draft-ietf-ospf-encapsulation-cap-09.txt   rfc9013.txt 
OSPF Working Group X. Xu, Ed. Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) X. Xu, Ed.
Internet-Draft Huawei Request for Comments: 9013 Capitalonline
Intended status: Standards Track B. Decraene, Ed. Category: Standards Track B. Decraene, Ed.
Expires: April 12, 2018 Orange ISSN: 2070-1721 Orange
R. Raszuk R. Raszuk
Bloomberg LP NTT Network Innovations
L. Contreras L. Contreras
Telefonica I+D Telefonica I+D
L. Jalil L. Jalil
Verizon Verizon
October 9, 2017 April 2021
The Tunnel Encapsulations OSPF Router Information OSPF Advertisement of Tunnel Encapsulations
draft-ietf-ospf-encapsulation-cap-09
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 tunnel encapsulator router needs to tunnel types are defined, and the tunnel encapsulator router needs to
select a type of tunnel which is supported by the tunnel decapsulator select a type of tunnel that is supported by the tunnel decapsulator
router. This document defines how to advertise, in OSPF Router router. This document defines how to advertise, in OSPF Router
Information Link State Advertisement (LSAs), the list of tunnel Information Link State Advertisements (LSAs), the list of tunnel
encapsulations supported by the tunnel decapsulator. encapsulations supported by the tunnel decapsulator.
Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This is an Internet Standards Track document.
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference received public review and has been approved for publication by the
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.
This Internet-Draft will expire on April 12, 2018. Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9013.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2021 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 Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Terminology
3. Tunnel Encapsulations TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Tunnel Encapsulations TLV
4. Tunnel Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4. Tunnel Sub-TLV
5. Tunnel Parameter Sub-TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5. Tunnel Parameter Sub-TLVs
5.1. Encapsulation Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5.1. Encapsulation Sub-TLV
5.2. Protocol Type Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5.2. Protocol Type Sub-TLV
5.3. Endpoint Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5.3. Tunnel Egress Endpoint Sub-TLV
5.4. Color Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5.4. Color Sub-TLV
5.5. Load-Balancing Block Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5.5. Load-Balancing Block Sub-TLV
5.6. IP QoS Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5.6. DS Field Sub-TLV
5.7. UDP Destination Port . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5.7. UDP Destination Port Sub-TLV
6. Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6. Operation
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 7. IANA Considerations
7.1. OSPF Router Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 7.1. OSPF Router Information (RI) TLVs Registry
7.2. Tunnel Parameter Sub-TLVs Registry . . . . . . . . . . . 7 7.2. OSPF Tunnel Parameter Sub-TLVs Registry
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 8. Security Considerations
9. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 9. References
10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 9.1. Normative References
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 9.2. Informative References
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Acknowledgements
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Contributors
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Authors' Addresses
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 * 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 * 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 tunnel encapsulator router needs to select a type of tunnel which The tunnel encapsulator router needs to select a type of tunnel that
is supported by the tunnel decapsulator router. This document is supported by the tunnel decapsulator router. This document
defines how to advertise, in OSPF Router Information Link State defines how to advertise, in OSPF Router Information Link State
Advertisement (LSAs), the list of tunnel encapsulations supported by Advertisements (LSAs), the list of tunnel encapsulations supported by
the tunnel decapsulator. In this document, OSPF refers to both the tunnel decapsulator. In this document, OSPF 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].
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
3. Tunnel Encapsulations TLV 3. Tunnel Encapsulations TLV
Routers advertise their supported tunnel 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 Encapsulations TLV. This TLV is [RFC7770], referred to as the "Tunnel Encapsulations TLV". This TLV
applicable to both OSPFv2 and OSPFv3. is applicable to both OSPFv2 and OSPFv3.
The Type code of the Tunnel Encapsulations is TBD1, the Length value The Type code of the Tunnel Encapsulations TLV is 13, the Length
is variable, and the Value field contains one or more Tunnel Sub-TLVs value is variable, and the Value field contains one or more Tunnel
as defined in Section 4. Each Tunnel Sub-TLV indicates a particular Sub-TLVs, as defined in Section 4. Each Tunnel Sub-TLV indicates a
encapsulation format that the advertising router supports along with particular encapsulation format that the advertising router supports,
the parameters corresponding to the tunnel type. along with the parameters corresponding to the tunnel type.
