draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-routing-ospf-05.txt   draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-routing-ospf-06.txt 
Network Working Group Dimitri Papadimitriou Network Working Group Dimitri Papadimitriou
Internet Draft (Alcatel-Lucent) Internet Draft (Alcatel-Lucent)
Category: Standards Track Category: Experimental
Created: February 22, 2008 Created: October 29, 2008
Expires: August 21, 2008 February 22, 2008 Expires: April 29, 2008
OSPFv2 Routing Protocols Extensions for ASON Routing OSPFv2 Routing Protocols Extensions for ASON Routing
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-routing-ospf-05.txt draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-routing-ospf-06.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 36 skipping to change at page 1, line 36
months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents
at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference at any 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."
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 (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
Abstract Abstract
The Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) suite of protocols has been defined to The ITU-T has defined an architecture and requirements for operating
control different switching technologies as well as different an Automatically Switched Optical Network (ASON).
applications. These include support for requesting TDM connections
including SONET/SDH and Optical Transport Networks (OTNs).
This document provides the extensions of the OSPFv2 Link State The Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) protocol suite
Routing Protocol to meet the routing requirements for an is designed to provide a control plane for a range of network
Automatically Switched Optical Network (ASON) as defined by ITU-T. technologies including optical networks such as time division
multiplexing (TDM) networks including SONET/SDH and Optical Transport
Networks (OTNs), and lambda switching optical networks.
Table of Contents The requirements for GMPLS routing to satisfy the requirements of
ASON routing, and an evaluation of existing GMPLS routing protocols
are provided in other documents. This document defines to the OSPFv2
Link State Routing Protocol to meet the routing requirements for
routing in an ASON.
1. Conventions Used In This Document........................... 2 Note that this work is scoped to the requirements and evaluation
2. Introduction................................................ 3 expressed in RFC 4258 and RFC 4652 and the ITU-T Recommendations
3. Reachability................................................ 4 current when those documents were written. Future extensions of
3.1 Node IPv4 Local Prefix Sub-TLV............................. 4 revisions of this work may be necessary if the ITU-T Recommendations
3.2 Node IPv6 Local Prefix Sub-TLV............................. 5 are revised or if new requirements are introduced into a revision of
4. Link Attribute.............................................. 5 RFC 4258.
4.1 Local Adaptation........................................... 5
4.2 Bandwidth Accounting....................................... 6
5. Routing Information Scope................................... 6
5.1 Terminology and Identification............................. 6
5.2 Link Advertisement (Local and Remote TE Router ID Sub-TLV). 7
5.3 Reachability Advertisement (Local TE Router ID Sub-TLV).... 8
6. Routing Information Dissemination........................... 9
6.1 Import/Export Rules........................................ 9
6.2 Discovery and Selection.................................... 10
6.2.1 Upward Discovery and Selection........................... 10
6.2.2 Downward Discovery and Selection......................... 10
6.3 Loop Prevention............................................ 11
6.3.1 Associated Area ID....................................... 12
6.3.2 Processing............................................... 13
6.4 Resiliency................................................. 14
6.5 Neighbor Relationship and Routing Adjacency................ 14
6.6 Reconfiguration............................................ 15
7. OSPFv2 Extensions........................................... 15
7.1 Compatibility.............................................. 15
7.2 Scalability................................................ 16
8. Security Considerations..................................... 16
9. IANA Considerations......................................... 17
10. References................................................. 17
10.1 Normative References...................................... 17
10.2 Informative References.................................... 17
11. Author's Address........................................... 19
Appendix 1: ASON Terminology................................... 20
Appendix 2: ASON Routing Terminology........................... 22
1. Conventions used in this document Table of Contents
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 1. Introduction................................................. 3
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 1.1. Conventions Used In This Document.......................... 4
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. 2. Routing Areas, OSPF Areas, and Protocol Instances............ 4
3. Reachability................................................. 4
3.1 Node IPv4 Local Prefix Sub-TLV.............................. 5
3.2 Node IPv6 Local Prefix Sub-TLV.............................. 6
4. Link Attribute............................................... 7
4.1 Local Adaptation............................................ 7
4.2 Bandwidth Accounting........................................ 8
5. Routing Information Scope.................................... 8
5.1 Terminology and Identification.............................. 8
5.2 Link Advertisement (Local and Remote TE Router ID Sub-TLV).. 9
5.3 Reachability Advertisement (Local TE Router ID Sub-TLV).... 10
6. Routing Information Dissemination........................... 10
6.1 Import/Export Rules........................................ 11
6.2 Discovery and Selection.................................... 12
6.2.1 Upward Discovery and Selection........................... 12
6.2.2 Downward Discovery and Selection......................... 12
6.3 Loop Prevention............................................ 14
6.3.1 Associated RA ID......................................... 15
6.3.2 Processing............................................... 15
6.4 Resiliency................................................. 16
6.5 Neighbor Relationship and Routing Adjacency................ 17
6.6 Reconfiguration............................................ 17
7. OSPFv2 Extensions........................................... 18
7.1 Compatibility.............................................. 18
7.2 Scalability................................................ 19
8. Security Considerations..................................... 19
9. IANA Considerations......................................... 20
9.1 Sub-TLVs for the OSPF Opaque TE LSA........................ 20
9.2 OSPF RI LSA................................................ 20
9.2.1 RI Capability Bits....................................... 20
9.2.2 RI LSA TLVs.............................................. 21
10. References................................................. 21
10.1 Normative References...................................... 21
10.2 Informative References.................................... 22
11. Author's Address........................................... 23
Appendix 1: ASON Terminology................................... 24
Appendix 2: ASON Routing Terminology........................... 26
The reader is assumed to be familiar with the terminology and 1. Introduction
requirements developed in [RFC4258] and the evaluation outcomes
detailed in [RFC4652].
2. Introduction The Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) [RFC3945]
protocol suite is designed to provide a control plane for a range of
network technologies including optical networks such as time division
multiplexing (TDM) networks including SONET/SDH and Optical Transport
Networks (OTNs), and lambda switching optical networks.
There are certain capabilities that are needed to support the ITU-T The ITU-T defines the architecture of the Automatically Switched
Automatically Switched Optical Network (ASON) control plane Optical Network (ASON) in [G.8080].
architecture as defined in [G.8080].
[RFC4258] details the routing requirements for the GMPLS suite of [RFC4258] details the routing requirements for the GMPLS suite of
routing protocols to support the capabilities and functionality of routing protocols to support the capabilities and functionality of
ASON control planes identified in [G.7715] and in [G.7715.1]. ASON control planes identified in [G.7715] and in [G.7715.1].
