draft-ietf-ccamp-te-node-cap-05.txt   rfc5073.txt 
INTERNET-DRAFT J.P. Vasseur (Editor) Network Working Group J.P. Vasseur, Ed.
Network Working Group Cisco Systems, Inc. Request for Comments: 5073 Cisco Systems, Inc.
Intended Status: Proposed Standard J.L. Le Roux (Editor) Category: Standards Track J.L. Le Roux, Ed.
France Telecom France Telecom
Expires: October 2007 December 2007
IGP Routing Protocol Extensions for Discovery of Traffic Engineering
Node Capabilities
draft-ietf-ccamp-te-node-cap-05.txt
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
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
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months IGP Routing Protocol Extensions for
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any Discovery of Traffic Engineering Node Capabilities
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at Status of This Memo
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
Abstract Abstract
It is highly desired in several cases, to take into account Traffic It is highly desired, in several cases, to take into account Traffic
Engineering (TE) node capabilities during Multi Protocol Label Engineering (TE) node capabilities during Multi Protocol Label
Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Traffic Engineered Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Traffic Engineered
Label Switched Path (TE-LSP) selection, such as for instance the Label Switched Path (TE-LSP) selection, such as, for instance, the
capability to act as a branch Label Switching Router (LSR) of a capability to act as a branch Label Switching Router (LSR) of a
Point-To-MultiPoint (P2MP) LSP. This requires advertising these Point-To-MultiPoint (P2MP) LSP. This requires advertising these
capabilities within the Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP). For that capabilities within the Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP). For that
purpose, this document specifies Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) and purpose, this document specifies Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) and
Intermediate System-Intermediate System (IS-IS) traffic engineering Intermediate System-Intermediate System (IS-IS) traffic engineering
extensions for the advertisement of control plane and data plane extensions for the advertisement of control plane and data plane
traffic engineering node capabilities. traffic engineering node capabilities.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Terminology.................................................3 1. Introduction.....................................................2
2. Introduction................................................3 2. Terminology......................................................3
3. TE Node Capability Descriptor...............................4 3. TE Node Capability Descriptor ...................................3
3.1. Description.................................................4 3.1. Description ................................................3
3.2. Required Information........................................4 3.2. Required Information .......................................3
4. TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV formats...................5 4. TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV Formats .......................4
4.1. OSPF TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV format...............5 4.1. OSPF TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV Format ..............4
4.2. IS-IS TE Node Capability Descriptor sub-TLV format..........6 4.2. IS-IS TE Node Capability Descriptor sub-TLV format .........5
5. Elements of procedure.......................................7 5. Elements of Procedure ...........................................6
5.1. OSPF........................................................7 5.1. OSPF .......................................................6
5.2. IS-IS.......................................................8 5.2. IS-IS ......................................................7
6. Backward compatibility......................................8 6. Backward Compatibility ..........................................8
7. Security Considerations.....................................9 7. Security Considerations .........................................8
8. IANA considerations.........................................9 8. IANA Considerations .............................................8
8.1. OSPF TLV....................................................9 8.1. OSPF TLV ...................................................8
8.2. ISIS sub-TLV................................................9 8.2. ISIS sub-TLV ...............................................8
8.3. Capability Registry.........................................9 8.3. Capability Registry ........................................9
9. Acknowledgments............................................10 9. Acknowledgments .................................................9
10. References.................................................10 10. References ....................................................10
10.1. Normative references.......................................10 10.1. Normative References .....................................10
10.2. Informative References.....................................11 10.2. Informative References ...................................11
11. Editors' Addresses.........................................11
12. Contributors' Addresses....................................11
13. Intellectual Property Statement............................12
1. Terminology
This document uses terminologies defined in [RFC3031], [RFC3209] and
[RFC4461].
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].
2. Introduction 1. Introduction
Multi Protocol Label Switching-Traffic Engineering (MPLS-TE) routing Multi Protocol Label Switching-Traffic Engineering (MPLS-TE) routing
([RFC3784], [RFC3630], [OSPFv3-TE]) relies on extensions to link ([RFC3784], [RFC3630], [OSPFv3-TE]) relies on extensions to link
state Interior Gateway Protocols (IGP) ([IS-IS], [RFC1195], state Interior Gateway Protocols (IGP) ([IS-IS], [RFC1195],
[RFC2328], [RFC2740]) in order to advertise Traffic Engineering (TE) [RFC2328], [RFC2740]) in order to advertise Traffic Engineering (TE)
link information used for constraint based routing. Further link information used for constraint-based routing. Further
Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) related routing extensions are defined in Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) related routing extensions are defined in
[RFC4205] and [RFC4203]. [RFC4205] and [RFC4203].
