draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-gmpls-extensions-12.txt		draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-gmpls-extensions-13.txt
	Network Working Group K. Kompella, Editor		This Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-gmpls-extensions-12.txt, was published as a Proposed Standard, RFC 4203
	Internet Draft Y. Rekhter, Editor		(http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4203.txt), on 2005-10-28.
	Category: Standards Track Juniper Networks
	Updates: 3630 October 2003
	Expires: April 2004
	OSPF Extensions in Support of Generalized
	Multi-Protocol Label Switching
	draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-gmpls-extensions-12.txt
	Status of this Memo
	This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
	all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.
	Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
	Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
	other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
	Drafts.
	Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
	and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
	time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
	material or to cite them other than as ``work in progress.''
	The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
	http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
	The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
	http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
	Copyright Notice
	Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved.
	Abstract
	This document specifies encoding of extensions to the OSPF routing
	protocol in support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching.
	Specification of Requirements
	The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
	"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
	document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
	1. Introduction
	This document specifies extensions to the OSPF routing protocol in
	support of carrying link state information for Generalized
	Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS). The set of required
	enhancements to OSPF are outlined in [GMPLS-ROUTING].
	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
	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
	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
	document, we enhance the sub-TLVs for the Link TLV in support of
	GMPLS. Specifically, we add the following sub-TLVs to the Link TLV:
	Sub-TLV Type Length Name
	11 8 Link Local/Remote Identifiers
	14 4 Link Protection Type
	15 variable Interface Switching Capability Descriptor
	16 variable Shared Risk Link Group
	1.1. Link Local/Remote Identifiers
	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
	field of this sub-TLV contains four octets of Link Local Identifier
	followed by four octets of Link Remote Idenfier (see Section "Support
	for unnumbered links" of [GMPLS-ROUTING]). If the Link Remote
	Identifier is unknown, it is set to 0.
	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
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| Link Local Identifier |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| Link Remote Identifier |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	A node can communicate its Link Local Identifier to its neighbor
	using a link local Opaque LSA, as described in Section "Exchanging
	Link Local TE Information".
	1.2. Link Protection Type
	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.
	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
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	|Protection Cap | Reserved |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	The first octet is a bit vector describing the protection
	capabilities of the link (see Section "Link Protection Type" of
	[GMPLS-ROUTING]). They are:
	0x01 Extra Traffic
	0x02 Unprotected
	0x04 Shared
	0x08 Dedicated 1:1
	0x10 Dedicated 1+1
	0x20 Enhanced
	0x40 Reserved
	0x80 Reserved
	The remaining three octets SHOULD be set to zero by the sender, and
	SHOULD be ignored by the receiver.
	The Link Protection Type sub-TLV may occur at most once within the
	Link TLV.
	1.3. Shared Risk Link Group (SRLG)
	The SRLG is a sub-TLV (of type 16) of the Link TLV. The length is
	the length of the list in octets. The value is an unordered list of
	32 bit numbers that are the SRLGs that the link belongs to. The
	format of the value field is as shown below:
	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
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| Shared Risk Link Group Value |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| ............ |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| Shared Risk Link Group Value |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	This sub-TLV carries the Shared Risk Link Group information (see
	Section "Shared Risk Link Group Information" of [GMPLS-ROUTING]).
	The SRLG sub-TLV may occur at most once within the Link TLV.
	1.4. Interface Switching Capability Descriptor
	The Interface Switching Capability Descriptor is a sub-TLV (of type
	15) of the Link TLV. The length is the length of value field in
	octets. The format of the value field is as shown below:
	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
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| Switching Cap | Encoding | Reserved |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 0 |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 1 |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 2 |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 3 |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 4 |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 5 |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 6 |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 7 |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| Switching Capability-specific information |
	| (variable) |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	The Switching Capability (Switching Cap) field contains one of the
	following values:
	1 Packet-Switch Capable-1 (PSC-1)
	2 Packet-Switch Capable-2 (PSC-2)
	3 Packet-Switch Capable-3 (PSC-3)
	4 Packet-Switch Capable-4 (PSC-4)
	51 Layer-2 Switch Capable (L2SC)
	100 Time-Division-Multiplex Capable (TDM)
	150 Lambda-Switch Capable (LSC)
	200 Fiber-Switch Capable (FSC)
	The Encoding field contains one of the values specified in Section
	3.1.1 of [GMPLS-SIG].