The Tunnel Encapsulations TLV MAY appear more than once within a The Tunnel Encapsulations TLV MAY appear more than once within a
given OSPF Router Information (RI) Opaque LSA. If the Tunnel given OSPF Router Information (RI) Opaque LSA. If the Tunnel
Encapsulations TLV appears more than once in an OSPF Router Encapsulations TLV appears more than once in an OSPF Router
Information LSA, the set of all Tunnel Sub-TLVs from all Tunnel Information LSA, the set of all Tunnel Sub-TLVs from all Tunnel
Encapsulations TLV SHOULD be considered. The scope of the Encapsulations TLVs 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. it SHOULD be domain wide.
4. Tunnel Sub-TLV 4. Tunnel Sub-TLV
The Tunnel Sub-TLV is structured as follows: The Tunnel Sub-TLV is structured as shown in Figure 1.
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 Parameter Sub-TLVs | | Tunnel Parameter Sub-TLVs |
| | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: Tunnel Sub-TLV Figure 1: Tunnel Sub-TLV
Tunnel Type (2 octets): Identifies the type of tunneling Tunnel Type (2 octets): Identifies the type of tunneling technology
technology signaled. Tunnel types are shared with the BGP signaled. Tunnel types are shared with the BGP extension
extension [I-D.ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps] and hence are defined in [RFC9012] and hence are defined in the IANA registry "BGP Tunnel
the IANA registry "BGP Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Tunnel Types". Unknown tunnel types are
Types". Unknown Tunnel types are to be ignored upon receipt. 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. number of octets of the Tunnel Parameter Sub-TLVs field.
Value (variable): Zero or more Tunnel Parameter Sub-TLVs as Tunnel Parameter Sub-TLVs (variable): Zero or more Tunnel Parameter
defined in Section 5. Sub-TLVs, as defined in Section 5.
If a Tunnel Sub-TLV is invalid, it MUST be ignored and skipped. If a Tunnel Sub-TLV is invalid, it MUST be ignored and skipped.
However, other Tunnel Sub-TLVs MUST be considered However, other Tunnel Sub-TLVs MUST be considered.
5. Tunnel Parameter Sub-TLVs 5. Tunnel Parameter Sub-TLVs
A Tunnel Parameter Sub-TLV is structured as follows: A Tunnel Parameter Sub-TLV is structured as shown in Figure 2.
+---------------------------------------------+ +---------------------------------------------+
| Tunnel Parameter Sub-Type (2 Octets) | | Tunnel Parameter Sub-Type (2 octets) |
+---------------------------------------------+ +---------------------------------------------+
| Tunnel Parameter Length (2 Octets) | | Tunnel Parameter Length (2 octets) |
+---------------------------------------------+ +---------------------------------------------+
| Tunnel Parameter Value (Variable) | | Tunnel Parameter Value (variable) |
| | | |
+---------------------------------------------+ +---------------------------------------------+
Figure 2: Tunnel Parameter Sub-TLV Figure 2: Tunnel Parameter Sub-TLV
Tunnel Parameter Sub-Type (2 octets): Each sub-type defines a Tunnel Parameter Sub-Type (2 octets): Each sub-type defines a
parameter of the Tunnel Sub-TLV. Sub-Types are registered in the parameter of the Tunnel Sub-TLV. Sub-types are registered in the
IANA registry "OSPF Tunnel Parameter Sub-TLVs" Section 7.2. IANA registry "OSPF Tunnel Parameter Sub-TLVs" (see Section 7.2).
Tunnel Parameter Length (2 octets): Unsigned 16-bit integer Tunnel Parameter Length (2 octets): Unsigned 16-bit integer
indicating the total number of octets of the Tunnel Parameter indicating the total number of octets of the Tunnel Parameter
Value field. Value field.
Tunnel Parameter Value (variable): Encodings of the value field Tunnel Parameter Value (variable): Encodings of the Value field
depend on the Sub-TLV type as enumerated above. The following depend on the sub-TLV type. The following subsections define the
sub-sections define the encoding in detail. encoding in detail.
Any unknown Tunnel Parameter Sub-Type MUST be ignored and skipped Any unknown Tunnel Parameter sub-type MUST be ignored and skipped
upon receipt. When a reserved value (See Section 7.2) is seen in an upon receipt. When a reserved value (see Section 7.2) is seen in an
LSA, it MUST be treated as an invalid Tunnel Parameter Sub-TLV. When LSA, it MUST be treated as an invalid Tunnel Parameter Sub-TLV. When
a Tunnel Parameter Value has an incorrect syntax or semantic, it MUST a Tunnel Parameter Value has an incorrect syntax or semantics, it
be treated as an invalid Tunnel Parameter Sub-TLV. If a Tunnel MUST be treated as an invalid Tunnel Parameter Sub-TLV. If a Tunnel
Parameter Sub-TLV is invalid, its Tunnel Sub-TLV MUST be ignored. Parameter Sub-TLV is invalid, its Tunnel Sub-TLV MUST be ignored.