[RFC4652] evaluates the IETF Link State Routing Protocols against the [RFC4652] evaluates the IETF Link State Routing Protocols against the
requirements identified in [RFC4258]. Section 7.1 of [RFC4652] requirements identified in [RFC4258]. Section 7.1 of [RFC4652]
summarizes the capabilities to be provided by OSPFv2 [RFC2328] in summarizes the capabilities to be provided by OSPFv2 [RFC2328] in
support of ASON routing. From the candidate routing protocols support of ASON routing. This document details the OSPFv2 specifics
identified in [RFC4652] (OSPFv2 and IS-IS), this document details the for ASON routing.
OSPFv2 specifics for ASON routing.
Note that here is no implied relationship between multi-layer Multi-layer transport networks are constructed from multiple networks
transport networks and multi-level routing [RFC4652]. This mechanism of different technologies operating in a client-server relationship.
works either for single layer or multi-layer networks. The ASON routing model includes the definition of routing levels that
Implementations MAY support a hierarchical routing topology (multi- provide scaling and confidentiality benefits. In multi-level routing,
domains called routing areas (RAs) are arranged in a hierarchical
relationship. Note that as described in [RFC4652] there is no implied
relationship between multi-layer transport networks and multi-level
routing. The multi-level routing mechanisms described in this
document work for both single layer and multi-layer networks.
Implementations may support a hierarchical routing topology (multi-
level) for multiple transport network layers and/or a hierarchical level) for multiple transport network layers and/or a hierarchical
routing topology for a single transport network layer. routing topology for a single transport network layer.
This document details the processing of the generic (technology This document details the processing of the generic (technology-
independent) link attributes that are defined in this document and independent) link attributes that are defined in [RFC3630],
in [RFC3630], [RFC4202], and [RFC4203]. As detailed in Section 4.2, [RFC4202], and [RFC4203] and that are extended in this document. As
technology specific traffic engineering attributes (and their detailed in Section 4.2, technology-specific traffic engineering
processing) MAY complement this document. attributes (and their processing) may be defined in other documents
that complement this document.
ASON (Routing) terminology sections are provided in Appendix 1 and 2. Note that this work is scoped to the requirements and evaluation
expressed in [RFC4258] and [RFC4652] and the ITU-T Recommendations
current when those documents were written. Future extensions of
revisions of this work may be necessary if the ITU-T Recommendations
are revised or if new requirements are introduced into a revision of
[RFC4258].
1.1. Conventions Used in This Document
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].
The reader is assumed to be familiar with the terminology and
requirements developed in [RFC4258] and the evaluation outcomes
detailed in [RFC4652].
General ASON terminology is provided in Appendix 1. ASON routing
terminology is described in Appendix 2.
2. Routing Areas, OSPF Areas, and Protocol Instances
An ASON routing area (RA) represents a partition of the data plane
and its identifier is used within the control plane as the
representation of this partition.
RAs are arranged in hierarchical levels such that any one RA may
contain multiple other RAs, and is wholly contained by a single RA.
Thus, an RA may contain smaller RAs inter-connected by links. The
limit of the subdivision results is an RA that contains just two
sub-networks interconnected by a single link.
An ASON RA can be mapped to an OSPF area, but the hierarchy of ASON
RA levels does not map to the hierarchy of OSPF routing areas.
Instead, successive hierarchical levels of RAs MUST be represented by
separate instances of the protocol. Thus, inter-level routing
information exchange (as described in Section 6) involves the export
and import of routing information between protocol instances.
An ASON RA may therefore be identified by the combination of its OSPF
instance identifier and its OSPF area identifier. With proper and
careful network-wide configuration, this can be achieved using just
the OSPF area identifier, and this process is RECOMMENDED in this
document. These concepts and the subsequent handling of network
reconfiguration is discussed in Section 6.
3. Reachability 3. Reachability
In order to advertise blocks of reachable address prefixes a In order to advertise blocks of reachable address prefixes a
summarization mechanism is introduced that complements the summarization mechanism is introduced that complements the
techniques described in [OSPF-NODE]. techniques described in [OSPF-NODE].
This extension takes the form of a network mask (a 32-bit number This extension takes the form of a network mask (a 32-bit number
indicating the range of IP addresses residing on a single IP indicating the range of IP addresses residing on a single IP
network/subnet). The set of local addresses are carried in an OSPFv2 network/subnet). The set of local addresses are carried in an OSPFv2
TE LSA node attribute TLV (a specific sub-TLV is defined per address TE LSA node attribute TLV (a specific sub-TLV is defined per address
family, e.g., IPv4 and IPv6 used as network-unique identifiers). family, i.e., 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. 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 Type of the Node IPv4 Local Prefix sub-TLV is 4. The Value field The Type of the Node IPv4 Local Prefix sub-TLV is 3. The Value field
of this sub-TLV contains one or more local IPv4 prefixes. The of this sub-TLV contains one or more local IPv4 prefixes. The Length
Length is set to 8 * n, where n is the number of local IPv4 prefixes is set to 8 x n, where n is the number of local IPv4 prefixes
included in the sub-TLV. included in the sub-TLV.
The Node IPv4 Local Prefix sub-TLV has the following format: 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type (3) | Length (8 x n) | | Type (3) | Length (8 x n) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Network Mask 1 | | Network Mask 1 |
skipping to change at page 4, line 39 skipping to change at page 5, line 48
| IPv4 Address n | | IPv4 Address n |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Network mask "i": A 32-bit number indicating the IPv4 address mask Network mask "i": A 32-bit number indicating the IPv4 address mask
for the advertised destination prefix "i". for the advertised destination prefix "i".
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 Opaque TE LSAs i.e. The local addresses that can be learned from Opaque TE LSAs. That is,
router address and TE interface addresses SHOULD not be advertised router address and TE interface addresses SHOULD NOT be advertised
in the 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 Type of the Node IPv6 Local Prefix sub-TLV is 4. The Value field The Type of the Node IPv6 Local Prefix sub-TLV is 4. The Value field
of this sub-TLV contains one or more local IPv6 prefixes. IPv6 of this sub-TLV contains one or more local IPv6 prefixes. IPv6
Prefix representation uses [RFC2740] Section A.4.1. Prefix representation uses [RFC5340] Section A.4.1.
The Node IPv6 Local Prefix sub-TLV has the following format: 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type (4) | Length | | Type (4) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| PrefixLength | PrefixOptions | (0) | | PrefixLength | PrefixOptions | (0) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
skipping to change at page 5, line 22 skipping to change at page 6, line 37
| | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| PrefixLength | PrefixOptions | (0) | | PrefixLength | PrefixOptions | (0) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | | |
| IPv6 Address Prefix n | | IPv6 Address Prefix n |
| | | |
| | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Length is set to Sum[n][4 + #32-bit words/4] where n is the
number of local prefixes included in the sub-TLV. The encoding of
each prefix potentially using fewer than four 32-bit words is
described below.