	Maximum LSP Bandwidth is encoded as a list of eight 4 octet fields in
	the IEEE floating point format [IEEE], with priority 0 first and
	priority 7 last. The units are bytes (not bits!) per second.
	The content of the Switching Capability specific information field
	depends on the value of the Switching Capability field.
	When the Switching Capability field is PSC-1, PSC-2, PSC-3, or PSC-4,
	the Switching Capability specific information field includes Minimum
	LSP Bandwidth, Interface MTU, and padding.
	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
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| Minimum LSP Bandwidth |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| Interface MTU | Padding |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	The Minimum LSP Bandwidth is is encoded in a 4 octets field in the
	IEEE floating point format. The units are bytes (not bits!) per
	second. The Interface MTU is encoded as a 2 octets integer. The
	padding is 2 octets, and is used 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 by the receiver.
	When the Switching Capability field is L2SC, there is no Switching
	Capability specific information field present.
	When the Switching Capability field is TDM, the Switching Capability
	specific information field includes Minimum LSP Bandwidth, an
	indication whether the interface supports Standard or Arbitrary
	SONET/SDH, and padding.
	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
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| Minimum LSP Bandwidth |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| Indication | Padding |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	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.
	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
	interface supports Standard SONET/SDH, and 1 if the interface
	supports Arbitrary SONET/SDH. The padding is 3 octets, and is used
	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 by the receiver.
	When the Switching Capability field is LSC, there is no Switching
	Capability specific information field present.
	To support interfaces that have more than one Interface Switching
	Capability Descriptor (see Section "Interface Switching Capability
	Descriptor" of [GMPLS-ROUTING]) the Interface Switching Capability
	Descriptor sub-TLV may occur more than once within the Link TLV.
	2. Implications on Graceful Restart
	The restarting node should follow the OSPF restart procedures
	[OSPF-RESTART], and the RSVP-TE restart procedures [GMPLS-RSVP].
	When a restarting node is going to originate its TE LSAs, the TE LSAs
	containing Link TLV should be originated with 0 unreserved bandwidth,
	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
	Bandwidth, until the node is able to determine the amount of
	unreserved resources taking into account the resources reserved by
	the already established LSPs that have been 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 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. This
	would discourage new LSP establishment through the restarting router.
	Neighbors of the restarting node should continue advertise the actual
	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
	topology changes. TE graceful restart need not be aborted if a TE
	LSA or TE topology changes.
	3. Exchanging Link Local TE Information
	It is often useful for a node to communicate some Traffic Engineering
	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
	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
	communicate its Link Local Identifer for I by exchanging with Y a TE
	link local opaque LSA described below. Note that this information
	need only be exchanged over interface I, hence the use of a link
	local Opaque LSA.
	A TE Link Local LSA is an opaque LSA of type 9 (link-local flooding
	scope) with Opaque Type [TBD] and Opaque ID of 0.
	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
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| LS age | Options | 9 |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| Opaque Type | Opaque ID |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| Advertising Router |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| LS sequence number |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| LS checksum | length |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| |
	+- TLVs -+
	| ... |
	The format of the TLVs that make up the body of the TE Link Local LSA
	is the same as that of the TE TLVs: a 2-octet Type field followed by
	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
	boundary.
	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
	over which the TE Link Local LSA is exchanged.
	4. Contributors
	Ayan Banerjee
	Calient Networks
	5853 Rue Ferrari
	San Jose, CA 95138
	Phone: +1.408.972.3645
	Email: abanerjee@calient.net
	John Drake
	Calient Networks
	5853 Rue Ferrari
	San Jose, CA 95138
	Phone: +1.408.972.3720
	Email: jdrake@calient.net
	Greg Bernstein
	Ciena Corporation
	10480 Ridgeview Court
	Cupertino, CA 94014
	Phone: +1.408.366.4713
	Email: greg@ciena.com
	Don Fedyk
	Nortel Networks Corp.
