draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv2-hbit-01.txt   draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv2-hbit-02.txt 
OSPF K. Patel OSPF K. Patel
Internet-Draft Cisco Systems Internet-Draft Arrcus
Intended status: Standards Track P. Pillay-Esnault Intended status: Standards Track P. Pillay-Esnault
Expires: January 6, 2017 Huawei Technologies Expires: October 12, 2017 Huawei Technologies
M. Bhardwaj M. Bhardwaj
S. Bayraktar S. Bayraktar
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
July 5, 2016 April 10, 2017
H-bit Support for OSPFv2 H-bit Support for OSPFv2
draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv2-hbit-01 draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv2-hbit-02
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 39 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 January 6, 2017. This Internet-Draft will expire on October 12, 2017.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 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 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. H-bit Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. H-bit Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. SPF Modifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4. SPF Modifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Auto Discovery and Backwards Compatibility . . . . . . . . . 5 5. Auto Discovery and Backwards Compatibility . . . . . . . . . 5
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6. OSPF AS-External-LSAs/NSSA LSAs with Type 2 Metrics . . . . . 6
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
9. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 10. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
11.2. 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 6, line 15 skipping to change at page 6, line 15
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.
6. IANA Considerations 6. OSPF AS-External-LSAs/NSSA LSAs with Type 2 Metrics
When calculating the path to an OSPF AS-External-LSA or NSSA-LSA with
a Type-2 metric, the advertised Type-2 metric is taken an more
significant than the OSPF intra-area or inter-area path. Hence,
advertising the links with MaxLinkMetric as specified in [RFC6987]
does not discourage transit traffic when calculating AS external or
NSSA routes. Consequently, OSPF routers implementing [RFC6987] or
this specification should advertise a Type-2 metric of LSInfinity for
any self-originated AS-External-LSAs or NSSA-LSAs in situations when
the OSPF router is acting as a stub router [RFC6987] or implementing
this specification.
7. IANA Considerations
This draft defines a new Router LSA bit known as a H-bit. This draft This draft defines a new Router LSA bit known as a H-bit. This draft
requests IANA to 1) Create a new OSPF Router LSA bits registry and 2) requests IANA to 1) Create a new OSPF Router LSA bits registry and 2)
assign a H-bit code type from the newly allocated OSPF Router LSA bit assign a H-bit code type from the newly allocated OSPF Router LSA bit
registry. registry.
This draft defines a new Router Functional Capability known as a Host This draft defines a new Router Functional Capability known as a Host
Support Functional Capability. This draft requests IANA to allocate Support Functional Capability. This draft requests IANA to allocate
the value of this capability from the Router Functional Capability the value of this capability from the Router Functional Capability
Bits TLV. Bits TLV.
7. Security Considerations 8. Security Considerations
This document introduces no new security considerations above and This document introduces no new security considerations above and
beyond those already specified in [RFC2328] and [RFC5340]. beyond those already specified in [RFC2328] and [RFC5340].
8. Acknowledgements 9. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge Acee Lindem, Abhay Roy, David The authors would like to acknowledge Hasmit Grover for discovery of
Ward, Burjiz Pithawala and Michael Barnes for their comments. the limitation in [RFC6987], Acee Lindem, Abhay Roy, David Ward,
Burjiz Pithawala and Michael Barnes for their comments.
9. Change Log 10. Change Log
Initial Version: April 23 2015 Initial Version: April 23 2015
10. References 11. References
10.1. Normative References 11.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 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 [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, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7770>.
10.2. Informative References 11.2. 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., Litkowski, Raszuk, R., Cassar, C., Aman, E., Decraene, B., Litkowski,
S., and K. Wang, "BGP Optimal Route Reflection (BGP-ORR)", S., and K. Wang, "BGP Optimal Route Reflection (BGP-ORR)",
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-optimal-route-reflection-11 (work in draft-ietf-idr-bgp-optimal-route-reflection-13 (work in
progress), January 2016. progress), January 2017.
[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 Arrcus
170 W. Tasman Drive
San Jose CA 95134,
USA
Email: keyupate@cisco.com
Email: keyur@arrcus.com
Padma Pillay-Esnault Padma Pillay-Esnault
Huawei Technologies Huawei Technologies
2330 Central Expressway 2330 Central Expressway
Santa Clara, CA 95050 Santa Clara, CA 95050
USA USA
Email: padma@huawei.com Email: padma@huawei.com
Manish Bhardwaj Manish Bhardwaj
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
170 W. Tasman Drive 170 W. Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA 95134 San Jose, CA 95134
USA USA
Email: manbhard@cisco.com Email: manbhard@cisco.com
Serpil Bayraktar Serpil Bayraktar
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
 End of changes. 20 change blocks. 
31 lines changed or deleted 43 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/