< draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-prefix-originator-00.txt   draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-prefix-originator-01.txt >
LSR Working Group A. Wang LSR Working Group A. Wang
Internet-Draft China Telecom Internet-Draft China Telecom
Intended status: Standards Track A. Lindem Intended status: Standards Track A. Lindem
Expires: September 2, 2019 Cisco Systems Expires: January 2, 2020 Cisco Systems
J. Dong J. Dong
Huawei Technologies Huawei Technologies
K. Talaulikar K. Talaulikar
P. Psenak P. Psenak
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
March 1, 2019 July 1, 2019
OSPF Extension for Prefix Originator OSPF Extension for Prefix Originator
draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-prefix-originator-00 draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-prefix-originator-01
Abstract Abstract
This document describes OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 encodings to advertise the This document describes OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 encodings to advertise the
router-id of the originator of inter-area prefixes for OSPFv2 and router-id of the originator of inter-area prefixes for OSPFv2 and
OSPFv3 LSAs, which are needed in several use cases in several multi- OSPFv3 LSAs, which are needed in several use cases in multi-area OSPF
area OSPF use cases. use cases.
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 https://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 September 2, 2019. This Internet-Draft will expire on January 2, 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
(https://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
skipping to change at page 2, line 18 skipping to change at page 2, line 18
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Scenario Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Scenario Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Prefix Source Router-ID sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. Prefix Source Router-ID sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. Extended LSA Elements of Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5. Extended LSA Elements of Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8. Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 8. Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Appendix A. Inter-Area Topology Retrieval Process . . . . . . . 7 Appendix A. Inter-Area Topology Retrieval Process . . . . . . . 7
Appendix B. Special Considerations on Inter-Area Topology Appendix B. Special Considerations on Inter-Area Topology
Retrieval . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Retrieval . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
skipping to change at page 5, line 12 skipping to change at page 5, line 12
The "Prefix Source Router-ID" sub-TLV has the following format: The "Prefix Source Router-ID" sub-TLV has the following format:
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Prefix Source Router-ID | | Prefix Source Router-ID |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+ +---------------------------------------------------------------+
Fig. 2 Prefix Source Router-ID sub-TLV Format
o Source Router-ID Sub-TLV Type: TBD1[RFC7684] or TBD2 [RFC8362] o Source Router-ID Sub-TLV Type: TBD1[RFC7684] or TBD2 [RFC8362]
o Length: 4 o Length: 4
o Value: Router-ID of OSPFv2/OSPFv3 source router o Value: Router-ID of OSPFv2/OSPFv3 source router
This sub-TLV can be included in the "OSPFv2 Extended Prefix Opaque This sub-TLV can be included in the "OSPFv2 Extended Prefix Opaque
LSA" [RFC7684] or the "E-Inter-Area-Prefix-LSA" [RFC8362]. LSA" [RFC7684] or the "E-Inter-Area-Prefix-LSA" [RFC8362].
skipping to change at page 5, line 46 skipping to change at page 5, line 47
When R0 receives such LSA, it learns the Prefix Source Router-id and When R0 receives such LSA, it learns the Prefix Source Router-id and
includes it in the prefix information advertised to an SDN controller includes it in the prefix information advertised to an SDN controller
as described in[I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext]. The SDN as described in[I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext]. The SDN
controller can then use such information to build the inter-area controller can then use such information to build the inter-area
topology according to the process described in the Appendix A. The topology according to the process described in the Appendix A. The
topology retrieval process may not suitable for some environments as topology retrieval process may not suitable for some environments as
stated in Appendix B. stated in Appendix B.
6. Security Considerations 6. Security Considerations
TBD. Security concerns for OSPF are addressed in [RFC5709]
Advertisement of the additional information defined in this document
introduces no new security concerns
7. IANA Considerations 7. IANA Considerations
TBD. This document adds the following new sub-TLV to the registry of
"OSPFv2 Extended Prefix TLV Sub-TLVs". The allocation policy is IETF
Review that defined in [RFC7684]
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-++++++++
| Code Point | Description | Status |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-++++++++
| TBD | Prefix Source Sub-TLV | Allocation from IANA |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-++++++++
Fig.3: Prefix Source sub-TLV CodePoint from OSPFv2 Extended Prefix TLV Sub-TLVs
This document adds the following sub-TLV to the registry of "OSPFv3
Extended-LSA Sub-TLVs". The allocation is IETF Review that defined
in [RFC8362]
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-++++++++
| Code Point | Description | Status |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-++++++++
| TBD | Prefix Source Sub-TLV | Allocation from IANA |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-++++++++
Fig.4: Prefix Source sub-TLV CodePoint from OSPFv3 Extended-LSA Sub-TLVs
8. Acknowledgement 8. Acknowledgement
Many thanks to Les Ginsberg for his valuable suggestions on this Many thanks to Les Ginsberg for his valuable suggestions on this
draft. And also thanks Jeff Tantsura,Rob Shakir, Van De Velde draft. And also thanks Jeff Tantsura,Rob Shakir, Van De Velde
Gunter, Goethals Dirk, Shaofu Peng, John E Drake for their valuable Gunter, Goethals Dirk, Shaofu Peng, John E Drake for their valuable
comments on this draft. comments on this draft.
