draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-routing-ospf-04.txt   draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-routing-ospf-05.txt 
Network Working Group Dimitri Papadimitriou Network Working Group Dimitri Papadimitriou
Internet Draft (Alcatel-Lucent) Internet Draft (Alcatel-Lucent)
Category: Standards Track Category: Standards Track
Created: December 7, 2007 Created: February 22, 2008
Expires: June 7, 2008 Expires: August 21, 2008 February 22, 2008
OSPFv2 Extensions for ASON Routing OSPFv2 Routing Protocols Extensions for ASON Routing
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-routing-ospf-04.txt draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-routing-ospf-05.txt
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
skipping to change at page 1, line 38 skipping to change at page 1, line 38
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007). Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
Abstract Abstract
The Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) suite of protocols has been defined to The Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) suite of protocols has been defined to
control different switching technologies as well as different control different switching technologies as well as different
applications. These include support for requesting TDM connections applications. These include support for requesting TDM connections
including SONET/SDH and Optical Transport Networks (OTNs). including SONET/SDH and Optical Transport Networks (OTNs).
This document provides the extensions of the OSPFv2 Link State This document provides the extensions of the OSPFv2 Link State
Routing Protocol to meet the routing requirements for an Routing Protocol to meet the routing requirements for an
Automatically Switched Optical Network (ASON) as defined by ITU-T. Automatically Switched Optical Network (ASON) as defined by ITU-T.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Conventions Used In This Document .............................. 2 1. Conventions Used In This Document........................... 2
2. Introduction 2. Introduction................................................ 3
3. Reachability 3. Reachability................................................ 4
3.1 Node IPv4 Local Prefix Sub-TLV 3.1 Node IPv4 Local Prefix Sub-TLV............................. 4
3.2 Node IPv6 Local Prefix Sub-TLV 3.2 Node IPv6 Local Prefix Sub-TLV............................. 5
4. Link Attribute 4. Link Attribute.............................................. 5
4.1 Local Adaptation 4.1 Local Adaptation........................................... 5
4.2 Bandwidth Accounting 4.2 Bandwidth Accounting....................................... 6
5. Routing Information Scope 5. Routing Information Scope................................... 6
5.1. Terminology and Identification 5.1 Terminology and Identification............................. 6
5.2 Link Advertisement (Local and Remote TE Router ID Sub-TLV) 5.2 Link Advertisement (Local and Remote TE Router ID Sub-TLV). 7
5.3 Reachability Advertisement (Local TE Router ID Sub-TLV) 5.3 Reachability Advertisement (Local TE Router ID Sub-TLV).... 8
6. Routing Information Dissemination 6. Routing Information Dissemination........................... 9
6.1 Import/Export Rules 6.1 Import/Export Rules........................................ 9
6.2 Discovery and Selection 6.2 Discovery and Selection.................................... 10
6.2.1 Upward Discovery and Selection 6.2.1 Upward Discovery and Selection........................... 10
6.2.2 Downward Discovery and Selection 6.2.2 Downward Discovery and Selection......................... 10
6.3 Loop Prevention 6.3 Loop Prevention............................................ 11
6.3.1 Associated Area ID 6.3.1 Associated Area ID....................................... 12
6.3.2 Processing 6.3.2 Processing............................................... 13
6.4 Resiliency 6.4 Resiliency................................................. 14
6.5 Neighbor Relationship and Routing Adjacency 6.5 Neighbor Relationship and Routing Adjacency................ 14
6.6 Reconfiguration 6.6 Reconfiguration............................................ 15
7. OSPFv2 Extensions 7. OSPFv2 Extensions........................................... 15
7.1 Compatibility 7.1 Compatibility.............................................. 15
7.2 Scalability 7.2 Scalability................................................ 16
8. Security Considerations 8. Security Considerations..................................... 16
9. IANA Considerations 9. IANA Considerations......................................... 17
10. Acknowledgements 10. References................................................. 17
11. References 10.1 Normative References...................................... 17
11.1 Normative References 10.2 Informative References.................................... 17
11.2 Informative References 11. Author's Address........................................... 19
12. Author's Address Appendix 1: ASON Terminology................................... 20
Appendix 1: ASON Terminology Appendix 2: ASON Routing Terminology........................... 22
Appendix 2: ASON Routing Terminology
1. Conventions Used In This Document 1. Conventions used in this document
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].
The reader is assumed to be familiar with the terminology and The reader is assumed to be familiar with the terminology and
requirements developed in [RFC4258] and the evaluation outcomes requirements developed in [RFC4258] and the evaluation outcomes
detailed in [RFC4652]. detailed in [RFC4652].
2. Introduction 2. Introduction
skipping to change at page 4, line 16 skipping to change at page 4, line 5
family, e.g., IPv4 and IPv6 used as network-unique identifiers). family, e.g., IPv4 and IPv6 used as network-unique identifiers).
The proposed solution is to advertise the local address prefixes of The proposed solution is to advertise the local address prefixes of
a router as new sub-TLVs of the (OSPFv2 TE LSA) Node Attribute top a router as new sub-TLVs of the (OSPFv2 TE LSA) Node Attribute top
level TLV (of Type TBD). This document defines the following sub- level TLV (of Type TBD). This document defines the following sub-
TLVs: TLVs:
- Node IPv4 Local Prefix sub-TLV: Type 3 - Length: variable - Node IPv4 Local Prefix sub-TLV: Type 3 - Length: variable
- Node IPv6 Local Prefix sub-TLV: Type 4 - Length: variable - Node IPv6 Local Prefix sub-TLV: Type 4 - Length: variable
3.1 Node IPv4 Local Prefix Sub-TLV 3.1 Node IPv4 Local Prefix sub-TLV
The node IPv4 local prefix sub-TLV has a type of 3 and contains one The Type of the Node IPv4 Local Prefix sub-TLV is 4. The Value field
or more local IPv4 prefixes. It has the following format: of this sub-TLV contains one or more local IPv4 prefixes. The
Length is set to 8 * n, where n is the number of local IPv4 prefixes
included in the sub-TLV.
