draft-ietf-ccamp-rfc5787bis-06.txt   rfc6827.txt 
INTERNET-DRAFT A. Malis, ed. Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) A. Malis, Ed.
Obsoletes: 5787 (if approved) Verizon Communications Request for Comments: 6827 Verizon Communications
Updates: 5786 A. Lindem, ed. Obsoletes: 5787 A. Lindem, Ed.
Intended Status: Proposed Standard Ericsson Updates: 5786 Ericsson
Expires: April 12, 2013 D. Papadimitriou, ed. Category: Standards Track D. Papadimitriou, Ed.
Alcatel-Lucent ISSN: 2070-1721 Alcatel-Lucent
October 9, 2012 January 2013
ASON Routing for OSPFv2 Protocols
draft-ietf-ccamp-rfc5787bis-06.txt
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
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/1id-abstracts.html
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
Copyright and License Notice
Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Automatically Switched Optical Network (ASON)
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Routing for OSPFv2 Protocols
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Abstract Abstract
The ITU-T has defined an architecture and requirements for operating The ITU-T has defined an architecture and requirements for operating
an Automatically Switched Optical Network (ASON). an Automatically Switched Optical Network (ASON).
The Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) protocol suite The Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) protocol suite
is designed to provide a control plane for a range of network is designed to provide a control plane for a range of network
technologies including optical networks such as time division technologies. These include optical networks such as time division
multiplexing (TDM) networks including SONET/SDH and Optical Transport multiplexing (TDM) networks including the Synchronous Optical
Network/Synchronous Digital Hierarchy (SONET/SDH), Optical Transport
Networks (OTNs), and lambda switching optical networks. Networks (OTNs), and lambda switching optical networks.
The requirements for GMPLS routing to satisfy the requirements of The requirements for GMPLS routing to satisfy the requirements of
ASON routing, and an evaluation of existing GMPLS routing protocols ASON routing and an evaluation of existing GMPLS routing protocols
are provided in other documents. This document defines extensions to are provided in other documents. This document defines extensions to
the OSPFv2 Link State Routing Protocol to meet the requirements for the OSPFv2 Link State Routing Protocol to meet the requirements for
routing in an ASON. routing in an ASON.
Note that this work is scoped to the requirements and evaluation Note that this work is scoped to the requirements and evaluation
expressed in RFC 4258 and RFC 4652 and the ITU-T Recommendations expressed in RFC 4258 and RFC 4652 and the ITU-T Recommendations that
current when those documents were written. Future extensions of were current when those documents were written. Future extensions or
revisions of this work may be necessary if the ITU-T Recommendations revisions of this work may be necessary if the ITU-T Recommendations
are revised or if new requirements are introduced into a revision of are revised or if new requirements are introduced into a revision of
RFC 4258. This document obsoletes RFC 5787 and updates RFC 5786. RFC 4258. This document obsoletes RFC 5787 and updates RFC 5786.
Status of This Memo
This is an Internet Standards Track document.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6827.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1. Introduction ....................................................4
1.1. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1.1. Conventions Used in This Document ..........................5
2. Routing Areas, OSPF Areas, and Protocol Instances . . . . . . 5 2. Routing Areas, OSPF Areas, and Protocol Instances ...............5
3. Terminology and Identification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3. Terminology and Identification ..................................6
4. Reachability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4. Reachability ....................................................7
5. Link Attribute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5. Link Attribute ..................................................8
5.1. Local Adaptation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5.1. Local Adaptation ...........................................8
5.2. Bandwidth Accounting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5.2. Bandwidth Accounting .......................................9
6. Routing Information Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6. Routing Information Scope .......................................9
6.1. Link Advertisement (Local and Remote TE Router ID 6.1. Link Advertisement (Local and Remote TE Router ID Sub-TLV) .9
Sub-TLV) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6.2. Reachability Advertisement (Local TE Router ID Sub-TLV) ...11
6.2. Reachability Advertisement (Local TE Router ID sub-TLV) . 10 7. Routing Information Dissemination ..............................11
7. Routing Information Dissemination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 7.1. Import/Export Rules .......................................12
7.1 Import/Export Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 7.2. Loop Prevention ...........................................12
7.2 Loop Prevention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 7.2.1. Inter-RA Export Upward/Downward Sub-TLVs ...........13
7.2.1 Inter-RA Export Upward/Downward Sub-TLVs . . . . . . . 12 7.2.2. Inter-RA Export Upward/Downward Sub-TLV Processing .13
7.2.2 Inter-RA Export Upward/Downward Sub-TLV Processing . . 13 8. OSPFv2 Scalability .............................................14
8. OSPFv2 Scalability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 9. Security Considerations ........................................15
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 10. IANA Considerations ...........................................15
10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 10.1. Sub-TLVs of the Link TLV .................................15
10.1. Sub-TLVs of the Link TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 10.2. Sub-TLVs of the Node Attribute TLV .......................16
10.2. Sub-TLVs of the Node Attribute TLV . . . . . . . . . . . 15 10.3. Sub-TLVs of the Router Address TLV .......................16
10.3. Sub-TLVs of the Router Address TLV . . . . . . . . . . . 16 11. Management Considerations .....................................17
11. Management Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 11.1. Routing Area (RA) Isolation ..............................17
11.1. Routing Area (RA) Isolation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 11.2. Routing Area (RA) Topology/Configuration Changes .........17
11.2 Routing Area (RA) Topology/Configuration Changes . . . . . 17 12. Comparison to Requirements in RFC 4258 ........................17
12. Comparison to Requirements in RFC 4258 . . . . . . . . . . . 17 13. References ....................................................25
13. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 13.1. Normative References .....................................25
13.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 13.2. Informative References ...................................25
13.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 14. Acknowledgements ..............................................26
14. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 14.1. RFC 5787 Acknowledgements ................................26
14.1 RFC 5787 Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Appendix A. ASON Terminology ......................................27
Appendix A. ASON Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Appendix B. ASON Routing Terminology ..............................28
Appendix B. ASON Routing Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Appendix C. Changes from RFC 5787 .................................29
Appendix C. Changes from RFC 5787 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
The Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) [RFC3945] The Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) [RFC3945]
protocol suite is designed to provide a control plane for a range of protocol suite is designed to provide a control plane for a range of
network technologies including optical networks such as time division network technologies. These include optical networks such as time
multiplexing (TDM) networks including SONET/SDH and Optical Transport division multiplexing (TDM) networks including SONET/SDH, Optical
Networks (OTNs), and lambda switching optical networks. Transport Networks (OTNs), and lambda switching optical networks.
The ITU-T defines the architecture of the Automatically Switched The ITU-T defines the architecture of the Automatically Switched
Optical Network (ASON) in [G.8080]. Optical Network (ASON) in [G.8080].
[RFC4258] describes the routing requirements for the GMPLS suite of [RFC4258] describes the routing requirements for the GMPLS suite of
routing protocols to support the capabilities and functionality of routing protocols to support the capabilities and functionality of
ASON control planes identified in [G.7715] and in [G.7715.1]. ASON control planes identified in [G.7715] and in [G.7715.1].
[RFC4652] evaluates the IETF Link State routing protocols against the [RFC4652] evaluates the IETF Link State routing protocols against the
requirements identified in [RFC4258]. Section 7.1 of [RFC4652] requirements identified in [RFC4258]. Section 7.1 of [RFC4652]
skipping to change at page 4, line 50 skipping to change at page 5, line 7
This document describes the processing of the generic (technology- This document describes the processing of the generic (technology-
independent) link attributes that are defined in [RFC3630], independent) link attributes that are defined in [RFC3630],
[RFC4202], and [RFC4203] and that are extended in this document. As [RFC4202], and [RFC4203] and that are extended in this document. As
described in Section 5.2, technology-specific traffic engineering described in Section 5.2, technology-specific traffic engineering
attributes and their processing may be defined in other documents attributes and their processing may be defined in other documents
that complement this document. that complement this document.
Note that this work is scoped to the requirements and evaluation Note that this work is scoped to the requirements and evaluation
expressed in [RFC4258] and [RFC4652] and the ITU-T Recommendations expressed in [RFC4258] and [RFC4652] and the ITU-T Recommendations
current when those documents were written. Future extensions of that were current when those documents were written. Future
revisions of this work may be necessary if the ITU-T Recommendations extensions or revisions of this work may be necessary if the ITU-T
are revised or if new requirements are introduced into a revision of Recommendations are revised or if new requirements are introduced
into a revision of [RFC4258].
[RFC4258].
1.1. Conventions Used in This Document 1.1. Conventions Used in This Document
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].
The reader is assumed to be familiar with the terminology and The reader is assumed to be familiar with the terminology and
requirements developed in [RFC4258] and the evaluation outcomes requirements developed in [RFC4258] and the evaluation outcomes
described in [RFC4652]. described in [RFC4652].
skipping to change at page 5, line 36 skipping to change at page 5, line 41
RAs are hierarchically contained: a higher-level (parent) RA contains RAs are hierarchically contained: a higher-level (parent) RA contains
lower-level (child) RAs that in turn MAY also contain RAs. Thus, RAs lower-level (child) RAs that in turn MAY also contain RAs. Thus, RAs
contain RAs that recursively define successive hierarchical RA contain RAs that recursively define successive hierarchical RA
levels. Routing information may be exchanged between levels of the levels. Routing information may be exchanged between levels of the
RA hierarchy, i.e., Level N+1 and N, where Level N represents the RAs RA hierarchy, i.e., Level N+1 and N, where Level N represents the RAs
contained by Level N+1. The links connecting RAs may be viewed as contained by Level N+1. The links connecting RAs may be viewed as
external links (inter-RA links), and the links representing external links (inter-RA links), and the links representing
connectivity within an RA may be viewed as internal links (intra-RA connectivity within an RA may be viewed as internal links (intra-RA
links). The external links to an RA at one level of the hierarchy links). The external links to an RA at one level of the hierarchy
may be internal links in the parent RA. Intra-RA links of a child RA may be internal links in the parent RA. Intra-RA links of a child RA
MAY be hidden from the parent RA's view. [RFC4258] MAY be hidden from the parent RA's view [RFC4258].
An ASON RA can be mapped to an OSPF area, but the hierarchy of ASON An ASON RA can be mapped to an OSPF area, but the hierarchy of ASON
RA levels does not map to the hierarchy of OSPF areas. Instead, RA levels does not map to the hierarchy of OSPF areas. Instead,
successive hierarchical levels of RAs MUST be represented by separate successive hierarchical levels of RAs MUST be represented by separate
instances of the protocol. Thus, inter-level routing information instances of the protocol. Thus, inter-level routing information
exchange (as described in Section 7) involves the export and import exchange (as described in Section 7) involves the export and import
of routing information between protocol instances. of routing information between protocol instances.
An ASON RA may therefore be identified by the combination of its OSPF An ASON RA may therefore be identified by the combination of its OSPF
instance identifier and its OSPF area identifier. With proper and Instance ID and its OSPF Area ID. With proper and careful network-
careful network-wide configuration, this can be achieved using just wide configuration, this can be achieved using just the OSPF Area ID,
the OSPF area identifier, and this process is RECOMMENDED in this and this process is RECOMMENDED in this document. These concepts are
document. These concepts are discussed in Section 7. discussed in Section 7.
A key ASON requirement is the support of multiple transport planes or A key ASON requirement is the support of multiple transport planes or
layers. Each transport node has associated topology (links and layers. Each transport node has associated topology (links and
reachability) which is used for ASON routing. reachability), which is used for ASON routing.