It is desired to complement these routing extensions in order to It is desired to complement these routing extensions in order to
advertise TE node capabilities, in addition to TE link information. advertise TE node capabilities, in addition to TE link information.
These TE node capabilities will be taken into account as constraints These TE node capabilities will be taken into account as constraints
during path selection. during path selection.
Indeed, it is useful to advertise data plane TE node capabilities, Indeed, it is useful to advertise data plane TE node capabilities,
such as the capability for a Label Switching Router (LSR) to be a such as the capability for a Label Switching Router (LSR) to be a
branch LSR or a bud-LSR of a Point-To-MultiPoint (P2MP) Label branch LSR or a bud-LSR of a Point-To-MultiPoint (P2MP) Label
Switched Path (LSP). These capabilities can then be taken into Switched Path (LSP). These capabilities can then be taken into
account as constraints when computing the route of TE LSPs. account as constraints when computing the route of TE LSPs.
It is also useful to advertise control plane TE node capabilities It is also useful to advertise control plane TE node capabilities
such as the capability to support GMPLS signaling for a packet LSR, such as the capability to support GMPLS signaling for a packet LSR,
or the capability to support P2MP (Point to Multipoint) TE LSP or the capability to support P2MP (Point to Multipoint) TE LSP
signaling. This allows selecting a path that avoids nodes that do signaling. This allows selecting a path that avoids nodes that do
not support a given control plane feature, or triggering a mechanism not support a given control plane feature, or triggering a mechanism
to support such nodes on a path. Hence this facilitates backward to support such nodes on a path. Hence, this facilitates backward
compatibility. compatibility.
For that purpose, this document specifies IGP (OSPF and IS-IS) For that purpose, this document specifies IGP (OSPF and IS-IS)
extensions in order to advertise data plane and control plane extensions in order to advertise data plane and control plane
capabilities of a node. capabilities of a node.
A new TLV is defined for OSPF, the TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV, A new TLV is defined for OSPF, the TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV,
to be carried within the Router Information LSA ([OSPF-CAP]). to be carried within the Router Information LSA ([RFC4970]). A new
A new sub-TLV is defined for IS-IS, the TE Node Capability Descriptor sub-TLV is defined for IS-IS, the TE Node Capability Descriptor
sub-TLV, to be carried within the IS-IS Capability TLV ([IS-IS-CAP]). sub-TLV, to be carried within the IS-IS Capability TLV ([RFC4971]).
2. Terminology
This document uses terminologies defined in [RFC3031], [RFC3209], and
[RFC4461].
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].
3. TE Node Capability Descriptor 3. TE Node Capability Descriptor
3.1. Description 3.1. Description
LSRs in a network may have distinct control plane and data plane LSRs in a network may have distinct control plane and data plane
Traffic Engineering capabilities. The TE Node Capability Descriptor Traffic Engineering capabilities. The TE Node Capability Descriptor
information defined in this document describes data and control plane information defined in this document describes data and control plane
capabilities of an LSR. Such information can be used during path capabilities of an LSR. Such information can be used during path
computation so as to avoid nodes that do not support a given TE computation so as to avoid nodes that do not support a given TE
feature either in the control or data plane, or to trigger procedures feature either in the control or data plane, or to trigger procedures
to handle these nodes along the path (e.g, trigger LSP hierarchy to to handle these nodes along the path (e.g., trigger LSP hierarchy to
support a legacy transit LSR on a P2MP LSP (see [RSVP-P2MP])). support a legacy transit LSR on a P2MP LSP (see [RFC4875])).
3.2. Required Information 3.2. Required Information
The TE Node Capability Descriptor contains a variable length set of The TE Node Capability Descriptor contains a variable-length set of
bit flags, where each bit corresponds to a given TE node capability. bit flags, where each bit corresponds to a given TE node capability.
Five TE Node Capabilities are defined in this document: Five TE Node Capabilities are defined in this document:
- B bit: when set, this flag indicates that the LSR can act - B bit: when set, this flag indicates that the LSR can act
as a branch node on a P2MP LSP (see [RFC4461]); as a branch node on a P2MP LSP (see [RFC4461]);
- E bit: when set, this flag indicates that the LSR can act - E bit: when set, this flag indicates that the LSR can act
as a bud LSR on a P2MP LSP, i.e. an LSR that is both as a bud LSR on a P2MP LSP, i.e., an LSR that is both
transit and egress (see [RFC4461]). transit and egress (see [RFC4461]);
- M bit: when set, this flag indicates that the LSR supports - M bit: when set, this flag indicates that the LSR supports
MPLS-TE signaling ([RFC3209]); MPLS-TE signaling ([RFC3209]);
- G bit: when set this flag indicates that the LSR supports - G bit: when set this flag indicates that the LSR supports
GMPLS signaling ([RFC3473]); GMPLS signaling ([RFC3473]);
- P bit: when set, this flag indicates that the LSR supports - P bit: when set, this flag indicates that the LSR supports
P2MP MPLS-TE signaling ([RSVP-P2MP]). P2MP MPLS-TE signaling ([RFC4875]).