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 [RFC5340] Section A.4.2).
IPv6 Address Prefix "i": encoding of the prefix "i" itself as an IPv6 Address Prefix "i": encoding of the prefix "i" itself as an
even multiple of 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
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 [RFC4652] provides a map between link attributes and characteristics
and their representation in sub-TLV of the top level Link TLV of the and their representation in sub-TLVs of the top level Link TLV of the
Opaque TE LSA [RFC3630] and [RFC4203], at the exception of the Local Opaque TE LSA [RFC3630] and [RFC4203], with the exception of the
Adaptation. Advertisement of this information SHOULD be supported on Local Adaptation (see below). Advertisement of this information
a per-layer basis i.e. one Opaque TE LSA per switching capability SHOULD be supported on a per-layer basis, i.e., one Opaque TE LSA per
(and per bandwidth granularity e.g. LOVC and HOVC). switching capability (and per bandwidth granularity, e.g., low-order
virtual container and high-order virtual container).
4.1 Local Adaptation 4.1 Local Adaptation
The Local Adaptation is defined as TE link attribute (i.e. sub-TLV) Local Adaptation is defined as a 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
information associated to the ability to terminate connections information associated to the ability to terminate connections
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 the 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 (ISCD) is a In OSPFv2, the Interface Switching Capability Descriptor (ISCD) is a
sub-TLV (of type 15) of the top-level Link TLV (of type 2) sub-TLV (of type 15) of the top-level Link TLV (of type 2) [RFC4203].
[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 issues.
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.
4.2 Bandwidth Accounting 4.2 Bandwidth Accounting
GMPLS Routing defines an Interface Switching Capability Descriptor GMPLS Routing defines an Interface Switching Capability Descriptor
(ISCD) that delivers among others the information about the (ISCD) that delivers, among other things, information about the
(maximum/minimum) bandwidth per priority an LSP can make use of. (maximum/minimum) bandwidth per priority that an LSP can make use of.
Per [RFC4202] and [RFC4203], one or more ISCD sub-TLVs can be Per [RFC4202] and [RFC4203], one or more ISCD sub-TLVs can be
associated to an interface. This information combined with the associated with an interface. This information, combined with the
Unreserved Bandwidth (sub-TLV defined in [RFC3630], Section 2.5.8) Unreserved Bandwidth (sub-TLV defined in [RFC3630], Section 2.5.8),
provides for the base bandwidth accounting. provides the basis for bandwidth accounting.
In the ASON context, additional information may be included when the In the ASON context, additional information may be included when the
representation and information in the other advertised fields are representation and information in the other advertised fields are
not sufficient for a specific technology (e.g., SDH). The definition not sufficient for a specific technology (e.g., SDH). The definition
of technology-specific information elements is beyond the scope of of technology-specific information elements is beyond the scope of
this document. Some technologies will not require additional this document. Some technologies will not require additional
information beyond what is already contained in the advertisements. information beyond what is already defined in [RFC3630], [RFC4202],
and [RFC4203].
5. Routing Information Scope 5. Routing Information Scope
5.1. Terminology and Identification 5.1. Terminology and Identification
o) Pi is a physical (bearer/data/transport plane) node. The definition of short-hand terminology introduced in [RFC4652] is
repeated here for clarity.
o) Li is a logical control plane entity that is associated to a - Pi is a physical (bearer/data/transport plane) node.
single data plane (abstract) node. Each Li is identified by a
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
[RFC3630].
Note: the Router_Address top-level TLV definition, processing and - Li is a logical control plane entity that is associated to a single
usage remain per [RFC3630]. This TLV specifies a stable IP data plane (abstract) node. Each Li is identified by a unique TE
address of the advertising router (Ri) that is always reachable Router-ID. The latter is a control plane identifier, defined as the
if there is any IP connectivity to it (e.g. via the Data Router Address top level TLV of the Type 1 TE LSA [RFC3630].
Communication Network). Moreover, each advertising router
advertises a unique, reachable IP address for each Pi on behalf
of which it makes advertisements.
o) Ri is a logical control plane entity that is associated to a Note: the Router Address top-level TLV definition, processing and
usage remain per [RFC3630]. This TLV specifies a stable IP address
of the advertising router (Ri) that is always reachable if there is
any IP connectivity to it (e.g. via the Data Communication
Network). Moreover, each advertising router advertises a unique,
reachable IP address for each Pi on behalf of which it makes
advertisements.
- 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 The Router-ID, which is represented by Ri and which corresponds to
to the RC_ID [RFC4258], does not enter into the identification of the RC-ID [RFC4258], does not enter into the identification of the
the logical entities representing the data plane resources such logical entities representing the data plane resources such as
as links. The Routing DataBase (RDB) is associated to the Ri. links. The Routing DataBase (RDB) is associated to the Ri.
Note: Aside from the Li/Pi mappings, these identifiers are not Note: Aside from the Li/Pi mappings, these identifiers are not
assumed to be in a particular entity relationship except that the Ri assumed to be in a particular entity relationship except that the Ri
may have multiple Lis in its scope. The relationship between Ri and may have multiple Lis in its scope. The relationship between Ri and
Li is simple at any moment in time: an Li may be advertised by only Li is simple at any moment in time: an Li may be advertised by only
one Ri at any time. However, an Ri may advertise a set of one or one Ri at any time. However, an Ri may advertise a set of one or
more Lis. Hence, the OSPFv2 routing protocol must support a single more Lis. Hence, the OSPFv2 routing protocol must support a single
Ri 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 the Local and Remote TE Router ID sub-TLV is 17, and its The Type of the Local and Remote TE Router-ID sub-TLV is 17, and its
length is 8 octets. The Value field of this sub-TLV contains 4 length is 8 octets. The Value field of this sub-TLV contains 4
octets of Local TE Router Identifier followed by 4 octets of Remote octets of Local TE Router Identifier followed by 4 octets of Remote
TE Router Identifier. The value of the Local and the Remote TE TE Router Identifier. The value of the Local and the Remote TE
Router Identifier SHOULD NOT be set to 0. Router Identifier SHOULD NOT be set to 0.
The format of the Local and Remote TE Router ID sub-TLV: The format of the Local and Remote 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type (17) | Length (8) | | 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 to be included as part of the top This sub-TLV is only required to be included as part of the top
level Link TLV if the Router_ID is advertising on behalf of more level Link TLV if the Router-ID is advertising on behalf of more
than one TE_Router_ID. In any other case, this sub-TLV SHOULD be than one TE Router-ID. In any other case, this sub-TLV SHOULD be
omitted except if operator plans to start of with 1 Li and omitted except if operator plans to start of with 1 Li and
progressively add more Li's (under the same Ri) such as to maintain progressively add more Li's (under the same Ri) such as to maintain
consistency. 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 is advertised 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 the Local TE Router ID sub-TLV is 5, and its Length is 4 The Type of the Local TE Router-ID sub-TLV is 5, and its Length is 4
octets. The value field of this sub-TLV contains the Local TE Router octets. The value field of this sub-TLV contains the Local TE Router
Identifier [RFC3630] encoded over 4 octets. Identifier [RFC3630] encoded over 4 octets.