3. Terminology and Identification 3. Terminology and Identification
This section describes the mapping of key ASON entities to OSPF This section describes the mapping of key ASON entities to OSPF
entities. Appendix A contains a complete glossary of ASON routing entities. Appendix A contains a complete glossary of ASON routing
terminology. terminology.
There are three categories of identifiers used for ASON routing There are three categories of identifiers used for ASON routing
(G7715.1): transport plane names, control plane identifiers for (G.7715.1): transport-plane names, control-plane identifiers for
components, and Signaling Communications Network (SCN) addresses. components, and Signaling Communications Network (SCN) addresses.
This section discusses the mapping between ASON routing identifiers This section discusses the mapping between ASON routing identifiers
and corresponding identifiers defined for GMPLS routing, and how and corresponding identifiers defined for GMPLS routing and how these
these support the physical (or logical) separation of transport plane support the physical (or logical) separation of transport-plane
entities and control plane components. GMPLS supports this entities and control-plane components. GMPLS supports this
separation of identifiers and planes. separation of identifiers and planes.
In the context of OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE), an ASON transport In the context of OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE), an ASON transport
node corresponds to a unique OSPF TE node. An OSPF TE node is node corresponds to a unique OSPF TE node. An OSPF TE node is
uniquely identified by the TE Router Address TLV [RFC3630]. In this uniquely identified by the TE Router Address TLV [RFC3630]. In this
document, the TE Router Address is referred to as the TE Router ID. document, the TE Router Address is referred to as the TE Router ID.
In GMPLS, TE router addresses are advertised as reachable in both the In GMPLS, TE router addresses are advertised as reachable in both the
control and transport planes, see Section 4 below. Furthermore, the control and transport planes, see Section 4 below. Furthermore, the
TE Router ID should not be confused with the OSPF Router ID that TE Router ID should not be confused with the OSPF Router ID that
uniquely identifies an OSPF router within an OSPF routing domain uniquely identifies an OSPF router within an OSPF routing domain
[RFC2328] and is in a name space for control plane components. [RFC2328] and is in a name space for control-plane components.
The Router Address top-level TLV definition, processing, and usage The Router Address top-level TLV definition, processing, and usage
are largely unchanged from [RFC3630]. This TLV specifies a stable are largely unchanged from [RFC3630]. This TLV specifies a stable
OSPF TE node IP address, i.e., the IP address is always reachable OSPF TE node IP address, i.e., the IP address is always reachable
when there is IP connectivity to the associated OSPF TE node. when there is IP connectivity to the associated OSPF TE node.
ASON defines a Routing Controller (RC) as an entity that handles ASON defines a Routing Controller (RC) as an entity that handles
(abstract) information needed for routing and the routing information (abstract) information needed for routing and the routing information
exchange with peering RCs by operating on the Routing Database (RDB). exchange with peering RCs by operating on the Routing Database (RDB).
ASON defines a Protocol Controller (PC) as an entity that handles ASON defines a Protocol Controller (PC) as an entity that handles
protocol-specific message exchanges according to the reference point protocol-specific message exchanges according to the reference point
over which the information is exchanged (e.g., E-NNI, I-NNI), and over which the information is exchanged (e.g., E-NNI, I-NNI) and
internal exchanges with the Routing Controller (RC) [RFC4258]. In internal exchanges with the RC [RFC4258]. In this document, an OSPF
this document, an OSPF router advertising ASON TE topology router advertising ASON TE topology information will perform both the
information will perform both the functions of the RC and PC. The functions of the RC and PC. The OSPF routing domain comprises the
OSPF routing domain comprises the control plane and each OSPF router control plane, and each OSPF router is uniquely identified by its
is uniquely identified by its OSPF Router ID [RFC2328]. OSPF Router ID [RFC2328].
4. Reachability 4. Reachability
In ASON, reachability information describes the set of endpoints that In ASON, reachability information describes the set of endpoints that
are reachable by the associated node in the transport plane. are reachable by the associated node in the transport plane.
Reachability information represents transport plane resources, e.g., Reachability information represents transport-plane resources, e.g.,
an optical cross-connect interface, and uses transport plane an optical cross-connect interface, and uses transport-plane
identifiers. identifiers.
In order to advertise blocks of reachable address prefixes, a In order to advertise blocks of reachable address prefixes, a
summarization mechanism is introduced that is based on the techniques summarization mechanism is introduced that is based on the techniques
described in [RFC5786]. For ASON reachability advertisement, blocks described in [RFC5786]. For ASON reachability advertisement, blocks
of reachable address prefixes are advertised together with the of reachable address prefixes are advertised together with the
associated transport plane node. The transport plane node is associated transport-plane node. The transport-plane node is
identified in OSPF TE LSAs by its TE Router ID, as discussed in identified in OSPF TE Link State Advertisements (LSAs) by its TE
section 6. Router ID, as discussed in Section 6.
In order to support ASON reachability advertisement, the Node In order to support ASON reachability advertisement, the Node
Attribute TLV defined in [RFC5786] is used to advertise the Attribute TLV defined in [RFC5786] is used to advertise the
combination of a TE Router ID and its set of associated reachable combination of a TE Router ID and its set of associated reachable
address prefixes. The Node Attribute TLV can contain the following address prefixes. The Node Attribute TLV can contain the following
sub-TLVs: sub-TLVs:
- TE Router ID sub-TLV: Length: 4; Defined in Section 6.2 - Local TE Router ID sub-TLV: Length: 4; Defined in Section 6.2
- Node IPv4 Local Address sub-TLV: Length: variable; [RFC5786] - Node IPv4 Local Address sub-TLV: Length: variable; [RFC5786]
- Node IPv6 Local Address sub-TLV: Length: variable; [RFC5786] - Node IPv6 Local Address sub-TLV: Length: variable; [RFC5786]
A router may support multiple transport nodes as discussed in section A router may support multiple transport nodes as discussed in
6, and, as a result, may be required to advertise reachability Section 6 and, as a result, may be required to advertise reachability
separately for each transport node. As a consequence, it MUST be separately for each transport node. As a consequence, it MUST be
possible for the router to originate more than one TE LSA containing possible for the router to originate more than one TE LSA containing
the Node Attribute TLV when used for ASON reachability advertisement. the Node Attribute TLV when used for ASON reachability advertisement.
Hence, the Node Attribute TLV [RFC5786] advertisement rules are Hence, the Node Attribute TLV [RFC5786] advertisement rules are
relaxed. A Node Attribute TLV MAY appear in more than one TE LSA relaxed. A Node Attribute TLV MAY appear in more than one TE LSA
originated by the RC when the RC is advertising reachability originated by the RC when the RC is advertising reachability
information for a different transport node identified by the Local TE information for a different transport node identified by the Local TE
Router Sub-TLV (refer to section 6.2). Router sub-TLV (refer to Section 6.2).
As specified in [RFC3630], TE advertised router addresses are also As specified in [RFC3630], TE-advertised router addresses are also
advertised as reachable in the control plane and are therefore also advertised as reachable in the control plane and are therefore also
valid identifiers in the ASON SCN name space. valid identifiers in the ASON SCN name space.
5. Link Attribute 5. Link Attribute
With the exception of local adaptation (described below), the mapping With the exception of local adaptation (described below), the mapping
of link attributes and characteristics to OSPF TE Link TLV Sub-TLVs of link attributes and characteristics to OSPF TE Link TLV sub-TLVs
is unchanged [RFC4652]. OSPF TE Link TLV Sub-TLVs are described in is unchanged [RFC4652]. OSPF TE Link TLV sub-TLVs are described in
[RFC3630] and [RFC4203]. Advertisement of this information SHOULD be [RFC3630] and [RFC4203]. Advertisement of this information SHOULD be
supported on a per-layer basis, i.e., one TE LSA per unique switching supported on a per-layer basis, i.e., one TE LSA per unique switching
capability and bandwidth granularity combination. capability and bandwidth granularity combination.
5.1. Local Adaptation 5.1. Local Adaptation
Local adaptation is defined as a TE link attribute (i.e., sub-TLV) Local adaptation is defined as a TE link attribute (i.e., sub-TLV)
that describes the cross/inter-layer relationships. that describes the cross/inter-layer relationships.
The Interface Switching Capability Descriptor (ISCD) TE Attribute The Interface Switching Capability Descriptor (ISCD) TE Attribute
[RFC4202] identifies the ability of the TE link to support cross- [RFC4202] identifies the ability of the TE link to support cross-
connection to another link within the same layer. When advertising connection to another link within the same layer. When advertising
link adaptation, it also identifies the ability to use a locally link adaptation, it also identifies the ability to use a locally
terminated connection that belongs to one layer as a data link for terminated connection that belongs to one layer as a data link for
another layer (adaptation capability). However, the information another layer (adaptation capability). However, the information
associated with the ability to terminate connections within that associated with the ability to terminate connections within that
layer (referred to as the termination capability) is advertised with layer (referred to as the termination capability) is advertised with
the adaptation capability. the adaptation capability.
For instance, a link between two optical cross-connects will contain For instance, a link between two optical cross-connects will contain
at least one ISCD attribute describing the Lambda Switching Capable at least one ISCD attribute describing the Lambda Switching Capable
(LSC) switching capability. Conversely, a link between an optical (LSC) switching capability. Conversely, a link between an optical
cross-connect and an IP/MPLS Label Switching Router (LSR) will cross-connect and an IP/MPLS Label Switching Router (LSR) will
contain at least two ISCD attributes, one for the description of the contain at least two ISCD attributes, one for the description of the
LSC termination capability and one for the Packet Switching Capable LSC termination capability and one for the Packet Switching Capable
(PSC) adaptation capability. (PSC) adaptation capability.
In OSPFv2, the Interface Switching Capability Descriptor (ISCD) is a In OSPFv2, the Interface Switching Capability Descriptor (ISCD) is a
sub-TLV (type 15) of the top-level Link TLV (type 2) [RFC4203]. The sub-TLV (type 15) of the top-level Link TLV (type 2) [RFC4203]. The
adaptation and termination capabilities are advertised using two adaptation and termination capabilities are advertised using two
separate ISCD sub-TLVs within the same top-level Link TLV. separate ISCD sub-TLVs within the same top-level Link TLV.
An interface MAY have more than one ISCD sub-TLV, [RFC4202] and An interface MAY have more than one ISCD sub-TLV, per [RFC4202] and
[RFC4203]. Hence, the corresponding advertisements should not result [RFC4203]. Hence, the corresponding advertisements should not result
in any compatibility issues. in any compatibility issues.
5.2. Bandwidth Accounting 5.2. Bandwidth Accounting
GMPLS routing defines an Interface Switching Capability Descriptor GMPLS routing defines an ISCD that provides, among other things, the
(ISCD) that provides, among other things, the quantities of the quantities of the maximum/minimum available bandwidth per priority
maximum/minimum available bandwidth per priority for Label Switched for Label Switched Paths (LSPs). One or more ISCD sub-TLVs can be
Path (LSPs). One or more ISCD sub-TLVs can be associated with an associated with an interface, per [RFC4202] and [RFC4203]. This
interface, [RFC4202] and [RFC4203]. This information, combined with information, combined with the Unreserved Bandwidth Link TLV sub-TLV
the Unreserved Bandwidth Link TLV sub-TLV [RFC3630], provides the [RFC3630], provides the basis for bandwidth accounting.
basis for bandwidth accounting.
