draft-ietf-ospf-encapsulation-cap-06.txt   draft-ietf-ospf-encapsulation-cap-07.txt 
OSPF Working Group X. Xu, Ed. OSPF Working Group X. Xu, Ed.
Internet-Draft Huawei Internet-Draft Huawei
Intended status: Standards Track B. Decraene, Ed. Intended status: Standards Track B. Decraene, Ed.
Expires: January 17, 2018 Orange Expires: March 14, 2018 Orange
R. Raszuk R. Raszuk
Bloomberg LP Bloomberg LP
L. Contreras L. Contreras
Telefonica I+D Telefonica I+D
L. Jalil L. Jalil
Verizon Verizon
July 16, 2017 September 10, 2017
Advertising Tunneling Capability in OSPF Advertising Tunnel Encapsulation Capabilities in OSPF
draft-ietf-ospf-encapsulation-cap-06 draft-ietf-ospf-encapsulation-cap-07
Abstract Abstract
Networks use tunnels for a variety of reasons. A large variety of Networks use tunnels for a variety of reasons. A large variety of
tunnel types are defined and the ingress needs to select a type of tunnel types are defined and the ingress tunnel router needs to
tunnel which is supported by the egress and itself. This document select a type of tunnel which is supported by the egress tunnel
defines how to advertise egress tunnel capabilities in OSPF Router router and itself. This document defines how to advertise the tunnel
encapsulation capabilities of egress tunnel routers in OSPF Router
Information Link State Advertisement (LSAs). Information Link State Advertisement (LSAs).
Requirements Language Requirements Language
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].
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
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
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on January 17, 2018. This Internet-Draft will expire on March 14, 2018.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info)
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please
publication of this document. Please review these documents review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified
described in the Simplified BSD License. BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Advertising Encapsulation Capability . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Tunnel Encapsulation Capabilities TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Tunnel Encapsulation Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. Tunnel Encapsulation Type Sub-TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
5. Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Sub-TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5. Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Sub-TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5.1. Encapsulation Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5.1. Encapsulation Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5.2. Protocol Type Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5.2. Protocol Type Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5.3. Endpoint Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5.3. Endpoint Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5.4. Color Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5.4. Color Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5.5. Load-Balancing Block Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5.5. Load-Balancing Block Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.6. IP QoS Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5.6. IP QoS Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.7. UDP Destination Port . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5.7. UDP Destination Port . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. Usage of the Tunnel Encapsulation attribute . . . . . . . . . 6 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6.1. OSPF Router Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7.1. OSPF Router Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6.2. Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Sub-TLVs Registry . . . . 6
7.2. OSPF Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Sub-TLVs Registry . . 7 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 8. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
9. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
Networks use tunnels for a variety of reasons, such as: Networks use tunnels for a variety of reasons, such as:
o Partial deployment of MPLS-SPRING as described in
[I-D.xu-mpls-unified-source-routing-instruction], where IP tunnels
are used between MPLS-SPRING-enabled routers to traverse non-MPLS
routers.
o Partial deployment of MPLS-BIER as described in
[I-D.ietf-bier-architecture], where IP tunnels are used between
MPLS-BIER-capable routers to traverse non MPLS-BIER
[I-D.ietf-bier-mpls-encapsulation] routers.
o Partial deployment of IPv6 in IPv4 networks or IPv4 in IPv6 o Partial deployment of IPv6 in IPv4 networks or IPv4 in IPv6
networks as described in [RFC5565], where IPvx tunnels are used networks as described in [RFC5565], where IPvx tunnels are used
between IPvx-enabled routers so as to traverse non-IPvx routers. between IPvx-enabled routers so as to traverse non-IPvx routers.
o Remote Loop-Free Alternate (RLFA) repair tunnels as described in o Remote Loop-Free Alternate (RLFA) repair tunnels as described in
[RFC7490], where tunnels are used between the Point of Local [RFC7490], where tunnels are used between the Point of Local
Repair and the selected PQ node. Repair and the selected PQ node.