Note that new capability bits may be added in the future if required. Note that new capability bits may be added in the future if required.
4. TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV formats 4. TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV Formats
4.1. OSPF TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV format 4.1. OSPF TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV Format
The OSPF TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV is a variable length TLV The OSPF TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV is a variable length TLV
that contains a series of bit flags, where each bit correspond to a that contains a series of bit flags, where each bit correspond to a
TE node capability. TE node capability. The bit-field MAY be extended with additional
32-bit words if more bit flags need to be assigned. Any unknown bit
flags SHALL be treated as Reserved bits.
The OSPF TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV is carried within an OSPF The OSPF TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV is carried within an OSPF
Router Information LSA which is defined in [OSPF-CAP]. Router Information LSA, which is defined in [RFC4970].
The format of the OSPF TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV is the same The format of the OSPF TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV is the same
as the TLV format used by the Traffic Engineering Extensions to OSPF as the TLV format used by the Traffic Engineering Extensions to OSPF
[RFC3630]. That is, the TLV is composed of 2 octets for the type, 2 [RFC3630]. That is, the TLV is composed of 2 octets for the type, 2
octets specifying the length of the value field and a value field. octets specifying the length of the value field, and a value field.
The OSPF TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV has the following format: The OSPF TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV has the following format:
TYPE: Assigned by IANA - see Section 8.1. TYPE: 5 (see Section 8.1)
LENGTH: Variable (multiple of 4). LENGTH: Variable (multiple of 4).
VALUE: Array of units of 32 flags numbered from the most VALUE: Array of units of 32 flags numbered from the most
significant bit as bit zero, where each bit represents significant bit as bit zero, where each bit represents
a TE node capability. a TE node capability.
The following bits are defined: The following bits are defined:
Bit Capabilities Bit Capabilities
0 B bit: P2MP Branch Node capability: When set this indicates 0 B bit: P2MP Branch Node capability: When set, this indicates
that the LSR can act as a branch node on a P2MP LSP that the LSR can act as a branch node on a P2MP LSP
[RFC4461]. [RFC4461].
1 E bit: P2MP Bud-LSR capability: When set, this indicates 1 E bit: P2MP Bud-LSR capability: When set, this indicates
that the LSR can act as a bud LSR on a P2MP LSP, i.e. an that the LSR can act as a bud LSR on a P2MP LSP, i.e., an
LSR that is both transit and egress [RFC4461]. LSR that is both transit and egress [RFC4461].
2 M bit: If set this indicates that the LSR supports MPLS-TE 2 M bit: If set, this indicates that the LSR supports MPLS-TE
signaling ([RFC3209]). signaling ([RFC3209]).
3 G bit: If set this indicates that the LSR supports GMPLS 3 G bit: If set, this indicates that the LSR supports GMPLS
signaling ([RFC3473]). signaling ([RFC3473]).
4 P bit: If set this indicates that the LSR supports P2MP 4 P bit: If set, this indicates that the LSR supports P2MP
MPLS-TE signaling ([RSVP-P2MP]). MPLS-TE signaling ([RFC4875]).
5-31 Reserved for future assignments by IANA. 5-31 Reserved for future assignments by IANA.
Reserved bits MUST be set to zero on transmission, and MUST be
ignored on reception. If the length field is greater than 4,
implying that there are more than 32 bits in the value field, then
any additional bits (i.e., not yet assigned) are reserved.
4.2. IS-IS TE Node Capability Descriptor sub-TLV format 4.2. IS-IS TE Node Capability Descriptor sub-TLV format
The IS-IS TE Node Capability Descriptor sub-TLV is a variable length The IS-IS TE Node Capability Descriptor sub-TLV is a variable length
sub-TLV that contains a series of bit flags, where each bit sub-TLV that contains a series of bit flags, where each bit
correspond to a TE node capability. corresponds to a TE node capability. The bit-field MAY be extended
with additional bytes if more bit flags need to be assigned. Any
unknown bit flags SHALL be treated as Reserved bits.