The format of the Local TE Router ID sub-TLV is: 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type (5) | Length (4) | | 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
An ASON RA represents a partition of the data plane and its An ASON routing area (RA) represents a partition of the data plane
identifier is used within the control plane as the representation of and its identifier is used within the control plane as the
this partition. A RA may contain smaller RAs inter-connected by representation of this partition. A RA may contain smaller RAs inter-
links. The limit of the subdivision results in a RA that contains two connected by links. The limit of the subdivision results is an RA
sub-networks interconnected by a single link. ASON RA levels do not that contains two sub-networks interconnected by a single link. ASON
reflect routing protocol levels (such as OSPF areas). OSPF routing RA levels do not reflect routing protocol levels (such as OSPF
areas containing routing areas that recursively define successive areas).
hierarchical levels of RAs can be represented by separate instances
of the protocol.
RCs supporting RAs disseminate downward/upward this hierarchy. The Successive hierarchical levels of RAs can be represented by separate
vertical routing information dissemination mechanisms described in instances of the protocol.
this section do not introduce or imply a new OSPF routing area
hierarchy. RCs supporting RAs at multiple levels are structured as Routing controllers (RCs) supporting RAs disseminate informtation
separate OSPF instances with routing information exchanges between downward and upward in this hierarchy. The vertical routing
levels described by import/export rules. information dissemination mechanisms described in this section do not
introduce or imply a new OSPF routing area hierarchy. RCs supporting
RAs at multiple levels are structured as separate OSPF instances with
routing information exchanges between levels described by import and
export rules operating between OSPF instances.
The implication is that an RC that performs import/export of routing The implication is that an RC that performs import/export of routing
information as described in this document does not implement an Area information as described in this document does not implement an Area
Border Router (ABR) functionality. Border Router (ABR) functionality.
6.1 Import/Export Rules 6.1 Import/Export Rules
RCs supporting RAs disseminate downward/upward the hierarchy by RCs supporting RAs disseminate information upward and downward in the
importing/exporting this routing information as Opaque TE LSA hierarchy by importing/exporting routing information as Opaque TE
(Opaque Type 1) of LS Type 10. The information that MAY be exchanged LSAs (Opaque Type 1) of LS Type 10. The information that MAY be
between adjacent levels includes the Router_Address, Link and exchanged between adjacent levels includes the Router-Address, Link,
Node_Attribute top level TLV. and Node-Attribute top-level TLVs.
The Opaque TE LSA import/export rules are governed as follows: The Opaque TE LSA import/export rules are governed as follows:
- If the export target interface is associated to the same area as
the one associated with the import interface, the Opaque LSA MUST - If the export target interface is associated with the same RA as is
NOT imported. associated with the import interface, the Opaque LSA MUST NOT be
- If a match is found between the Advertising Router ID in the imported.
header of the received Opaque TE LSA and one of the Router ID
belonging to the area of the export target interface, the Opaque - If a match is found between the Advertising Router-ID in the
LSA MUST NOT be imported. header of the received Opaque TE LSA and one of the Router-IDs
belonging to the RA of the export target interface, the Opaque LSA
MUST NOT be imported.
- If these two conditions are not met the Opaque TE LSA MAY be - If these two conditions are not met the Opaque TE LSA MAY be
imported and MAY be disseminated following the OSPF flooding imported according to local policy. If imported, the LSA MAY be
rules. The Advertising Router ID is set to the importing router's disseminated according to local policy. If disseminated, the normal
router ID. OSPF flooding rules MUST be followed and the Advertising Router-ID
MUST be set to the importing router's router-ID.
The imported/exported routing information content MAY be transformed The imported/exported routing information content MAY be transformed,
e.g. filtered or aggregated, as long as the resulting routing e.g., filtered or aggregated, as long as the resulting routing
information is consistent. In particular, when more than one RC are information is consistent. In particular, when more than one RC is
bound to adjacent levels and both are allowed to import/export bound to adjacent levels and both are allowed to import/export
routing information it is expected that these transformation are routing information, it is expected that these transformation are
performed in consistent manner. Definition of these policy-based performed in a consistent manner. Definition of these policy-based
mechanisms is outside the scope of this document. mechanisms is outside the scope of this document.
In practice, and in order to avoid scalability and processing In practice, and in order to avoid scalability and processing
overhead, routing information imported/exported downward/upward the overhead, routing information imported/exported downward/upward in
hierarchy is expected to include reachability information (see the hierarchy is expected to include reachability information (see
Section 3) and upon strict policy control link topology information. Section 3) and, upon strict policy control, link topology
information.
6.2 Discovery and Selection 6.2 Discovery and Selection
6.2.1 Upward Discovery and Selection 6.2.1 Upward Discovery and Selection
In order to discover RCs that are capable to disseminate routing In order to discover RCs that are capable to disseminate routing
information upward the routing hierarchy, the following Capability information up the routing hierarchy, the following Capability
Descriptor bit [RFC4970] are defined: Descriptor bit [RFC4970] is defined:
- U bit: when set, this flag indicates that the RC is capable to - U bit: When set, this flag indicates that the RC is capable of
disseminate routing information upward the adjacent level. disseminating routing information upward to the adjacent level.
In case of multiple RC are advertized with their U bit set, the RC In the case that multiple RCs are advertized from the same RA with
with the highest Router ID, among the RCs having set the U bit, their U bit set, the RC with the highest Router-ID, among those RCs
SHOULD be selected as the RC for upward dissemination of routing with the U bit set, SHOULD be selected as the RC for upward
information. The other RCs MUST NOT participate in the upward dissemination of routing information. The other RCs MUST NOT
dissemination of routing information as long as the opaque LSA participate in the upward dissemination of routing information as
information corresponding to the highest Router ID RC does not reach long as the opaque LSA information corresponding to the highest
MaxAge. This mechanism prevents from having more than one RC Router-ID RC does not reach MaxAge. This mechanism prevents more than
advertizing routing information upward the routing hierarchy. one RC advertizing routing information upward in the routing
hierarchy from the same RA.
Note that alternatively if this information cannot be discovered Note that if the information to allow the selection of the RC that
automatically, it MUST be manually configured. will be used to disseminate routing information up the hierarchy from
a specific RA cannot be discovered automatically, it MUST be manually
configured.
