draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-gmpls-extensions-10.txt   draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-gmpls-extensions-11.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
Updates: 3630 October 2003 Updates: 3630 October 2003
Expires: April 2004 Expires: April 2004
OSPF Extensions in Support of Generalized OSPF Extensions in Support of Generalized
Multi-Protocol Label Switching Multi-Protocol Label Switching
draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-gmpls-extensions-10.txt draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-gmpls-extensions-11.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 8 skipping to change at page 3, line 8
Specification of Requirements 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].
1. Introduction 1. 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
Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS). The set of required enhancements Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS). The set of required
to OSPF are outlined in [GMPLS-ROUTING]. enhancements to OSPF are outlined in [GMPLS-ROUTING].
2. OSPF Routing Enhancements 2. 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 9, line 9 skipping to change at page 10, line 9
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.
5. Normative References 5. Normative References
[GMPLS-ROUTING] Kompella, K., and Rekhter, Y. (Editors), "Routing [GMPLS-ROUTING] Kompella, K., and Rekhter, Y. (Editors), "Routing
Extensions in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Extensions in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching", (work in progress) Switching", (work in progress) [draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-
routing-08.txt]
[GMPLS-RSVP] Berger, L., (Editor), "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label [GMPLS-RSVP] Berger, L., (Editor), "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic
Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473, January 2003 Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473, January 2003
[GMPLS-SIG] Berger, L. (Editor), "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label [GMPLS-SIG] Berger, L. (Editor), "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC 3471, Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC 3471,
January 2003 January 2003
[OSPF] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328, April 1998. [OSPF] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328, April 1998.
[OSPF-RESTART] Moy, J., Pillay-Esnault, P., Lindem, A., "Graceful [OSPF-RESTART] Moy, J., Pillay-Esnault, P., Lindem, A., "Graceful
OSPF Restart", (work in progress) OSPF Restart", (work in progress) [draft-ietf-ospf-hitless-
restart-08.txt]
[OSPF-SIG] Murphy, S., Badger, M., and B. Wellington, "OSPF with [OSPF-SIG] Murphy, S., Badger, M., and B. Wellington, "OSPF with
Digital Signatures", RFC 2154, June 1997. Digital Signatures", RFC 2154, June 1997.
[OSPF-TE] Katz, D., Kompella, K. and Yeung, D., "Traffic Engineering [OSPF-TE] Katz, D., Kompella, K. and Yeung, D., "Traffic Engineering
(TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC 3630, September 2003. (TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC 3630, September 2003.
[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.
6. Security Considerations 6. Security Considerations
This document specifies the contents of Opaque LSAs in OSPFv2. As This document specifies the contents of Opaque LSAs in OSPFv2. As
Opaque LSAs are not used for SPF computation or normal routing, the Opaque LSAs are not used for SPF computation or normal routing, the
extensions specified here have no affect on IP routing. Tampering extensions specified here have no direct effect on IP routing.
with TE LSAs may have an effect on traffic engineering computations, Tampering with GMPLS TE LSAs may have an effect on the underlying
however, and it is suggested that whatever mechanisms are used for transport (optical and/or SONET-SDH) network. [OSPF-TE] suggests
securing the transmission of normal OSPF LSAs be applied equally to mechanisms such as [OSPF-SIG] to protect the transmission of this
all Opaque LSAs, including the TE LSAs specified here. information, and those or other mechanisms should be used to secure
and/or authenticate the information carried in the Opaque LSAs.
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.
7. IANA Considerations 7. IANA Considerations
The memo introduces 4 new sub-TLVs of the TE Link TLV in the TE The 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 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 Link TLV in the range 10-32767 must be assigned by Expert Review, and
must be registered with IANA. must be registered with IANA.
The memo has four suggested values for the four sub-TLVs of the TE The memo has four suggested values for the four sub-TLVs of the TE
Link TLV; it is strongly recommended that the suggested values be Link TLV; it is strongly recommended that the suggested values be
 End of changes. 

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