However, other Tunnel Sub-TLVs MUST be considered. However, other Tunnel Sub-TLVs MUST be considered.
5.1. Encapsulation Sub-TLV 5.1. Encapsulation Sub-TLV
This Sub-TLV type is 1. The syntax, semantic, and usage of its value This sub-TLV type is 1. The syntax, semantics, and usage of its
field are defined in Section 3.2 "Encapsulation Sub-TLVs for Value field are defined in Section 3.2 ("Encapsulation Sub-TLVs for
Particular Tunnel Types" of [I-D.ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps]. Particular Tunnel Types") of [RFC9012].
5.2. Protocol Type Sub-TLV 5.2. Protocol Type Sub-TLV
This Sub-TLV type is 2. The syntax, semantic, and usage of its value This sub-TLV type is 2. The syntax, semantics, and usage of its
field are defined in Section 3.4.1 "Protocol Type sub-TLV" of Value field are defined in Section 3.4.1 ("Protocol Type Sub-TLV") of
[I-D.ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps]. [RFC9012].
5.3. Endpoint Sub-TLV 5.3. Tunnel Egress Endpoint Sub-TLV
This Sub-TLV type is 3. It MUST be present once and only once in a The Tunnel Egress Endpoint Sub-TLV specifies the address of the
given Tunnel Sub-TLV. The value field contain two sub-fields: egress endpoint of the tunnel -- that is, the address of the router
that will decapsulate the payload.
a two-octet Address Family sub-field This sub-TLV type is 3. It MUST be present once and only once in a
given Tunnel Sub-TLV. The Value field contains two subfields:
an Address sub-field, whose length depends upon the Address * a two-octet Address Family subfield
Family.
* an Address subfield, whose length depends upon the Address Family
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Address Family | Address ~ | Address Family | Address ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +
~ (Variable length) ~ ~ (variable length) ~
| | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3: Endpoint Sub-TLV Figure 3: Tunnel Egress Endpoint Sub-TLV
The Address Family subfield contains a value from IANA's "Address The Address Family subfield contains a value from IANA's "Address
Family Numbers" registry. In this document, we assume that the Family Numbers" registry. In this document, we assume that the
Address Family is either IPv4 or IPv6; use of other address families Address Family is either IPv4 or IPv6; use of other address families
is outside the scope of this document. is outside the scope of this document.
If the Address Family subfield contains the value for IPv4, the If the Address Family subfield contains the value for IPv4, the
address subfield MUST contain an IPv4 address (a /32 IPv4 prefix). Address subfield MUST contain an IPv4 address (a /32 IPv4 prefix).
In this case, the length field of Remote Endpoint sub-TLV MUST In this case, the Length field of the Tunnel Egress Endpoint Sub-TLV
contain the value 6. MUST contain the value 6.
If the Address Family subfield contains the value for IPv6, the If the Address Family subfield contains the value for IPv6, the
address sub-field MUST contain an IPv6 address (a /128 IPv6 prefix). address subfield MUST contain an IPv6 address (a /128 IPv6 prefix).
In this case, the length field of Remote Endpoint sub-TLV MUST In this case, the Length field of the Tunnel Egress Endpoint Sub-TLV
contain the value 18 (0x12). IPv6 link local addresses are not valid MUST contain the value 18 (0x12). IPv6 link-local addresses are not
values of the IP address field. valid values of the IP address field.
5.4. Color Sub-TLV 5.4. Color Sub-TLV
This Sub-TLV type is 4. It may appear zero or more time in a given This sub-TLV type is 4. It may appear zero or more times in a given
Tunnel Sub-TLV. The value field is a 4-octet opaque unsigned Tunnel Sub-TLV. The Value field is a 4-octet opaque unsigned
integer. 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 tunnel encapsulator routers, for example, to control policies on the tunnel encapsulator routers, for example, to control
the 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 the Color
Extended Community [I-D.ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps]. If the tunnel is Extended Community [RFC9012]. If the tunnel is used to reach the BGP
used to reach the BGP Next-Hop of BGP routes, then attaching a Color next hop of BGP routes, then attaching a Color Extended Community to
Extended Community to those routes express the willingness of the BGP those routes expresses the willingness of the BGP speaker to use a
speaker to use a tunnel of the same color. tunnel of the same color.