In the ASON context, additional information may be included when the In the ASON context, additional information may be included when the
representation and information in the other advertised fields are not representation and information in the other advertised fields are not
sufficient for a specific technology, e.g., SDH. The definition of sufficient for a specific technology, e.g., SDH. The definition of
technology-specific information elements is beyond the scope of this technology-specific information elements is beyond the scope of this
document. Some technologies will not require additional information document. Some technologies will not require additional information
beyond what is already defined in [RFC3630], [RFC4202], and beyond what is already defined in [RFC3630], [RFC4202], and
[RFC4203]. [RFC4203].
6. Routing Information Scope 6. Routing Information Scope
For ASON routing, the control plane component routing adjacency For ASON routing, the control-plane component routing adjacency
topology (i.e., the associated Protocol Controller (PC) connectivity) topology (i.e., the associated Protocol Controller (PC) connectivity)
and the transport topology are not assumed to be congruent [RFC4258]. and the transport topology are not assumed to be congruent [RFC4258].
Hence, a single OSPF router (i.e., the PC) MUST be able to advertise Hence, a single OSPF router (i.e., the PC) MUST be able to advertise
on behalf of multiple transport layer nodes. The OSPF routers are on behalf of multiple transport-layer nodes. The OSPF routers are
identified by OSPF Router ID and the transport nodes are identified identified by OSPF Router ID, and the transport nodes are identified
by TE Router ID. by TE Router ID.
The Router Address TLV [RFC3630] is used to advertise the TE Router The Router Address TLV [RFC3630] is used to advertise the TE Router
ID associated with the advertising Routing Controller (RC). TE Router ID associated with the advertising Routing Controller (RC). TE
IDs for additional transport nodes are advertised through Router IDs for additional transport nodes are advertised through
specification of the Local TE Router Identifier in the Local and specification of the Local TE Router Identifier in the Local and
Remote TE Router TE sub-TLV and the Local TE Router Identifier sub- Remote TE Router TE sub-TLV and the Local TE Router Identifier
TLV described in the sections below. These Local TE Router sub-TLV described in the sections below. These Local TE Router
Identifiers are typically used as the local endpoints for TE Label Identifiers are typically used as the local endpoints for TE LSPs
Switched Paths (LSPs) terminating on the associated transport node. terminating on the associated transport node.
The use of multiple OSPF Routers to advertise TE information for the The use of multiple OSPF Routers to advertise TE information for the
same transport node is not considered a required use case and is not same transport node is not considered a required use case and is not
discussed further in this document. discussed further in this document.
6.1. Link Advertisement (Local and Remote TE Router ID Sub-TLV) 6.1. Link Advertisement (Local and Remote TE Router ID Sub-TLV)
When an OSPF Router advertises on behalf of multiple transport nodes, When an OSPF Router advertises on behalf of multiple transport nodes,
the link end points cannot be automatically assigned to a single the link endpoints cannot be automatically assigned to a single
transport node associated with the advertising router. In this case, transport node associated with the advertising router. In this case,
the local and remote transport nodes MUST be identified by TE router the local and remote transport nodes MUST be identified by TE Router
ID to unambiguously specify the transport topology. ID to unambiguously specify the transport topology.
For this purpose, a new sub-TLV of the OSPFv2 TE LSA top-level Link For this purpose, a new sub-TLV of the OSPFv2 TE LSA top-level Link
TLV is introduced that defines the Local and Remote TE Router ID. TLV is introduced that defines the Local and Remote TE Router ID.
The Type field of the Local and Remote TE Router ID sub-TLV is The Type field of the Local and Remote TE Router ID sub-TLV is
assigned the value TBDx (see Section 10). The Length field takes the assigned the value 10 (see Section 10). The Length field takes the
value 8. The Value field of this sub-TLV contains 4 octets of the value 8. The Value field of this sub-TLV contains 4 octets of the
Local TE Router Identifier followed by 4 octets of the Remote TE Local TE Router Identifier followed by 4 octets of the Remote TE
Router Identifier. The value of the Local and Remote TE Router Router Identifier. The value of the Local and Remote TE Router
Identifier SHOULD NOT be set to 0. Identifier MUST NOT be set to 0.
The format of the Local and Remote TE Router ID sub-TLV is: The format of the Local and Remote TE Router ID sub-TLV is:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type (TBDx) | Length (8) | | Type (10) | Length (8) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Local TE Router Identifier | | Local TE Router Identifier |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Remote TE Router Identifier | | Remote TE Router Identifier |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
This sub-TLV MUST be included as a sub-TLV of the top-level Link TLV This sub-TLV MUST be included as a sub-TLV of the top-level Link TLV
if the OSPF router is advertising on behalf of one or more transport if the OSPF router is advertising on behalf of one or more transport
nodes having TE Router IDs different from the TE Router ID advertised nodes having TE Router IDs different from the TE Router ID advertised
in the Router Address TLV. For consistency, this sub-TLV MUST be in the Router Address TLV. For consistency, this sub-TLV MUST be
included when OSPF is used for the advertisement of ASON information included when OSPF is used for the advertisement of ASON information
as described herein. If it is not included in a Link TLV or a value as described herein. If it is not included in a Link TLV, or if a
of 0 is specified for the Local or Remote TE Router Identifier, the value of 0 is specified for the Local or Remote TE Router Identifier,
Link TLV will not be used for transport plane path computation. the Link TLV will not be used for transport-plane path computation.
Additionally, the condition SHOULD be logged for possible action by Additionally, the condition SHOULD be logged for possible action by
the network operator. the network operator.
Note: The Link ID sub-TLV identifies the other end of the link (i.e., Note: The Link ID sub-TLV identifies the other end of the link (i.e.,
Router ID of the neighbor for point-to-point links) [RFC3630]. When Router ID of the neighbor for point-to-point links) [RFC3630]. When
the Local and Remote TE Router ID Sub-TLV is present, it MUST be used the Local and Remote TE Router ID sub-TLV is present, it MUST be used
to identify local and remote transport node endpoints for the link to identify local and remote transport node endpoints for the link
and the Link-ID sub-TLV MUST be ignored. In fact, when the Local and and the Link-ID sub-TLV MUST be ignored. In fact, when the Local and
Remote TE Router ID sub-TLV is specified, the Link-ID sub-TLV MAY be Remote TE Router ID sub-TLV is specified, the Link-ID sub-TLV MAY be
omitted. The Local and Remote TE Router ID sub-TLV, if specified, omitted. The Local and Remote TE Router ID sub-TLV, if specified,
MUST only be specified once. If specified more than once, instances MUST only be specified once. If specified more than once, instances
other than the first will be ignored and condition SHOULD be logged other than the first will be ignored and the condition SHOULD be
for possible action by the network operator. logged for possible action by the network operator.
6.2. Reachability Advertisement (Local TE Router ID sub-TLV) 6.2. Reachability Advertisement (Local TE Router ID Sub-TLV)
When an OSPF router is advertising on behalf of multiple transport When an OSPF router is advertising on behalf of multiple transport
nodes, the routing protocol MUST be able to associate the advertised nodes, the routing protocol MUST be able to associate the advertised
reachability information with the correct transport node. reachability information with the correct transport node.
For this purpose, a new sub-TLV of the OSPFv2 TE LSA top-level Node For this purpose, a new sub-TLV of the OSPFv2 TE LSA top-level Node
Attribute TLV is introduced. This TLV associates the local prefixes Attribute TLV is introduced. This TLV associates the local prefixes
(see above) to a given transport node identified by TE Router ID. (see above) to a given transport node identified by the TE Router ID.
The Type field of the Local TE Router ID sub-TLV is assigned the The Type field of the Local TE Router ID sub-TLV is assigned the
value 5 (see Section 10). The Length field takes the value 4. The value 5 (see Section 10). The Length field takes the value 4. The
Value field of this sub-TLV contains the Local TE Router Identifier Value field of this sub-TLV contains the Local TE Router Identifier
encoded over 4 octets. encoded over 4 octets.
The format of the Local TE Router ID sub-TLV is: The format of the Local TE Router ID sub-TLV is:
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
skipping to change at page 11, line 20 skipping to change at page 11, line 35
| Type (5) | Length (4) | | Type (5) | Length (4) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Local TE Router Identifier | | Local TE Router Identifier |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
This sub-TLV MUST be included as a sub-TLV of the top-level Node This sub-TLV MUST be included as a sub-TLV of the top-level Node
Attribute TLV if the OSPF router is advertising on behalf of one or Attribute TLV if the OSPF router is advertising on behalf of one or
more transport nodes having TE Router IDs different from the TE more transport nodes having TE Router IDs different from the TE
Router ID advertised in the Router Address TLV. For consistency, Router ID advertised in the Router Address TLV. For consistency,
this sub-TLV MUST be included when OSPF is used for the advertisement this sub-TLV MUST be included when OSPF is used for the advertisement
of ASON information as described herein. If it is not included in a of ASON information as described herein. If it is not included in a
Node Attribute TLV or a value of 0 is specified for the Local TE Node Attribute TLV, or if a value of 0 is specified for the Local TE
Router Identifier, the Note Attribute TLV will not be used for Router Identifier, the Note Attribute TLV will not be used for
determining ASON SCN reachability. Additionally, the condition determining ASON SCN reachability. Additionally, the condition
SHOULD be logged for possible action by the network operator. SHOULD be logged for possible action by the network operator.
7. Routing Information Dissemination 7. Routing Information Dissemination
An ASON routing area (RA) represents a partition of the transport An ASON routing area (RA) represents a partition of the transport
plane, and its identifier is used within the control plane as the plane, and its identifier is used within the control plane as the
representation of this partition. An RA may contain smaller RAs representation of this partition. An RA may contain smaller RAs
inter-connected by links. ASON RA levels do not map directly to OSPF inter-connected by links. ASON RA levels do not map directly to OSPF
areas. Rather, hierarchical levels of RAs are represented by separate areas. Rather, hierarchical levels of RAs are represented by
OSPF protocol instances. However, it is useful to align the RA separate OSPF protocol instances. However, it is useful to align the
identifiers and area ID in order to facilitate isolation of RAs as RA IDs and area ID in order to facilitate isolation of RAs as
described in Section 11.1. described in Section 11.1.
Routing controllers (RCs) supporting multiple RAs disseminate Routing Controllers (RCs) supporting multiple RAs disseminate
information downward and upward in this ASON hierarchy. The vertical information downward and upward in this ASON hierarchy. The vertical
routing information dissemination mechanisms described in this routing information dissemination mechanisms described in this
section do not introduce or imply hierarchical OSPF areas. RCs section do not introduce or imply hierarchical OSPF areas. RCs
supporting RAs at multiple levels are structured as separate OSPF supporting RAs at multiple levels are structured as separate OSPF
instances with routing information exchange between levels described instances with routing information exchange between levels described
by import and export rules between these instances. The functionality by import and export rules between these instances. The
described herein does not pertain to OSPF areas or OSPF Area Border functionality described herein does not pertain to OSPF areas or OSPF
Router (ABR) functionality. Area Border Router (ABR) functionality.
7.1 Import/Export Rules 7.1. Import/Export Rules
RCs supporting RAs disseminate information upward and downward in the RCs supporting RAs disseminate information upward and downward in the
hierarchy by importing/exporting routing information as TE LSAs. TE hierarchy by importing/exporting routing information as TE LSAs. TE
LSAs are area-scoped opaque LSAs with opaque type 1 [RFC3630]. The LSAs are area-scoped Opaque LSAs with Opaque type 1 [RFC3630]. The
information that MAY be exchanged between adjacent levels includes information that MAY be exchanged between adjacent levels includes
the Router Address, Link, and Node Attribute top-level TLVs. the Router Address, Link, and Node Attribute top-level TLVs.