The Node IPv4 Local Prefix sub-TLV has the following format:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 3 | Length | | Type (3) | Length (8 x n) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Network Mask 1 | | Network Mask 1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv4 Address 1 | | IPv4 Address 1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
. . . | |
. . . // ... //
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Network Mask n | | Network Mask n |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv4 Address n | | IPv4 Address n |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The length is set to 8 * n where n is the number of local prefixes Network mask "i": A 32-bit number indicating the IPv4 address mask
included in the sub-TLV. for the advertised destination prefix "i".
Network mask: A 32-bit number indicating the IPv4 address mask
for the advertised destination prefix.
Each <Network mask, IPv4 Address> pair listed as part of this sub- Each <Network mask, IPv4 Address> pair listed as part of this sub-
TLV represents a reachable destination prefix hosted by the TLV represents a reachable destination prefix hosted by the
advertising Router ID. advertising Router ID.
The local addresses that can be learned from TE LSAs i.e. router The local addresses that can be learned from Opaque TE LSAs i.e.
address and TE interface addresses SHOULD not be advertised in the router address and TE interface addresses SHOULD not be advertised
node IPv4 local prefix sub-TLV. in the node IPv4 local prefix sub-TLV.
3.2 Node IPv6 Local Prefix Sub-TLV 3.2 Node IPv6 Local Prefix sub-TLV
The node IPv6 local prefix sub-TLV has a type of 4 and contains one The Type of the Node IPv6 Local Prefix sub-TLV is 4. The Value field
or more local IPv6 prefixes. IPv6 Prefix Representation uses RFC of this sub-TLV contains one or more local IPv6 prefixes. IPv6
2740 Section A.4.1. It has the following format: Prefix representation uses [RFC2740] Section A.4.1.
The Node IPv6 Local Prefix sub-TLV has the following format:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 4 | Length | | Type (4) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| PrefixLength | PrefixOptions | (0) | | PrefixLength | PrefixOptions | (0) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | | |
| IPv6 Address Prefix 1 | | IPv6 Address Prefix 1 |
| | | |
| | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
. . . | |
. . . // ... //
. . . | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| PrefixLength | PrefixOptions | (0) | | PrefixLength | PrefixOptions | (0) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | | |
| IPv6 Address Prefix n | | IPv6 Address Prefix n |
| | | |
| | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
PrefixLength: length in bits of the prefix. PrefixLength: length in bits of the prefix.
PrefixOptions: 8-bit field describing various capabilities PrefixOptions: 8-bit field describing various capabilities
associated with the prefix (see [RFC2740] Section A.4.2). associated with the prefix (see [RFC2740] Section A.4.2).
Address Prefix: encoding of the prefix itself as an even multiple of IPv6 Address Prefix "i": encoding of the prefix "i" itself as an
32-bit words, padding with zero bits as necessary. even multiple of 32-bit words, padding with zero bits as necessary.
The Length is set to Sum[n][4 + #32-bit words/4] where n is the The Length is set to Sum[n][4 + #32-bit words/4] where n is the
number of local prefixes included in the sub-TLV. number of local prefixes included in the sub-TLV.
The local addresses that can be learned from TE LSAs i.e. router The local addresses that can be learned from TE LSAs i.e. router
address and TE interface addresses SHOULD not be advertised in the address and TE interface addresses SHOULD not be advertised in the
node IPv6 local prefix sub-TLV. node IPv6 local prefix sub-TLV.
4. Link Attribute 4. Link Attribute
[RFC4652] provide a map between link attributes and characteristics
and their representation in sub-TLV of the top level Link TLV of the
Opaque TE LSA [RFC3630] and [RFC4203], at the exception of the Local
Adaptation. Advertisement of this information SHOULD be supported on
a per-layer basis i.e. one Opaque TE LSA per switching capability
(and per bandwidth granularity e.g. LOVC and HOVC).
4.1 Local Adaptation 4.1 Local Adaptation
The Local Adaptation is defined as TE link attribute (i.e. sub-TLV) The Local Adaptation is defined as TE link attribute (i.e. sub-TLV)
that describes the cross/inter-layer relationships. that describes the cross/inter-layer relationships.
The Interface Switching Capability Descriptor (ISCD) TE Attribute The Interface Switching Capability Descriptor (ISCD) TE Attribute
[RFC4202] identifies the ability of the TE link to support cross- [RFC4202] identifies the ability of the TE link to support cross-
connection to another link within the same layer and the ability to connection to another link within the same layer and the ability to
use a locally terminated connection that belongs to one layer as a use a locally terminated connection that belongs to one layer as a
data link for another layer (adaptation capability). However, the data link for another layer (adaptation capability). However, the
skipping to change at page 6, line 28 skipping to change at page 6, line 15
within that layer (referred to as the termination capability) is within that layer (referred to as the termination capability) is
embedded with the adaptation capability. embedded with the adaptation capability.
For instance, a link between two optical cross-connects will contain For instance, a link between two optical cross-connects will contain
at least one ISCD attribute describing LSC switching capability. at least one ISCD attribute describing LSC switching capability.
