< draft-acee-lsr-ospf-admin-tags-01.txt   draft-acee-lsr-ospf-admin-tags-02.txt >
Network Working Group A. Lindem, Ed. Network Working Group A. Lindem, Ed.
Internet-Draft P. Psenak Internet-Draft P. Psenak
Intended status: Standards Track Cisco Systems Intended status: Standards Track Cisco Systems
Expires: July 18, 2019 January 14, 2019 Expires: January 9, 2020 July 8, 2019
Extensions to OSPF for Advertising Prefix/Link Administrative Tags Extensions to OSPF for Advertising Prefix/Link Administrative Tags
draft-acee-lsr-ospf-admin-tags-01.txt draft-acee-lsr-ospf-admin-tags-02
Abstract Abstract
It is useful for routers in an OSPFv2 or OSPFv3 routing domain to be It is useful for routers in an OSPFv2 or OSPFv3 routing domain to be
able to associate tags with prefixes and links. Previously, OSPFv2 able to associate tags with prefixes and links. Previously, OSPFv2
and OSPFv3 were relegated to a single tag for AS External and Not-So- and OSPFv3 were relegated to a single tag for AS External and Not-So-
Stubby-Area (NSSA) prefixes. With the flexible encodings provided by Stubby-Area (NSSA) prefixes. With the flexible encodings provided by
OSPFv2 Prefix/Link Attribute Advertisement and OSPFv3 Extended LSAs, OSPFv2 Prefix/Link Attribute Advertisement and OSPFv3 Extended LSAs,
multiple administrative tags may advertised for all types of prefixes multiple administrative tags may advertised for all types of prefixes
and links. These administrative tags can be used for many and links. These administrative tags can be used for many
skipping to change at page 1, line 35 skipping to change at page 1, line 35
RFC 5130. RFC 5130.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on July 18, 2019. This Internet-Draft will expire on January 9, 2020.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Requirements notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1. Requirements notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. 32-Bit Administrative Tag Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. 32-Bit Administrative Tag Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Administrative Tag Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. Administrative Tag Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Protocol Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4. Protocol Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1. Equal-Cost Multipath Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4.1. Equal-Cost Multipath Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Appendix A. 64-Bit Administrative Tag Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . 7 Appendix A. 64-Bit Administrative Tag Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . 7
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
It is useful for routers in an OSPFv2 [OSPF] or OSPFv3 [OSPF] routing It is useful for routers in an OSPFv2 [RFC2328] or OSPFv3 [RFC5340]
domain to be able to associate tags with prefixes and links. routing domain to be able to associate tags with prefixes and links.
Previously, OSPFv3 and OSPFv3 were relegated to a single tag for AS Previously, OSPFv3 and OSPFv3 were relegated to a single tag for AS
External and Not-So-Stubby-Area (NSSA) prefixes. With the flexible External and Not-So-Stubby-Area (NSSA) prefixes. With the flexible
encodings provided by OSPFv2 Prefix/Link Attribute Advertisement encodings provided by OSPFv2 Prefix/Link Attribute Advertisement
([OSPFV2-PREFIX-LINK]) and OSPFv3 Extended LSA ([RFC7684]) and OSPFv3 Extended LSA ([RFC8362]), multiple
([OSPFV3-EXTENDED-LSA]), multiple administrative tags may be administrative tags may be advertised for all types of prefixes and
advertised for all types of prefixes and links. These administrative links. These administrative tags can be used many applications
tags can be used many applications including (but not limited to): including (but not limited to):
1. Controlling which routes are redistributed into other protocols 1. Controlling which routes are redistributed into other protocols
for readvertisement. for readvertisement.
2. Prioritizing selected prefixes for faster convergence and 2. Prioritizing selected prefixes for faster convergence and
installation in the forwarding plane. installation in the forwarding plane.
3. Identifying selected prefixes for Loop-Free Alternative (LFA) 3. Identifying selected prefixes for Loop-Free Alternative (LFA)
protection. protection.
Throughout this document, OSPF is used when the text applies to both Throughout this document, OSPF is used when the text applies to both
OSPFv2 and OSPFv3. OSPFv2 or OSPFv3 is used when the text is OSPFv2 and OSPFv3. OSPFv2 or OSPFv3 is used when the text is
specific to one version of the OSPF protocol. specific to one version of the OSPF protocol.
The ISIS protocol supports a similar mechanism that is described in The ISIS protocol supports a similar mechanism that is described in
RFC 5130 [ISIS-ADMIN-TAGS]. RFC 5130 [RFC5130].
1.1. Requirements notation 1.1. Requirements notation
1.1.1. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC-KEYWORDS]. "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.
2. 32-Bit Administrative Tag Sub-TLV 2. 32-Bit Administrative Tag Sub-TLV
This document creates a new Administrative Tag Sub-TLV for OSPFv2 and This document creates a new Administrative Tag Sub-TLV for OSPFv2 and
OSPFv3. This Sub-TLV specifies one or more 32-bit unsigned integers OSPFv3. This Sub-TLV specifies one or more 32-bit unsigned integers
that may be associated with an OSPF advertised prefix or OSPF Link. that may be associated with an OSPF advertised prefix or OSPF Link.
