draft-ietf-bier-ospf-bier-extensions-17.txt   draft-ietf-bier-ospf-bier-extensions-18.txt 
OSPF P. Psenak, Ed. OSPF P. Psenak, Ed.
Internet-Draft N. Kumar Internet-Draft N. Kumar
Intended status: Standards Track IJ. Wijnands Intended status: Standards Track IJ. Wijnands
Expires: October 5, 2018 Cisco Expires: December 3, 2018 Cisco
A. Dolganow A. Dolganow
Nokia Nokia
T. Przygienda T. Przygienda
J. Zhang J. Zhang
Juniper Networks, Inc. Juniper Networks, Inc.
S. Aldrin S. Aldrin
Google, Inc. Google, Inc.
April 3, 2018 June 1, 2018
OSPFv2 Extensions for BIER OSPFv2 Extensions for BIER
draft-ietf-bier-ospf-bier-extensions-17.txt draft-ietf-bier-ospf-bier-extensions-18.txt
Abstract Abstract
Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER) is an architecture that Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER) is an architecture that
provides multicast forwarding through a "BIER domain" without provides multicast forwarding through a "BIER domain" without
requiring intermediate routers to maintain multicast related per-flow requiring intermediate routers to maintain multicast related per-flow
state. Neither does BIER require an explicit tree-building protocol state. Neither does BIER require an explicit tree-building protocol
for its operation. A multicast data packet enters a BIER domain at a for its operation. A multicast data packet enters a BIER domain at a
"Bit-Forwarding Ingress Router" (BFIR), and leaves the BIER domain at "Bit-Forwarding Ingress Router" (BFIR), and leaves the BIER domain at
one or more "Bit-Forwarding Egress Routers" (BFERs). The BFIR router one or more "Bit-Forwarding Egress Routers" (BFERs). The BFIR router
skipping to change at page 2, line 10 skipping to change at page 2, line 10
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 https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at https://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 October 5, 2018. This Internet-Draft will expire on December 3, 2018.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2018 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
skipping to change at page 5, line 48 skipping to change at page 5, line 48
Bit String Length: A 4 bits field encoding the supported BitString Bit String Length: A 4 bits field encoding the supported BitString
length associated with this BFR-prefix. The values allowed in length associated with this BFR-prefix. The values allowed in
this field are specified in section 2 of [RFC8296]. this field are specified in section 2 of [RFC8296].
Reserved: SHOULD be set to 0 on transmission and MUST be ignored Reserved: SHOULD be set to 0 on transmission and MUST be ignored
on reception. on reception.
The "label range" is the set of labels beginning with the Label The "label range" is the set of labels beginning with the Label
and ending with (Label + (Max SI)). A unique label range is and ending with (Label + (Max SI)). A unique label range is
allocated for each BitStream length and Sub-domain-ID. These allocated for each BitString length and Sub-domain-ID. These
labels are used for BIER forwarding as described in [RFC8279] and labels are used for BIER forwarding as described in [RFC8279] and
[RFC8296]. [RFC8296].
The size of the label range is determined by the number of Set The size of the label range is determined by the number of Set
Identifiers (SI) (section 1 of [RFC8279]) that are used in the Identifiers (SI) (section 1 of [RFC8279]) that are used in the
network. Each SI maps to a single label in the label range. The network. Each SI maps to a single label in the label range. The
first label is for SI=0, the second label is for SI=1, etc. first label is for SI=0, the second label is for SI=1, etc.
If the label associated with the Maximum Set Identifier exceeds the If the label associated with the Maximum Set Identifier exceeds the
20 bit range, the BIER MPLS Encapsulation Sub-TLV MUST be ignored. 20 bit range, the BIER MPLS Encapsulation Sub-TLV MUST be ignored.
skipping to change at page 8, line 32 skipping to change at page 8, line 32
Implementations MUST assure that malformed TLV and Sub-TLV defined in Implementations MUST assure that malformed TLV and Sub-TLV defined in
this document are detected and do not provide a vulnerability for this document are detected and do not provide a vulnerability for
attackers to crash the OSPF router or routing process. Reception of attackers to crash the OSPF router or routing process. Reception of
malformed TLV or Sub-TLV SHOULD be counted and/or logged for further malformed TLV or Sub-TLV SHOULD be counted and/or logged for further
analysis. Logging of malformed TLVs and Sub-TLVs SHOULD be rate- analysis. Logging of malformed TLVs and Sub-TLVs SHOULD be rate-
limited to prevent a Denial of Service (DoS) attack (distributed or limited to prevent a Denial of Service (DoS) attack (distributed or
otherwise) from overloading the OSPF control plane. otherwise) from overloading the OSPF control plane.
4. IANA Considerations 4. IANA Considerations
The document requests three new allocations from the OSPF Extended The document requests two new allocations from the OSPF Extended
Prefix sub-TLV registry as defined in [RFC7684]. Prefix sub-TLV registry as defined in [RFC7684].
BIER Sub-TLV: 9 BIER Sub-TLV: 9
BIER MPLS Encapsulation Sub-TLV: 10 BIER MPLS Encapsulation Sub-TLV: 10
5. Acknowledgments 5. Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Rajiv Asati, Christian Martin, Greg The authors would like to thank Rajiv Asati, Christian Martin, Greg
Shepherd and Eric Rosen for their contribution. Shepherd and Eric Rosen for their contribution.
 End of changes. 6 change blocks. 
6 lines changed or deleted 6 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.46. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/