draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-gmpls-extensions-13.txt		rfc4203.txt
	This Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-gmpls-extensions-12.txt, was published as a Proposed Standard, RFC 4203		Network Working Group K. Kompella, Ed.
	(http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4203.txt), on 2005-10-28.		Request for Comments: 4203 Y. Rekhter, Ed.
			Updates: 3630 Juniper Networks
			Category: Standards Track October 2005
			OSPF Extensions in Support of
			Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)
			Status of This Memo
			This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
			Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
			improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
			Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
			and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
			Copyright Notice
			Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).
			Abstract
			This document specifies encoding of extensions to the OSPF routing
			protocol in support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
			(GMPLS).
			1. Introduction
			This document specifies extensions to the OSPF routing protocol
			[OSPF] 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 Traffic
			Engineering (TE) properties of GMPLS TE links that can be announced
			in OSPF TE LSAs. The 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
			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 BCP 14, RFC 2119
			[RFC2119].
			1.1. Link Local/Remote Identifiers
			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 Identifier (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 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 Identifier 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 1 (TE LSA) 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 Top Level Type for the Link Local TLV is 4. 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
			EMail: 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 document.
			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.
			7. IANA Considerations
			The memo introduces four 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.
			Finally, a new Top Level Type for OSPF TE LSAs for the Link Local TLV
			has been allocated from the Standards Action space.
			8. References
			8.1. Normative References
			[GMPLS-ROUTING] Kompella, K., Ed., and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "Routing
			Extensions in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol
			Label Switching (GMPLS)", RFC 4202, October 2005.
			[GMPLS-RSVP] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
			Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation
			Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions",
			RFC 3473, January 2003.
			[GMPLS-SIG] Berger, L., "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., and A. Lindem, "Graceful
			OSPF Restart", RFC 3623, November 2003.
			[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' Addresses
			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
			Full Copyright Statement
			Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).
			This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
			contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
			retain all their rights.
			This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
			"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
			OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
			ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM 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.
			Intellectual Property
			The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
			Intellectual Property Rights 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; nor does it represent that it has
			made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
			on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
			found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
			Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat 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 implementers or users of this
			specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
			http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
			The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
			copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
			rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
			this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-
			ipr@ietf.org.
			Acknowledgement
			Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
			Internet Society.
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/