5.5. Load-Balancing Block Sub-TLV 5.5. Load-Balancing Block Sub-TLV
This Sub-TLV type is 5. The syntax, semantic, and usage of its value This sub-TLV type is 5. The syntax, semantics, and usage of its
field are defined in [RFC5640]. Value field are defined in [RFC5640].
5.6. IP QoS Field 5.6. DS Field Sub-TLV
This Sub-TLV type is 6. The syntax, semantic, and usage of its value This sub-TLV type is 6. The syntax, semantics, and usage of its
field are defined in Section 3.3.1 "IPv4 DS Field" of Value field are defined in Section 3.3.1 ("DS Field") of [RFC9012].
[I-D.ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps].
5.7. UDP Destination Port 5.7. UDP Destination Port Sub-TLV
This Sub-TLV type is 7. The syntax, semantic, and usage of its value This sub-TLV type is 7. The syntax, semantics, and usage of its
field are defined in Section 3.3.2 "UDP Destination Port" of Value field are defined in Section 3.3.2 ("UDP Destination Port") of
[I-D.ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps]. [RFC9012].
6. Operation 6. Operation
The advertisement of a Tunnel Encapsulations Sub-TLV indicates that The advertisement of a Tunnel Encapsulations Sub-TLV indicates that
the advertising router supports a particular tunnel decapsulation the advertising router supports a particular tunnel decapsulation
along with the parameters to be used for the tunnel. The decision to along with the parameters to be used for the tunnel. The decision to
use that tunnel is driven by the capability of the tunnel use that tunnel is driven by the capability of the tunnel
encapsulator router to support the encapsulation type and the policy encapsulator router to support the encapsulation type and the policy
on the tunnel encapsulator router. The Color Sub-TLV (See 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 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 tunnel types may require the execution of an explicit tunnel setup
protocol before they can be used to transit data. protocol before they can be used to transit data.
A tunnel MUST NOT be used if there is no route toward the IP address 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 specified in the Tunnel Egress Endpoint Sub-TLV (see Section 5.3) or
is not advertised in the same OSPF domain. if the route is not advertised in the same OSPF domain.
7. IANA Considerations 7. IANA Considerations
7.1. OSPF Router Information 7.1. OSPF Router Information (RI) TLVs Registry
This document requests IANA to allocate a new code point from the IANA has allocated the following new code point in the "OSPF Router
OSPF Router Information (RI) registry. Information (RI) TLVs" registry.
Value TLV Name Reference +=======+=======================+===========+
----- ---------------------- ------------- | Value | TLV Name | Reference |
TBD1 Tunnel Encapsulations This document +=======+=======================+===========+
| 13 | Tunnel Encapsulations | RFC 9013 |
+-------+-----------------------+-----------+
Figure 4: Tunnel Encapsulation Router Information Table 1: Addition to OSPF Router
Information (RI) TLVs Registry
7.2. Tunnel Parameter Sub-TLVs Registry 7.2. OSPF Tunnel Parameter Sub-TLVs Registry
This document requests IANA to create, under "Open Shortest Path IANA has created a new subregistry called the "OSPF Tunnel Parameter
First (OSPF) Parameters", a new registry "OSPF Tunnel Parameter Sub- Sub-TLVs" registry under the "Open Shortest Path First (OSPF)
TLVs" with the following registration procedure: Parameters" registry. The registration procedures are as follows:
The values in the range 1-34999 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 [RFC8126]. "Standards Action" registration procedure defined in [RFC8126].