The ingress needs to select a type of tunnel which is supported by The ingress tunnel router needs to select a type of tunnel which is
the egress and itself. This document describes how to use OSPF supported by the egress tunnel router and itself. This document
Router Information Link State Advertisements (LSAs) to advertise the describes how to use OSPF Router Information Link State
egress tunneling capabilities of OSPF routers. In this document, Advertisements (LSAs) to advertise the tunneling capabilities of OSPF
OSPF refers to both OSPFv2 [RFC2328] and OSPFv3 [RFC5340]. routers acting as egress tunnel routers. In this document, OSPF
refers to both OSPFv2 [RFC2328] and OSPFv3 [RFC5340].
2. Terminology 2. Terminology
This memo makes use of the terms defined in [RFC7770]. This memo makes use of the terms defined in [RFC7770].
3. Advertising Encapsulation Capability 3. Tunnel Encapsulation Capabilities TLV
Routers advertise their supported encapsulation type(s) by Routers advertise their supported encapsulation type(s) by
advertising a new TLV of the OSPF Router Information (RI) Opaque LSA advertising a new TLV of the OSPF Router Information (RI) Opaque LSA
[RFC7770], referred to as the Encapsulation Capability TLV. This TLV [RFC7770], referred to as the Tunnel Encapsulation Capabilities TLV.
is applicable to both OSPFv2 and OSPFv3. The Encapsulation This TLV is applicable to both OSPFv2 and OSPFv3. The Tunnel
Capability TLV SHOULD NOT appear more than once within a given OSPF Encapsulation Capabilities TLV SHOULD NOT appear more than once
Router Information (RI) Opaque LSA. If the Encapsulation Capability within a given OSPF Router Information (RI) Opaque LSA. If the
TLV appears more than once in an OSPF Router Information LSA, only Tunnel Encapsulation Capabilities TLV appears more than once in an
the first occurrence MUST be processed and others MUST be ignored. OSPF Router Information LSA, only the first occurrence MUST be
The scope of the advertisement depends on the application but it is processed and others SHOULD be ignored. The scope of the
recommended that it SHOULD be domain-wide. The Type code of the advertisement depends on the application but it is recommended that
Encapsulation Capability TLV is TBD1, the Length value is variable, it SHOULD be domain-wide. The Type code of the Tunnel Encapsulation
and the Value field contains one or more Tunnel Encapsulation Type Capabilities TLV is TBD1, the Length value is variable, and the Value
Sub-TLVs. Each Encapsulation Type Sub-TLVs indicates a particular field contains one or more Tunnel Encapsulation Type Sub-TLVs (see
Section 4). Each Encapsulation Type Sub-TLVs indicates a particular
encapsulation format that the advertising router supports along with encapsulation format that the advertising router supports along with
the parameters to be used for the tunnel. the parameters to be used for the tunnel.
4. Tunnel Encapsulation Type 4. Tunnel Encapsulation Type Sub-TLVs
The Tunnel Encapsulation Type Sub-TLV is structured as follows: The Tunnel Encapsulation Type Sub-TLV is structured as follows:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Tunnel Type (2 Octets) | Length (2 Octets) | | Tunnel Type (2 Octets) | Length (2 Octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | | |
| Sub-TLVs | | Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Sub-TLVs |
| | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Tunnel Type (2 octets): Identifies the type of tunneling Tunnel Type (2 octets): Identifies the type of tunneling
technology being signaled. Tunnel types are shared with the BGP technology being signaled. Tunnel types are shared with the BGP
extension [RFC5512] and hence are defined in the IANA registry extension [I-D.ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps] and hence are defined in
"BGP Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Tunnel Types". Unknown types the IANA registry "BGP Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Tunnel
are to be ignored and skipped upon receipt. Types". Unknown types are to be ignored and skipped upon receipt.
Length (2 octets): Unsigned 16-bit integer indicating the total Length (2 octets): Unsigned 16-bit integer indicating the total
number of octets of the value field. number of octets of the value field. Note that this is a padding
to be ignored if the length field is longer than the field
indicated by the sub-TLVs.
Value (variable): Zero or more Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Sub- Value (variable): Zero or more Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Sub-
TLVs as defined in Section 5. TLVs as defined in Section 5.
5. Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Sub-TLVs 5. Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Sub-TLVs
Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Sub-TLV are structured as follows: Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Sub-TLV are structured as follows:
+-----------------------------------+ +-----------------------------------+
| Sub-TLV Type (2 Octets) | | Sub-TLV Type (2 Octets) |
+-----------------------------------+ +-----------------------------------+
| Sub-TLV Length (2 Octets) | | Sub-TLV Length (2 Octets) |
+-----------------------------------+ +-----------------------------------+
| Sub-TLV Value (Variable) | | Sub-TLV Value (Variable) |
| | | |
+-----------------------------------+ +-----------------------------------+
Sub-TLV Type (2 octets): Each Sub-TLV type defines a certain Sub-TLV Type (2 octets): Each Sub-TLV type defines a certain
property of the tunnel TLV that contains this Sub-TLV. Types are property of the tunnel TLV that contains this Sub-TLV. Types are
registered in the IANA registry "OSPF Tunnel Encapsulation registered in the IANA registry "OSPF Tunnel Encapsulation
Attribute Sub-TLVs" Section 7.2. Attribute Sub-TLVs" Section 6.2.
Sub-TLV Length (2 octets): Unsigned 16-bit integer indicating the Sub-TLV Length (2 octets): Unsigned 16-bit integer indicating the
total number of octets of the Sub-TLV value field. total number of octets of the Sub-TLV value field.
Sub-TLV Value (variable): Encodings of the value field depend on Sub-TLV Value (variable): Encodings of the value field depend on
the Sub-TLV type as enumerated above. The following sub-sections the Sub-TLV type as enumerated above. The following sub-sections
define the encoding in detail. define the encoding in detail.
Any unknown Sub-TLVs MUST be ignored and skipped upon receipt. Any unknown Sub-TLVs MUST be deemed as invalid Sub-TLVs and therefore
MUST be ignored and skipped upon receipt. When a reserved value (See
Section 6.2) is seen in an LSA, it SHOULD be treated as an invalid
Sub-TLV. If a Sub-TLV is invalid, its Tunnel Encapsulation Type TLV
MUST be ignored and skipped. However, other Tunnel Encapsulation
Type TLVs MUST be considered.
If a Sub-TLV is invalid, its Tunnel Encapsulation TLV MUST be ignored The advertisement of an Encapsulation Type Sub-TLV (See Section 5.1)
and skipped. However, other Tunnel Encapsulation TLVs MUST be indicates that the advertising router support a particular tunnel
considered. encapsulation along with the parameters to be used for the tunnel.
The decision to use that tunnel is driven by the capability of the
ingress router to support the encapsulation type and the policy on
the ingress router. The Color Sub-TLV (See Section 5.4) may be used
as an input to this policy. Note that some tunnel types may require
the execution of an explicit tunnel setup protocol before they can be
used to carry data. A tunnel MUST NOT be used if there is no route
toward the IP address specified in the Endpoint Sub-TLV (See
Section 5.3) or if the route is not advertised by the router
advertising the Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Sub-TLVs for the
tunnel.
5.1. Encapsulation Sub-TLV 5.1. Encapsulation Sub-TLV
This Sub-TLV of type 1 is defined in section 3.2 "Encapsulation Sub- This Sub-TLV of type 1 is defined in Section 3.2 "Encapsulation Sub-
TLVs for Particular Tunnel Types" of [I-D.ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps] TLVs for Particular Tunnel Types" of [I-D.ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps]
from both a syntax and semantic standpoint. Usage is defined in from both a syntax and semantic standpoint.
Section 6.
5.2. Protocol Type Sub-TLV 5.2. Protocol Type Sub-TLV
This Sub-TLV of type 2 is defined in section 3.4.1 "Protocol Type This Sub-TLV of type 2 is defined in Section 3.4.1 "Protocol Type
sub-TLV" of [I-D.ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps] from a syntactic, semantic, sub-TLV" of [I-D.ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps] from a syntactic, semantic,
and usage standpoint. and usage standpoint.
5.3. Endpoint Sub-TLV 5.3. Endpoint Sub-TLV
Type is 3. The value field carries the Network Address to be used as Type is 3. The value field carries the Network Address to be used as
tunnel destination address. tunnel destination address.
