< draft-ietf-ospf-xaf-te-06.txt   draft-ietf-ospf-xaf-te-07.txt >
LSR A. Smirnov LSR A. Smirnov
Internet-Draft Cisco Systems, Inc. Internet-Draft Cisco Systems, Inc.
Updates: 5786 (if approved) A. Retana Updates: 5786 (if approved) A. Retana
Intended status: Standards Track Futurewei Technologies, Inc. Intended status: Standards Track Futurewei Technologies, Inc.
Expires: December 28, 2019 M. Barnes Expires: February 16, 2020 M. Barnes
Cisco Systems, Inc. August 15, 2019
June 26, 2019
OSPF Routing with Cross-Address Family Traffic Engineering Tunnels OSPF Routing with Cross-Address Family Traffic Engineering Tunnels
draft-ietf-ospf-xaf-te-06 draft-ietf-ospf-xaf-te-07
Abstract Abstract
When using Traffic Engineering (TE) in a dual-stack IPv4/IPv6 When using Traffic Engineering (TE) in a dual-stack IPv4/IPv6
network, the Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) TE Label Switched network, the Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) TE Label Switched
Paths (LSP) infrastructure may be duplicated, even if the destination Paths (LSP) infrastructure may be duplicated, even if the destination
IPv4 and IPv6 addresses belong to the same remote router. In order IPv4 and IPv6 addresses belong to the same remote router. In order
to achieve an integrated MPLS TE LSP infrastructure, OSPF routes must to achieve an integrated MPLS TE LSP infrastructure, OSPF routes must
be computed over MPLS TE tunnels created using information propagated be computed over MPLS TE tunnels created using information propagated
in another OSPF instance. This issue is solved by advertising cross- in another OSPF instance. This issue is solved by advertising cross-
skipping to change at page 1, line 43 skipping to change at page 1, line 42
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 December 28, 2019. This Internet-Draft will expire on February 16, 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 24 skipping to change at page 2, line 24
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Backward Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4. Backward Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. Automatically Switched Optical Networks . . . . . . . . . 6 4.1. Automatically Switched Optical Networks . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
TE Extensions to OSPFv2 [RFC3630] and OSPFv3 [RFC5329] have been TE Extensions to OSPFv2 [RFC3630] and OSPFv3 [RFC5329] have been
described to support intra-area TE in IPv4 and IPv6 networks, described to support intra-area TE in IPv4 and IPv6 networks,
respectively. In both cases, the TE database provides a tight respectively. In both cases, the TE database provides a tight
skipping to change at page 4, line 21 skipping to change at page 4, line 21
capitals, as shown here. capitals, as shown here.
3. Operation 3. Operation
To implement the X-AF routing technique described in this document, To implement the X-AF routing technique described in this document,
OSPFv2 will advertise the Node IPv6 Local Address sub-TLV and OSPFv3 OSPFv2 will advertise the Node IPv6 Local Address sub-TLV and OSPFv3
will advertise the Node IPv4 Local Address sub-TLV, possibly in will advertise the Node IPv4 Local Address sub-TLV, possibly in
addition to advertising other IP addresses as documented by addition to advertising other IP addresses as documented by
[RFC5786]. [RFC5786].
Multiple instances of OSPFv3 are needed if it is used for both IPv4
and IPv6 [RFC5838]. The operation in this section is described with
OSPFv2 as the protocol used for IPv4; that is the most common case.
The case of OSPFv3 being used for IPv4 follows the same procedure as
what is indicated for OSPFv2 below.
On a node that implements X-AF routing, each OSPF instance On a node that implements X-AF routing, each OSPF instance
advertises, using the Node Local Address sub-TLV, all X-AF IPv6 (for advertises, using the Node Local Address sub-TLV, all X-AF IPv6 (for
OSPFv2 instance) or IPv4 (for OSPFv3) addresses local to the router OSPFv2 instance) or IPv4 (for OSPFv3) addresses local to the router
that can be used by Constrained SPF (CSPF) to calculate MPLS TE LSPs: that can be used by Constrained SPF (CSPF) to calculate MPLS TE LSPs:
OSPF instance MUST advertise the IP address listed in the Router OSPF instance MUST advertise the IP address listed in the Router
Address TLV [RFC3630], [RFC5329] of the X-AF instance maintaining Address TLV [RFC3630], [RFC5329] of the X-AF instance maintaining
the TE database. the TE database.
OSPF instance SHOULD include additional local addresses advertised OSPF instance SHOULD include additional local addresses advertised
skipping to change at page 6, line 15 skipping to change at page 6, line 15
4. Backward Compatibility 4. Backward Compatibility
Only routers that serve as endpoints for one or more TE tunnels MUST Only routers that serve as endpoints for one or more TE tunnels MUST
be upgraded to support the procedures described herein: be upgraded to support the procedures described herein:
o Tunnel tailend routers advertise the Node IPv4 Local Address sub- o Tunnel tailend routers advertise the Node IPv4 Local Address sub-
TLV and/or the Node IPv6 Local Address sub-TLV. TLV and/or the Node IPv6 Local Address sub-TLV.
o Tunnel headend routers perform the X-AF routing calculation. o Tunnel headend routers perform the X-AF routing calculation.
Other routers in the network do not need to support X-AF procedures. Both the endpoints MUST be upgraded before the tailend starts
advertising the X-AF information. Other routers in the network do
not need to support X-AF procedures.