Once an RC has been selected, it remains unmodified even if an RC Once an RC has been selected, it remains unmodified even if an RC
with a highest Router ID is introduced and advertizes its capability with a higher Router-ID is introduced and advertizes its capability
to disseminate routing information upward the adjacent level (i.e. to disseminate routing information upward the adjacent level (i.e.,
U-bit set). This hysteresis mechanism prevents from disturbing the U-bit set). This hysteresis mechanism prevents from disturbing the
upward routing information dissemination process in case e.g. of upward routing information dissemination process in case, e.g., of
flapping. flapping.
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 responsible
charge dissemination of routing information downward the hierarchy. for dissemination of routing information downward in 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 (RA) levels. For this purpose a
purpose a specific TLV indexing the (lower) area ID to which the specific TLV indexing the (lower) RA ID to which the RC's are capable
RC's are capable to disseminate routing information is needed. of disseminating routing information is needed.
The Downstream Associated Area ID TLV is carried in the OSPF router The Downstream Associated RA ID TLV is carried in the OSPF router
information LSA [RFC4970]. The Type of this TLV is TBD, and its information LSA [RFC4970]. The Length of this TLV is n x 4 octets.
length is n x 4 octets. The Value field of this sub-TLV contains the The Value field of this sub-TLV contains the list of Associated RA
list of Associated Area ID. Each Associated Area ID value is encoded IDs. Each Associated RA ID value is encoded following the OSPF area
following the Area ID (32 bits) coding rules defined in [RFC2328]. ID (32 bits) encoding rules defined in [RFC2328].
The format of the Downstream Associated Area ID TLV is: The format of the Downstream Associated RA 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 (TBD) | Length (4 x n) | | Type (TBD) | Length (4 x n) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Associated Area ID 1 | | Associated RA ID 1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | | |
// ... // // ... //
| | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Associated Area ID n | | Associated RA ID n |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
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
Downstream Associated Area ID TLV: Downstream Associated RA 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 levels.
In case of multiple supporting RCs for the same Associated Area ID, If multiple RCs are advertised for the same Associated RA ID, the RC
the RC with the highest Router ID, among the RCs having set the D with the highest Router ID, among the RCs with the D bit set, MUST be
bit, MUST be selected as the RC for downward dissemination of selected as the RC for downward dissemination of routing information.
routing information. The other RCs for the same Associated Area ID The other RCs for the same Associated RA ID MUST NOT participate in
MUST NOT participate in the downward dissemination of routing the downward dissemination of routing information as long as the
information as long as the opaque LSA information corresponding to opaque LSA information corresponding to the highest Router ID RC does
the highest Router ID RC does not reach MaxAge. This mechanism not reach MaxAge. This mechanism prevents from having more than one
prevents from having more than one RC advertizing routing RC advertizing routing information downward the routing hierarchy.
information downward the routing hierarchy.
Note that alternatively if this information cannot be discovered Note that if the information to allow the selection of the RC that
automatically, it MUST be manually configured. will be used to disseminate routing information down the hierarchy to
a specific RA cannot be discovered 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
[RFC5073] 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 is bound to an adjacent level of the hierarchy,
configured and selected to redistribute upward and downward the and is configured or selected to redistribute routing information
routing information, a specific mechanism is required to avoid upward and downward, a specific mechanism is required to avoid
looping/re-introduction of routing information back to the upper looping of routing information. Looping is the re-introduction of
level. This specific case occurs e.g. when the RC advertizing routing information that has been advertized from the upper level
routing information downward the hierarchy is not the one back to the upper level. This specific case occurs, for example, when
advertizing routing upward the hierarchy (or vice-versa). the RC advertizing routing information downward in the hierarchy is
not the same one that advertizes routing upward in the hierarchy.
When these conditions are met, it is necessary to have a mean by When these conditions are met, it is necessary to have a means by
which an RC receiving an Opaque TE LSA imported/exported downward by which an RC receiving an Opaque TE LSA imported/exported downward by
an RC associated to the same area, omits to import/export back the an RC associated to the same RA, does not import/export the content
content of this LSA upward into the (same) upper level. of this LSA back upward into the (same) upper level.
Note that configuration and operational simplification can be Note that configuration and operational simplification can be
obtained when both functionality are configured on a single RC (per obtained when both functionalities are configured on a single RC (per
pair of adjacent level) fulfilling both roles. Figure 1 provides an pair of adjacent levels) fulfilling both roles. Figure 1 provides an
example where such simplification applies. example where such simplification applies.
.................................................... ....................................................
. . . .
. RC_5 ------------ RC_6 . . RC_5 ------------ RC_6 .
. | | . . | | .
. | | Area Y . . | | RA_Y .
. ********* ********* . Upper . ********* ********* .
............* RC_1a *.........* RC_2a *............. Layer ............* RC_1a *.........* RC_2a *.............
__________* | * * | * __________________* | *_________* | *__________________
............* RC_1b *... ...* RC 2b *............. ............* RC_1b *... ...* RC 2b *.............
. ********* . . ********* . Lower . ********* . . ********* .
. | . . | . Layer . | . . | .
. Area Z | . . | Area X . . RA_Z | . . | RA_X .
. RC_3 . . RC_4 . . RC_3 . . RC_4 .
. . . . . . . .
........................ ......................... ........................ .........................
Figure 1. Hierarchical Environment (Example) Figure 1. Hierarchical Environment (Example)
In this case, the procedure described in this section MAY be In this case, the procedure described in this section MAY be
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 RA ID
Thus, we need some way of filtering the downward/upward re- We need some way of filtering the downward/upward re-originated
originated Opaque TE LSA. Per [RFC2370], the information contained Opaque TE LSA. Per [RFC5250], the information contained in Opaque
in Opaque LSAs may be used directly by OSPF. Henceforth, by adding LSAs may be used directly by OSPF. By adding the RA ID associated
the Area ID associated to the incoming routing information the loop with the incoming routing information the loop prevention problem can
prevention problem can be solved. be solved.
This additional information, referred to as the Associated Area ID, This additional information, referred to as the Associated RA ID, MAY
MAY be carried in opaque LSAs including the Router Address top level be carried in opaque LSAs that including any of the following top
TLV, in opaque LSAs including the Link top level TLV, and in opaque level LSAs:
LSAs including the Node Attribute top level TLV. - the Router Address top level TLV
- the Link top level TLV
- the Node Attribute top level TLV.
The Associated Area ID reflects the identifier of the area from The Associated RA ID reflects the identifier of the area from which
which the routing information is received. For example, for a the routing information is received. For example, for a multi-level
multiple level hierarchy, this identifier does not reflect the hierarchy, this identifier does not reflect the originating RA ID, it
originating Area ID, it will reflect the area from which the routing will reflect the RA from which the routing information is imported.
information is imported.
