draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-gmpls-extensions-08.txt   draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-gmpls-extensions-09.txt 
Network Working Group K. Kompella (Editor) Network Working Group K. Kompella (Editor)
Internet Draft Y. Rekhter (Editor) Internet Draft Y. Rekhter (Editor)
Category: Standards Track Juniper Networks Category: Standards Track Juniper Networks
Expires: February 2003 August 2002 Expires: June 2003 December 2002
OSPF Extensions in Support of Generalized MPLS OSPF Extensions in Support of Generalized MPLS
draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-gmpls-extensions-08.txt draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-gmpls-extensions-09.txt
Status of this Memo 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 9 skipping to change at page 3, line 9
1. Specification of Requirements 1. Specification of Requirements
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", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
2. Introduction 2. Introduction
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
OSPF are outlined in [GMPLS-ROUTING]. to OSPF are outlined in [GMPLS-ROUTING].
3. OSPF Routing Enhancements 3. 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
[OSPF-TE], has only one top-level Type/Length/Value (TLV) triplet and [OSPF-TE], has only one top-level Type/Length/Value (TLV) triplet and
has one or more nested sub-TLVs for extensibility. The top-level TLV has one or more nested sub-TLVs for extensibility. The top-level TLV
can 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
skipping to change at page 3, line 41 skipping to change at page 3, line 41
A Link Local/Remote Identifiers is a sub-TLV of the Link TLV. The A Link Local/Remote Identifiers is a sub-TLV of the Link TLV. The
type of this sub-TLV is 11, and length is eight octets. The value type of this sub-TLV is 11, and length is eight octets. The value
field of this sub-TLV contains four octets of Link Local Identifier field of this sub-TLV contains four octets of Link Local Identifier
followed by four octets of Link Remote Idenfier (see Section "Support followed by four octets of Link Remote Idenfier (see Section "Support
for unnumbered links" of [GMPLS-ROUTING]). If the Link Remote for unnumbered links" of [GMPLS-ROUTING]). If the Link Remote
Identifier is unknown, it is set to 0. Identifier is unknown, it is set to 0.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Link Local Idenfiier | | Link Local Identifier |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Link Remote Idenfiier | | Link Remote Identifier |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
A node can communicate its Link Local Identifier to its neighbor A node can communicate its Link Local Identifier to its neighbor
using a link local Opaque LSA, as described in Section "Exchanging using a link local Opaque LSA, as described in Section "Exchanging
Link Local TE Information". Link Local TE Information".
3.2. Link Protection Type 3.2. Link Protection Type
The Link Protection Type is a sub-TLV of the Link TLV. The type of The Link Protection Type is a sub-TLV of the Link TLV. The type of
this sub-TLV is 14, and length is four octets. this sub-TLV is 14, and length is four octets.
skipping to change at page 4, line 44 skipping to change at page 4, line 44
0x80 Reserved 0x80 Reserved
The remaining three octets SHOULD be set to zero by the sender, and The remaining three octets SHOULD be set to zero by the sender, and
SHOULD be ignored by the receiver. SHOULD be ignored by the receiver.
The Link Protection Type sub-TLV may occur at most once within the The Link Protection Type sub-TLV may occur at most once within the
Link TLV. Link TLV.
3.3. Shared Risk Link Group (SRLG) 3.3. Shared Risk Link Group (SRLG)
The SRLG is a sub-TLV (of type 16) of the Link TLV. The length is the The SRLG is a sub-TLV (of type 16) of the Link TLV. The length is
length of the list in octets. The value is an unordered list of 32 the length of the list in octets. The value is an unordered list of
bit numbers that are the SRLGs that the link belongs to. The format 32 bit numbers that are the SRLGs that the link belongs to. The
of the value field is as shown below: format of the value field is as shown below:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Shared Risk Link Group Value | | Shared Risk Link Group Value |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ............ | | ............ |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Shared Risk Link Group Value | | Shared Risk Link Group Value |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
skipping to change at page 7, line 16 skipping to change at page 7, line 16
| Indication | Padding | | Indication | Padding |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The Minimum LSP Bandwidth is encoded in a 4 octets field in the IEEE The Minimum LSP Bandwidth is encoded in a 4 octets field in the IEEE
floating point format. The units are bytes (not bits!) per second. floating point format. The units are bytes (not bits!) per second.
The indication whether the interface supports Standard or Arbitrary The indication whether the interface supports Standard or Arbitrary
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. It SHOULD be set to zero by the sender and SHOULD be ignored aligned. It SHOULD be set to zero by the sender and SHOULD be
by the receiver. ignored by the receiver.
When the Switching Capability field is LSC, there is no Switching When the Switching Capability field is LSC, there is no Switching
Capability specific information field present. Capability specific information field present.
To support interfaces that have more than one Interface Switching To support interfaces that have more than one Interface Switching
Capability Descriptor (see Section "Interface Switching Capability Capability Descriptor (see Section "Interface Switching Capability
Descriptor" of [GMPLS-ROUTING]) the Interface Switching Capability Descriptor" of [GMPLS-ROUTING]) the Interface Switching Capability
Descriptor sub-TLV may occur more than once within the Link TLV. Descriptor sub-TLV may occur more than once within the Link TLV.