The values in the range 35000-65499 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 Parameter Sub-TLVs The initial contents of the registry are as follows:
Value Name Reference +=============+======================+=====================+
----------- -------------------- ------------------------------ | Value | TLV Name | Reference |
0 Reserved This document +=============+======================+=====================+
1 Encapsulation This document | 0 | Reserved | RFC 9013 |
& [I-D.ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps] +-------------+----------------------+---------------------+
2 Protocol Type This document | 1 | Encapsulation | RFC 9013 & RFC 9012 |
& [I-D.ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps] +-------------+----------------------+---------------------+
3 Endpoint This document | 2 | Protocol Type | RFC 9013 & RFC 9012 |
4 Color This document +-------------+----------------------+---------------------+
5 Load-Balancing Block This document & [RFC5640] | 3 | Endpoint | RFC 9013 |
6 IP QoS This document +-------------+----------------------+---------------------+
& [I-D.ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps] | 4 | Color | RFC 9013 |
7 UDP Destination Port This document +-------------+----------------------+---------------------+
& [I-D.ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps] | 5 | Load-Balancing Block | RFC 9013 & RFC 5640 |
8-65499 Unassigned +-------------+----------------------+---------------------+
65500-65534 Experimental This document | 6 | DS Field | RFC 9013 & RFC 9012 |
65535 Reserved This document +-------------+----------------------+---------------------+
| 7 | UDP Destination Port | RFC 9013 & RFC 9012 |
+-------------+----------------------+---------------------+
| 8-65499 | Unassigned | |
+-------------+----------------------+---------------------+
| 65500-65534 | Experimental | RFC 9013 |
+-------------+----------------------+---------------------+
| 65535 | Reserved | RFC 9013 |
+-------------+----------------------+---------------------+
Figure 5: OSPF Tunnel Parameter Sub-TLVs Registry Table 2: Initial Contents of OSPF Tunnel Parameter Sub-
TLVs Registry
8. 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, choose a tunnel type, or choose a
choose a particular tunnel for a particular payload type, user data particular tunnel for a particular payload type, user data packets
packets may end up getting misrouted, mis-delivered, and/or dropped. may end up getting misrouted, misdelivered, and/or dropped. However,
However, since an OSPF routing domain is usually a well-controlled since an OSPF routing domain is usually a well-controlled network
network under a single administrative domain, the possibility of the under a single administrative domain, the possibility of the above
above attack is very low. attack is very low.
We note that the last paragraph of Section 6 forbid the establishment We note that the last paragraph of Section 6 forbids the
of a tunnel toward arbitrary destinations. It prohibits a establishment of a tunnel toward arbitrary destinations. It
destination outside of the OSPF domain. This avoid that a third- prohibits a destination outside of the OSPF domain. This prevents a
party gaining access to an OSPF router be able to send the traffic to third party that has gained access to an OSPF router from being able
other destinations, e.g., for inspection purposes. to send the traffic to other destinations, e.g., for inspection
purposes.
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 9. References
Uma Chunduri
Huawei
Email: uma.chunduri@gmail.com
10. Acknowledgements
This document is partially inspired by [RFC5512].
The authors would like to thank Greg Mirsky, John E Drake, Carlos
Pignataro and Karsten Thomann for their valuable comments on this
document. Special thanks should be given to Acee Lindem for his
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
11.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps] 9.1. Normative References
Rosen, E., Patel, K., and G. Velde, "The BGP Tunnel
Encapsulation Attribute", draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps-07
(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>.
[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>.
skipping to change at page 10, line 5 skipping to change at line 405
[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>.
[RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for [RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017, RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
11.2. Informative References [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC9012] Patel, K., Van de Velde, G., Sangli, S., and J. Scudder,
"The BGP Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute", RFC 9012,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9012, April 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9012>.
9.2. 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
skipping to change at page 10, line 30 skipping to change at line 439
[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,
<https://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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7490>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7490>.
Acknowledgements
This document is partially inspired by [RFC5512].
The authors would like to thank Greg Mirsky, John E. Drake, Carlos
Pignataro, and Karsten Thomann for their valuable comments on this
document. Special thanks should be given to Acee Lindem for his
multiple detailed reviews of this document and help. The authors
would like to thank Pete Resnick, Joe Touch, David Mandelberg,
Sabrina Tanamal, Tim Wicinski, and Amanda Baber for their Last Call
reviews. The authors also thank Spencer Dawkins, Mirja K├╝hlewind,
Ben Campbell, Benoit Claise, Alvaro Retana, Adam Roach, and Suresh
Krishnan for their AD reviews.
Contributors
Uma Chunduri
Huawei
Email: uma.chunduri@gmail.com
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Xiaohu Xu (editor) Xiaohu Xu (editor)
Huawei Capitalonline
Email: xuxiaohu@huawei.com Email: xiaohu.xu@capitalonline.net
Bruno Decraene (editor) Bruno Decraene (editor)
Orange Orange
Email: bruno.decraene@orange.com Email: bruno.decraene@orange.com
Robert Raszuk Robert Raszuk
Bloomberg LP NTT Network Innovations
940 Stewart Dr
Sunnyvale, CA 94085
United States of America
Email: robert@raszuk.net Email: robert@raszuk.net
Luis M. Contreras Luis M. Contreras
Telefonica I+D Telefonica I+D
Email: luismiguel.contrerasmurillo@telefonica.com Email: luismiguel.contrerasmurillo@telefonica.com
Luay Jalil Luay Jalil
Verizon Verizon
Email: luay.jalil@verizon.com Email: luay.jalil@verizon.com
 End of changes. 79 change blocks. 
217 lines changed or deleted 237 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/