Whereas a link between an optical cross-connect and an IP/MPLS LSR Whereas a link between an optical cross-connect and an IP/MPLS LSR
will contain at least two ISCD attributes: one for the description will contain at least two ISCD attributes: one for the description
of the LSC termination capability and one for the PSC adaptation of the LSC termination capability and one for the PSC adaptation
capability. capability.
In OSPFv2, the Interface Switching Capability Descriptor is a sub- In OSPFv2, the Interface Switching Capability Descriptor (ISCD) is a
TLV (of type 15) of the top-level Link TLV (of type 2) [RFC4203]. sub-TLV (of type 15) of the top-level Link TLV (of type 2)
[RFC4203].
The adaptation and termination capabilities are advertised using two The adaptation and termination capabilities are advertised using two
separate ISCD sub-TLVs within the same top-level link TLV. separate ISCD sub-TLVs within the same top-level link TLV.
Per [RFC4202] and [RFC4203], an interface MAY have more than one Per [RFC4202] and [RFC4203], an interface MAY have more than one
ISCD sub-TLV. Hence, the corresponding advertisements should not ISCD sub-TLV. Hence, the corresponding advertisements should not
result in any compatibility issue. result in any compatibility issue.
Further refinement of the ISCD sub-TLV for multi-layer networks is Further refinement of the ISCD sub-TLV for multi-layer networks is
outside the scope of this document. outside the scope of this document.
skipping to change at page 7, line 20 skipping to change at page 7, line 7
o) Pi is a physical (bearer/data/transport plane) node. o) Pi is a physical (bearer/data/transport plane) node.
o) Li is a logical control plane entity that is associated to a o) Li is a logical control plane entity that is associated to a
single data plane (abstract) node. Each Li is identified by a single data plane (abstract) node. Each Li is identified by a
unique TE Router_ID. The latter is a control plane identifier, unique TE Router_ID. The latter is a control plane identifier,
defined as the Router_Address top level TLV of the Type 1 TE LSA defined as the Router_Address top level TLV of the Type 1 TE LSA
[RFC3630]. [RFC3630].
Note: the Router_Address top-level TLV definition, processing and Note: the Router_Address top-level TLV definition, processing and
usage remain per [RFC3630]. This TLV specifies a stable IP address usage remain per [RFC3630]. This TLV specifies a stable IP
of the advertising router (Ri) that is always reachable if there address of the advertising router (Ri) that is always reachable
is any IP connectivity to it (e.g. via the Data Communication if there is any IP connectivity to it (e.g. via the Data
Network). Moreover, each advertising router advertises a unique, Communication Network). Moreover, each advertising router
reachable IP address for each Pi on behalf of which it makes advertises a unique, reachable IP address for each Pi on behalf
advertisements. of which it makes advertisements.
o) Ri is a logical control plane entity that is associated to a o) Ri is a logical control plane entity that is associated to a
control plane "router". The latter is the source for topology control plane "router". The latter is the source for topology
information that it generates and shares with other control plane information that it generates and shares with other control plane
"routers". The Ri is identified by the (advertising) Router_ID "routers". The Ri is identified by the (advertising) Router_ID
(32-bit) [RFC2328]. (32-bit) [RFC2328].
The Router_ID, which is represented by Ri and which corresponds to The Router_ID, which is represented by Ri and which corresponds
the RC_ID [RFC4258], does not enter into the identification of the to the RC_ID [RFC4258], does not enter into the identification of
logical entities representing the data plane resources such as the logical entities representing the data plane resources such
links. The Routing DataBase (RDB) is associated to the Ri. as links. The Routing DataBase (RDB) is associated to the Ri.
Aside from the Li/Pi mappings, these identifiers are not assumed to Note: Aside from the Li/Pi mappings, these identifiers are not
be in a particular entity relationship except that the Ri may have assumed to be in a particular entity relationship except that the Ri
multiple Lis in its scope. The relationship between Ri and Li is may have multiple Lis in its scope. The relationship between Ri and
simple at any moment in time: an Li may be advertised by only one Ri Li is simple at any moment in time: an Li may be advertised by only
at any time. However, an Ri may advertise a set of one or more Lis. one Ri at any time. However, an Ri may advertise a set of one or
Hence, the OSPFv2 routing protocol must support a single Ri more Lis. Hence, the OSPFv2 routing protocol must support a single
advertising on behalf of more than one Li. Ri advertising on behalf of more than one Li.
5.2 Link Advertisement (Local and Remote TE Router ID Sub-TLV) 5.2 Link Advertisement (Local and Remote TE Router ID sub-TLV)
A Router_ID (Ri) advertising on behalf multiple TE Router_IDs (Lis) A Router_ID (Ri) advertising on behalf multiple TE Router_IDs (Lis)
creates a 1:N relationship between the Router_ID and the TE creates a 1:N relationship between the Router_ID and the TE
Router_ID. As the link local and link remote (unnumbered) ID Router_ID. As the link local and link remote (unnumbered) ID
association is not unique per node (per Li unicity), the association is not unique per node (per Li unicity), the
advertisement needs to indicate the remote Lj value and rely on the advertisement needs to indicate the remote Lj value and rely on the
initial discovery process to retrieve the [Li;Lj] relationship. In initial discovery process to retrieve the [Li;Lj] relationship. In
brief, as unnumbered links have their ID defined on per Li bases, brief, as unnumbered links have their ID defined on per Li bases,
the remote Lj needs to be identified to scope the link remote ID to the remote Lj needs to be identified to scope the link remote ID to
the local Li. Therefore, the routing protocol MUST be able to the local Li. Therefore, the routing protocol MUST be able to
disambiguate the advertised TE links so that they can be associated disambiguate the advertised TE links so that they can be associated
with the correct TE Router ID. with the correct TE Router ID.