If length is 4, the tunnel endpoint is an IPv4 address. If length is 4, the tunnel endpoint is an IPv4 address.
If length is 16, the tunnel endpoint is an IPv6 address. If length is 16, the tunnel endpoint is an IPv6 address.
5.4. Color Sub-TLV 5.4. Color Sub-TLV
Type is 4. The value field is a 4-octet opaque unsigned integer. Type is 4. The value field is a 4-octet opaque unsigned integer.
The color value is user-defined and configured locally on the The color value is user-defined and configured locally on the
advertising routers. It may be used by service providers to define advertising routers. It may be used by service providers to define
policies on the ingress routers, for example, to control the policies on the ingress tunnel routers, for example, to control the
selection of the tunnel to use. selection of the tunnel to use.
This color value can be referenced by BGP routes carrying Color This color value can be referenced by BGP routes carrying Color
Extended Community [I-D.ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps]. If the tunnel is Extended Community [I-D.ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps]. If the tunnel is
used to reach the BGP Next-Hop of BGP routes, then attaching a Color used to reach the BGP Next-Hop of BGP routes, then attaching a Color
Extended Community attached to those routes express the willingness Extended Community attached to those routes express the willingness
of the BGP speaker to use a tunnel of the same color. of the BGP speaker to use a tunnel of the same color.
5.5. Load-Balancing Block Sub-TLV 5.5. Load-Balancing Block Sub-TLV
This Sub-TLV of type 5 is defined in [RFC5640] from a syntactic, This Sub-TLV of type 5 is defined in [RFC5640] from a syntactic,
semantic and usage standpoint. semantic and usage standpoint.
5.6. IP QoS Field 5.6. IP QoS Field
This Sub-TLV of type 6 is defined in section 3.3.1 "IPv4 DS Field" of This Sub-TLV of type 6 is defined in Section 3.3.1 "IPv4 DS Field" of
[I-D.ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps] from a syntactic, semantic and usage [I-D.ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps] from a syntactic, semantic and usage
standpoint. standpoint.
5.7. UDP Destination Port 5.7. UDP Destination Port
This Sub-TLV of type 7 is defined in section 3.3.2 "UDP Destination This Sub-TLV of type 7 is defined in Section 3.3.2 "UDP Destination
Port" of [I-D.ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps] from a syntactic, semantic and Port" of [I-D.ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps] from a syntactic, semantic and
usage standpoint. usage standpoint.
6. Usage of the Tunnel Encapsulation attribute 6. IANA Considerations
The advertisement of an Encapsulation Type Sub-TLVs indicates that
the advertising router support a particular tunnel encapsulation
along with the parameters to be used for the tunnel. The decision to
use that tunnel is driven by the capability of the ingress router to
support the encapsulation type and the policy on the ingress router.
The color sub-TLV may be used as an input to this policy. Note that
some tunnel types may require the execution of an explicit tunnel
setup protocol before they can be used to carry data.
A tunnel MUST NOT be used if there is no route toward the IP address
specified in the Endpoint Sub-TLV or if the route is not advertised
by the router advertising the Tunnel Encapsulation attribute for the
tunnel.
7. IANA Considerations
7.1. OSPF Router Information 6.1. OSPF Router Information
This document requests IANA to allocate a new code point from the This document requests IANA to allocate a new code point from the
OSPF Router Information (RI) registry. OSPF Router Information (RI) registry.
Value TLV Name Reference Value TLV Name Reference
----- ------------------------------------ ------------- ----- --------------------------------- -------------
TBD1 Tunnel Capabilities This document TBD1 Tunnel Encapsulation Capabilities This document
7.2. OSPF Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Sub-TLVs Registry 6.2. Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Sub-TLVs Registry
This document requests IANA to create a new registry "OSPF Tunnel This document requests IANA to create a new registry "Tunnel
Encapsulation Attribute Sub-TLVs" with the following registration Encapsulation Attribute Sub-TLVs" with the following registration
procedure: procedure:
The values in the range 1-255 are to be allocated using the The values in the range 1-255 are to be allocated using the
"Standards Action" registration procedure as defined in [RFC5226]. "Standards Action" registration procedure as defined in [RFC5226].