4.1. Automatically Switched Optical Networks 4.1. Automatically Switched Optical Networks
[RFC6827] updates [RFC5786] by defining extensions to be used in an [RFC6827] updates [RFC5786] by defining extensions to be used in an
Automatically Switched Optical Network (ASON). The Local TE Router Automatically Switched Optical Network (ASON). The Local TE Router
ID Sub-TLV is required for determining ASON reachability. The ID Sub-TLV is required for determining ASON reachability. The
implication is that if the Local TE Router ID Sub-TLV is present in implication is that if the Local TE Router ID Sub-TLV is present in
the Node Attribute TLV, then the procedures in [RFC6827] apply, the Node Attribute TLV, then the procedures in [RFC6827] apply,
regardless of whether any X-AF information is advertised. regardless of whether any X-AF information is advertised.
skipping to change at page 6, line 39 skipping to change at page 6, line 41
provide X-AF information. The advertisement of these sub-TLVs, in provide X-AF information. The advertisement of these sub-TLVs, in
any OSPF instance, is not precluded by [RFC5786]. As such, no new any OSPF instance, is not precluded by [RFC5786]. As such, no new
security threats are introduced beyond the considerations in OSPFv2 security threats are introduced beyond the considerations in OSPFv2
[RFC2328], OSPFv3 [RFC5340], and [RFC5786]. [RFC2328], OSPFv3 [RFC5340], and [RFC5786].
The X-AF information is not used for SPF computation or normal The X-AF information is not used for SPF computation or normal
routing, so the mechanism specified here has no effect on IP routing. routing, so the mechanism specified here has no effect on IP routing.
However, generating incorrect information, or tampering with the sub- However, generating incorrect information, or tampering with the sub-
TLVs may have an effect on traffic engineering computations. TLVs may have an effect on traffic engineering computations.
Specifically, TE traffic may be delivered to the wrong tail-end Specifically, TE traffic may be delivered to the wrong tail-end
router, which could lead to suboptimal routing or even traffic loops. router, which could lead to suboptimal routing, traffic loops, or
even expose the traffic to attacker inspection or modification.
These threats are already present in other TE-related specifications, These threats are already present in other TE-related specifications,
and their considerations apply here as well, including [RFC3630] and and their considerations apply here as well, including [RFC3630] and
[RFC5329]. [RFC5329].
6. IANA Considerations 6. IANA Considerations
This document has no IANA actions. This document has no IANA actions.
7. Acknowledgements 7. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Peter Psenak and Eric Osborne for The authors would like to thank Peter Psenak and Eric Osborne for
early discussions and Acee Lindem for discussing compatibility with early discussions and Acee Lindem for discussing compatibility with
ASON extensions. ASON extensions. Also, Eric Vyncke, Ben Kaduk and Roman Danyliw
provided useful comments.
We would also like to thank the authors of RFC5786 for laying down We would also like to thank the authors of RFC5786 for laying down
the foundation for this work. the foundation for this work.
8. References 8. References
8.1. Normative References 8.1. Normative References
[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,
skipping to change at page 8, line 9 skipping to change at page 8, line 14
[RFC4461] Yasukawa, S., Ed., "Signaling Requirements for Point-to- [RFC4461] Yasukawa, S., Ed., "Signaling Requirements for Point-to-
Multipoint Traffic-Engineered MPLS Label Switched Paths Multipoint Traffic-Engineered MPLS Label Switched Paths
(LSPs)", RFC 4461, DOI 10.17487/RFC4461, April 2006, (LSPs)", RFC 4461, DOI 10.17487/RFC4461, April 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4461>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4461>.
[RFC5340] Coltun, R., Ferguson, D., Moy, J., and A. Lindem, "OSPF [RFC5340] Coltun, R., Ferguson, D., Moy, J., and A. Lindem, "OSPF
for IPv6", RFC 5340, DOI 10.17487/RFC5340, July 2008, for IPv6", RFC 5340, DOI 10.17487/RFC5340, July 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5340>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5340>.
[RFC5838] Lindem, A., Ed., Mirtorabi, S., Roy, A., Barnes, M., and
R. Aggarwal, "Support of Address Families in OSPFv3",
RFC 5838, DOI 10.17487/RFC5838, April 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5838>.
[RFC6827] Malis, A., Ed., Lindem, A., Ed., and D. Papadimitriou, [RFC6827] Malis, A., Ed., Lindem, A., Ed., and D. Papadimitriou,
Ed., "Automatically Switched Optical Network (ASON) Ed., "Automatically Switched Optical Network (ASON)
Routing for OSPFv2 Protocols", RFC 6827, Routing for OSPFv2 Protocols", RFC 6827,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6827, January 2013, DOI 10.17487/RFC6827, January 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6827>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6827>.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Anton Smirnov Anton Smirnov
Cisco Systems, Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc.
skipping to change at page 8, line 34 skipping to change at page 8, line 44
Alvaro Retana Alvaro Retana
Futurewei Technologies, Inc. Futurewei Technologies, Inc.
2330 Central Expressway 2330 Central Expressway
Santa Clara, CA 95050 Santa Clara, CA 95050
USA USA
Email: alvaro.retana@futurewei.com Email: alvaro.retana@futurewei.com
Michael Barnes Michael Barnes
Cisco Systems, Inc.
510 McCarthy Blvd.
Milpitas, CA 95035
USA
Email: mjbarnes@cisco.com Email: michael_barnes@usa.net
 End of changes. 11 change blocks. 
13 lines changed or deleted 23 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/