For this purpose, a new sub-TLV of the (OSPFv2 TE LSA) top level For this purpose, a new sub-TLV of the (OSPFv2 TE LSA) top level
Link TLV is introduced that defines the local and the remote Link TLV is introduced that defines the local and the remote
TE_Router_ID. TE_Router_ID.
The type of this sub-TLV is 17, and length is eight octets. The The Type of the Local and Remote TE Router ID sub-TLV is 17, and its
value field of this sub-TLV contains four octets of Local TE Router length is 8 octets. The Value field of this sub-TLV contains 4
Identifier followed by four octets of Remote TE Router Identifier. octets of Local TE Router Identifier followed by 4 octets of Remote
The value of the Local and the Remote TE Router Identifier SHOULD TE Router Identifier. The value of the Local and the Remote TE
NOT be set to 0. Router Identifier SHOULD NOT be set to 0.
The format of this sub-TLV is the following: The format of the Local and Remote TE Router ID sub-TLV:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 17 | Length | | Type (17) | Length (8) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Local TE Router Identifier | | Local TE Router Identifier |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Remote TE Router Identifier | | Remote TE Router Identifier |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
This sub-TLV is only required be included as part of the top level This sub-TLV is only required to be included as part of the top
Link TLV if the Router_ID is advertising on behalf of more than one level Link TLV if the Router_ID is advertising on behalf of more
TE_Router_ID. In any other case, this sub-TLV SHOULD be omitted than one TE_Router_ID. In any other case, this sub-TLV SHOULD be
except if operator plans to start of with 1 Li and progressively add omitted except if operator plans to start of with 1 Li and
more Li's (under the same Ri) such as to maintain consistency. progressively add more Li's (under the same Ri) such as to maintain
consistency.
Note: The Link ID sub-TLV that identifies the other end of the link Note: The Link ID sub-TLV that identifies the other end of the link
(i.e. Router ID of the neighbor for point-to-point links) MUST (i.e. Router ID of the neighbor for point-to-point links) MUST
appear exactly once per Link TLV. This sub-TLV MUST be processed as appear exactly once per Link TLV. This sub-TLV MUST be processed as
defined in [RFC3630]. defined in [RFC3630].
5.3 Reachability Advertisement (Local TE Router ID Sub-TLV) 5.3 Reachability Advertisement (Local TE Router ID sub-TLV)
When the Router_ID advertises on behalf of multiple TE Router_IDs When the Router_ID advertises on behalf of multiple TE Router_IDs
(Lis), the routing protocol MUST be able to associate the advertised (Lis), the routing protocol MUST be able to associate the advertised
reachability information with the correct TE Router ID. reachability information with the correct TE Router ID.
For this purpose, a new sub-TLV of the (OSPFv2 TE LSA) top level For this purpose, a new sub-TLV of the (OSPFv2 TE LSA) top level
Node Attribute TLV is introduced. This TLV associates the local Node Attribute TLV is introduced. This TLV associates the local
prefixes (sub-TLV 3 and 4, see above) to a given TE Router_ID. prefixes (sub-TLV 3 and 4, see above) to a given TE Router_ID.
The type of this sub-TLV is 5, and length is four octets. The value The Type of the Local TE Router ID sub-TLV is 5, and its Length is 4
field of this sub-TLV contains four octets of Local TE Router octets. The value field of this sub-TLV contains the Local TE Router
Identifier [RFC3630]. Identifier [RFC3630] encoded over 4 octets.
The format of this sub-TLV is the following: The format of the Local TE Router ID sub-TLV is:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 5 | Length | | Type (5) | Length (4) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Local TE Router Identifier | | Local TE Router Identifier |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
This sub-TLV is only required to be included be included as part of This sub-TLV is only required to be included be included as part of
the Node Attribute TLV if the Router_ID is advertising on behalf of the Node Attribute TLV if the Router_ID is advertising on behalf of
more than one TE_Router_ID. In any other case, this sub-TLV SHOULD more than one TE_Router_ID. In any other case, this sub-TLV SHOULD
be omitted. be omitted.
6. Routing Information Dissemination 6. Routing Information Dissemination
skipping to change at page 11, line 25 skipping to change at page 10, line 52
6.2.2 Downward Discovery and Selection 6.2.2 Downward Discovery and Selection
The same discovery mechanism is used for selecting the RC taking in The same discovery mechanism is used for selecting the RC taking in
charge dissemination of routing information downward the hierarchy. charge dissemination of routing information downward the hierarchy.
However, an additional restriction MUST be applied such that the RC However, an additional restriction MUST be applied such that the RC
selection process takes into account that an upper level may be selection process takes into account that an upper level may be
adjacent to one or more lower (routing area) levels. For this adjacent to one or more lower (routing area) levels. For this
purpose a specific TLV indexing the (lower) area ID to which the purpose a specific TLV indexing the (lower) area ID to which the
RC's are capable to disseminate routing information is needed. RC's are capable to disseminate routing information is needed.
OSPF Downstream Associated Area ID TLV format carried in the OSPF The Downstream Associated Area ID TLV is carried in the OSPF router
router information LSA [RFC4970] is defined. This TLV has the information LSA [RFC4970]. The Type of this TLV is TBD, and its
following format: length is n x 4 octets. The Value field of this sub-TLV contains the
list of Associated Area ID. Each Associated Area ID value is encoded
following the Area ID (32 bits) coding rules defined in [RFC2328].
