draft-ietf-ospf-encapsulation-cap-07.txt   draft-ietf-ospf-encapsulation-cap-08.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: March 14, 2018 Orange Expires: March 22, 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
September 10, 2017 September 18, 2017
Advertising Tunnel Encapsulation Capabilities in OSPF The Tunnel Encapsulations OSPF Router Information
draft-ietf-ospf-encapsulation-cap-07 draft-ietf-ospf-encapsulation-cap-08
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 tunnel router needs to tunnel types are defined and the tunnel encapsulator router needs to
select a type of tunnel which is supported by the egress tunnel select a type of tunnel which is supported by the tunnel decapsulator
router and itself. This document defines how to advertise the tunnel router. This document defines how to advertise, in OSPF Router
encapsulation capabilities of egress tunnel routers in OSPF Router Information Link State Advertisement (LSAs), the list of tunnel
Information Link State Advertisement (LSAs). encapsulations supported by the tunnel decapsulator.
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 Task Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://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 March 14, 2018. This Internet-Draft will expire on March 22, 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 Provisions This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights publication of this document. Please review these documents
and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Tunnel Encapsulation Capabilities TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Tunnel Encapsulations TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Tunnel Encapsulation Type Sub-TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4. Tunnel Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
5. Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Sub-TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5. Tunnel Parameter 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. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6. Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6.1. OSPF Router Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6.2. Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Sub-TLVs Registry . . . . 6 7.1. OSPF Router Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 7.2. Tunnel Parameter Sub-TLVs Registry . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 9. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
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 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 tunnel router needs to select a type of tunnel which is The tunnel encapsulator router needs to select a type of tunnel which
supported by the egress tunnel router and itself. This document is supported by the tunnel decapsulator router. This document
describes how to use OSPF Router Information Link State defines how to advertise, in OSPF Router Information Link State
Advertisements (LSAs) to advertise the tunneling capabilities of OSPF Advertisement (LSAs), the list of tunnel encapsulations supported by
routers acting as egress tunnel routers. In this document, OSPF the tunnel decapsulator. In this document, OSPF refers to both
refers to both OSPFv2 [RFC2328] and OSPFv3 [RFC5340]. 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. Tunnel Encapsulation Capabilities TLV 3. Tunnel Encapsulations TLV
Routers advertise their supported encapsulation type(s) by Routers advertise their supported tunnel 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 Tunnel Encapsulation Capabilities TLV. [RFC7770], referred to as the Tunnel Encapsulations TLV. This TLV is
This TLV is applicable to both OSPFv2 and OSPFv3. The Tunnel applicable to both OSPFv2 and OSPFv3.
Encapsulation Capabilities TLV SHOULD NOT appear more than once
within a given OSPF Router Information (RI) Opaque LSA. If the The Type code of the Tunnel Encapsulations is TBD1, the Length value
Tunnel Encapsulation Capabilities TLV appears more than once in an is variable, and the Value field contains one or more Tunnel Sub-TLVs
OSPF Router Information LSA, only the first occurrence MUST be as defined in Section 4. Each Tunnel Type Sub-TLV indicates a
processed and others SHOULD be ignored. The scope of the particular encapsulation format that the advertising router supports
along with the parameters corresponding to the tunnel type.
The Tunnel Encapsulations TLV MAY appear more than once within a
given OSPF Router Information (RI) Opaque LSA. If the Tunnel
Encapsulations TLV appears more than once in an OSPF Router
Information LSA, the set of all Tunnel Sub-TLVs from all Tunnel
Encapsulations TLV SHOULD be considered. The scope of the
advertisement depends on the application but it is recommended that advertisement depends on the application but it is recommended that
it SHOULD be domain-wide. The Type code of the Tunnel Encapsulation it SHOULD be domain-wide.
Capabilities TLV is TBD1, the Length value is variable, and the Value
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
the parameters to be used for the tunnel.
4. Tunnel Encapsulation Type Sub-TLVs 4. Tunnel Sub-TLV
The Tunnel Encapsulation Type Sub-TLV is structured as follows: The Tunnel 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) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | | |
| Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Sub-TLVs | | Tunnel Parameter 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 signaled. Tunnel types are shared with the BGP
extension [I-D.ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps] and hence are defined in extension [I-D.ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps] and hence are defined in
the IANA registry "BGP Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Tunnel the IANA registry "BGP Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Tunnel
Types". Unknown types are to be ignored and skipped upon receipt. Types". Unknown Tunnel types are to be ignored 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. Note that this is a padding number of octets of the value field.