	600 Technology Park Drive
	Billerica, MA 01821
	Phone: +1.978.288.4506
	Email: dwfedyk@nortelnetworks.com
	Eric Mannie
	Independent Consultant
	E-mail: eric_mannie@hotmail.com
	Debanjan Saha
	Tellium Optical Systems
	2 Crescent Place
	P.O. Box 901
	Ocean Port, NJ 07757
	Phone: +1.732.923.4264
	Email: dsaha@tellium.com
	Vishal Sharma
	Metanoia, Inc.
	335 Elan Village Lane, Unit 203
	San Jose, CA 95134-2539
	Phone: +1.408.943.1794
	Email: v.sharma@ieee.org
	5. Acknowledgements
	The authors would like to thank Suresh Katukam, Jonathan Lang,
	Quaizar Vohra, and Alex Zinin for their comments on the draft.
	6. Security Considerations
	This document specifies the contents of Opaque LSAs in OSPFv2. As
	Opaque LSAs are not used for SPF computation or normal routing, the
	extensions specified here have no direct effect on IP routing.
	Tampering with GMPLS TE LSAs may have an effect on the underlying
	transport (optical and/or SONET-SDH) network. [OSPF-TE] suggests
	mechanisms such as [OSPF-SIG] to protect the transmission of this
	information, and those or other mechanisms should be used to secure
	and/or authenticate the information carried in the Opaque LSAs.
	IANA Considerations
	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
	Link TLV in the range 10-32767 must be assigned by Expert Review, and
	must be registered with IANA.
	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
	granted, as there are interoperable implementations using these
	values.
	Normative References
	[GMPLS-ROUTING] Kompella, K., and Rekhter, Y. (Editors), "Routing
	Extensions in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
	Switching", (work in progress) [draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-
	routing-08.txt]
	[GMPLS-RSVP] Berger, L., (Editor), "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
	Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic
	Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473, January 2003
	[GMPLS-SIG] Berger, L. (Editor), "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
	Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC 3471,
	January 2003
	[IEEE] IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Binary Floating-Point Arithmetic",
	Standard 754-1985, 1985 (ISBN 1-5593-7653-8).
	[OSPF] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328, April 1998.
	[OSPF-RESTART] Moy, J., Pillay-Esnault, P., Lindem, A., "Graceful
	OSPF Restart", (work in progress) [draft-ietf-ospf-hitless-
	restart-08.txt]
	[OSPF-SIG] Murphy, S., Badger, M., and B. Wellington, "OSPF with
	Digital Signatures", RFC 2154, June 1997.
	[OSPF-TE] Katz, D., Kompella, K. and Yeung, D., "Traffic Engineering
	(TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC 3630, September 2003.
	[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
	Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
	Authors' Information
	Kireeti Kompella
	Juniper Networks, Inc.
	1194 N. Mathilda Ave
	Sunnyvale, CA 94089
	Email: kireeti@juniper.net
	Yakov Rekhter
	Juniper Networks, Inc.
	1194 N. Mathilda Ave
	Sunnyvale, CA 94089
	Email: yakov@juniper.net
	Intellectual Property Rights Notices
	The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
	intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to
	pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
	this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
	might or might not be available; neither does it represent that it
	has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the
	IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and
	standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11. Copies of
	claims of rights made available for publication and any assurances of
	licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to
	obtain a general license or permission for the use of such
	proprietary rights by implementors or users of this specification can
	be obtained from the IETF Secretariat.
	The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
	copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
	rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice
	this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive
	Director.
	Full Copyright Statement
	Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved.
	This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
	others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
	or assist in its implmentation may be prepared, copied, published and
	distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind,
	provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
	included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
	document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
	the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
	Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
	developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
	copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
	followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
	English.
	The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
	revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assignees.
	This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
	"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
	TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
	BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
	HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
	MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
End of changes. 1 change blocks.
	0 lines changed or deleted		0 lines changed or added
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.27, available from http://www.levkowetz.com/ietf/tools/rfcdiff/