The format of the Downstream Associated Area ID TLV is:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length | | Type (TBD) | Length (4 x n) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Associated Area ID | | Associated Area ID 1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | | |
// ... // // ... //
| | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Associated Area ID | | Associated Area ID n |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type (16 bits): identifies the TLV type
Length (16 bits): length of the value field in octets
Value (n x 32 bits): Associated Area ID whose value space is the
Area ID as defined in [RFC2328].
Note that this information MUST be present when the D bit is set. To Note that this information MUST be present when the D bit is set. To
discover RCs that are capable to disseminate routing information discover RCs that are capable to disseminate routing information
downward the routing hierarchy, the following Capability Descriptor downward the routing hierarchy, the following Capability Descriptor
bit [RFC4970] is defined, that MUST be advertised together with the bit [RFC4970] is defined, that MUST be advertised together with the
OSPF Downstream Associated Area ID TLV: Downstream Associated Area ID TLV:
- D bit: when set, this flag indicates that the RC is capable to - D bit: when set, this flag indicates that the RC is capable to
disseminate routing information downward the adjacent level(s). disseminate routing information downward the adjacent level(s).
In case of multiple supporting RCs for the same Associated Area ID, In case of multiple supporting RCs for the same Associated Area ID,
the RC with the highest Router ID, among the RCs having set the D the RC with the highest Router ID, among the RCs having set the D
bit, MUST be selected as the RC for downward dissemination of bit, MUST be selected as the RC for downward dissemination of
routing information. The other RCs for the same Associated Area ID routing information. The other RCs for the same Associated Area ID
MUST NOT participate in the downward dissemination of routing MUST NOT participate in the downward dissemination of routing
information as long as the opaque LSA information corresponding to information as long as the opaque LSA information corresponding to
the highest Router ID RC does not reach MaxAge. This mechanism the highest Router ID RC does not reach MaxAge. This mechanism
prevents from having more than one RC advertizing routing prevents from having more than one RC advertizing routing
information downward the routing hierarchy. information downward the routing hierarchy.
Note that alternatively if this information cannot be discovered Note that alternatively if this information cannot be discovered
automatically, it MUST be manually configured. automatically, it MUST be manually configured.
The OSPF Router information opaque LSA (opaque type of 4, opaque ID The OSPF Router information Opaque LSA (Opaque type of 4, Opaque ID
of 0) and its content in particular, the Router Informational of 0) and its content in particular, the Router Informational
Capabilities TLV [RFC4970] and TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV Capabilities TLV [RFC4970] and TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV
[OSPF-TE-CAP] MUST NOT be re-originated. [RFC5073] MUST NOT be re-originated.
6.3 Loop Prevention 6.3 Loop Prevention
When more than one RC are bound to adjacent levels of the hierarchy, When more than one RC are bound to adjacent levels of the hierarchy,
configured and selected to redistribute upward and downward the configured and selected to redistribute upward and downward the
routing information, a specific mechanism is required to avoid routing information, a specific mechanism is required to avoid
looping/re-introduction of routing information back to the upper looping/re-introduction of routing information back to the upper
level. This specific case occurs e.g. when the RC advertizing level. This specific case occurs e.g. when the RC advertizing
routing information downward the hierarchy is not the one routing information downward the hierarchy is not the one
advertizing routing upward the hierarchy (or vice-versa). advertizing routing upward the hierarchy (or vice-versa).
skipping to change at page 13, line 34 skipping to change at page 12, line 47
omitted, as long as these conditions are permanently guaranteed. In omitted, as long as these conditions are permanently guaranteed. In
all other cases, without exception, the procedure described in this all other cases, without exception, the procedure described in this
section MUST be applied. section MUST be applied.
6.3.1 Associated Area ID 6.3.1 Associated Area ID
Thus, we need some way of filtering the downward/upward re- Thus, we need some way of filtering the downward/upward re-
originated Opaque TE LSA. Per [RFC2370], the information contained originated Opaque TE LSA. Per [RFC2370], the information contained
in Opaque LSAs may be used directly by OSPF. Henceforth, by adding in Opaque LSAs may be used directly by OSPF. Henceforth, by adding
the Area ID associated to the incoming routing information the loop the Area ID associated to the incoming routing information the loop
prevention problem can be solved. This additional information that prevention problem can be solved.
MAY be carried in opaque LSAs including the Router Address TLV, in
opaque LSAs including the Link TLV, and in opaque LSAs including the This additional information, referred to as the Associated Area ID,
Node Attribute TLV, is referred to as the Associated Area ID. The MAY be carried in opaque LSAs including the Router Address top level
Associated Area ID reflects the identifier of the area from which TLV, in opaque LSAs including the Link top level TLV, and in opaque
the routing information is received. For example, for a multiple LSAs including the Node Attribute top level TLV.
level hierarchy, this identifier does not reflect the originating
Area ID, it will reflect the area from which the routing information The Associated Area ID reflects the identifier of the area from
is imported. which the routing information is received. For example, for a
multiple level hierarchy, this identifier does not reflect the
originating Area ID, it will reflect the area from which the routing
information is imported.
The Type of the Associated Area ID TLV is TBD, and its Length is 4
octets. The Value field of this sub-TLV contains the Associated Area
ID. The Associated Area ID value is encoded following the Area ID
(32 bits) coding rules defined in [RFC2328].
The format of the Associated Area ID TLV is defined as follows: The format of the Associated Area ID TLV is defined 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length | | Type (TBD) | Length (4) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Associated Area ID | | Associated Area ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type (16 bits): identifies the TLV type
Length (16 bits): length of the value field in octets
Value (32 bits): Associated Area ID whose value space is the Area ID
as defined in [RFC2328].