The precise usage of these tags is beyond the scope of this document. The precise usage of these tags is beyond the scope of this document.
The format of this Sub-TLV is the same as the format used by the The format of this Sub-TLV is the same as the format used by the
Traffic Engineering Extensions to OSPF [TE]. The LSA payload Traffic Engineering Extensions to OSPF [RFC3630]. The LSA payload
consists of one or more nested Type/Length/Value (TLV) triplets. The consists of one or more nested Type/Length/Value (TLV) triplets. The
format of each TLV is: format of each TLV is:
0 1 2 3 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 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 | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Value... | | Value... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
skipping to change at page 4, line 40 skipping to change at page 4, line 40
tags. tags.
32-bit Administrative Tag Sub-TLV 32-bit Administrative Tag Sub-TLV
This sub-TLV will carry one or more 32-bit unsigned integer values This sub-TLV will carry one or more 32-bit unsigned integer values
that will be used as administrative tags. that will be used as administrative tags.
3. Administrative Tag Applicability 3. Administrative Tag Applicability
The administrative tag TLV specified herein will be valid as a sub- The administrative tag TLV specified herein will be valid as a sub-
TLV of the following TLVs specified in [OSPFV2-PREFIX-LINK]: TLV of the following TLVs specified in [RFC7684]:
1. Extended Prefix TLV advertised in the OSPFv2 Extended Prefix LSA 1. Extended Prefix TLV advertised in the OSPFv2 Extended Prefix LSA
2. Extended Link TLV advertised in the OSPFv2 Extended Prefix LSA 2. Extended Link TLV advertised in the OSPFv2 Extended Prefix LSA
The administrative tag TLV specified herein will be valid as a sub- The administrative tag TLV specified herein will be valid as a sub-
TLV of the following TLVs specified in [OSPFV3-EXTENDED-LSA]: TLV of the following TLVs specified in [RFC8362]:
1. Router-Link TLV advertised in the E-Router-LSA 1. Router-Link TLV advertised in the E-Router-LSA
2. Inter-Area-Prefix TLV advertised in the E-Inter-Area-Prefix-LSA 2. Inter-Area-Prefix TLV advertised in the E-Inter-Area-Prefix-LSA
3. Intra-Area-Prefix TLV advertised in the E-Link-LSA and the E- 3. Intra-Area-Prefix TLV advertised in the E-Link-LSA and the E-
Intra-Area-LSA Intra-Area-LSA
4. External-Prefix TLV advertised in the E-AS-External-LSA and the 4. External-Prefix TLV advertised in the E-AS-External-LSA and the
E-NSSA-LSA E-NSSA-LSA
4. Protocol Operation 4. Protocol Operation
An OSPF router supporting this specification MUST propagate An OSPF router supporting this specification MUST propagate
administrative tags when acting as an Area Border Router and administrative tags when acting as an Area Border Router and
originating summary advertisements into other areas. Similarly, an originating summary advertisements into other areas. Similarly, an
OSPF router supporting this specification and acting as an ABR for a OSPF router supporting this specification and acting as an ABR for a
Not-So-Stubby Area (NSSA) MUST propagate tags when translating NSSA Not-So-Stubby Area (NSSA) MUST propagate tags when translating NSSA
routes to AS External advertisements [NSSA]. The number of tags routes to AS External advertisements [RFC3101]. The number of tags
supported MAY limit the number of tags that are propagated. When supported MAY limit the number of tags that are propagated. When
propagating multiple tags, the order of the the tags must be propagating multiple tags, the order of the the tags must be
preserved. preserved.
For configured area ranges, NSSA ranges, and configurated For configured area ranges, NSSA ranges, and configurated
summarization of redistributed routes, tags from component routes summarization of redistributed routes, tags from component routes
SHOULD NOT be propagated to the summary. Implementations SHOULD SHOULD NOT be propagated to the summary. Implementations SHOULD
provide a mechanism to configure tags for area ranges, NSSA ranges, provide a mechanism to configure tags for area ranges, NSSA ranges,
and redistributed route summaries. and redistributed route summaries.
skipping to change at page 6, line 14 skipping to change at page 6, line 14
5. Security Considerations 5. Security Considerations
This document describes both a generic mechanism for advertising This document describes both a generic mechanism for advertising
administrative tags for OSPF prefixes and links. The administrative administrative tags for OSPF prefixes and links. The administrative
tags are generally less critical than the topology information tags are generally less critical than the topology information
currently advertised by the base OSPF protocol. The security currently advertised by the base OSPF protocol. The security
considerations for the generic mechanism are dependent on the future considerations for the generic mechanism are dependent on the future
application and, as such, should be described as additional application and, as such, should be described as additional
capabilities are proposed for advertisement. Security considerations capabilities are proposed for advertisement. Security considerations
for the base OSPF protocol are covered in [OSPF] and [OSPFV3]. for the base OSPF protocol are covered in [RFC2328] and [RFC5340].
