draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-gmpls-extensions-04.txt   draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-gmpls-extensions-05.txt 
CCAMP Working Group K. Kompella (Juniper Networks) CCAMP Working Group K. Kompella (Juniper Networks)
Internet Draft Y. Rekhter (Juniper Networks) Internet Draft Y. Rekhter (Juniper Networks)
Expiration Date: August 2002 A. Banerjee (Calient Networks) Expiration Date: October 2002 A. Banerjee (Calient Networks)
J. Drake (Calient Networks) J. Drake (Calient Networks)
G. Bernstein (Ciena) G. Bernstein (Ciena)
D. Fedyk (Nortel Networks) D. Fedyk (Nortel Networks)
E. Mannie (GTS Network) E. Mannie (GTS Network)
D. Saha (Tellium) D. Saha (Tellium)
V. Sharma (Metanoia, Inc.) V. Sharma (Metanoia, Inc.)
OSPF Extensions in Support of Generalized MPLS OSPF Extensions in Support of Generalized MPLS
draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-gmpls-extensions-04.txt draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-gmpls-extensions-05.txt
1. Status of this Memo 1. Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts. Drafts.
skipping to change at page 3, line 17 skipping to change at page 3, line 17
This document specifies extensions to the OSPF routing protocol in This document specifies extensions to the OSPF routing protocol in
support of carrying link state information for Generalized Multi- support of carrying link state information for Generalized Multi-
Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS). The set of required enhancements to Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS). The set of required enhancements to
OSPF are outlined in [GMPLS-ROUTING]. OSPF are outlined in [GMPLS-ROUTING].
5. OSPF Routing Enhancements 5. OSPF Routing Enhancements
In this section we define the enhancements to the TE properties of In this section we define the enhancements to the TE properties of
GMPLS TE links that can be announced in OSPF TE LSAs. The Traffic GMPLS TE links that can be announced in OSPF TE LSAs. The Traffic
Engineering (TE) LSA, which is an opaque LSA with area flooding scope Engineering (TE) LSA, which is an opaque LSA with area flooding scope
[3], has only one top-level Type/Length/Value (TLV) triplet and has [OSPF-TE], has only one top-level Type/Length/Value (TLV) triplet and
one or more nested TLVs for extensibility. The top-level TLV can has one or more nested sub-TLVs for extensibility. The top-level TLV
take one of two values (1) Router Address or (2) Link. In this can take one of two values (1) Router Address or (2) Link. In this
document, we enhance the sub-TLVs for the Link TLV in support of document, we enhance the sub-TLVs for the Link TLV in support of
GMPLS. Specifically, we add the following sub-TLVs: GMPLS. Specifically, we add the following sub-TLVs to the Link TLV:
1. Link Local Identifier, 1. Link Local Identifier,
2. Link Remote Identifier, 2. Link Remote Identifier,
3. Link Protection Type, 3. Link Protection Type,
4. Shared Risk Link Group, and 4. Interface Switching Capability Descriptor, and
5. Interface Switching Capability Descriptor. 5. Shared Risk Link Group.
This brings the list of sub-TLVs of the TE Link TLV to: The following defines the Type and Length of these sub-TLVs:
Sub-TLV Type Length Name Sub-TLV Type Length Name
1 1 Link type
2 4 Link ID
3 variable Local interface IP address
4 variable Remote interface IP address
5 4 Traffic engineering metric
6 4 Maximum bandwidth
7 4 Maximum reservable bandwidth
8 32 Unreserved bandwidth
9 4 Resource class/color
11 4 Link Local Identifier 11 4 Link Local Identifier
12 4 Link Remote Identifier 12 4 Link Remote Identifier
14 4 Link Protection Type 14 4 Link Protection Type
15 variable Interface Switching Capability Descriptor 15 variable Interface Switching Capability Descriptor
16 variable Shared Risk Link Group 16 variable Shared Risk Link Group
32768-32772 - Reserved for Cisco-specific extensions
5.1. Link Local Identifier 5.1. Link Local Identifier
A Link Local Identifier is a sub-TLV of the Link TLV with type 11, A Link Local Identifier is a sub-TLV of the Link TLV with type 11,
and length 4. and length 4.