6.3.2 Processing 6.3.2 Processing
When fulfilling the rules detailed in Section 6.1 a given Opaque LSA When fulfilling the rules detailed in Section 6.1 a given Opaque LSA
is imported/exported downward or upward the routing hierarchy, the is imported/exported downward or upward the routing hierarchy, the
Associated Area ID TLV is added to the received opaque LSA list of Associated Area ID TLV is added to the received opaque LSA list of
TLVs such as to identify the area from which this routing TLVs such as to identify the area from which this routing
information has been received. information has been received.
When the RC adjacent to the lower or upper level routing level When the RC adjacent to the lower or upper level routing level
skipping to change at page 16, line 17 skipping to change at page 15, line 23
This section details the Area ID reconfiguration steps. This section details the Area ID reconfiguration steps.
Reconfiguration of the Area ID occurs when the Area ID is modified Reconfiguration of the Area ID occurs when the Area ID is modified
e.g. from value Z to value X or Y (see Fig.2). e.g. from value Z to value X or Y (see Fig.2).
The process of reconfiguring the Area ID involves: The process of reconfiguring the Area ID involves:
- Disable the import/export of routing information from the upper - Disable the import/export of routing information from the upper
and lower level (to prevent any LS information update) and lower level (to prevent any LS information update)
- Change the Area ID of the local level Area e.g. from Z to X or Y. - Change the Area ID of the local level Area from e.g. Z to X or Y.
Perform an LSDB checksum on all routers to verify that LSDB are Perform an LSDB checksum on all routers to verify that LSDB are
consistent. consistent.
- Enable import of upstream and downstream routing information such - Enable import of upstream and downstream routing information such
as to re-synchronize local level LSDB from any LS information that as to re-synchronize local level LSDB from any LS information that
may have occurred in an upper or a lower routing level. may have occurred in an upper or a lower routing level.
- Enable export of routing information downstream such as to re-sync - Enable export of routing information downstream such as to re-sync
the downstream level with the newly reconfigured Area ID (as part the downstream level with the newly reconfigured Area ID (as part
of the re-advertised Opaque TE LSA). of the re-advertised Opaque TE LSA).
skipping to change at page 16, line 42 skipping to change at page 15, line 48
Note that the re-sync operation needs only to be ensured with the Note that the re-sync operation needs only to be ensured with the
directly adjacent upper and lower routing level. directly adjacent upper and lower routing level.
7. OSPFv2 Extensions 7. OSPFv2 Extensions
7.1 Compatibility 7.1 Compatibility
Extensions specified in this document are associated to the Extensions specified in this document are associated to the
Opaque TE LSA: 1. Opaque Traffic Engineering LSA (Type 1) defined in [RFC3630]:
o) Router Address top level TLV (Type 1): o) Router Address top level TLV (Type 1):
- Associated Area ID sub-TLV: optional sub-TLV for loop avoidance - Associated Area ID sub-TLV: optional sub-TLV for loop avoidance
(see Section 6.2)
o) Link top level TLV (Type 2): o) Link top level TLV (Type 2):
- Local and Remote TE Router ID sub-TLV: optional sub-TLV for - Local and Remote TE Router ID sub-TLV: optional sub-TLV for
scoping link attributes per TE_Router ID scoping link attributes per TE_Router ID
- Associated Area ID sub-TLV: optional sub-TLV for loop avoidance - Associated Area ID sub-TLV: optional sub-TLV for loop avoidance
(see Section 6.2)
o) Node Attribute top level TLV (Type TBD): o) Node Attribute top level TLV (Type TBD):
- Node IPv4 Local Prefix sub-TLV: optional sub-TLV for IPv4 - Node IPv4 Local Prefix sub-TLV: optional sub-TLV for IPv4
reachability advertisement reachability advertisement
- Node IPv6 Local Prefix sub-TLV: optional sub-TLV for IPv6 - Node IPv6 Local Prefix sub-TLV: optional sub-TLV for IPv6
reachability advertisement reachability advertisement
- Local TE Router ID sub-TLV: optional sub-TLV for scoping - Local TE Router ID sub-TLV: optional sub-TLV for scoping
reachability per TE_Router ID reachability per TE_Router ID
- Associated Area ID sub-TLV: optional sub-TLV for loop avoidance - Associated Area ID sub-TLV: optional sub-TLV for loop avoidance
(see Section 6.3)
Opaque RI LSA: 2. Opaque Router Information LSA (Type 4) defined in [RFC4970]:
o) Routing information dissemination o) Router Information Capability Descriptor TLV (Type 1)
- U bit in Capability Descriptor TLV [RFC4970]
- D bit in Capability Descriptor TLV [RFC4970] - U bit in Capability Descriptor TLV (bit position 6)
- Downstream Associated Area ID TLV in the OSPF Routing - D bit in Capability Descriptor TLV (bit position 7)
Information LSA [RFC4970]
o) Router Downstream Associated Area ID TLV (Type TBD)
7.2 Scalability 7.2 Scalability
o) Routing information exchange upward/downward the hierarchy o) Routing information exchange upward/downward the hierarchy
between adjacent areas SHOULD by default be limited to reachability. between adjacent areas SHOULD by default be limited to
In addition, several transformations such as prefix aggregation are reachability. In addition, several transformations such as prefix
recommended when allowing decreasing the amount of information aggregation are recommended when allowing decreasing the amount
imported/exported by a given RC without impacting consistency. of information imported/exported by a given RC without impacting
consistency.
o) Routing information exchange upward/downward the hierarchy when o) Routing information exchange upward/downward the hierarchy when
involving TE attributes MUST be under strict policy control. Pacing involving TE attributes MUST be under strict policy control.
and min/max thresholds for triggered updates are strongly Pacing and min/max thresholds for triggered updates are strongly
recommended. recommended.
o) The number of routing levels MUST be maintained under strict o) The number of routing levels MUST be maintained under strict
policy control. policy control.