The imported/exported routing information content MAY be transformed, The imported/exported routing information content MAY be transformed,
e.g., filtered or aggregated, as long as the resulting routing e.g., filtered or aggregated, as long as the resulting routing
information is consistent. In particular, when more than one RC is information is consistent. In particular, when more than one RC is
bound to adjacent levels and both are allowed to import/export bound to adjacent levels and both are allowed to import/export
routing information, it is expected that these transformations are routing information, it is expected that these transformations are
performed in a consistent manner. Definition of these policy-based performed in a consistent manner. Definition of these policy-based
mechanisms are outside the scope of this document. mechanisms are outside the scope of this document.
In practice, and in order to avoid scalability and processing In practice, and in order to avoid scalability and processing
overhead, routing information imported/exported downward/upward in overhead, routing information imported/exported downward/upward in
the hierarchy is expected to include reachability information (see the hierarchy is expected to include reachability information (see
Section 4) and, upon strict policy control, link topology Section 4) and, upon strict policy control, link topology
information. information.
7.2 Loop Prevention 7.2. Loop Prevention
When more than one RC is bound to an adjacent level of the ASON When more than one RC is bound to an adjacent level of the ASON
hierarchy, and is configured to export routing information upward or hierarchy and is configured to export routing information upward or
downward, a specific mechanism is required to avoid looping of downward, a specific mechanism is required to avoid looping of
routing information. Looping is the re-advertisement of routing routing information. Looping is the re-advertisement of routing
information into an RA that had previously advertised that routing information into an RA that had previously advertised that routing
information upward or downward into an upper or lower level RA in the information upward or downward into an upper or lower level RA in the
ASON hierarchy. For example, without loop prevention mechanisms, this ASON hierarchy. For example, without loop-prevention mechanisms,
could happen when the RC advertising routing information downward in this could happen when the RC advertising routing information
the hierarchy is not the same one that advertises routing information downward in the hierarchy is not the same one that advertises routing
upward in the hierarchy. information upward in the hierarchy.
7.2.1 Inter-RA Export Upward/Downward Sub-TLVs 7.2.1. Inter-RA Export Upward/Downward Sub-TLVs
The Inter-RA Export Sub-TLVs can be used to prevent the re- The Inter-RA Export sub-TLVs can be used to prevent the
advertisement of OSPF TE routing information into an RA which re-advertisement of OSPF TE routing information into an RA that
previously advertised that information. The type value TBDz (see previously advertised that information. The type value 13 (see
Section 10) will indicate that the associated routing information has Section 10) will indicate that the associated routing information has
been exported downward. The type value TBDy (see Section 10) will been exported downward. The type value 12 (see Section 10) will
indicate that the associated routing information has been exported indicate that the associated routing information has been exported
upward. While it is not required for routing information exported upward. While it is not required for routing information exported
downward, both Sub-TLVs will include the Routing Area (RA) ID from downward, both sub-TLVs will include the Routing Area (RA) ID from
which the routing information was exported. This RA is not which the routing information was exported. This RA is not
necessarily the RA originating the routing information but RA from necessarily the RA originating the routing information but the RA
which the information was immediately exported. from which the information was immediately exported.
These additional Sub-TLVs MAY be included in TE LSAs that include any These additional sub-TLVs MAY be included in TE LSAs that include any
of the following top-level TLVs: of the following top-level TLVs:
- Router Address top-level TLV - Router Address top-level TLV
- Link top-level TLV - Link top-level TLV
- Node Attribute top-level TLV - Node Attribute top-level TLV
The Type field of the Inter-RA Export Upward and Inter-RA Export The Type field of the Inter-RA Export Upward and Inter-RA Export
Downward sub-TLVs are respectively assigned the values TBDy and TBDz Downward sub-TLVs are respectively assigned the values 12 and 13 (see
(see Section 10). The Length field in these Sub-TLVs takes the value Section 10). The Length field in these sub-TLVs takes the value 4.
4. The Value field in these sub-TLVs contains the associated RA ID. The Value field in these sub-TLVs contains the associated RA ID. The
The RA ID value must be a unique identifier for the RA within the RA ID value must be a unique identifier for the RA within the ASON
ASON routing domain. routing domain.
The format of the Inter-RA Export Upward and Inter-RA Export Downward The format of the Inter-RA Export Upward and Inter-RA Export Downward
Sub-TLVs is graphically depicted below: sub-TLVs is graphically depicted 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Upward/Downward Type | Length (4) | | Upward/Downward Type | Length (4) |
| (TBDy/TBDz) | | | (12/13) | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Associated RA ID | | Associated RA ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
7.2.2 Inter-RA Export Upward/Downward Sub-TLV Processing 7.2.2. Inter-RA Export Upward/Downward Sub-TLV Processing
TE LSAs MAY be imported or exported downward or upward in the ASON TE LSAs MAY be imported or exported downward or upward in the ASON
routing hierarchy. The direction and advertising RA ID are advertised routing hierarchy. The direction and advertising RA ID are
in an Inter-RA Export Upward/Downward Sub-TLV. They MUST be retained advertised in an Inter-RA Export Upward/Downward sub-TLV. They MUST
and advertised in the receiving RA with the associated routing be retained and advertised in the receiving RA with the associated
information. routing information.
When exporting routing information upward in the ASON routing When exporting routing information upward in the ASON routing
hierarchy, any information received from a level above, i.e., tagged hierarchy, any information received from a level above, i.e., tagged
with an Inter-RA Export Downward Sub-TLV, MUST NOT be exported with an Inter-RA Export Downward sub-TLV, MUST NOT be exported
upward. Since an RA at level N is contained by a single RA at level upward. Since an RA at Level N is contained by a single RA at
N+1, this is the only checking that is necessary and the associated Level N+1, this is the only checking that is necessary and the
RA ID is used solely for informational purposes. associated RA ID is used solely for informational purposes.
When exporting routing information downward in the ASON routing When exporting routing information downward in the ASON routing
hierarchy, any information received from a level below, i.e., tagged hierarchy, any information received from a level below, i.e., tagged
with an Inter-RA Export Upward Sub-TLV MUST NOT be exported downward with an Inter-RA Export Upward sub-TLV, MUST NOT be exported downward
if the target RA ID matches the RA ID associated with the routing if the target RA ID matches the RA ID associated with the routing
information. This additional checking is required for routing information. This additional checking is required for routing
information exported downward since a single RA at level N+1 may information exported downward since a single RA at Level N+1 may
contain multiple RAs at level N in the ASON routing hierarchy. In contain multiple RAs at Level N in the ASON routing hierarchy. In
order words, routing information MUST NOT be exported downward into other words, routing information MUST NOT be exported downward into
the RA from which it was received. the RA from which it was received.
8. OSPFv2 Scalability 8. OSPFv2 Scalability
The extensions described herein are only applicable to ASON routing The extensions described herein are only applicable to ASON routing
domains and it is not expected that the attendant reachability (see domains, and it is not expected that the attendant reachability (see
Section 4) and link information will ever be combined with global Section 4) and link information will ever be combined with global
Internet or Layer 3 Virtual Private Network (VPN) routing. If there Internet or Layer 3 Virtual Private Network (VPN) routing. If there
were ever a requirement for a given RC to participate in both were ever a requirement for a given RC to participate in both
domains, separate OSPFv2 instances would be utilized. However, in a domains, separate OSPFv2 instances would be utilized. However, in a
multi-level ASON hierarchy, the potential volume of information could multi-level ASON hierarchy, the potential volume of information could
be quite large and the recommendations in this section MUST be be quite large and the recommendations in this section MUST be
followed by RCs implementing this specification. followed by RCs implementing this specification.
- Routing information exchange upward/downward in the hierarchy - Routing information exchange upward/downward in the hierarchy
between adjacent RAs MUST, by default, be limited to reachability between adjacent RAs MUST, by default, be limited to reachability
information. In addition, several transformations such as prefix information. In addition, several transformations such as prefix
aggregation are RECOMMENDED to reduce the amount of information aggregation are RECOMMENDED to reduce the amount of information
skipping to change at page 14, line 36 skipping to change at page 15, line 9
Pacing and min/max thresholds for triggered updates are strongly Pacing and min/max thresholds for triggered updates are strongly
RECOMMENDED. RECOMMENDED.
- The number of routing levels MUST be maintained under strict policy - The number of routing levels MUST be maintained under strict policy
control. control.
9. Security Considerations 9. Security Considerations
This document specifies the contents and processing of OSPFv2 TE LSAs This document specifies the contents and processing of OSPFv2 TE LSAs
[RFC3630] and [RFC4202]. The TE LSA extensions defined in this [RFC3630] and [RFC4202]. The TE LSA extensions defined in this
document are not used for SPF computation, and have no direct effect document are not used for Shortest Path First (SPF) computation and
on IP routing. Additionally, ASON routing domains are delimited by have no direct effect on IP routing. Additionally, ASON routing
the usual administrative domain boundaries. domains are delimited by the usual administrative domain boundaries.
Any mechanisms used for securing the exchange of normal OSPF LSAs can Any mechanisms used for securing the exchange of normal OSPF LSAs can
be applied equally to all TE LSAs used in the ASON context. be applied equally to all TE LSAs used in the ASON context.
Authentication of OSPFv2 LSA exchanges (such as OSPF cryptographic Authentication of OSPFv2 LSA exchanges (such as OSPF cryptographic
authentication [RFC2328] and [RFC5709]) can be used to secure against authentication [RFC2328] [RFC5709]) can be used to provide
passive attacks and provide significant protection against active significant protection against active attacks. [RFC5709] defines a
attacks. [RFC5709] defines a mechanism for authenticating OSPFv2 mechanism for authenticating OSPFv2 packets by making use of the
packets by making use of the HMAC algorithm in conjunction with the Hashed Message Authentication Code (HMAC) algorithm in conjunction
SHA family of cryptographic hash functions. with the SHA family of cryptographic hash functions.
If a stronger authentication were believed to be required, then the
use of a full digital signature [RFC2154] would be an approach that
should be seriously considered. Use of full digital signatures would
enable precise authentication of the OSPF router originating each
OSPF link-state advertisement, and thereby provide much stronger
integrity protection for the OSPF routing domain.
RCs implementing export/import of ASON routing information between RCs implementing export/import of ASON routing information between
RAs MUST also include policy control of both the maximum amount of RAs MUST also include policy control of both the maximum amount of
information advertised between RAs and the maximum rate at which it information advertised between RAs and the maximum rate at which it
is advertised. This is to isolate the consequences of an RC being is advertised. This is to isolate the consequences of an RC being
compromised to the RAs to which that subverted RC is attached. compromised to the RAs to which that subverted RC is attached.
10. IANA Considerations The "Analysis of OSPF Security According to KARP Design Guide"
[OSPF-SEC] provides a comprehensive analysis of OSPFv2 and OSPFv3
security relative to the requirements specified in [RFC6518].
This document is classified as Standards Track. It defines new sub- 10. IANA Considerations
TLVs for inclusion in OSPF TE LSAs. According to the assignment
policies for the registries of code points for these sub-TLVs, values
must be assigned by IANA [RFC3630].
This draft requests early allocation of IANA code points in This document defines new sub-TLVs for inclusion in OSPF TE LSAs.
accordance with [RFC4020]. [NOTE TO RFC Editor: this paragraph and IANA has assigned values per the assignment policies for the
the RFC 4020 reference can be removed during RFC editing]. registries of code points for these sub-TLVs [RFC3630].
The following subsections summarize the required sub-TLVs. The following subsections summarize the required sub-TLVs.
