in the OSPFv3 routing domain
   only install routes to allow local traffic delivery.  This document
   defines the H-bit functionality to prevent other OSPFv2 routers from
   using the router for transit traffic in OSPFv2 routing domains as
   described in RFC 2328.  This document updates RFC 2328.

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 February 28, 2019.

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



Patel, et al.           Expires February 28, 2019               [Page 1]


Internet-Draft                                               August 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.

   This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
   Contributions published or made publicly available before November
   10, 2008.  The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
   material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
   modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
   Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
   the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
   outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
   not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
   it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
   than English.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  H-bit Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   4.  SPF Modifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   5.  Auto Discovery and Backward Compatibility . . . . . . . . . .   5
   6.  OSPF AS-External-LSAs/NSSA LSAs with Type 2 Metrics . . . . .   6
   7.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   8.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   9.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   10. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     10.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     10.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8

1.  Introduction

   OSPFv3 [RFC5340] defines an option bit for router-LSAs known as the
   R-bit.  If the R-bit is clear, an OSPFv3 router can participate in
   OSPFv3 topology flooding without acting as a transit router.  In such
   cases, other routers in the OSPFv3 routing domain only install routes
   used for local traffic.

   This functionality is particularly useful for BGP Route Reflectors,
   known as virtual Route Reflectors (vRRs), that are not in the
   forwarding path but are in central locations such as data centers.
   Such Route Reflectors typically are used for route distribution and



Patel, et al.           Expires February 28, 2019               [Page 2]


Internet-Draft                                               August 2018


   are not capable of forwarding transit traffic.  However, they need to
   learn the OSPF topology for:

   1.  SPF computation for Optimal Route Reflection functionality as
       defined in [I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-optimal-route-reflection]

   2.  Reachability resolution for its Route Reflector Clients.

   This document defines the R-bit functionality equivalent for OSPFv2
   defined in [RFC2328] by introducing a new router-LSA bit known as the
   "H-bit".  This document updates appendix A.4.2 of RFC 2328.

2.  Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
   14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

3.  H-bit Support

   This document defines a new router-LSA bit known as the Host Bit or
   the H-bit.  An OSPFv2 router advertising a router-LSA with the H-bit
   set indicates to other OSPFv2 routers in the area supporting the
   functionality that it MUST NOT be used as a transit router.  The bit
   value usage of the H-bit is reversed from the R-bit defined in OSPFv3
   [RFC5340] to support backward compatibility.  The modified OSPFv2
   router-LSA format is:






















Patel, et al.           Expires February 28, 2019               [Page 3]


Internet-Draft                                               August 2018


        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   |       1       |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                        Link State ID                          |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                     Advertising Router                        |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                     LS sequence number                        |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |         LS checksum           |             length            |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |H|0|0|N|W|V|E|B|        0      |            # links            |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                          Link ID                              |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                         Link Data                             |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |     Type      |     # TOS     |            metric             |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                              ...                              |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |      TOS      |        0      |          TOS  metric          |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                          Link ID                              |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                         Link Data                             |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                              ...                              |

      bit H
          When set, an OSPFv2 router is a non-transit router and is
          incapable of forwarding transit traffic.


   When the H-bit is set, an OSPFv2 router is a non-transit router and
   should not be used to forward transit traffic.  In this mode, the
   other OSPFv2 routers in the area SHOULD NOT use the originating
   OSPFv2 router for transit traffic, but MAY use the OSPFv2 router for
   local traffic destined to that OSPFv2 router.

   An OSPFv2 router originating a router-LSA with the H-bit set SHOULD
   advertise all its non-local router links with a link cost of
   MaxLinkMetric as defined in Section 3 of [RFC6987].  This is to
   increase the applicability of the H-bit to partial deployments where
   it is the responsibility of the operator to ensure that OSPFv2




Patel, et al.           Expires February 28, 2019               [Page 4]


Internet-Draft                                               August 2018


   routers not supporting the H-bit do not install routes causing
   routing loops.

   When the H-bit is set, IPv4 prefixes associated with local interfaces
   in other areas MAY be advertised in summary LSAs.  Non-local IPv4
   prefixes, e.g., those advertised by other routers and installed
   during the SPF computation, MAY be advertised in summary-LSAs if
   configured by policy.  Likewise, when the H-bit is set, only IPv4
   prefixes associated with local interfaces MAY be advertised in AS-
   external LSAs.  Non-local IPv4 prefixes, e.g., those exported from
   other routing protocols, MUST NOT be advertised in AS-external-LSAs.
   Finally, when the H-bit is set, an Area Border Router (ABR) MUST
   advertise a consistent H-bit setting in its self-originated router-
   LSAs for all attached areas.

