draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv2-hbit-00.txt   draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv2-hbit-01.txt 
OSPF K. Patel OSPF K. Patel
Internet-Draft P. Pillay-Esnault Internet-Draft Cisco Systems
Intended status: Standards Track M. Bhardwaj Intended status: Standards Track P. Pillay-Esnault
Expires: April 20, 2016 S. Bayraktar Expires: January 6, 2017 Huawei Technologies
M. Bhardwaj
S. Bayraktar
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
October 18, 2015 July 5, 2016
H-bit Support for OSPFv2 H-bit Support for OSPFv2
draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv2-hbit-00 draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv2-hbit-01
Abstract Abstract
OSPFv3 defines an option field for router-LSAs known as a R-bit in OSPFv3 defines an option field for router-LSAs known as a R-bit in
RFC5340. If the R-bit is clear, an OSPFv3 router can participate in RFC5340. If the R-bit is clear, an OSPFv3 router can participate in
OSPF topology distribution without acting as a forwarder to forward OSPF topology distribution without acting as a forwarder to forward
the transit traffic. In such cases, an OSPF router would only accept the transit traffic. In such cases, an OSPF router would only accept
traffic intended for local delivery. This draft defines R-bit traffic intended for local delivery. This draft defines R-bit
functionality for OSPFv2 defined in RFC2328. functionality for OSPFv2 defined in RFC2328.
skipping to change at page 1, line 37 skipping to change at page 1, line 39
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
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 April 20, 2016. This Internet-Draft will expire on January 6, 2017.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2016 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
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://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
2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. H-bit Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. H-bit Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. SPF Modifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. SPF Modifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Auto Discovery and Backwards Compatibility . . . . . . . . . 5 5. Auto Discovery and Backwards Compatibility . . . . . . . . . 5
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
9. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 9. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
OSPFv3 [RFC5340] defines an option field for router-LSAs known as a OSPFv3 [RFC5340] defines an option field for router-LSAs known as a
R-bit. If the R-bit is clear, an OSPF router can participate in R-bit. If the R-bit is clear, an OSPF router can participate in
OSPFv3 topology distribution without acting as a forwarder to forward OSPFv3 topology distribution without acting as a forwarder to forward
the transit traffic. In such cases, an OSPF router would only accept the transit traffic. In such cases, an OSPF router would only accept
traffic intended for local delivery. traffic intended for local delivery.
skipping to change at page 5, line 30 skipping to change at page 5, line 48
the cost to an adjacent vertex. For the cost to an adjacent vertex. For
each described link, (say it joins each described link, (say it joins
vertex V to vertex W): vertex V to vertex W):
5. Auto Discovery and Backwards Compatibility 5. Auto Discovery and Backwards Compatibility
To avoid the possibility of any routing loops due to partial To avoid the possibility of any routing loops due to partial
deployments, this draft defines a new OSPF Router Functional deployments, this draft defines a new OSPF Router Functional
Capability known as a Host Support Capability. The value of this Capability known as a Host Support Capability. The value of this
capability is a bit value to be assigned by IANA from OSPF Router capability is a bit value to be assigned by IANA from OSPF Router
Functional Capability Bits registry [I-D.ietf-ospf-rfc4970bis]. Functional Capability Bits registry [RFC7770] .
The Auto Discovery via announcement of the Host Support Functional The Auto Discovery via announcement of the Host Support Functional
Capability ensures that the H-bit functionality and its associated Capability ensures that the H-bit functionality and its associated
SPF changes SHOULD only take effect if all the routers in a given SPF changes SHOULD only take effect if all the routers in a given
OSPF area support this functionality. OSPF area support this functionality.
Implementations are encouraged to provide a knob to manually override Implementations are encouraged to provide a knob to manually override
enforcement of the H-bit functionality in partial deployment enforcement of the H-bit functionality in partial deployment
scenarios for cases where the topology guarantees that the router scenarios for cases where the topology guarantees that the router
supporting the H-bit will not cause routing loops. supporting the H-bit will not cause routing loops.
skipping to change at page 6, line 25 skipping to change at page 6, line 45
Ward, Burjiz Pithawala and Michael Barnes for their comments. Ward, Burjiz Pithawala and Michael Barnes for their comments.
9. Change Log 9. Change Log
Initial Version: April 23 2015 Initial Version: April 23 2015
10. References 10. References
10.1. Normative References 10.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-ospf-rfc4970bis]
Lindem, A., Shen, N., Vasseur, J., Aggarwal, R., and S.
Shaffer, "Extensions to OSPF for Advertising Optional
Router Capabilities", draft-ietf-ospf-rfc4970bis-07 (work
in progress), October 2015.
[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>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[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>. <http://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>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5340>.
[RFC7770] Lindem, A., Ed., Shen, N., Vasseur, JP., Aggarwal, R., and
S. Shaffer, "Extensions to OSPF for Advertising Optional
Router Capabilities", RFC 7770, DOI 10.17487/RFC7770,
February 2016, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7770>.
10.2. Informative References 10.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-optimal-route-reflection] [I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-optimal-route-reflection]
Raszuk, R., Cassar, C., Aman, E., Decraene, B., and S. Raszuk, R., Cassar, C., Aman, E., Decraene, B., Litkowski,
Litkowski, "BGP Optimal Route Reflection (BGP-ORR)", S., and K. Wang, "BGP Optimal Route Reflection (BGP-ORR)",
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-optimal-route-reflection-10 (work in draft-ietf-idr-bgp-optimal-route-reflection-11 (work in
progress), July 2015. progress), January 2016.
[RFC6987] Retana, A., Nguyen, L., Zinin, A., White, R., and D. [RFC6987] Retana, A., Nguyen, L., Zinin, A., White, R., and D.
McPherson, "OSPF Stub Router Advertisement", RFC 6987, McPherson, "OSPF Stub Router Advertisement", RFC 6987,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6987, September 2013, DOI 10.17487/RFC6987, September 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6987>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6987>.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Keyur Patel Keyur Patel
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
170 W. Tasman Drive 170 W. Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA 95124 95134 San Jose CA 95134,
USA USA
Email: keyupate@cisco.com Email: keyupate@cisco.com
Padma Pillay-Esnault Padma Pillay-Esnault
Cisco Systems Huawei Technologies
170 W. Tasman Drive 2330 Central Expressway
San Jose, CA 95124 95134 Santa Clara, CA 95050
USA USA
Email: ppe@cisco.com Email: padma@huawei.com
Manish Bhardwaj Manish Bhardwaj
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
170 W. Tasman Drive 170 W. Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA 95124 95134 San Jose, CA 95134
USA USA
Email: manbhard@cisco.com Email: manbhard@cisco.com
Serpil Bayraktar Serpil Bayraktar
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
170 W. Tasman Drive 170 W. Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA 95124 95134 San Jose, CA 95134
USA USA
Email: serpil@cisco.com Email: serpil@cisco.com
 End of changes. 17 change blocks. 
29 lines changed or deleted 29 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/