The values in the range 256-65499 are to be allocated using the The values in the range 256-65499 are to be allocated using the
"First Come, First Served" registration procedure. "First Come, First Served" registration procedure.
Registry Name: OSPF Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Sub-TLVs Registry Name: OSPF Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Sub-TLVs
Value Name Reference Value Name Reference
----------- ------------------------------------ ------------- ----------- -------------------- --------------------------------------------
0 Reserved This document 0 Reserved This document
1 Encapsulation This document 1 Encapsulation This document & [I-D.ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps]
2 Protocol Type This document 2 Protocol Type This document & [I-D.ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps]
3 Endpoint This document 3 Endpoint This document
4 Color This document 4 Color This document
5 Load-Balancing Block This document 5 Load-Balancing Block This document & [RFC5640]
6 IP QoS This document 6 IP QoS This document & [I-D.ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps]
7 UDP Destination Port This document 7 UDP Destination Port This document & [I-D.ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps]
8-65499 Unassigned 8-65499 Unassigned
65500-65535 Experimental This document 65500-65534 Experimental This document
65535 Reserved This document 65535 Reserved This document
8. Security Considerations 7. Security Considerations
Security considerations applicable to softwires can be found in the Security considerations applicable to softwires can be found in the
mesh framework [RFC5565]. In general, security issues of the tunnel mesh framework [RFC5565]. In general, security issues of the tunnel
protocols signaled through this OSPF capability extension are protocols signaled through this OSPF capability extension are
inherited. inherited.
If a third-party is able to modify any of the information that is If a third-party is able to modify any of the information that is
used to form encapsulation headers, to choose a tunnel type, or to used to form encapsulation headers, to choose a tunnel type, or to
choose a particular tunnel for a particular payload type, user data choose a particular tunnel for a particular payload type, user data
packets may end up getting misrouted, misdelivered, and/or dropped. packets may end up getting misrouted, misdelivered, and/or dropped.
However, since an OSPF routing domain is usually well-controlled and
well-managed network, the possiblity of the above risk is very low.
Security considerations for the base OSPF protocol are covered in Security considerations for the base OSPF protocol are covered in
[RFC2328] and [RFC5340]. [RFC2328] and [RFC5340].
9. Contributors 8. Contributors
Uma Chunduri Uma Chunduri
Huawei Huawei
Email: uma.chunduri@gmail.com Email: uma.chunduri@gmail.com
10. Acknowledgements 9. Acknowledgements
This document is partially inspired by [RFC5512]. This document is partially inspired by [RFC5512].
The authors would like to thank Greg Mirsky, John E Drake, Carlos The authors would like to thank Greg Mirsky, John E Drake, Carlos
Pignataro and Karsten Thomann for their valuable comments on this Pignataro and Karsten Thomann for their valuable comments on this
document. Special thanks should be given to Acee Lindem for his document. Special thanks should be given to Acee Lindem for his
multiple detailed reviews of this document and help. multiple detailed reviews of this document and help. The authors
would like to thank Pete Resnick, Joe Touch, David Mandelberg,
Sabrina Tanamal, Tim Wicinski, Amanda Baber for their Last Call
reviews and thank Spencer Dawkins, Mirja Kuehlewind, Ben Campbell,
Benoit Claise, Alvaro Retana, Adam Roach and Suresh Krishnan for
their AD reviews.
11. References 10. References
11.1. Normative References 10.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps] [I-D.ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps]
Rosen, E., Patel, K., and G. Velde, "The BGP Tunnel Rosen, E., Patel, K., and G. Velde, "The BGP Tunnel
Encapsulation Attribute", draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps-06 Encapsulation Attribute", draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps-07
(work in progress), June 2017. (work in progress), July 2017.
[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, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an [RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", RFC 5226, IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", RFC 5226,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008, DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5226>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5226>.
[RFC5640] Filsfils, C., Mohapatra, P., and C. Pignataro, "Load- [RFC5640] Filsfils, C., Mohapatra, P., and C. Pignataro, "Load-
Balancing for Mesh Softwires", RFC 5640, Balancing for Mesh Softwires", RFC 5640,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5640, August 2009, DOI 10.17487/RFC5640, August 2009,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5640>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5640>.