6. IANA Considerations 6. IANA Considerations
The following values should be allocated from the OSPF Extended The following values should be allocated from the OSPF Extended
Prefix TLV Sub-TLV Registry [OSPFV2-PREFIX-LINK]: Prefix TLV Sub-TLV Registry [RFC7684]:
o TBD - 32-bit Administrative Tag TLV o TBD - 32-bit Administrative Tag TLV
The following values should be allocated from the OSPF Extended Link The following values should be allocated from the OSPF Extended Link
TLV Sub-TLV Registry [OSPFV2-PREFIX-LINK]: TLV Sub-TLV Registry [RFC7684]:
o TBD - 32-bit Administrative Tag TLV o TBD - 32-bit Administrative Tag TLV
The following values should be allocated from the OSPFv3 Extended-LSA The following values should be allocated from the OSPFv3 Extended-LSA
Sub-TLV Registry [OSPFV3-EXTENDED-LSA]: Sub-TLV Registry [RFC8362]:
o TBD - 32-bit Administrative Tag TLV o TBD - 32-bit Administrative Tag TLV
7. Acknowledgments 7. Acknowledgments
The authors of RFC 5130 are acknowledged since this document draws The authors of RFC 5130 are acknowledged since this document draws
upon both the ISIS specification and deployment experience. upon both the ISIS specification and deployment experience.
Thanks to Donnie Savage for his comments and questions. Thanks to Donnie Savage for his comments and questions.
The RFC text was produced using Marshall Rose's xml2rfc tool. The RFC text was produced using Marshall Rose's xml2rfc tool.
8. References 8. References
8.1. Normative References 8.1. Normative References
[OSPF] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328, April 1998. [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>.
[OSPFV2-PREFIX-LINK] [RFC2328] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328,
Psenak, P., Gredler, H., Shakir, R., Henderickx, W., DOI 10.17487/RFC2328, April 1998,
Tantsura, J., and A. Lindem, "OSPFv2 Prefix/Link Attribute <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2328>.
Advertisement", RFC 7684, November 2015.
[OSPFV3] Coltun, R., Ferguson, D., Moy, J., and A. Lindem, "OSPF [RFC3630] Katz, D., Kompella, K., and D. Yeung, "Traffic Engineering
for IPv6", RFC 5340, July 2008. (TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC 3630,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3630, September 2003,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3630>.
[OSPFV3-EXTENDED-LSA] [RFC5340] Coltun, R., Ferguson, D., Moy, J., and A. Lindem, "OSPF
Lindem, A., Mirtorabi, S., Roy, A., and F. Baker, "OSPFv3 for IPv6", RFC 5340, DOI 10.17487/RFC5340, July 2008,
LSA Extendibility", RFC 8362, April 2018. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5340>.
[RFC-KEYWORDS] [RFC7684] Psenak, P., Gredler, H., Shakir, R., Henderickx, W.,
Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFC's to Indicate Tantsura, J., and A. Lindem, "OSPFv2 Prefix/Link Attribute
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. Advertisement", RFC 7684, DOI 10.17487/RFC7684, November
2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7684>.
[TE] Katz, D., Kompella, K., and D. Yeung, "Traffic Engineering [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
Extensions to OSPF", RFC 3630, September 2003. 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC8362] Lindem, A., Roy, A., Goethals, D., Reddy Vallem, V., and
F. Baker, "OSPFv3 Link State Advertisement (LSA)
Extensibility", RFC 8362, DOI 10.17487/RFC8362, April
2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8362>.
8.2. Informative References 8.2. Informative References
[ISIS-ADMIN-TAGS] [RFC3101] Murphy, P., "The OSPF Not-So-Stubby Area (NSSA) Option",
Previdi, S., Shand, M., and C. Martin, "A Policy Control RFC 3101, DOI 10.17487/RFC3101, January 2003,
Mechanism in IS-IS Using Administrative Tags", RFC 5130, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3101>.
February 2008.
[NSSA] Murphy, P., "The OSPF Not-So-Stubby Area (NSSA) Option", [RFC5130] Previdi, S., Shand, M., Ed., and C. Martin, "A Policy
RFC 3101, January 2003. Control Mechanism in IS-IS Using Administrative Tags",
RFC 5130, DOI 10.17487/RFC5130, February 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5130>.
Appendix A. 64-Bit Administrative Tag Sub-TLV Appendix A. 64-Bit Administrative Tag Sub-TLV
The definition of the 64-bit tag was considered but discard given The definition of the 64-bit tag was considered but discard given
that there is no strong requirement or use case. The specification that there is no strong requirement or use case. The specification
is included here for information. is included here for information.
This sub-TLV will carry one or more 64-bit unsigned integer values This sub-TLV will carry one or more 64-bit unsigned integer values
that will be used as administrative tags. that will be used as administrative tags.
 End of changes. 27 change blocks. 
43 lines changed or deleted 60 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.47. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/