4. Implications on Graceful Restart 4. Implications on Graceful Restart
skipping to change at page 7, line 39 skipping to change at page 7, line 39
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].
When a restarting node is going to originate its TE LSAs, the TE LSAs When a restarting node is going to originate its TE LSAs, the TE LSAs
containing Link TLV should be originated with 0 unreserved bandwidth, containing Link TLV should be originated with 0 unreserved bandwidth,
Traffic Engineering metric set to 0xffffffff, and if the Link has LSC Traffic Engineering metric set to 0xffffffff, and if the Link has LSC
or FSC as its Switching Capability then also with 0 as Max LSP or FSC as its Switching Capability then also with 0 as Max LSP
Bandwidth, until the node is able to determine the amount of Bandwidth, until the node is able to determine the amount of
unreserved resources taking into account the resources reserved by unreserved resources taking into account the resources reserved by
the already established LSPs that have been preserved across the the already established LSPs that have been preserved across the
restart. Once the restarting node determines the amount of unreserved restart. Once the restarting node determines the amount of
resources, taking into account the resources reserved by the already unreserved resources, taking into account the resources reserved by
established LSPs that have been preserved across the restart, the the already established LSPs that have been preserved across the
node should advertise these resources in its TE LSAs. restart, the node should advertise these resources in its TE LSAs.
In addition in the case of a planned restart prior to restarting, the In addition in the case of a planned restart prior to restarting, the
restarting node SHOULD originate the TE LSAs containing Link TLV with 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 0 as unreserved bandwidth, and if the Link has LSC or FSC as its
Switching Capability then also with 0 as Max LSP Bandwidth. This Switching Capability then also with 0 as Max LSP Bandwidth. This
would discourage new LSP establishment through the restarting router. would discourage new LSP establishment through the restarting router.
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
or TE topology changes. LSA or TE topology changes.
5. Exchanging Link Local TE Information 5. Exchanging Link Local TE Information
It is often useful for a node to communicate some Traffic Engineering It is often useful for a node to communicate some Traffic Engineering
information for a given interface to its neighbors on that interface. information for a given interface to its neighbors on that interface.
One example of this is a Link Local Identifier. If nodes X and Y are One example of this is a Link Local Identifier. If nodes X and Y are
connected by an unnumbered point-to-point interface I, then X's Link connected by an unnumbered point-to-point interface I, then X's Link
Local Identifier for I is Y's Link Remote Identifier for I. X can Local Identifier for I is Y's Link Remote Identifier for I. X can
communicate its Link Local Identifer for I by exchanging with Y a TE communicate its Link Local Identifer for I by exchanging with Y a TE
link local opaque LSA described below. Note that this information link local opaque LSA described below. Note that this information
skipping to change at page 9, line 7 skipping to change at page 9, line 7
a 2-octet Length field which indicates the length of the Value field a 2-octet Length field which indicates the length of the Value field
in octets. The Value field is zero-padded at the end to a four octet in octets. The Value field is zero-padded at the end to a four octet
boundary. boundary.
The only TLV defined here is the Link Local Identifier TLV, with Type The only TLV defined here is the Link Local Identifier TLV, with Type
1, Length 4 and Value the 32 bit Link Local Identifier for the link 1, Length 4 and Value the 32 bit Link Local Identifier for the link
over which the TE Link Local LSA is exchanged. over which the TE Link Local LSA is exchanged.
6. Normative References 6. Normative References
[OSPF] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328, April 1998.
[OSPF-TE] Katz, D., Yeung, D. and Kompella, K., "Traffic Engineering [OSPF-TE] Katz, D., Yeung, D. and Kompella, K., "Traffic Engineering
Extensions to OSPF", (work in progress) Extensions to OSPF", (work in progress)
[GMPLS-SIG] Berger, L., and Ashwood-Smith, P. (Editors), "Generalized [GMPLS-SIG] Berger, L. (Editor), "Generalized MPLS - Signaling
MPLS - Signaling Functional Description", (work in progress) Functional Description", (work in progress)
[GMPLS-RSVP] Berger, L., and Ashwood-Smith, P. (Editors), [GMPLS-RSVP] Berger, L., and Ashwood-Smith, P. (Editors),
"Generalized MPLS Signaling - RSVP-TE Extensions", (work in "Generalized MPLS Signaling - RSVP-TE Extensions", (work in
progress) progress)
[GMPLS-ROUTING] Kompella, K., and Rekhter, Y. (Editors), "Routing [GMPLS-ROUTING] Kompella, K., and Rekhter, Y. (Editors), "Routing
Extensions in Support of Generalized MPLS", (work in progress) Extensions in Support of Generalized MPLS", (work in progress)
[OSPF-RESTART] Moy, J., "Hitless OSPF Restart", (work in progress) [OSPF-RESTART] Moy, J., "Hitless OSPF Restart", (work in progress)
[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, March 1997. Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[OSPF-SIG] Murphy, S., Badger, M., and B. Wellington, "OSPF with
Digital Signatures", RFC 2154, June 1997.