The Type of the Associated Area ID TLV is TBD, and its Length is 4 The Length of the Associated RA ID TLV is 4 octets. The Value field
octets. The Value field of this sub-TLV contains the Associated Area of this sub-TLV contains the Associated RA ID. The Associated RA ID
ID. The Associated Area ID value is encoded following the Area ID value is encoded following the OSPF area ID (32 bits) encoding rules
(32 bits) coding rules defined in [RFC2328]. defined in [RFC2328].
The format of the Associated Area ID TLV is defined as follows: The format of the Associated RA 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 (TBD) | Length (4) | | Type (TBD) | Length (4) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Associated Area ID | | Associated RA ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
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 RA ID TLV is added to the received opaque LSA list of TLVs
TLVs such as to identify the area from which this routing such as to identify the area from which this routing information has
information has been received. 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
receives this opaque LSA, the following rule is applied (in addition receives this opaque LSA, the following rule is applied (in addition
the rule governing the import/export of opaque LSAs as detailed in the rule governing the import/export of opaque LSAs as detailed in
Section 6.1). Section 6.1).
- If a match is found between the Associated Area ID of the received - If a match is found between the Associated RA ID of the received
Opaque TE LSA and the Area ID belonging to the area of the export Opaque TE LSA and the RA ID belonging to the area of the export
target interface, the Opaque TE LSA MUST NOT be imported. target interface, the Opaque TE LSA MUST NOT be imported.
- Otherwise, this opaque LSA MAY be imported and disseminated - Otherwise, this opaque LSA MAY be imported and disseminated
downward or upward the routing hierarchy following the OSPF downward or upward the routing hierarchy following the OSPF
flooding rules. flooding rules.
This mechanism ensures that no race condition occurs when the This mechanism ensures that no race condition occurs when the
conditions depicted in Figure 2 are met. conditions depicted in Figure 2 are met.
RC_5 ------------- RC_6 RC_5 ------------- RC_6
| | | |
| | Area Y | | RA_Y
********* ********* Upper ********* *********
..........* RC_1a *.........* RC_2a *............ Layer ............* RC_1a *.........* RC_2a *.............
__________* | * * | * __________________* | *_________* | *__________________
..........* RC_1b *.........* RC 2b *............ ............* RC_1b *.........* RC 2b *.............
********* ********* Lower ********* *********
| | Layer | |
| | Area X | | RA_X
RC_3 --- . . . --- RC_4 RC_3 --- . . . --- RC_4
Figure 2. Race Condition Prevention (Example) Figure 2. Race Condition Prevention (Example)
Assume that RC_1b is configured for exporting routing information Assume that RC_1b is configured for exporting routing information
upward toward Area Y (upward the routing hierarchy) and that RC_2a upward toward RA_Y (upward the routing hierarchy) and that RC_2a is
is configured for exporting routing information toward Area X configured for exporting routing information toward RA_X (downward
(downward the routing hierarchy). the routing hierarchy).
Assumes that routing information advertised by RC_3 would reach Assumes that routing information advertised by RC_3 would reach
faster to RC_4 across Area Y through hierarchy. RC_4 faster across RA_Y through hierarchy.
If RC_2b is not able to prevent from importing that information, If RC_2b is not able to prevent from importing that information,
RC_4 may receive that information before the same advertisement RC_4 may receive that information before the same advertisement
would propagate in Area X (from RC 3) to RC_4. For this purpose RC would propagate in RA_X (from RC_3) to RC_4. For this purpose RC_1a
1a inserts the Associated Area X to the imported routing information inserts the Associated RA X to the imported routing information
from Area X. Because RC 2b finds a match between the Associated Area from RA_X. Because RC_2b finds a match between the Associated RA
ID (X) of the received Opaque TE LSA and the ID (X) of area of the ID (X) of the received Opaque TE LSA and the ID (X) of the RA of the
export target interface, this LSA MUST NOT be imported. export target interface, this LSA MUST NOT be imported.
6.4 Resiliency 6.4 Resiliency
OSPF creates adjacencies between neighboring routers for the purpose OSPF creates adjacencies between neighboring routers for the purpose
of exchanging routing information. After a neighbor has been of exchanging routing information. After a neighbor has been
discovered, bidirectional communication is ensured, and a routing discovered, bidirectional communication is ensured, and a routing
adjacency is formed between RCs, loss of communication may result in adjacency is formed between RCs, loss of communication may result in
partitioned areas. partitioned OSPF areas and so in partitioned RAs.
Consider for instance (see Figure 2.) the case where RC_1a and RC 1b Consider for instance (see Figure 2.) the case where RC_1a and RC_1b
is configured for exchanging routing information downward and upward is configured for exchanging routing information downward and upward
Area Y, resp., and that RC_2a and RC_2b are not configured for RA_Y, resp., and that RC_2a and RC_2b are not configured for
exchanging routing any routing information toward Area X. If the exchanging routing any routing information toward RA_X. If the
communication between RC 1a and RC 2a is broken (due e.g. to RC 5 - communication between RC_1a and RC_2a is broken (due, e.g., to RC_5 -
RC 6 communication failure), Area Y could be partitioned. RC_6 communication failure), RA_Y could be partitioned.
In these conditions, it is RECOMMENDED that RC 2a to be re- In these conditions, it is RECOMMENDED that RC_2a be re-configurable
configurable such as to allow for exchanging routing information such as to allow for exchanging routing information downward to RA_X.
downward to Area X. This reconfiguration MAY be performed manually This reconfiguration MAY be performed manually or automatically. In
or automatically. In the latter cases, automatic reconfiguration the latter cases, automatic reconfiguration uses the mechanism
uses the mechanism described in Section 6.2 (forcing MaxAge of the described in Section 6.2 (forcing MaxAge of the corresponding opaque
corresponding opaque LSA information in case the originating RC LSA information in case the originating RC becomes unreachable).
becomes unreachable). Manual reconfiguration MUST be supported. Manual reconfiguration MUST be supported.
6.5 Neighbor Relationship and Routing Adjacency 6.5 Neighbor Relationship and Routing Adjacency
It is assumed that (point-to-point) IP control channels are It is assumed that (point-to-point) IP control channels are
provisioned/configured between RCs belonging to the same routing provisioned/configured between RCs belonging to the same routing
level. Provisioning/configuration techniques are outside the scope level. Provisioning/configuration techniques are outside the scope
of this document. of this document.
Once established, the OSPF Hello Protocol is responsible for Once established, the OSPF Hello Protocol is responsible for
establishing and maintaining neighbor relationships. This protocol establishing and maintaining neighbor relationships. This protocol
also ensures that communication between neighbors is bidirectional. also ensures that communication between neighbors is bidirectional.