[RFC7770] Lindem, A., Ed., Shen, N., Vasseur, JP., Aggarwal, R., and [RFC7770] Lindem, A., Ed., Shen, N., Vasseur, JP., Aggarwal, R., and
S. Shaffer, "Extensions to OSPF for Advertising Optional S. Shaffer, "Extensions to OSPF for Advertising Optional
Router Capabilities", RFC 7770, DOI 10.17487/RFC7770, Router Capabilities", RFC 7770, DOI 10.17487/RFC7770,
February 2016, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7770>. February 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7770>.
11.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-bier-architecture]
Wijnands, I., Rosen, E., Dolganow, A., Przygienda, T., and
S. Aldrin, "Multicast using Bit Index Explicit
Replication", draft-ietf-bier-architecture-07 (work in
progress), June 2017.
[I-D.ietf-bier-mpls-encapsulation]
Wijnands, I., Rosen, E., Dolganow, A., Tantsura, J.,
Aldrin, S., and I. Meilik, "Encapsulation for Bit Index
Explicit Replication in MPLS and non-MPLS Networks",
draft-ietf-bier-mpls-encapsulation-07 (work in progress),
June 2017.
[I-D.xu-mpls-unified-source-routing-instruction] 10.2. Informative References
Xu, X., Bryant, S., Raszuk, R., Chunduri, U., Contreras,
L., Jalil, L., Assarpour, H., Velde, G., Tantsura, J., and
S. Ma, "Unified Source Routing Instruction using MPLS
Label Stack", draft-xu-mpls-unified-source-routing-
instruction-02 (work in progress), June 2017.
[RFC2328] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328, [RFC2328] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2328, April 1998, DOI 10.17487/RFC2328, April 1998,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2328>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2328>.
[RFC5340] Coltun, R., Ferguson, D., Moy, J., and A. Lindem, "OSPF [RFC5340] Coltun, R., Ferguson, D., Moy, J., and A. Lindem, "OSPF
for IPv6", RFC 5340, DOI 10.17487/RFC5340, July 2008, for IPv6", RFC 5340, DOI 10.17487/RFC5340, July 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5340>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5340>.
[RFC5512] Mohapatra, P. and E. Rosen, "The BGP Encapsulation [RFC5512] Mohapatra, P. and E. Rosen, "The BGP Encapsulation
Subsequent Address Family Identifier (SAFI) and the BGP Subsequent Address Family Identifier (SAFI) and the BGP
Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute", RFC 5512, Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute", RFC 5512,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5512, April 2009, DOI 10.17487/RFC5512, April 2009,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5512>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5512>.
[RFC5565] Wu, J., Cui, Y., Metz, C., and E. Rosen, "Softwire Mesh [RFC5565] Wu, J., Cui, Y., Metz, C., and E. Rosen, "Softwire Mesh
Framework", RFC 5565, DOI 10.17487/RFC5565, June 2009, Framework", RFC 5565, DOI 10.17487/RFC5565, June 2009,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5565>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5565>.
[RFC7490] Bryant, S., Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Shand, M., and N. [RFC7490] Bryant, S., Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Shand, M., and N.
So, "Remote Loop-Free Alternate (LFA) Fast Reroute (FRR)", So, "Remote Loop-Free Alternate (LFA) Fast Reroute (FRR)",
RFC 7490, DOI 10.17487/RFC7490, April 2015, RFC 7490, DOI 10.17487/RFC7490, April 2015,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7490>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7490>.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Xiaohu Xu (editor) Xiaohu Xu (editor)
Huawei Huawei
Email: xuxiaohu@huawei.com Email: xuxiaohu@huawei.com
Bruno Decraene (editor) Bruno Decraene (editor)
Orange Orange
Email: bruno.decraene@orange.com Email: bruno.decraene@orange.com
Robert Raszuk Robert Raszuk
Bloomberg LP Bloomberg LP
Email: robert@raszuk.net Email: robert@raszuk.net
 End of changes. 53 change blocks. 
153 lines changed or deleted 137 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.45. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/