4.  SPF Modifications

   The SPF calculation described in section 16.1 [RFC2328] will be
   modified to ensure that the routers originating router-LSAs with the
   H-bit set will not be used for transit traffic.  Step 2 is modified
   as follows:


                2) Call the vertex just added to the
                   tree vertex V.  Examine the LSA
                   associated with vertex V.  This is
                   a lookup in the Area A's link state
                   database based on the Vertex ID. If
                   this is a router-LSA, and the H-bit
                   of the router-LSA is set, and
                   vertex V is not the root, then the
                   router should not be used for transit
                   and step (3) should be executed
                   immediately. If this is a router-LSA,
                   and bit V of the router-LSA (see
                   Section A.4.2) is set, set Area A's
                   TransitCapability to TRUE. In any case,
                   each link described by the LSA gives
                   the cost to an adjacent vertex.  For
                   each described link, (say it joins
                   vertex V to vertex W):


5.  Auto Discovery and Backward Compatibility

   To avoid the possibility of any routing loops due to partial
   deployment, this document defines a OSPF Router-Information LSA
   functional capability bit known as the Host Support capability.



Patel, et al.           Expires February 28, 2019               [Page 5]


Internet-Draft                                               August 2018


   Auto Discovery via announcement of the Host Support Functional
   Capability ensures that the H-bit functionality and its associated
   SPF changes SHOULD only take effect if all the routers in a given
   OSPF area support this functionality.

   Implementations are encouraged to provide a configuration parameter
   to manually override enforcement of the H-bit functionality in
   partial deployments where the topology guarantees that OSPFv2 routers
   not supporting the H-bit do not compute routes resulting in routing
   loops.  More precisely, the advertisement of MaxLinkMetric for the
   router's non-local links will prevent OSPFv2 routers not supporting
   the H-bit from attempting to use it for transit traffic.

6.  OSPF AS-External-LSAs/NSSA LSAs with Type 2 Metrics

   When calculating the path to an OSPF AS-External-LSA or NSSA-LSA with
   a Type-2 metric, the advertised Type-2 metric is taken as more
   significant than the OSPF intra-area or inter-area path.  Hence,
   advertising the links with MaxLinkMetric as specified in [RFC6987]
   does not discourage transit traffic when calculating AS external or
   NSSA routes.  Consequently, OSPF routers implementing [RFC6987] or
   this specification should advertise a Type-2 metric of LSInfinity for
   any self-originated AS-External-LSAs or NSSA-LSAs in situations when
   the OSPF router is acting as a stub router [RFC6987] or implementing
   this specification.

7.  IANA Considerations

   IANA is requested to create the OSPF Router-LSA bit registry with the
   following assignments:

        Value   Description                                 Reference
        0x01    Area Border Router (B-bit)                  [RFC2328]
        0x02    AS Boundary Router (E-bit)                  [RFC2328]
        0x04    Virtual Link Endpoint (V-bit)               [RFC2328]
        0x08    Historic (W-bit)                            [RFC1584]
        0x10    Unconditional NSSA Translator (Nt-bit)      [RFC3101]
        0x20    Unassigned
        0x40    Unassigned
        0x80    Host (H-bit)                            This Document


   This document also defines a new Router Functional Capability
   [RFC7770] known as the Host Support Functional Capability.  This
   document requests IANA to allocate the value of this capability from
   the Router Functional Capability Bits TLV.





Patel, et al.           Expires February 28, 2019               [Page 6]


Internet-Draft                                               August 2018


8.  Security Considerations

   This document introduces no new security considerations beyond those
   already specified in [RFC6987], [RFC2328], and [RFC5340].

9.  Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to acknowledge Hasmit Grover for discovery of
   the limitation in [RFC6987], Acee Lindem, Abhay Roy, David Ward,
   Burjiz Pithawala and Michael Barnes for their comments.

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,
              <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>.

   [RFC3101]  Murphy, P., "The OSPF Not-So-Stubby Area (NSSA) Option",
              RFC 3101, DOI 10.17487/RFC3101, January 2003,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3101>.

   [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>.

   [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, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7770>.

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

10.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-optimal-route-reflection]
              Raszuk, R., Cassar, C., Aman, E., Decraene, B., and K.
              Wang, "BGP Optimal Route Reflection (BGP-ORR)", draft-
              ietf-idr-bgp-optimal-route-reflection-16 (work in
              progress), April 2018.



Patel, et al.           Expires February 28, 2019               [Page 7]


Internet-Draft                                               August 2018


   [RFC1584]  Moy, J., "Multicast Extensions to OSPF", RFC 1584,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC1584, March 1994,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1584>.

   [RFC6987]  Retana, A., Nguyen, L., Zinin, A., White, R., and D.
              McPherson, "OSPF Stub Router Advertisement", RFC 6987,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6987, September 2013,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6987>.

Authors' Addresses

   Keyur Patel
   Arrcus

   Email: keyur@arrcus.com


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

   Email: padma@huawei.com


   Manish Bhardwaj
   Cisco Systems
   170 W. Tasman Drive
   San Jose,  CA 95134
   USA

   Email: manbhard@cisco.com


   Serpil Bayraktar
   Cisco Systems
   170 W. Tasman Drive
   San Jose,  CA 95134
   USA

   Email: serpil@cisco.com









Patel, et al.           Expires February 28, 2019               [Page 8]


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