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 Parameter Sub-TLVs as
TLVs as defined in Section 5. defined in Section 5.
5. Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Sub-TLVs If a Tunnel Sub-TLV is invalid, it MUST be ignored and skipped.
However, other Tunnel Sub-TLVs MUST be considered
Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Sub-TLV are structured as follows: 5. Tunnel Parameter Sub-TLVs
+-----------------------------------+ A Tunnel Parameter Sub-TLV is structured as follows:
| Sub-TLV Type (2 Octets) |
+-----------------------------------+
| Sub-TLV Length (2 Octets) |
+-----------------------------------+
| Sub-TLV Value (Variable) |
| |
+-----------------------------------+
Sub-TLV Type (2 octets): Each Sub-TLV type defines a certain +---------------------------------------------+
property of the tunnel TLV that contains this Sub-TLV. Types are | Tunnel Parameter Sub-Type (2 Octets) |
registered in the IANA registry "OSPF Tunnel Encapsulation +---------------------------------------------+
Attribute Sub-TLVs" Section 6.2. | Tunnel Parameter Length (2 Octets) |
+---------------------------------------------+
| Tunnel Parameter Value (Variable) |
| |
+---------------------------------------------+
Sub-TLV Length (2 octets): Unsigned 16-bit integer indicating the Tunnel Parameter Sub-Type (2 octets): Each sub-type defines a
total number of octets of the Sub-TLV value field. certain parameter of the Tunnel Type TLV that contains this Sub-
TLV. Types are registered in the IANA registry "OSPF Tunnel
Parameter Sub-TLVs" Section 7.2.
Sub-TLV Value (variable): Encodings of the value field depend on Tunnel Parameter Length (2 octets): Unsigned 16-bit integer
the Sub-TLV type as enumerated above. The following sub-sections indicating the total number of octets of the Sub-TLV value field.
define the encoding in detail.
Any unknown Sub-TLVs MUST be deemed as invalid Sub-TLVs and therefore Tunnel Parameter Value (variable): Encodings of the value field
MUST be ignored and skipped upon receipt. When a reserved value (See depend on the Sub-TLV type as enumerated above. The following
Section 6.2) is seen in an LSA, it SHOULD be treated as an invalid sub-sections define the encoding in detail.
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.
The advertisement of an Encapsulation Type Sub-TLV (See Section 5.1) Any unknown Tunnel Parameter Sub-Type MUST be ignored and skipped
indicates that the advertising router support a particular tunnel upon receipt. When a reserved value (See Section 7.2) is seen in an
encapsulation along with the parameters to be used for the tunnel. LSA, it MUST be treated as an invalid Tunnel Parameter Sub-TLV. When
The decision to use that tunnel is driven by the capability of the a Tunnel Parameter Value has an incorrect syntax of semantic, it MUST
ingress router to support the encapsulation type and the policy on be treated as an invalid Tunnel Parameter Sub-TLV. If a Tunnel
the ingress router. The Color Sub-TLV (See Section 5.4) may be used Parameter Sub-TLV is invalid, its Tunnel Sub-TLV MUST be ignored.
as an input to this policy. Note that some tunnel types may require However, other Tunnel Sub-TLVs MUST be considered.
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 type is 1. The syntax, semantic, and usage of its value
TLVs for Particular Tunnel Types" of [I-D.ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps] field are defined in Section 3.2 "Encapsulation Sub-TLVs for
from both a syntax and semantic standpoint. Particular Tunnel Types" of [I-D.ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps].
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 type is 2. The syntax, semantic, and usage of its value
sub-TLV" of [I-D.ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps] from a syntactic, semantic, field are defined in Section 3.4.1 "Protocol Type sub-TLV" of
and usage standpoint. [I-D.ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps].
5.3. Endpoint Sub-TLV 5.3. Endpoint Sub-TLV
Type is 3. The value field carries the Network Address to be used as This Sub-TLV type is 3. The value field carries the Network Address
tunnel destination address. to be used as 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. This Sub-TLV is of type 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 tunnel routers, for example, to control the policies on the tunnel encapsulator routers, for example, to control
selection of the tunnel to use. the 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 to those routes express the willingness of the BGP
of the BGP speaker to use a tunnel of the same color. 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 type is 5. The syntax, semantic, and usage of its value
semantic and usage standpoint. field are defined in [RFC5640].