10.1. Sub-TLVs of the Link TLV 10.1. Sub-TLVs of the Link TLV
This document defines the following sub-TLVs of the Link TLV This document defines the following sub-TLVs of the Link TLV
advertised in the OSPF TE LSA: advertised in the OSPF TE LSA:
- Local and Remote TE Router ID sub-TLV (TBDx) - Local and Remote TE Router ID sub-TLV (10)
- Inter-RA Export Upward sub-TLV (TBDy) - Inter-RA Export Upward sub-TLV (12)
- Inter-RA Export Downward sub-TLV (TBDz) - Inter-RA Export Downward sub-TLV (13)
Codepoints for these Sub-TLVs should be allocated from the "Types for Codepoints for these sub-TLVs have been allocated in the Standards
sub-TLVs of TE Link TLV (Value 2)" registry Standards Action range (0 Action range of the "Types for sub-TLVs of TE Link TLV (Value 2)"
- 32767) [RFC3630]. registry [RFC3630].
Note that the same values for the Inter-RA Export Upward sub-TLV and Note that the same values for the Inter-RA Export Upward sub-TLV and
the Inter-RA Export Downward Sub-TLV MUST be used when they appear in the Inter-RA Export Downward sub-TLV MUST be used when they appear in
the Link TLV, Node Attribute TLV, and Router Address TLV. the Link TLV, Node Attribute TLV, and Router Address TLV.
10.2. Sub-TLVs of the Node Attribute TLV 10.2. Sub-TLVs of the Node Attribute TLV
This document defines the following sub-TLVs of the Node Attribute This document defines the following sub-TLVs of the Node Attribute
TLV advertised in the OSPF TE LSA: TLV advertised in the OSPF TE LSA:
- Local TE Router ID sub-TLV (5) - Local TE Router ID sub-TLV (5)
- Inter-RA Export Upward sub-TLV (TBDy) - Inter-RA Export Upward sub-TLV (12)
- Inter-RA Export Downward sub-TLV (TBDz) - Inter-RA Export Downward sub-TLV (13)
Codepoints for these Sub-TLVs should be assigned from the "Types for Codepoints for these sub-TLVs have been assigned in Standards Action
sub-TLVs of TE Node Attribute TLV (Value 5)" registry Standards range of the "Types for sub-TLVs of TE Node Attribute TLV (Value 5)"
Action range (0 - 32767) [RFC5786]. [RFC5786].
Note that the same values for the Inter-RA Export Upward sub-TLV and Note that the same values for the Inter-RA Export Upward sub-TLV and
the Inter-RA Export Downward Sub-TLV MUST be used when they appear in the Inter-RA Export Downward sub-TLV MUST be used when they appear in
the Link TLV, Node Attribute TLV, and Router Address TLV. the Link TLV, Node Attribute TLV, and Router Address TLV.
10.3. Sub-TLVs of the Router Address TLV 10.3. Sub-TLVs of the Router Address TLV
The Router Address TLV is advertised in the OSPF TE LSA [RFC3630]. The Router Address TLV is advertised in the OSPF TE LSA [RFC3630].
Since this TLV currently has no Sub-TLVs defined, a "Types for sub- Since the TLV had no sub-TLVs defined, a "Types for sub-TLVs of
TLVs of Router Address TLV (Value 1)" registry must be defined. Router Address TLV (Value 1)" registry has been defined.
The registry guidelines for the assignment of types for sub-TLVs of The registry guidelines for the assignment of types for sub-TLVs of
the Router Address TLV are as follows: the Router Address TLV are as follows:
o Types in the range 0-32767 are to be assigned via Standards o Types in the range 0-32767 are to be assigned via Standards
Action. Action.
o Type 0 in the aforementioned standards action range (0-32767) o Type 0 in the aforementioned Standards Action range (0-32767)
is reserved. is reserved.
o Types in the range 32768-32777 are for experimental use; these o Types in the range 32768-32777 are for experimental use; these
will not be registered with IANA, and MUST NOT be mentioned by will not be registered with IANA and MUST NOT be mentioned by
RFCs. RFCs.
o Types in the range 32778-65535 are not to be assigned at this o Types in the range 32778-65535 are not to be assigned at this
time. Before any assignments can be made in this range, there time. Before any assignments can be made in this range, there
MUST be a Standards Track RFC that specifies IANA MUST be a Standards Track RFC that specifies IANA
Considerations that covers the range being assigned. Considerations that covers the range being assigned.
This document defines the following sub-TLVs for inclusion in the This document defines the following sub-TLVs for inclusion in the
Router Address TLV: Router Address TLV:
- Inter-RA Export Upward sub-TLV (TBDy) - Inter-RA Export Upward sub-TLV (12)
- Inter-RA Export Downward sub-TLV (TBDz) - Inter-RA Export Downward sub-TLV (13)
Codepoints for these Sub-TLVs should be allocated from the "Types for Codepoints for these sub-TLVs have been allocated in the Standards
sub-TLVs of Router Address TLV (Value 1)" registry Standards Action Action range of the "Types for sub-TLVs of Router Address TLV
range. (Value 1)" registry.
Note that the same values for the Inter-RA Export Upward sub-TLV and Note that the same values for the Inter-RA Export Upward sub-TLV and
the Inter-RA Export Downward Sub-TLV MUST be used when they appear in the Inter-RA Export Downward sub-TLV MUST be used when they appear in
the Link TLV, Node Attribute TLV, and Router Address TLV. the Link TLV, Node Attribute TLV, and Router Address TLV.
11. Management Considerations 11. Management Considerations
11.1. Routing Area (RA) Isolation 11.1. Routing Area (RA) Isolation
If the RA Identifier is mapped to the OSPF Area ID as recommended in If the RA ID is mapped to the OSPF Area ID as recommended in
section 2.0, OSPF [RFC2328] implicitly provides isolation. On any Section 2, OSPF [RFC2328] implicitly provides isolation. On any
intra-RA link, packets will only be accepted if the area-id in the intra-RA link, packets will only be accepted if the area ID in the
OSPF packet header matches the area ID for the OSPF interface on OSPF packet header matches the area ID for the OSPF interface on
which the packet was received. Hence, RCs will only establish which the packet was received. Hence, RCs will only establish
adjacencies and exchange reachability information (see Section 4.0) adjacencies and exchange reachability information (see Section 4.0)
with RCs in the same RA. Other mechanisms for RA isolation are with RCs in the same RA. Other mechanisms for RA isolation are
beyond the scope of this document. beyond the scope of this document.
11.2 Routing Area (RA) Topology/Configuration Changes 11.2. Routing Area (RA) Topology/Configuration Changes
The GMPLS Routing for ASON requirements [RFC4258] dictate that the The GMPLS Routing for ASON requirements [RFC4258] dictate that the
routing protocol MUST support reconfiguration and SHOULD support routing protocol MUST support reconfiguration and SHOULD support
architectural evolution. OSPF [RFC2328] includes support for the architectural evolution. OSPF [RFC2328] includes support for the
dynamic introduction or removal of ASON reachability information dynamic introduction or removal of ASON reachability information
through the flooding and purging of OSPF opaque LSAs [RFC5250]. Also, through the flooding and purging of OSPF Opaque LSAs [RFC5250].
when an RA is partitioned or an RC fails, stale LSAs SHOULD NOT be Also, when an RA is partitioned or an RC fails, stale LSAs SHOULD NOT
used unless the advertising RC is reachable. The configuration of be used unless the advertising RC is reachable. The configuration of
OSPF RAs and the policies governing the redistribution of ASON OSPF RAs and the policies governing the redistribution of ASON
reachability information between RAs are implementation issues reachability information between RAs are implementation issues
outside of the OSPF routing protocol and beyond the scope of this outside of the OSPF routing protocol and beyond the scope of this
document. document.
12. Comparison to Requirements in RFC 4258 12. Comparison to Requirements in RFC 4258
The following table shows how this draft complies with the The following table shows how this document complies with the
requirements in [RFC4258]. The first column contains a requirements requirements in [RFC4258]. The first column contains a requirements
number (1-30) and the relevant section in RFC 4258. The second column number (1-30) and the relevant section in RFC 4258. The second
describes the requirement, the third column discusses the compliance column describes the requirement, the third column discusses the
to that requirement, and the fourth column lists the relevant section compliance to that requirement, and the fourth column lists the
in draft, and/or another RFC that already satisfies the requirement. relevant section in this document and/or another RFC that already
satisfies the requirement.