8. Security Considerations 8. Security Considerations
This section to be updated in a future revision. This document specifies the contents and processing of Opaque LSAs
in OSPFv2 [RFC2328]. Opaque TE and RI LSAs defined in this document
are not used for SPF computation, and so have no direct effect on IP
routing. Additionally, ASON routing domains are delimited by the
usual administrative domain boundaries.
Any mechanisms used for securing the exchange of normal OSPF LSAs
can be applied equally to all Opaque TE and RI LSAs used in the ASON
context. In order to be secured against passive attacks and provide
significant protection against active attacks, mechanisms to
authenticate OSPFv2 LSA exchanges shall be used for Opaque LSAs such
as OSPF cryptographic authentication [RFC2328] and [OSPF-CA]. The
latter defines a mechanism for authenticating OSPF packets by making
use of the HMAC algorithm in conjunction with the SHA family of
cryptographic hash functions.
[RFC2154] adds i) digital signatures to authenticate OSPF LSA data,
ii) certification mechanism for distribution of routing information,
and iii) use a neighbor-to-neighbor authentication algorithm to
protect local OSPFv2 protocol exchanges.
9. IANA Considerations 9. IANA Considerations
This section to be updated in a future revision. 9.1 OSPF TE LSA
10. Acknowledgements This document defines following new sub-TLV for the Router Address
top level TLV (Type 1) of the Opaque TE LSA [RFC3630]:
The authors would like to thank Dean Cheng, Acee Lindem, Pandian - Associated Area ID sub-TLV: optional sub-TLV (see Section 6.2)
Vijay, Alan Davey, Adrian Farrel, and Deborah Brungard for their
useful comments and suggestions.
Question 14 of Study Group 15 of the ITU-T provided useful and This document defines following new sub-TLV for the Link top level
constructive input. TLV (Type 2) of the Opaque TE LSA [RFC3630]:
11. References - Local and Remote TE Router ID sub-TLV: optional sub-TLV (see
Section 5.2)
- Associated Area ID sub-TLV: optional sub-TLV (see Section 6.2)
11.1 Normative References This document defines following new sub-TLV for the Node Attributed
top level TLV (Type TBD) of the Opaque TE LSA [RFC3630]:
- Node IPv4 Local Prefix sub-TLV: optional sub-TLV (see Section 3.1)
- Node IPv6 Local Prefix sub-TLV: optional sub-TLV (see Section 3.2)
- Local TE Router ID sub-TLV: optional sub-TLV (see Section 5.3)
- Associated Area ID sub-TLV: optional sub-TLV (see Section 6.2)
9.2 OSPF RI LSA
This document defines following new codepoints for the Opaque RI LSA
(Type 4) defined in [RFC4970]:
- Router Information Capability Descriptor TLV (Type 1)
. U bit in Capability Descriptor TLV (bit position 6)
. D bit in Capability Descriptor TLV (bit position 7)
- New Router Downstream Associated Area ID TLV (Type TBD)
10. References
10.1 Normative References
[OSPF-NODE] R.Aggarwal, and K.Kompella, "Advertising a Router's [OSPF-NODE] R.Aggarwal, and K.Kompella, "Advertising a Router's
Local Addresses in OSPF TE Extensions", Local Addresses in OSPF TE Extensions," Internet Draft,
draft-ietf-ospf-te-node-addr, work in progress. (work in progress), draft-ietf-ospf-te-node-addr-
02.txt, March 2005.
[RFC2026] S.Bradner, "The Internet Standards Process -- [RFC2026] S.Bradner, "The Internet Standards Process --
Revision 3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996. Revision 3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.
[RFC2154] Murphy, S., Badger, M. and B. Wellington, "OSPF with
Digital Signatures", RFC2154, June 1997.
[RFC2328] J.Moy, "OSPF Version 2", RFC 2328, April 1998. [RFC2328] J.Moy, "OSPF Version 2", RFC 2328, April 1998.
[RFC2370] R.Coltun, "The OSPF Opaque LSA Option", RFC 2370, July [RFC2370] R.Coltun, "The OSPF Opaque LSA Option", RFC 2370, July
1998. 1998.
[RFC2740] R.Coltun et al. "OSPF for IPv6", RFC 2740, December [RFC2740] R.Coltun, et al. "OSPF for IPv6", RFC2740, December
1999. 1999.
[RFC2119] S.Bradner, "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] S.Bradner, "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC3477] K.Kompella et al. "Signalling Unnumbered Links in [RFC3477] K.Kompella et al. "Signalling Unnumbered Links in
Resource ReSerVation Protocol - Traffic Engineering Resource ReSerVation Protocol - Traffic Engineering
(RSVP-TE)", RFC 3477, January 2003. (RSVP-TE)", RFC 3477, January 2003.
[RFC3630] D.Katz et al. "Traffic Engineering (TE) Extensions to [RFC3630] D.Katz et al. "Traffic Engineering (TE) Extensions to
OSPF Version 2", RFC 3630, September 2003. OSPF Version 2", RFC 3630, September 2003.
[RFC4202] Kompella, K. (Editor) et al., "Routing Extensions in [RFC3978] S.Bradner, "IETF Rights in Contributions", BCP 78,
Support of Generalized MPLS", RFC 4202, October 2005. RFC3978, March 2005.