5.2. Link Remote Identifier 5.2. Link Remote Identifier
A Link Remote Identifier is a sub-TLV of the Link TLV with type 12, A Link Remote Identifier is a sub-TLV of the Link TLV with type 12,
and length 4. and length 4.
skipping to change at page 6, line 51 skipping to change at page 6, line 40
SONET/SDH is encoded as 1 octet. The value of this octet is 0 if the SONET/SDH is encoded as 1 octet. The value of this octet is 0 if the
interface supports Standard SONET/SDH, and 1 if the interface interface supports Standard SONET/SDH, and 1 if the interface
supports Arbitrary SONET/SDH. The padding is 3 octets, and is used supports Arbitrary SONET/SDH. The padding is 3 octets, and is used
to make the Interface Switching Capability Descriptor sub-TLV 32-bits to make the Interface Switching Capability Descriptor sub-TLV 32-bits
aligned. aligned.
When the Switching Capability field is LSC, there is no specific When the Switching Capability field is LSC, there is no specific
information. information.
The Interface Switching Capability Descriptor sub-TLV may occur more The Interface Switching Capability Descriptor sub-TLV may occur more
than once within the Link TLV (this is needed to handle interfaces than once within the Link TLV.
that support multiple switching capabilities).
6. Implications on Graceful Restart 6. Implications on Graceful Restart
The restarting node should follow the OSPF restart procedures [OSPF- The restarting node should follow the OSPF restart procedures [OSPF-
RESTART], and the RSVP-TE restart procedures [GMPLS-RSVP]. RESTART], and the RSVP-TE restart procedures [GMPLS-RSVP].
Once the restarting node re-establishes at least one OSPF adjacency, When a restarting node is going to originate its TE LSAs, the TE LSAs
the node should originate its TE LSAs. These LSAs should be containing Link TLV should be originated with 0 unreserved bandwidth,
originated with 0 unreserved bandwidth until the node is able to and if the Link has LSC or FSC as its Switching Capability then also
determine the amount of unreserved resources taking into account the with 0 as Max LSP Bandwidth, until the node is able to determine the
resources reserved by the already established LSPs that have been amount of unreserved resources taking into account the resources
preserved across the restart. Once the restarting node determines the
amount of unreserved resources, taking into account the resources
reserved by the already established LSPs that have been preserved reserved by the already established LSPs that have been preserved
across the restart, the node should advertise these resources in its across the restart. Once the restarting node determines the amount of
TE LSAs. unreserved resources, taking into account the resources reserved by
the already established LSPs that have been preserved across the
restart, the node should advertise these resources in its TE LSAs.
In addition in the case of a planned restart prior to restarting, the
restarting node SHOULD originate the TE LSAs containing Link TLV with
0 as unreserved bandwidth, and if the Link has LSC or FSC as its
Switching Capability then also with 0 as Max LSP Bandwidth.
Neighbors of the restarting node should continue advertise the actual Neighbors of the restarting node should continue advertise the actual
unreserved bandwidth on the TE links from the neighbors to that node. unreserved bandwidth on the TE links from the neighbors to that node.
Regular graceful restart should not be aborted if a TE LSA or TE Regular graceful restart should not be aborted if a TE LSA or TE
topology changes. TE graceful restart need not be aborted if a TE LSA topology changes. TE graceful restart need not be aborted if a TE LSA
or TE topology changes. or TE topology changes.
7. Security Considerations 7. Security Considerations
skipping to change at page 8, line 9 skipping to change at page 8, line 9
8. Acknowledgements 8. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Suresh Katukam, Jonathan Lang and The authors would like to thank Suresh Katukam, Jonathan Lang and
Quaizar Vohra for their comments on the draft. Quaizar Vohra for their comments on the draft.
9. References 9. References
[OSPF-TE] Katz, D., Yeung, D., "Traffic Engineering Extensions to [OSPF-TE] Katz, D., Yeung, D., "Traffic Engineering Extensions to
OSPF", OSPF",
draft-katz-yeung-ospf-traffic-04.txt (work in progress) draft-katz-yeung-ospf-traffic-06.txt (work in progress)
[GMPLS-SIG] "Generalized MPLS - Signaling Functional [GMPLS-SIG] "Generalized MPLS - Signaling Functional
Description", draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-signaling-04.txt (work Description", draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-signaling-04.txt (work
in progress) in progress)
[GMPLS-RSVP] "Generalized MPLS Signaling - RSVP-TE Extensions", [GMPLS-RSVP] "Generalized MPLS Signaling - RSVP-TE Extensions",
draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-rsvp-te-06.txt (work in progress) draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-rsvp-te-06.txt (work in progress)
[GMPLS-ROUTING] "Routing Extensions in Support of Generalized MPLS", [GMPLS-ROUTING] "Routing Extensions in Support of Generalized MPLS",
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-routing-01.txt (work in progress) draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-routing-01.txt (work in progress)
 End of changes. 

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.23, available from http://www.levkowetz.com/ietf/tools/rfcdiff/