+----------+---------------------------+---------------+-------------+ +----------+---------------------------+---------------+-------------+
| RFC 4258 | RFC 4258 Requirement | Compliance | Reference | | RFC 4258 | RFC 4258 Requirement | Compliance | Reference |
| Section | | | | | Section | | | |
| (Req. | | | | | (Req. | | | |
| Number) | | | | | Number) | | | |
+----------+---------------------------+---------------+-------------+ +----------+---------------------------+---------------+-------------+
| 3.0 (1) | The failure of an RC, or | Implied by | Not an | | 3 (1) | The failure of an RC, or | Implied by | Not an |
| | the failure of | separation of |attribute of | | | the failure of | separation of |attribute of |
| |communications between RCs,| transport and | routing | | |communications between RCs,| transport and | routing |
| |and the subsequent recovery|control plane. | protocol. | | |and the subsequent recovery|control plane. | protocol. |
| |from the failure condition | | | | |from the failure condition | | |
| | MUST NOT disrupt call in | | | | | MUST NOT disrupt calls in | | |
| | progress. | | | | | progress. | | |
+----------+---------------------------+---------------+-------------+ +----------+---------------------------+---------------+-------------+
| 3.1 (2) |Multiple Hierarchical Level| Yes | Sections 2 | | 3.1 (2) | Multiple Hierarchical | Yes | Sections 2 |
| | of ASON Routing Areas | | and 3 | | | Levels of ASON Routing | | and 3. |
| | (RAs). | | | | | Areas (RAs). | | |
+----------+---------------------------+---------------+-------------+ +----------+---------------------------+---------------+-------------+
| 3.1 (3) | Prior to establishing | Yes, when RA |Section 11.1 | | 3.1 (3) | Prior to establishing | Yes, when RA |Section 11.1.|
| | communications, RCs MUST | maps to OSPF | | | | communications, RCs MUST | maps to OSPF | |
| |verify that they are bound | Area ID. | | | |verify that they are bound | Area ID. | |
| | to the same parent RA. | Otherwise, | | | | to the same parent RA. | Otherwise, | |
| | | out of scope. | | | | | out of scope. | |
+----------+---------------------------+---------------+-------------+ +----------+---------------------------+---------------+-------------+
| 3.1 (4) | The RC ID MUST be unique | Yes |RFC 2328 and | | 3.1 (4) | The RC ID MUST be unique | Yes |RFC 2328 and |
| | within its containing RA. | | Section 3. | | | within its containing RA. | | Section 3. |
+----------+---------------------------+---------------+-------------+ +----------+---------------------------+---------------+-------------+
| 3.1 (5) |Each RA within a carrier's |Yes - although | Sections 2, | | 3.1 (5) |Each RA within a carrier's |Yes - although | Sections 2, |
| | network SHALL be uniquely | uniqueness is | 3, and 11.1 | | | network SHALL be uniquely | uniqueness is | 3, and 11.1.|
| |identifiable. RA IDs MAY be|the operator's | | | | identifiable. RA IDs MAY |the operator's | |
| |associated with a transport|responsibility.| | | | be associated with a |responsibility.| |
| | plane name space, whereas | | | | |transport-plane name space,| | |
| |RC IDs are associated with | | | | | whereas RC IDs are | | |
| |a control plane name space.| | | | | associated with a | | |
| | control-plane name space. | | |
+----------+---------------------------+---------------+-------------+ +----------+---------------------------+---------------+-------------+
| 3.2 (6) | Hierarchical Routing | Yes | Section 7 | | 3.2 (6) | Hierarchical Routing | Yes | Section 7. |
| | Information Dissemination | | | | | Information Dissemination.| | |
+----------+---------------------------+---------------+-------------+ +----------+---------------------------+---------------+-------------+
| 3.2 (7) | Routing Information | Yes | Section 7.1 | | 3.2 (7) | Routing Information | Yes | Section 7.1.|
| |exchanged between levels N | | | | |exchanged between levels N | | |
| | and N+1 via separate | | | | | and N+1 via separate | | |
| | instances and | | | | | instances and | | |
| | import/export. | | | | | import/export. | | |
+----------+---------------------------+---------------+-------------+ +----------+---------------------------+---------------+-------------+
+----------+---------------------------+---------------+-------------+ +----------+---------------------------+---------------+-------------+
| 3.2 (8) | Routing Information | No - Not | | | 3.2 (8) | Routing Information | No - Not | |
| |exchanged between levels N | described. | | | |exchanged between levels N | described. | |
| | and N+1 via external link | | | | | and N+1 via external link | | |
| | (inter-RA links). | | | | | (inter-RA links). | | |
+----------+---------------------------+---------------+-------------+ +----------+---------------------------+---------------+-------------+
| 3.2 (9) | Routing information | Yes | Sections 4, | | 3.2 (9) | Routing information | Yes | Sections 4, |
| | exchange MUST include | |6, 6.1, 6.2, | | | exchange MUST include | |6, 6.1, 6.2, |
| | reachability information | | and 8 | | | reachability information | | and 8. |
| | and MAY include, upon | | | | | and MAY include, upon | | |
| | policy decision, node and | | | | | policy decision, node and | | |
| | link topology. | | | | | link topology. | | |
+----------+---------------------------+---------------+-------------+ +----------+---------------------------+---------------+-------------+
| 3.2 (10) | There SHOULD NOT be any |Yes - separate | Sections 2 | | 3.2 (10) | There SHOULD NOT be any |Yes - separate | Sections 2 |
| | dependencies on the | instances. | and 3 | | | dependencies on the | instances. | and 3. |
| |different routing protocols| | | | |different routing protocols| | |
| | used within an RA or in | | | | | used within an RA or in | | |
| | different RAs. | | | | | different RAs. | | |
+----------+---------------------------+---------------+-------------+ +----------+---------------------------+---------------+-------------+
| 3.2 (11) |The routing protocol SHALL | Yes | Section 7.2 | | 3.2 (11) |The routing protocol SHALL | Yes | Section 7.2.|
| | differentiate the routing | | | | | differentiate the routing | | |
| |information originated at a| | | | |information originated at a| | |
| |given-level RA from derived| | | | |given-level RA from derived| | |
| | routing information | | | | | routing information | | |
| | (received from external | | | | | (received from external | | |
| | RAs), even when this | | | | | RAs), even when this | | |
| |information is forwarded by| | | | |information is forwarded by| | |
| | another RC at the same | | | | | another RC at the same | | |
| | level. | | | | | level. | | |
+----------+---------------------------+---------------+-------------+ +----------+---------------------------+---------------+-------------+
| 3.2 (12) | The routing protocol MUST | Yes | Section 7.2 | | 3.2 (12) | The routing protocol MUST | Yes | Section 7.2.|
| | provide a mechanism to | | | | | provide a mechanism to | | |
| | prevent information | | | | | prevent information | | |
| |propagated from a Level N+1| | | | |propagated from a Level N+1| | |
| | RA's RC into the Level N | | | | | RA's RC into the Level N | | |
| | RA's RC from being | | | | | RA's RC from being | | |
| | re-introduced into the | | | | | re-introduced into the | | |
| | Level N+1 RA's RC. | | | | | Level N+1 RA's RC. | | |
+----------+---------------------------+---------------+-------------+ +----------+---------------------------+---------------+-------------+
| 3.2 (13) | The routing protocol MUST | Yes | Section 7.2 | | 3.2 (13) | The routing protocol MUST | Yes | Section 7.2.|
| | provide a mechanism to | | | | | provide a mechanism to | | |
| | prevent information | | | | | prevent information | | |
| |propagated from a Level N-1| | | | |propagated from a Level N-1| | |
| | RA's RC into the Level N | | | | | RA's RC into the Level N | | |
| | RA's RC from being | | | | | RA's RC from being | | |
| | re-introduced into the | | | | | re-introduced into the | | |
| | Level N-1 RA's RC. | | | | | Level N-1 RA's RC. | | |
+----------+---------------------------+---------------+-------------+ +----------+---------------------------+---------------+-------------+
+----------+---------------------------+---------------+-------------+ +----------+---------------------------+---------------+-------------+
| 3.2 (14) | Instance of a Level N | Yes | Sections 2, | | 3.2 (14) | Instance of a Level N | Yes | Sections 2, |
| | routing function and an | | 3, and 7 | | | routing function and an | | 3, and 7. |
| | instance of a Level N+1 | | | | | instance of a Level N+1 | | |
| | routing function in the | | | | | routing function in the | | |
| | same system. | | | | | same system. | | |
+----------+---------------------------+---------------+-------------+ +----------+---------------------------+---------------+-------------+
| 3.2 (15) | The Level N routing | Not described | N/A | | 3.2 (15) | The Level N routing | Not described | N/A |
| | function is on a separate | but possible. | | | | function is on a separate | but possible. | |
| | system the Level N+1 | | | | | system than the Level | | |
| | routing function. | | | | | N+1 routing function. | | |
+----------+---------------------------+---------------+-------------+ +----------+---------------------------+---------------+-------------+
| 3.3 (16) |The RC MUST support static | The automation| Sections 2 | | 3.3 (16) |The RC MUST support static | The automation| Sections 2 |
| | (i.e., operator assisted) | requirement is|and 3. Config| | | (i.e., operator assisted) | requirement is|and 3. Refer |
| | and MAY support automated | ambiguous. | is product | | | and MAY support automated | ambiguous. | to RFC 2328 |
| | configuration of the | OSPF supports | specific. | | | configuration of the | OSPF supports | for OSPF |
| |information describing its | auto-discovery| Refer to | | |information describing its | auto-discovery| auto- |
| |relationship to its parent | of neighbors | RFC 2328 for| | |relationship to its parent | of neighbors | discovery. |
| | and its child within the | and topology. | OSPF auto- | | | and its child within the | and topology. | |
| | hierarchical structure | Default and | discovery. | | | hierarchical structure | Default and | |
| | (including RA ID and RC | automatically | | | | (including RA ID and RC | automatically | |
| | ID). | configured | | | | ID). | configured | |
| | | polices are | | | | | polices are | |
| | | out of scope. | | | | | out of scope. | |
+----------+---------------------------+---------------+-------------+ +----------+---------------------------+---------------+-------------+
| 3.3 (17) |The RC MUST support static |Yes - when OSPF|RFC 2328 and | | 3.3 (17) |The RC MUST support static |Yes - when OSPF|RFC 2328 and |
| | (i.e., operator assisted) |area maps to RA|Section 11.1 | | | (i.e., operator assisted) |area maps to RA|Section 11.1.|
| | and MAY support automated | discovery is | | | | and MAY support automated | discovery is | |
| | configuration of the | automatic. | | | | configuration of the | automatic. | |
| |information describing its | | | | |information describing its | | |
| | associated adjacencies to | | | | | associated adjacencies to | | |
| | other RCs within an RA. | | | | | other RCs within an RA. | | |
+----------+---------------------------+---------------+-------------+ +----------+---------------------------+---------------+-------------+
| 3.3 (18) |The routing protocol SHOULD| Yes | RFC 2328 | | 3.3 (18) |The routing protocol SHOULD| Yes | RFC 2328. |
| |support all the types of RC| | | | |support all the types of RC| | |
| | adjacencies described in | | | | | adjacencies described in | | |
| |Section 9 of [G.7715]. The | | | | |Section 9 of [G.7715]. The | | |
| | latter includes congruent | | | | | latter includes congruent | | |
| |topology (with distributed | | | | |topology (with distributed | | |
| | RC) and hubbed topology | | | | | RC) and hubbed topology | | |
| |(e.g., note that the latter| | | | |(e.g., note that the latter| | |
| | does not automatically | | | | | does not automatically | | |
| | imply a designated RC). | | | | | imply a designated RC). | | |
+----------+---------------------------+---------------+-------------+ +----------+---------------------------+---------------+-------------+
skipping to change at page 21, line 18 skipping to change at page 22, line 18
| | terms of the number of | | | | | terms of the number of | | |
| |hierarchical levels of RAs,| | | | |hierarchical levels of RAs,| | |
| |as well as the aggregation | | | | |as well as the aggregation | | |
| | and segmentation of RAs. | | | | | and segmentation of RAs. | | |
+----------+---------------------------+---------------+-------------+ +----------+---------------------------+---------------+-------------+
|3.5.2 (20)|Advertisements MAY contain | | | |3.5.2 (20)|Advertisements MAY contain | | |
| |the following common set of| | | | |the following common set of| | |
| | information regardless of | | | | | information regardless of | | |
| | whether they are link or | | | | | whether they are link or | | |
| | node related: | | | | | node related: | | |
| | - RA ID of the RA to | Yes |Section 7.2.1| | | - RA ID of the RA to | Yes | Section |
| |which the advertisement is | | | | | which the | | 7.2.1. |
| | bounded | | | | | advertisement is | | |
| | - RC ID of the entity | Yes | RFC 2328 | | | bounded | | |
| | generating the | | | | | - RC ID of the entity | Yes | RFC 2328. |
| | advertisement | | | | | generating the | | |