[RFC4203] Kompella, K. (Editor) et al., "OSPF Extensions in [RFC3979] S.Bradner, Ed., "Intellectual Property Rights in IETF
Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching Technology", BCP 79, RFC3979, March 2005.
(GMPLS)", RFC 4203, October 2005.
[RFC4606] E.Mannie, and D.Papadimitriou, (Editors) et al., [RFC4606] E.Mannie, and D.Papadimitriou, (Editors) et al.,
"Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching Extensions "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching Extensions
for SONET and SDH Control", RFC 4606, August 2006. for SONET and SDH Control," RFC4606, October 2006.
[RFC4970] A.Lindem et al. "Extensions to OSPF for Advertising [RFC4202] Kompella, K. (Editor) et al., "Routing Extensions in
Optional Router Capabilities", RFC 4970, July 2007. Support of Generalized MPLS," RFC4202, October 2005.
11.2 Informative References [RFC4203] Kompella, K. (Editor) et al., "OSPF Extensions in
Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS)," RFC4203, October 2005.
[OSPF-TE-CAP] J.P. Vasseur et al., "Routing extensions for discovery [RFC4970] A.Lindem et al., "Extensions to OSPF for Advertising
of Traffic Engineering Node Capabilities", Optional Router Capabilities", RFC 4970, July 2007.
draft-ietf-ccamp-te-node-cap, work in progress.
[RFC4258] D.Brungard et al. "Requirements for Generalized MPLS 10.2 Informative References
(GMPLS) Routing for Automatically Switched Optical
Network (ASON)", RFC 4258, November 2005. [RFC4258] D.Brungard (Ed.) et al. "Requirements for Generalized
MPLS (GMPLS) Routing for Automatically Switched Optical
Network (ASON)," RFC4258, November 2005.
[RFC4652] D.Papadimitriou (Ed.) et al. "Evaluation of existing [RFC4652] D.Papadimitriou (Ed.) et al. "Evaluation of existing
Routing Protocols against ASON Routing Requirements", Routing Protocols against ASON Routing Requirements",
RFC 4652, October 2006. RFC 4652, October 2006.
[RFC5073] J.P.Vasseur et al., "Routing extensions for discovery of
Traffic Engineering Node Capabilities", RFC 5073,
December 2007.
For information on the availability of ITU Documents, please see For information on the availability of ITU Documents, please see
http://www.itu.int http://www.itu.int
[G.7715] ITU-T Rec. G.7715/Y.1306, "Architecture and [G.7715] ITU-T Rec. G.7715/Y.1306, "Architecture and
Requirements for the Automatically Switched Optical Requirements for the Automatically Switched Optical
Network (ASON)", June 2002. Network (ASON)," June 2002.
[G.7715.1] ITU-T Draft Rec. G.7715.1/Y.1706.1, "ASON Routing [G.7715.1] ITU-T Draft Rec. G.7715.1/Y.1706.1, "ASON Routing
Architecture and Requirements for Link State Architecture and Requirements for Link State Protocols,"
Protocols", November 2003. November 2003.
[G.8080] ITU-T Rec. G.8080/Y.1304, "Architecture for the [G.8080] ITU-T Rec. G.8080/Y.1304, "Architecture for the
Automatically Switched Optical Network (ASON)", Automatically Switched Optical Network (ASON),"
November 2001 (and Revision, January 2003). November 2001 (and Revision, January 2003).
12. Author's Address 11. Author's Address
Dimitri Papadimitriou (Alcatel) Dimitri Papadimitriou
Francis Wellensplein 1, Alcatel-Lucent Bell
B-2018 Antwerpen, Belgium Copernicuslaan 50
B-2018 Antwerpen
Belgium
Phone: +32 3 2408491 Phone: +32 3 2408491
EMail: dimitri.papadimitriou@alcatel-lucent.be EMail: dimitri.papadimitriou@alcatel-lucent.be
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Dean Cheng, Acee Lindem, Pandian
Vijay, Alan Davey, Adrian Farrel, and Deborah Brungard for their
useful comments and suggestions.
Question 14 of Study Group 15 of the ITU-T provided useful and
constructive input.
Appendix 1: ASON Terminology Appendix 1: ASON Terminology
This document makes use of the following terms: This document makes use of the following terms:
Administrative domain: (see Recommendation G.805) for the purposes of Administrative domain: (see Recommendation G.805) for the purposes of
[G7715.1] an administrative domain represents the extent of resources [G7715.1] an administrative domain represents the extent of resources
which belong to a single player such as a network operator, a service which belong to a single player such as a network operator, a service
provider, or an end-user. Administrative domains of different players provider, or an end-user. Administrative domains of different players
do not overlap amongst themselves. do not overlap amongst themselves.
skipping to change at page 23, line 7 skipping to change at page 23, line 7
TE link information to the RC. It informs the RC about any state TE link information to the RC. It informs the RC about any state
changes of the link resources it controls. changes of the link resources it controls.
Protocol Controller (PC): handles protocol specific message exchanges Protocol Controller (PC): handles protocol specific message exchanges
according to the reference point over which the information is according to the reference point over which the information is
exchanged (e.g. E-NNI, I-NNI), and internal exchanges with the RC. exchanged (e.g. E-NNI, I-NNI), and internal exchanges with the RC.
The PC function is protocol dependent. The PC function is protocol dependent.
Full Copyright Statement Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007). Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights. retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
 End of changes. 76 change blocks. 
189 lines changed or deleted 262 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.34. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/