Routing adjacency can subsequently be formed between RCs following Routing adjacency can subsequently be formed between RCs following
mechanisms defined in [RFC2328]. mechanisms defined in [RFC2328].
6.6 Reconfiguration 6.6 Reconfiguration
This section details the Area ID reconfiguration steps. This section details the RA ID reconfiguration steps.
Reconfiguration of the Area ID occurs when the Area ID is modified Reconfiguration of the RA ID occurs when the RA 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 Figure 2.).
The process of reconfiguring the Area ID involves: The process of reconfiguring the RA 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 from e.g. Z to X or Y. - Change the RA ID of the local level RA 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 RA ID (as part of
of the re-advertised Opaque TE LSA). the re-advertised Opaque TE LSA).
- Enable export of routing information upstream such as to re-sync - Enable export of routing information upstream such as to re-sync
the upstream level with the newly reconfigured Area ID (as part of the upstream level with the newly reconfigured RA ID (as part of
the re-advertised Opaque TE LSA). the re-advertised Opaque TE LSA).
Note that the re-sync operation needs only to be ensured with the Note that the re-sync operation needs to be carried out only between
directly adjacent upper and lower routing level. the 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:
1. Opaque Traffic Engineering LSA (Type 1) defined in [RFC3630]: 1. Opaque Traffic Engineering LSA (Type 1) defined in [RFC3630]:
o) Router Address top level TLV (Type 1): - Router Address top level TLV (Type 1):
- Associated Area ID sub-TLV: optional sub-TLV for loop avoidance
- Associated RA ID sub-TLV: optional sub-TLV for loop avoidance.
- Link top level TLV (Type 2):
- Local and Remote TE Router-ID sub-TLV: optional sub-TLV for
scoping link attributes per TE Router-ID.
- Associated RA ID sub-TLV: optional sub-TLV for loop avoidance.
- Node Attribute top level TLV (Type TBD by IANA):
o) Link top level TLV (Type 2):
- Local and Remote TE Router ID sub-TLV: optional sub-TLV for
scoping link attributes per TE_Router ID
- Associated Area ID sub-TLV: optional sub-TLV for loop avoidance
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
reachability per TE_Router ID - Local TE Router-ID sub-TLV: optional sub-TLV for scoping
- Associated Area ID sub-TLV: optional sub-TLV for loop avoidance reachability per TE Router-ID.
- Associated RA ID sub-TLV: optional sub-TLV for loop avoidance.
2. Opaque Router Information LSA (Type 4) defined in [RFC4970]: 2. Opaque Router Information LSA (Type 4) defined in [RFC4970]:
o) Router Information Capability Descriptor TLV (Type 1) - Router Information Capability Descriptor TLV (Type 1).
- U bit in Capability Descriptor TLV (bit position 6) - U bit in Capability Descriptor TLV (bit position TBD by IANA).
- D bit in Capability Descriptor TLV (bit position 7)
o) Router Downstream Associated Area ID TLV (Type TBD) - D bit in Capability Descriptor TLV (bit position TBD by IANA).
- Router Downstream Associated RA ID TLV (Type - see Section
9.2.2).
7.2 Scalability 7.2 Scalability
o) Routing information exchange upward/downward the hierarchy - Routing information exchange upward/downward in the hierarchy
between adjacent areas SHOULD by default be limited to between adjacent RAs SHOULD by default be limited to reachability
reachability. In addition, several transformations such as prefix information. In addition, several transformations such as prefix
aggregation are recommended when allowing decreasing the amount aggregation are RECOMMENDED when allowing decreasing the amount of
of information imported/exported by a given RC without impacting information imported/exported by a given RC without impacting
consistency. consistency.
o) Routing information exchange upward/downward the hierarchy when - Routing information exchange upward/downward in the hierarchy
involving TE attributes MUST be under strict policy control. involving TE attributes MUST be under strict policy control. Pacing
Pacing and min/max thresholds for triggered updates are strongly and min/max thresholds for triggered updates are strongly
recommended. RECOMMENDED.
o) The number of routing levels MUST be maintained under strict - The number of routing levels MUST be maintained under strict policy
policy control. control.
8. Security Considerations 8. Security Considerations
This document specifies the contents and processing of Opaque LSAs This document specifies the contents and processing of Opaque LSAs
in OSPFv2 [RFC2328]. Opaque TE and RI LSAs defined in this document 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 are not used for SPF computation, and so have no direct effect on IP
routing. Additionally, ASON routing domains are delimited by the routing. Additionally, ASON routing domains are delimited by the
usual administrative domain boundaries. usual administrative domain boundaries.
Any mechanisms used for securing the exchange of normal OSPF LSAs Any mechanisms used for securing the exchange of normal OSPF LSAs
skipping to change at page 17, line 12 skipping to change at page 20, line 7
use of the HMAC algorithm in conjunction with the SHA family of use of the HMAC algorithm in conjunction with the SHA family of
cryptographic hash functions. cryptographic hash functions.
[RFC2154] adds i) digital signatures to authenticate OSPF LSA data, [RFC2154] adds i) digital signatures to authenticate OSPF LSA data,
ii) certification mechanism for distribution of routing information, ii) certification mechanism for distribution of routing information,
and iii) use a neighbor-to-neighbor authentication algorithm to and iii) use a neighbor-to-neighbor authentication algorithm to
protect local OSPFv2 protocol exchanges. protect local OSPFv2 protocol exchanges.
9. IANA Considerations 9. IANA Considerations
9.1 OSPF TE LSA 9.1 Sub-TLVs for the OSPF Opaque TE LSA
This document defines following new sub-TLV for the Router Address IANA manages a registry of sub-TLVs carried in traffic engineering
top level TLV (Type 1) of the Opaque TE LSA [RFC3630]: TLVs in the Opaque TE LSA. This registry is found as the "Types for
sub-TLVs of TE Link TLV" subregistry of the "Open Shortest Path First
(OSPF) Traffic Engineering TLVs" registry.