| | - Information to | Yes |RFC 2328, RFC| | | advertisement | | |
| | uniquely identify | | 5250 | | | - Information to | Yes |RFC 2328, RFC|
| | advertisements | | | | | uniquely identify | | 5250. |
| | - Information to | No - Must | | | | advertisements | | |
| | determine whether an |compare to old | | | | - Information to | No - Must | |
| | advertisement has been | | | | | determine whether an |compare to old.| |
| | updated | | | | | advertisement has | | |
| | - Information to | Yes |Section 7.2.1| | | been updated | | |
| | indicate when an | | | | | - Information to | Yes | Section |
| | advertisement has been | | | | | indicate when an | | 7.2.1. |
| | derived from a different | | | | | advertisement has been| | |
| | level RA | | | | | derived from a | | |
| | different level RA. | | |
+----------+---------------------------+---------------+-------------+ +----------+---------------------------+---------------+-------------+
|3.5.3 (21)|The Node Attributes Node ID|Yes - Prefixes | RFC 5786, | +----------+---------------------------+---------------+-------------+
| | and Reachability must be | only for |Section 4 and| |3.5.3 (21)|The Node Attributes' Node |Yes - Prefixes | RFC 5786, |
| | advertised. It MAY be | reachability | 6 | | |ID and Reachability must be| only for | Sections 4 |
| | advertised. It MAY be | reachability. | and 6. |
| | advertised as a set of | | | | | advertised as a set of | | |
| |associated external (e.g., | | | | |associated external (e.g., | | |
| | User Network Interface | | | | | User Network Interface | | |
| | (UNI)) address/address | | | | | (UNI)) address/address | | |
| | prefixes or a set of | | | | | prefixes or a set of | | |
| | associated SNPP link | | | | | associated Subnetwork | | |
| | Point Pool (SNPP) link | | |
| | IDs/SNPP ID prefixes, the | | | | | IDs/SNPP ID prefixes, the | | |
| |selection of which MUST be | | | | |selection of which MUST be | | |
| | consistent within the | | | | | consistent within the | | |
| | applicable scope. | | | | | applicable scope. | | |
+----------+---------------------------+---------------+-------------+ +----------+---------------------------+---------------+-------------+
+----------+---------------------------+---------------+-------------+ |3.5.4 (22)| The Link Attributes' Local| Yes | Section 6.1.|
|3.5.4 (22)| The Link Attributes Local | Yes | Section 6.1 |
| | SNPP link ID, Remote SNPP | | | | | SNPP link ID, Remote SNPP | | |
| |link ID, and layer specific| | | | |link ID, and layer specific| | |
| | characteristics must be | | | | | characteristics must be | | |
| | advertised. | | | | | advertised. | | |
+----------+---------------------------+---------------+-------------+ +----------+---------------------------+---------------+-------------+
|3.5.4 (23)| Link Signaling Attributes | Yes | Section 5, | |3.5.4 (23)| Link Signaling Attributes | Yes | Section 5, |
| |other than Local Adaptation| | RFC 4652 - | | |other than Local Adaptation| | RFC 4652 - |
| |(Signal Type, Link Weight, | |Section 5.3.1| | |(Signal Type, Link Weight, | | Section |
| | Resource Class, Local | | | | | Resource Class, Local | | 5.3.1. |
| | Connection Types, Link | | | | | Connection Types, Link | | |
| | Capacity, Link | | | | | Capacity, Link | | |
| | Availability, Diversity | | | | | Availability, Diversity | | |
| | Support) | | | | | Support). | | |
+----------+---------------------------+---------------+-------------+ +----------+---------------------------+---------------+-------------+
|3.5.4 (24)| Link Signaling Local | Yes | Section 5.1 | |3.5.4 (24)| Link Signaling Local | Yes | Section 5.1.|
| | Adaptation | | | | | Adaptation. | | |
+----------+---------------------------+---------------+-------------+ +----------+---------------------------+---------------+-------------+
| 5 (25) | The routing adjacency | Yes |Section 2, 3,| | 5 (25) | The routing adjacency | Yes | Sections 2, |
| | topology (i.e., the | | and 6 | | | topology (i.e., the | | 3, and 6. |
| |associated PC connectivity | | | | |associated PC connectivity | | |
| |topology) and the transport| | | | |topology) and the transport| | |
| |network topology SHALL NOT | | | | |network topology SHALL NOT | | |
| |be assumed to be congruent.| | | | |be assumed to be congruent.| | |
+----------+---------------------------+---------------+-------------+ +----------+---------------------------+---------------+-------------+
| 5 (26) |The routing topology SHALL | Yes |RFC 2328, RFC| | 5 (26) |The routing topology SHALL | Yes |RFC 2328, RFC|
| | support multiple links | | 3630 | | | support multiple links | | 3630. |
| | between nodes and RAs. | | | | | between nodes and RAs. | | |
+----------+---------------------------+---------------+-------------+ +----------+---------------------------+---------------+-------------+
+----------+---------------------------+---------------+-------------+
| 5 (27) |The routing protocol SHALL | Yes |RFC 2328, RFC| | 5 (27) |The routing protocol SHALL | Yes |RFC 2328, RFC|
| | converge such that the | | 5250 | | | converge such that the | | 5250. |
| | distributed RDBs become | | | | | distributed Routing | | |
| | Databases (RDBs) become | | |
| |synchronized after a period| | | | |synchronized after a period| | |
| | of time. | | | | | of time. | | |
+----------+---------------------------+---------------+-------------+ +----------+---------------------------+---------------+-------------+
| 5 (28) |Self-consistent information|Yes - However, | Section 7.1 | | 5 (28) |Self-consistent information|Yes - However, | Section 7.1.|
| | at the receiving level | this is not a | | | | at the receiving level | this is not a | |
| | resulting from any | routing | | | | resulting from any | routing | |
| | transformation (filter, | protocol | | | | transformation (filter, | protocol | |
| | summarize, etc.) and | function. | | | | summarize, etc.) and | function. | |
| | forwarding of information | | | | | forwarding of information | | |
| | from one RC to RC(s) at | | | | | from one RC to RC(s) at | | |
| | different levels when | | | | | different levels when | | |
| |multiple RCs are bound to a| | | | |multiple RCs are bound to a| | |
| | single RA. | | | | | single RA. | | |
+----------+---------------------------+---------------+-------------+ +----------+---------------------------+---------------+-------------+
+----------+---------------------------+---------------+-------------+
| 5 (29) | In order to support |Partial - OSPF |RFC 2328 and | | 5 (29) | In order to support |Partial - OSPF |RFC 2328 and |
| | operator-assisted changes | supports the | RFC 5250 | | | operator-assisted changes | supports the | RFC 5250. |
| | in the containment | purging of | | | | in the containment | purging of | |
| | relationships of RAs, the | stale | | | | relationships of RAs, the | stale | |
| | routing protocol SHALL |advertisements | | | | routing protocol SHALL |advertisements | |
| |support evolution in terms |and origination| | | |support evolution in terms |and origination| |
| | of the number of | of new. The | | | | of the number of | of new. The | |
| |hierarchical levels of RAs.|non-disruptive | | | |hierarchical levels of RAs.|non-disruptive | |
| | For example: support of | behavior is | | | | For example, support of | behavior is | |
| | non-disruptive operations |implementation | | | | non-disruptive operations |implementation | |
| |such as adding and removing| specific. | | | |such as adding and removing| specific. | |
| | RAs at the top/bottom of | | | | | RAs at the top/bottom of | | |
| | the hierarchy, adding or | | | | | the hierarchy, adding or | | |
| | removing a hierarchical | | | | | removing a hierarchical | | |
| |level of RAs in or from the| | | | |level of RAs in or from the| | |
| |middle of the hierarchy, as| | | | |middle of the hierarchy, as| | |
| | well as aggregation and | | | | | well as aggregation and | | |
| | segmentation of RAs. | | | | | segmentation of RAs. | | |
+----------+---------------------------+---------------+-------------+ +----------+---------------------------+---------------+-------------+
| 5 (30) | A collection of links and |Yes - Within an| Sections 4 | | 5 (30) | A collection of links and |Yes - Within an| Sections 4 |
| |nodes such as a subnetwork | RA it must be | and 6 | | |nodes such as a subnetwork | RA it must be | and 6. |
| | or RA MUST be able to | consistent. | | | | or RA MUST be able to | consistent. | |
| | represent itself to the | | | | | represent itself to the | | |
| | wider network as a single | | | | | wider network as a single | | |
| | logical entity with only | | | | | logical entity with only | | |
| |its external links visible | | | | |its external links visible | | |
| | to the topology database. | | | | | to the topology database. | | |
+----------+---------------------------+---------------+-------------+ +----------+---------------------------+---------------+-------------+
13. References 13. References
13.1. Normative References 13.1. Normative References
[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.
[RFC2328] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328, April 1998. [RFC2328] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328, April 1998.
[RFC3630] Katz, D., Kompella, K., and D. Yeung, "Traffic [RFC3630] Katz, D., Kompella, K., and D. Yeung, "Traffic
Engineering (TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC Engineering (TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2",
3630, September 2003. RFC 3630, September 2003.
[RFC3945] Mannie, E., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label [RFC3945] Mannie, E., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Architecture", RFC 3945, October 2004. Switching (GMPLS) Architecture", RFC 3945, October 2004.
[RFC4202] Kompella, K., Ed., and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "Routing [RFC4202] Kompella, K., Ed., and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "Routing
Extensions in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Extensions in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol
Label Switching (GMPLS)", RFC 4202, October 2005. Label Switching (GMPLS)", RFC 4202, October 2005.
[RFC4203] Kompella, K., Ed., and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "OSPF Extensions [RFC4203] Kompella, K., Ed., and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "OSPF Extensions
in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS)", RFC 4203, October 2005. (GMPLS)", RFC 4203, October 2005.
[RFC5250] Berger, L., Bryskin, I., Zinin, A., and R. Coltun, "The [RFC5250] Berger, L., Bryskin, I., Zinin, A., and R. Coltun, "The
OSPF Opaque LSA Option", RFC 5250, July 2008. OSPF Opaque LSA Option", RFC 5250, July 2008.
[RFC5786] Aggarwal, R. and K. Kompella, "Advertising a Router's [RFC5786] Aggarwal, R. and K. Kompella, "Advertising a Router's
Local Addresses in OSPF TE Extensions", RFC 5786, March Local Addresses in OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE)
2010. Extensions", RFC 5786, March 2010.
13.2. Informative References 13.2. Informative References
[RFC2154] Murphy, S., Badger, M., and B. Wellington, "OSPF with
Digital Signatures", RFC 2154, June 1997.
[RFC4020] Kompella, K. and A. Zinin, "Early IANA Allocation of
Standards Track Code Points", BCP 100, RFC 4020,
February 2005.
[RFC4258] Brungard, D., Ed., "Requirements for Generalized Multi- [RFC4258] Brungard, D., Ed., "Requirements for Generalized Multi-
Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Routing for the Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Routing for the
Automatically Switched Optical Network (ASON)", RFC Automatically Switched Optical Network (ASON)",
4258, November 2005. RFC 4258, November 2005.
[RFC4652] Papadimitriou, D., Ed., Ong, L., Sadler, J., Shew, S., [RFC4652] Papadimitriou, D., Ed., Ong, L., Sadler, J., Shew, S.,
and D. Ward, "Evaluation of Existing Routing Protocols and D. Ward, "Evaluation of Existing Routing Protocols
against Automatic Switched Optical Network (ASON) against Automatic Switched Optical Network (ASON)
Routing Requirements", RFC 4652, October 2006. Routing Requirements", RFC 4652, October 2006.
[RFC5709] Bhatia, M., Manral, V., Fanto, M., White, R., Barnes, [RFC5709] Bhatia, M., Manral, V., Fanto, M., White, R., Barnes,
M., Li, T., and R. Atkinson, "OSPFv2 HMAC-SHA M., Li, T., and R. Atkinson, "OSPFv2 HMAC-SHA
Cryptographic Authentication", RFC 5709, October 2009. Cryptographic Authentication", RFC 5709, October 2009.
For information on the availability of ITU Documents, please see [RFC6518] Lebovitz, G. and M. Bhatia, "Keying and Authentication
http://www.itu.int. for Routing Protocols (KARP) Design Guidelines",
RFC 6518, February 2012.
[G.7715] ITU-T Rec. G.7715/Y.1306, "Architecture and Requirements [OSPF-SEC] Hartman, S. and Zhang, D., "Analysis of OSPF Security
for the Automatically Switched Optical Network (ASON)", According to KARP Design Guide", Work in Progress,
November 2012.
[G.7715] ITU-T Rec. G.7715/Y.1706, "Architecture and Requirements
in the Automatically Switched Optical Network",
June 2002. June 2002.
[G.7715.1] ITU-T Rec. G.7715.1/Y.1706.1, "ASON Routing Architecture [G.7715.1] ITU-T Rec. G.7715.1/Y.1706.1, "ASON Routing Architecture
and Requirements for Link State Protocols", February and Requirements for Link State Protocols",
2004. February 2004.
[G.805] ITU-T Rec. G.805, "Generic Functional Architecture of [G.805] ITU-T Rec. G.805, "Generic Functional Architecture of
Transport Networks)", March 2000. Transport Networks)", March 2000.