7. Security Considerations 7. Security Considerations
The sub-TLVs proposed in this document do not raise any new security This document specifies the contents of Opaque LSAs in OSPFv2. As
concerns. Opaque LSAs are not used for SPF computation or normal routing, the
extensions specified here have no affect on IP routing. Tampering
with TE LSAs may have an effect on traffic engineering computations,
however, and it is suggested that whatever mechanisms are used for
securing the transmission of normal OSPF LSAs be applied equally to
all Opaque LSAs, including the TE LSAs specified here.
8. Acknowledgements Note that the mechanisms in [OSPF] and [OSPF-SIG] apply to Opaque
LSAs. It is suggested that any future mechanisms proposed to
secure/authenticate OSPFv2 LSA exchanges be made general enough to be
used with Opaque LSAs.
8. IANA Considerations
This memo introduces 4 new sub-TLVs of the TE Link TLV in the TE
Opaque LSA for OSPF v2; [OSPF-TE] says that the sub-TLVs of the TE
Link TLV in the range 10-32767 must be assigned by Expert Review, and
must be registered with IANA.
This memo has four suggested values for the four sub-TLVs of the TE
Link TLV; it is strongly recommended that the suggested values be
granted, as there are interoperable implementations using these
values.
9. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Suresh Katukam, Jonathan Lang, The authors would like to thank Suresh Katukam, Jonathan Lang,
Quaizar Vohra, and Alex Zinin for their comments on the draft. Quaizar Vohra, and Alex Zinin for their comments on the draft.
9. Contributors 10. Contributors
Ayan Banerjee Ayan Banerjee
Calient Networks Calient Networks
5853 Rue Ferrari 5853 Rue Ferrari
San Jose, CA 95138 San Jose, CA 95138
Phone: +1.408.972.3645 Phone: +1.408.972.3645
Email: abanerjee@calient.net Email: abanerjee@calient.net
John Drake John Drake
Calient Networks Calient Networks
5853 Rue Ferrari 5853 Rue Ferrari
San Jose, CA 95138 San Jose, CA 95138
Phone: (408) 972-3720 Phone: +1.408.972.3720
Email: jdrake@calient.net Email: jdrake@calient.net
Greg Bernstein Greg Bernstein
Ciena Corporation Ciena Corporation
10480 Ridgeview Court 10480 Ridgeview Court
Cupertino, CA 94014 Cupertino, CA 94014
Phone: (408) 366-4713 Phone: +1.408.366.4713
Email: greg@ciena.com Email: greg@ciena.com
Don Fedyk Don Fedyk
Nortel Networks Corp. Nortel Networks Corp.
600 Technology Park Drive 600 Technology Park Drive
Billerica, MA 01821 Billerica, MA 01821
Phone: +1-978-288-4506 Phone: +1.978.288.4506
Email: dwfedyk@nortelnetworks.com Email: dwfedyk@nortelnetworks.com
Eric Mannie Eric Mannie
Independent Consultant Independent Consultant
E-mail: eric_mannie@hotmail.com E-mail: eric_mannie@hotmail.com
Debanjan Saha Debanjan Saha
Tellium Optical Systems Tellium Optical Systems
2 Crescent Place 2 Crescent Place
P.O. Box 901 P.O. Box 901
Ocean Port, NJ 07757 Ocean Port, NJ 07757
Phone: (732) 923-4264 Phone: +1.732.923.4264
Email: dsaha@tellium.com Email: dsaha@tellium.com
Vishal Sharma Vishal Sharma
Metanoia, Inc. Metanoia, Inc.
335 Elan Village Lane, Unit 203 335 Elan Village Lane, Unit 203
San Jose, CA 95134-2539 San Jose, CA 95134-2539
Phone: +1 408-943-1794 Phone: +1.408.943.1794
Email: v.sharma@ieee.org Email: v.sharma@ieee.org
10. Authors' Information 11. Authors' Information
Kireeti Kompella Kireeti Kompella
Juniper Networks, Inc. Juniper Networks, Inc.
1194 N. Mathilda Ave 1194 N. Mathilda Ave
Sunnyvale, CA 94089 Sunnyvale, CA 94089
Email: kireeti@juniper.net Email: kireeti@juniper.net
Yakov Rekhter Yakov Rekhter
Juniper Networks, Inc. Juniper Networks, Inc.
1194 N. Mathilda Ave 1194 N. Mathilda Ave
Sunnyvale, CA 94089 Sunnyvale, CA 94089
Email: yakov@juniper.net Email: yakov@juniper.net
11. Intellectual Property Rights Notices 12. Intellectual Property Rights Notices
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; neither does it represent that it might or might not be available; neither does it represent that it
has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the
IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and
standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11. Copies of standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11. Copies of
claims of rights made available for publication and any assurances of claims of rights made available for publication and any assurances of
 End of changes. 

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