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 type is 6. The syntax, semantic, and usage of its value
[I-D.ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps] from a syntactic, semantic and usage field are defined in Section 3.3.1 "IPv4 DS Field" of
standpoint. [I-D.ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps].
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 type is 7. The syntax, semantic, and usage of its value
Port" of [I-D.ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps] from a syntactic, semantic and field are defined in Section 3.3.2 "UDP Destination Port" of
usage standpoint. [I-D.ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps].
6. IANA Considerations 6. Operation
6.1. OSPF Router Information The advertisement of a Tunnel Encapsulations Sub-TLV indicates that
the advertising router supports a particular tunnel decapsulation
along with the parameters to be used for the tunnel. The decision to
use that tunnel is driven by the capability of the tunnel
encapsulator router to support the encapsulation type and the policy
on the tunnel encapsulator 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 transit 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 this Tunnel Sub-TLV.
7. IANA Considerations
7.1. 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 Encapsulation Capabilities This document TBD1 Tunnel Encapsulations This document
6.2. Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Sub-TLVs Registry 7.2. Tunnel Parameter Sub-TLVs Registry
This document requests IANA to create a new registry "Tunnel This document requests IANA to create, under "Open Shortest Path
Encapsulation Attribute Sub-TLVs" with the following registration First (OSPF) Parameters", a new registry "OSPF Tunnel Parameter Sub-
procedure: TLVs" with the following registration procedure:
The values in the range 1-255 are to be allocated using the The values in the range 1-34999 are to be allocated using the
"Standards Action" registration procedure as defined in [RFC5226]. "Standards Action" registration procedure as defined in [RFC8126].
The values in the range 256-65499 are to be allocated using the The values in the range 35000-65499 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 Parameter Sub-TLVs
Value Name Reference Value Name Reference
0 Reserved This document ----------- -------------------- ------------------------------
1 Encapsulation This document & [I-D.ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps] 0 Reserved This document
2 Protocol Type This document & [I-D.ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps] 1 Encapsulation This document
3 Endpoint This document & [I-D.ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps]
4 Color This document 2 Protocol Type This document
5 Load-Balancing Block This document & [RFC5640] & [I-D.ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps]
6 IP QoS This document & [I-D.ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps] 3 Endpoint This document
7 UDP Destination Port This document & [I-D.ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps] 4 Color This document
8-65499 Unassigned 5 Load-Balancing Block This document & [RFC5640]
65500-65534 Experimental This document 6 IP QoS This document
65535 Reserved This document & [I-D.ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps]
7 UDP Destination Port This document
& [I-D.ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps]
8-65499 Unassigned
65500-65534 Experimental This document
65535 Reserved This document
7. Security Considerations 8. 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, mis-delivered, and/or dropped.
However, since an OSPF routing domain is usually well-controlled and However, since an OSPF routing domain is usually a well-controlled
well-managed network, the possiblity of the above risk is very low. network under a single administrative domain, the possibility of the
above attack 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].
8. Contributors 9. Contributors
Uma Chunduri Uma Chunduri
Huawei Huawei
Email: uma.chunduri@gmail.com Email: uma.chunduri@gmail.com
9. Acknowledgements 10. 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. The authors multiple detailed reviews of this document and help. The authors
would like to thank Pete Resnick, Joe Touch, David Mandelberg, would like to thank Pete Resnick, Joe Touch, David Mandelberg,
Sabrina Tanamal, Tim Wicinski, Amanda Baber for their Last Call Sabrina Tanamal, Tim Wicinski, Amanda Baber for their Last Call
reviews and thank Spencer Dawkins, Mirja Kuehlewind, Ben Campbell, reviews and thank Spencer Dawkins, Mirja Kuehlewind, Ben Campbell,
Benoit Claise, Alvaro Retana, Adam Roach and Suresh Krishnan for Benoit Claise, Alvaro Retana, Adam Roach and Suresh Krishnan for
their AD reviews. their AD reviews.
10. References 11. References
10.1. Normative References 11.1. 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-07 Encapsulation Attribute", draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps-07
(work in progress), July 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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", RFC 5226,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008,
<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,
<https://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, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7770>. February 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7770>.
10.2. Informative References [RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
11.2. Informative References
[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,
<https://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,
<https://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
 End of changes. 56 change blocks. 
169 lines changed or deleted 179 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/