- Associated Area ID sub-TLV: optional sub-TLV (see Section 6.2) IANA is requested to make allocations from this registry for the
following new sub-TLVs:
This document defines following new sub-TLV for the Link top level - Associated RA ID sub-TLV: optional sub-TLV (see Section 6.3.1)
TLV (Type 2) of the Opaque TE LSA [RFC3630]:
- Downstream Associated RA ID sub-TLV: optional sub-TLV (see
Section 6.2)
- Local TE Router ID sub-TLV: optional sub-TLV (see Section 5.3)
- Local and Remote TE Router ID sub-TLV: optional sub-TLV (see - Local and Remote TE Router ID sub-TLV: optional sub-TLV (see
Section 5.2) Section 5.2)
- Associated Area ID sub-TLV: optional sub-TLV (see Section 6.2)
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 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) - Node IPv6 Local Prefix sub-TLV: optional sub-TLV (see Section 4.2)
- Associated Area ID sub-TLV: optional sub-TLV (see Section 6.2)
The additions to the sub-registry should read as follows:
Value Sub-TLV Reference
----------- -------------------------------------------- ----------
TBD Associated RA ID [This.ID]
TBD Downstream Associated RA ID [This.ID]
TBD Local TE Router ID [This.ID]
TBD Local and Remote TE Router ID [This.ID]
TBD Node IPv4 Local Prefix [This.ID]
TBD Node IPv6 Local Prefix [This.ID]
9.2 OSPF RI LSA 9.2 OSPF RI LSA
This document defines following new codepoints for the Opaque RI LSA 9.2.1 RI Capability Bits
(Type 4) defined in [RFC4970]:
- Router Information Capability Descriptor TLV (Type 1) IANA maintains the "Open Shortest Path First v2 (OSPFv2) Parameters"
registry with a subregistry called "OSPF Router Informational
Capability Bits".
. U bit in Capability Descriptor TLV (bit position 6) IANA is requested to allocate two new bits as follows:
. D bit in Capability Descriptor TLV (bit position 7)
- New Router Downstream Associated Area ID TLV (Type TBD) - U bit (see Section 6.2.1)
- D bit (see Section 6.2.2)
The registry entries should look as follows:
10. References Bit Capabilities Reference
-------- -------------------------------------- ---------
TBD Upward routing dissemination capable [This.ID]
TBD Downward routing dissemination capable [This.ID]
10.1 Normative References 9.2.2 RI LSA TLVs
[OSPF-NODE] R.Aggarwal, and K.Kompella, "Advertising a Router's IANA maintains the "Open Shortest Path First v2 (OSPFv2) Parameters"
Local Addresses in OSPF TE Extensions," Internet Draft, registry with a subregistry called "OSPF Router Information (RI)
(work in progress), draft-ietf-ospf-te-node-addr- TLVs".
02.txt, March 2005.
[RFC2026] S.Bradner, "The Internet Standards Process -- An Experimental TLV is required as follows:
Revision 3", BCP 9, RFC2026, October 1996.
[RFC2154] Murphy, S., Badger, M. and B. Wellington, "OSPF with - Downstream Associated RA ID TLV (see Section 7.1).
Digital Signatures", RFC2154, June 1997.
[RFC2328] J.Moy, "OSPF Version 2", RFC2328, April 1998. The registry states that Experimental allocations are not tracked by
IANA. Therefore, this document assigns as follows:
[RFC2370] R.Coltun, "The OSPF Opaque LSA Option", RFC2370, July Type Value Capabilities Reference
1998. ----------- -------------------------------------- ---------
32781 Downstream Associated RA ID [This.ID]
[RFC2740] R.Coltun, et al. "OSPF for IPv6", RFC2740, December 10. References
1999.
10.1 Normative References
[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, RFC2119, March 1997. Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC2119, March 1997.
[RFC3477] K.Kompella et al. "Signalling Unnumbered Links in [RFC2154] Murphy, S., Badger, M. and B. Wellington, "OSPF with
Resource ReSerVation Protocol - Traffic Engineering Digital Signatures", RFC 2154, June 1997.
(RSVP-TE)", RFC3477, January 2003.
[RFC2328] J. Moy, "OSPF Version 2", RFC 2328, STD 54, April 1998.
[RFC3630] D.Katz et al. "Traffic Engineering (TE) Extensions to [RFC3630] D.Katz et al. "Traffic Engineering (TE) Extensions to
OSPF Version 2", RFC3630, September 2003. OSPF Version 2", RFC3630, September 2003.
[RFC3978] S.Bradner, "IETF Rights in Contributions", BCP 78, [RFC3945] E.Mannie, Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
RFC3978, March 2005. Switching (GMPLS) Architecture", RFC 3945, October 2004.
[RFC3979] S.Bradner, Ed., "Intellectual Property Rights in IETF
Technology", BCP 79, RFC3979, March 2005.
[RFC4606] E.Mannie, and D.Papadimitriou, (Editors) et al.,
"Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching Extensions
for SONET and SDH Control," RFC4606, October 2006.
[RFC4202] Kompella, K. (Editor) et al., "Routing Extensions in [RFC4202] K. Kompella (Editor) et al., "Routing Extensions in
Support of Generalized MPLS," RFC4202, October 2005. Support of Generalized MPLS," RFC4202, October 2005.
[RFC4203] Kompella, K. (Editor) et al., "OSPF Extensions in [RFC4203] K. Kompella (Editor) et al., "OSPF Extensions in
Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS)," RFC4203, October 2005. (GMPLS)," RFC4203, October 2005.
[RFC4970] A.Lindem et al., "Extensions to OSPF for Advertising [RFC4970] A.Lindem et al., "Extensions to OSPF for Advertising
Optional Router Capabilities", RFC 4970, July 2007. Optional Router Capabilities", RFC 4970, July 2007.
[RFC5250] Berger, L., Bryskin, I., Zinin, A., and R. Coltun, "The
OSPF Opaque LSA Option", RFC 5250, July 2008.
[RFC5340] Coltun, R., Ferguson, D., Moy, J., and A. Lindem, "OSPF
for IPv6", RFC 5340, July 2008.
[OSPF-NODE] R. Aggarwal and K. Kompella, "Advertising a Router's
Local Addresses in OSPF TE Extensions", draft-ietf-ospf-
te-node-addr, work in progress.
10.2 Informative References 10.2 Informative References
[RFC4258] D.Brungard (Ed.) et al. "Requirements for Generalized [RFC4258] D.Brungard (Ed.) et al. "Requirements for Generalized
MPLS (GMPLS) Routing for Automatically Switched Optical MPLS (GMPLS) Routing for Automatically Switched Optical
Network (ASON)," RFC4258, November 2005. 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",
RFC4652, October 2006. RFC4652, October 2006.
[RFC5073] J.P.Vasseur et al., "Routing extensions for discovery of [RFC5073] J.P.Vasseur et al., "Routing extensions for discovery of
Traffic Engineering Node Capabilities", RFC 5073, Traffic Engineering Node Capabilities", RFC 5073,
December 2007. December 2007.
[OSPF-CA] Bhatia, M., Manral, V., White, R., and M., Barnes, "OSPF
HMAC-SHA Cryptographic Authentication", draft-ietf-ospf-
hmac-sha, work in progress.
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 Protocols," Architecture and Requirements for Link State Protocols,"
November 2003. November 2003.
 End of changes. 147 change blocks. 
390 lines changed or deleted 504 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.35. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/