[G.8080] ITU-T Rec. G.8080/Y.1304, "Architecture for the [G.8080] ITU-T Rec. G.8080/Y.1304, "Architecture for the
Automatically Switched Optical Network (ASON)," June automatically switched optical network", February 2012.
2006 (and Amendments 1 (March 2008) and 2 (Sept. 2010)).
14. Acknowledgements 14. Acknowledgements
The editors would like to thank Lyndon Ong, Remi Theillaud, Stephen The editors would like to thank Lyndon Ong, Remi Theillaud, Stephen
Shew, Jonathan Sadler, Deborah Brungard, Lou Berger, and Adrian Shew, Jonathan Sadler, Deborah Brungard, Lou Berger, and Adrian
Farrel for their useful comments and suggestions. Farrel for their useful comments and suggestions.
14.1 RFC 5787 Acknowledgements 14.1. RFC 5787 Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank Dean Cheng, Acee Lindem, Pandian The author would like to thank Dean Cheng, Acee Lindem, Pandian
Vijay, Alan Davey, Adrian Farrel, Deborah Brungard, and Ben Campbell Vijay, Alan Davey, Adrian Farrel, Deborah Brungard, and Ben Campbell
for their useful comments and suggestions. for their useful comments and suggestions.
Lisa Dusseault and Jari Arkko provided useful comments during IESG Lisa Dusseault and Jari Arkko provided useful comments during IESG
review. review.
Question 14 of Study Group 15 of the ITU-T provided useful and Question 14 of Study Group 15 of the ITU-T provided useful and
constructive input. constructive input.
Appendix A. ASON Terminology Appendix A. ASON Terminology
This document makes use of the following terms: This document makes use of the following terms:
Administrative domain: (See Recommendation [G.805].) For the Administrative domain: (See Recommendation [G.805].) For the
purposes of [G7715.1], an administrative domain represents the purposes of [G.7715.1], an administrative domain represents the
extent of resources that belong to a single player such as a extent of resources that belong to a single player such as a
network operator, a service provider, or an end-user. network operator, a service provider, or an end-user.
Administrative domains of different players do not overlap amongst Administrative domains of different players do not overlap amongst
themselves. themselves.
Control plane: performs the call control and connection control Control plane: performs the call control and connection control
functions. Through signaling, the control plane sets up and functions. Through signaling, the control plane sets up and
releases connections, and may restore a connection in case of a releases connections and may restore a connection in case of a
failure. failure.
(Control) Domain: represents a collection of (control) entities that (Control) Domain: represents a collection of (control) entities that
are grouped for a particular purpose. The control plane is are grouped for a particular purpose. The control plane is
subdivided into domains matching administrative domains. Within subdivided into domains matching administrative domains. Within
an administrative domain, further subdivisions of the control an administrative domain, further subdivisions of the control
plane are recursively applied. A routing control domain is an plane are recursively applied. A routing control domain is an
abstract entity that hides the details of the RC distribution. abstract entity that hides the details of the RC distribution.
External NNI (E-NNI): interfaces located between protocol controllers External NNI (E-NNI): interfaces located between protocol controllers
skipping to change at page 26, line 50 skipping to change at page 27, line 50
plane, the control plane, and the system as a whole. It also plane, the control plane, and the system as a whole. It also
provides coordination between all the planes. The following provides coordination between all the planes. The following
management functional areas are performed in the management plane: management functional areas are performed in the management plane:
performance, fault, configuration, accounting, and security performance, fault, configuration, accounting, and security
management. management.
Management domain: (See Recommendation G.805.) A management domain Management domain: (See Recommendation G.805.) A management domain
defines a collection of managed objects that are grouped to meet defines a collection of managed objects that are grouped to meet
organizational requirements according to geography, technology, organizational requirements according to geography, technology,
policy, or other structure, and for a number of functional areas policy, or other structure, and for a number of functional areas
such as configuration, security, (FCAPS), for the purpose of such as Fault, Configuration, Accounting, Performance, and
providing control in a consistent manner. Management domains can Security (FCAPS), for the purpose of providing control in a
be disjoint, contained, or overlapping. As such, the resources consistent manner. Management domains can be disjoint, contained,
within an administrative domain can be distributed into several or overlapping. As such, the resources within an administrative
possible overlapping management domains. The same resource can domain can be distributed into several possible overlapping
therefore management domains. The same resource can therefore belong to
belong to several management domains simultaneously, but a several management domains simultaneously, but a management domain
management domain shall not cross the border of an administrative shall not cross the border of an administrative domain.
domain.
Subnetwork Point (SNP): The SNP is a control plane abstraction that Subnetwork Point (SNP): The SNP is a control-plane abstraction that
represents an actual or potential transport plane resource. SNPs represents an actual or potential transport-plane resource. SNPs
(in different subnetwork partitions) may represent the same (in different subnetwork partitions) may represent the same
transport resource. A one-to-one correspondence should not be transport resource. A one-to-one correspondence should not be
assumed. assumed.
Subnetwork Point Pool (SNPP): A set of SNPs that are grouped together Subnetwork Point Pool (SNPP): A set of SNPs that are grouped together
for the purposes of routing. for the purposes of routing.
Termination Connection Point (TCP): A TCP represents the output of a Termination Connection Point (TCP): A TCP represents the output of a
Trail Termination function or the input to a Trail Termination Trail Termination function or the input to a Trail Termination
Sink function. Sink function.
Transport plane: provides bidirectional or unidirectional transfer of Transport plane: provides bidirectional or unidirectional transfer of
user information, from one location to another. It can also user information, from one location to another. It can also
provide transfer of some control and network management provide transfer of some control and network management
information. The transport plane is layered; it is equivalent to information. The transport plane is layered; it is equivalent to
the Transport Network defined in Recommendation G.805. the Transport Network defined in Recommendation G.805.
User Network Interface (UNI): interfaces are located between protocol User Network Interface (UNI): interfaces are located between protocol
controllers between a user and a control domain. Note: There is controllers between a user and a control domain. Note: There is
no routing function associated with a UNI reference point. no routing function associated with a UNI reference point.
Appendix B. ASON Routing Terminology Appendix B. ASON Routing Terminology
This document makes use of the following terms: This document makes use of the following terms:
Routing Area (RA): an RA represents a partition of the transport Routing Area (RA): an RA represents a partition of the transport
plane, and its identifier is used within the control plane as the plane, and its identifier is used within the control plane as the
representation of this partition. Per [G.8080], an RA is defined representation of this partition. Per [G.8080], an RA is defined
by a set of sub-networks, the links that interconnect them, and by a set of subnetworks, the links that interconnect them, and the
the interfaces representing the ends of the links exiting that RA. interfaces representing the ends of the links exiting that RA. An
An RA may contain smaller RAs inter-connected by links. The RA may contain smaller RAs inter-connected by links. The limit of
limit of subdivision results in an RA that contains two sub- subdivision results in an RA that contains two subnetworks
networks interconnected by a single link. interconnected by a single link.
Routing Database (RDB): a repository for the local topology, network Routing Database (RDB): a repository for the local topology, network
topology, reachability, and other routing information that is topology, reachability, and other routing information that is
updated as part of the routing information exchange and may updated as part of the routing information exchange and may
additionally contain information that is configured. The RDB may additionally contain information that is configured. The RDB may
contain routing information for more than one routing area (RA). contain routing information for more than one routing area (RA).
Routing Components: ASON routing architecture functions. These Routing Components: ASON routing architecture functions. These
functions can be classified as protocol independent (Link Resource functions can be classified as protocol independent (Link Resource
Manager or LRM, Routing Controller or RC) or protocol specific Manager (LRM), Routing Controller (RC)) or protocol specific
(Protocol Controller or PC). (Protocol Controller (PC)).
Routing Controller (RC): handles (abstract) information needed for Routing Controller (RC): handles (abstract) information needed for
routing and the routing information exchange with peering RCs by routing and the routing information exchange with peering RCs by
operating on the RDB. The RC has access to a view of the RDB. operating on the RDB. The RC has access to a view of the RDB.
The RC is protocol independent. The RC is protocol independent.
Note: Since the RDB may contain routing information pertaining to Note: Since the RDB may contain routing information pertaining to
multiple RAs (and possibly to multiple layer networks), the RCs multiple RAs (and possibly to multiple layer networks), the RCs
accessing the RDB may share the routing information. accessing the RDB may share the routing information.
Link Resource Manager (LRM): supplies all the relevant component and Link Resource Manager (LRM): supplies all the relevant component and
TE link information to the RC. It informs the RC about any state TE link information to the RC. It informs the RC about any state
changes of the link resources it controls. changes of the link resources it controls.
Protocol Controller (PC): handles protocol-specific message exchanges Protocol Controller (PC): handles protocol-specific message exchanges
according to the reference point over which the information is according to the reference point over which the information is
exchanged (e.g., E-NNI, I-NNI), and internal exchanges with the exchanged (e.g., E-NNI, I-NNI) and internal exchanges with the RC.
RC. The PC function is protocol dependent. The PC function is protocol dependent.
Appendix C. Changes from RFC 5787 Appendix C. Changes from RFC 5787
This document contains the following changes from RFC 5787: This document contains the following changes from RFC 5787:
1. This document will be on the Standards Track rather than 1. This document will be on the Standards Track, rather than
Experimental, and reflects experience gained from RFC 5787 Experimental, and reflects experience gained from RFC 5787
implementation and interoperability testing. This also required implementation and interoperability testing. This also required
changes to the IANA Considerations. changes to the IANA Considerations.
2. There is a new Section 3 on Terminology and Identification to 2. There is a new Section 3 on Terminology and Identification to
describe the mapping of key ASON entities to OSPF entities. describe the mapping of key ASON entities to OSPF entities.
3. Sections were reorganized to explain terminology before defining 3. Sections were reorganized to explain terminology before defining
prefix extensions. prefix extensions.
4. There is a new Section 11, Management Considerations, which 4. There is a new Section 11, Management Considerations, which
describes how existing OSPF mechanisms address ASON requirements describes how existing OSPF mechanisms address ASON requirements
on Routing Area changes. on Routing Area changes.
5. There is a new Section 12 which compares the document to the 5. There is a new Section 12, which compares the document to the
requirements in RFC 4258. requirements in RFC 4258.
6. The prefix format was changed to reference RFC 5786 rather than 6. The prefix format was changed to reference RFC 5786 rather than
defining a separate format, and The Node Attribute TLV in RFC 5786 defining a separate format and The Node Attribute TLV in RFC 5786
has been updated as a result. has been updated as a result.
7. Routing Information Advertisements were simplified from RFC 5787. 7. Routing Information Advertisements were simplified from RFC 5787.
8. Review comments from ITU-T SG15 and the IESG were incorporated. 8. Review comments from ITU-T SG15 and the IESG were incorporated.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Andrew G. Malis Andrew G. Malis
Verizon Communications Verizon Communications
60 Sylvan Rd. 60 Sylvan Rd.
Waltham MA 02451 USA Waltham, MA 02451 USA
EMail: andrew.g.malis@verizon.com EMail: andrew.g.malis@verizon.com
Acee Lindem Acee Lindem
Ericsson Ericsson
102 Carric Bend Court 102 Carric Bend Court
Cary, NC 27519 Cary, NC 27519
EMail: acee.lindem@ericsson.com EMail: acee.lindem@ericsson.com
 End of changes. 152 change blocks. 
407 lines changed or deleted 390 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.41. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/