9. References 9. References
9.1. Normative References 9.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext]
Previdi, S., Talaulikar, K., Filsfils, C., Gredler, H.,
and M. Chen, "BGP Link-State extensions for Segment
Routing", draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext-11
(work in progress), October 2018.
[I-D.ietf-ospf-mpls-elc] [I-D.ietf-ospf-mpls-elc]
Xu, X., Kini, S., Sivabalan, S., Filsfils, C., and S. Xu, X., Kini, S., Psenak, P., Filsfils, C., and S.
Litkowski, "Signaling Entropy Label Capability and Entropy Litkowski, "Signaling Entropy Label Capability and Entropy
Readable Label-stack Depth Using OSPF", draft-ietf-ospf- Readable Label-stack Depth Using OSPF", draft-ietf-ospf-
mpls-elc-07 (work in progress), September 2018. mpls-elc-08 (work in progress), May 2019.
[I-D.ietf-ospf-segment-routing-msd] [I-D.ietf-ospf-segment-routing-msd]
Tantsura, J., Chunduri, U., Aldrin, S., and P. Psenak, Tantsura, J., Chunduri, U., Aldrin, S., and P. Psenak,
"Signaling MSD (Maximum SID Depth) using OSPF", draft- "Signaling MSD (Maximum SID Depth) using OSPF", draft-
ietf-ospf-segment-routing-msd-25 (work in progress), ietf-ospf-segment-routing-msd-25 (work in progress),
October 2018. October 2018.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC2328] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328, [RFC5709] Bhatia, M., Manral, V., Fanto, M., White, R., Barnes, M.,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2328, April 1998, Li, T., and R. Atkinson, "OSPFv2 HMAC-SHA Cryptographic
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2328>. Authentication", RFC 5709, DOI 10.17487/RFC5709, October
2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5709>.
[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>.
[RFC7684] Psenak, P., Gredler, H., Shakir, R., Henderickx, W., [RFC7684] Psenak, P., Gredler, H., Shakir, R., Henderickx, W.,
Tantsura, J., and A. Lindem, "OSPFv2 Prefix/Link Attribute Tantsura, J., and A. Lindem, "OSPFv2 Prefix/Link Attribute
Advertisement", RFC 7684, DOI 10.17487/RFC7684, November Advertisement", RFC 7684, DOI 10.17487/RFC7684, November
2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7684>. 2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7684>.
[RFC7752] Gredler, H., Ed., Medved, J., Previdi, S., Farrel, A., and [RFC7752] Gredler, H., Ed., Medved, J., Previdi, S., Farrel, A., and
S. Ray, "North-Bound Distribution of Link-State and S. Ray, "North-Bound Distribution of Link-State and
Traffic Engineering (TE) Information Using BGP", RFC 7752, Traffic Engineering (TE) Information Using BGP", RFC 7752,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7752, March 2016, DOI 10.17487/RFC7752, March 2016,
skipping to change at page 7, line 23 skipping to change at page 7, line 38
and IPv6 Reachability", RFC 7794, DOI 10.17487/RFC7794, and IPv6 Reachability", RFC 7794, DOI 10.17487/RFC7794,
March 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7794>. March 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7794>.
[RFC8362] Lindem, A., Roy, A., Goethals, D., Reddy Vallem, V., and [RFC8362] Lindem, A., Roy, A., Goethals, D., Reddy Vallem, V., and
F. Baker, "OSPFv3 Link State Advertisement (LSA) F. Baker, "OSPFv3 Link State Advertisement (LSA)
Extensibility", RFC 8362, DOI 10.17487/RFC8362, April Extensibility", RFC 8362, DOI 10.17487/RFC8362, April
2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8362>. 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8362>.
9.2. Informative References 9.2. Informative References
[I-D.wang-idr-bgpls-inter-as-topology-ext] [I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext]
Wang, A. and H. Chen, "BGP-LS Extension for Inter-AS Previdi, S., Talaulikar, K., Filsfils, C., Gredler, H.,
Topology Retrieval", draft-wang-idr-bgpls-inter-as- and M. Chen, "BGP Link-State extensions for Segment
topology-ext-02 (work in progress), August 2018. Routing", draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext-15
(work in progress), May 2019.
Appendix A. Inter-Area Topology Retrieval Process Appendix A. Inter-Area Topology Retrieval Process
When an IP SDN Controller receives this information, it should When an IP SDN Controller receives this information, it should
compare the prefix NLRI that included in the BGP-LS packet. When it compare the prefix NLRI that included in the BGP-LS packet. When it
encounters the same prefix but with different source router ID, it encounters the same prefix but with different source router ID, it
should extract the corresponding area-ID, rebuild the link between should extract the corresponding area-ID, rebuild the link between
these two different source routers in non-backbone area. Belows is these two different source routers in non-backbone area. Belows is
one example that based on the Fig.1: one example that based on the Fig.1:
 End of changes. 14 change blocks. 
28 lines changed or deleted 44 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/