The IS-IS TE Node Capability Descriptor sub-TLV is carried within an The IS-IS TE Node Capability Descriptor sub-TLV is carried within an
IS-IS CAPABILITY TLV which is defined in [IS-IS-CAP]. IS-IS CAPABILITY TLV, which is defined in [RFC4971].
The format of the IS-IS TE Node Capability sub-TLV is the same as the The format of the IS-IS TE Node Capability sub-TLV is the same as the
TLV format used by the Traffic Engineering Extensions to IS-IS sub-TLV format used by the Traffic Engineering Extensions to IS-IS
[RFC3784]. That is, the TLV is composed of 1 octet for the type, 1 [RFC3784]. That is, the sub-TLV is composed of 1 octet for the type,
octet specifying the TLV length and a value field. 1 octet specifying the length of the value field.
The IS-IS TE Node Capability Descriptor sub-TLV has the following The IS-IS TE Node Capability Descriptor sub-TLV has the following
format: format:
TYPE: Assigned by IANA - see Section 8.2. TYPE: 1 (see Section 8.2)
LENGTH: Variable LENGTH: Variable
VALUE: Array of units of 8 flags numbered from the most VALUE: Array of units of 8 flags numbered from the most
significant bit as bit zero, where each bit represents significant bit as bit zero, where each bit represents
a TE node capability. a TE node capability.
The following bits are defined: The following bits are defined:
Bit Capabilities Bit Capabilities
0 B bit: P2MP Branch Node capability: When set this indicates 0 B bit: P2MP Branch Node capability: When set, this indicates
that the LSR can act as a branch node on a P2MP LSP that the LSR can act as a branch node on a P2MP LSP
[RFC4461]. [RFC4461].
1 E bit: P2MP Bud-LSR capability: When set, this indicates 1 E bit: P2MP Bud-LSR capability: When set, this indicates
that the LSR can act as a bud LSR on a P2MP LSP, i.e. an that the LSR can act as a bud LSR on a P2MP LSP, i.e., an
LSR that is both transit and egress [RFC4461]. LSR that is both transit and egress [RFC4461].
2 M bit: If set this indicates that the LSR supports MPLS-TE 2 M bit: If set, this indicates that the LSR supports MPLS-TE
signaling ([RFC3209]). signaling ([RFC3209]).
3 G bit: If set this indicates that the LSR supports GMPLS 3 G bit: If set, this indicates that the LSR supports GMPLS
signaling ([RFC3473]). signaling ([RFC3473]).
4 P bit: If set this indicates that the LSR supports P2MP 4 P bit: If set, this indicates that the LSR supports P2MP
MPLS-TE signaling ([RSVP-P2MP]). MPLS-TE signaling ([RFC4875]).
5-7 Reserved for future assignments by IANA. 5-7 Reserved for future assignments by IANA.
5. Elements of procedure Reserved bits MUST be set to zero on transmission, and MUST be
ignored on reception. If the length field is great than 1, implying
that there are more than 8 bits in the value field, then any
additional bits (i.e., not yet assigned) are reserved.
5. Elements of Procedure
5.1. OSPF 5.1. OSPF
The TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV is advertised, within an OSPFv2 The TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV is advertised, within an OSPFv2
Router Information LSA (Opaque type of 4 and Opaque ID of 0) Router Information LSA (Opaque type of 4 and Opaque ID of 0) or an
or an OSPFv3 Router Information LSA (function code of 12) which are OSPFv3 Router Information LSA (function code of 12), which are
defined in [OSPF-CAP]. As such, elements of procedure are inherited defined in [RFC4970]. As such, elements of procedure are inherited
from those defined in [RFC2328], [RFC2740], and [OSPF-CAP]. from those defined in [RFC2328], [RFC2740], and [RFC4970].
The TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV advertises capabilities that The TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV advertises capabilities that
may be taken into account as constraints during path selection. Hence may be taken into account as constraints during path selection.
its flooding scope is area-local, and it MUST be carried within Hence, its flooding scope is area-local, and it MUST be carried
OSPFv2 type 10 Router Information LSA (as defined in [RFC2370]) or an within an OSPFv2 type 10 Router Information LSA (as defined in
OSPFv3 Router Information LSA with the S1 bit set and the S2 bit [RFC2370]) or an OSPFv3 Router Information LSA with the S1 bit set
cleared (as defined in [RFC2740]). and the S2 bit cleared (as defined in [RFC2740]).
A router MUST originate a new OSPF router information LSA whenever A router MUST originate a new OSPF Router Information LSA whenever
the content of the TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV changes or the content of the TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV changes or
whenever required by the regular OSPF procedure (LSA refresh (every whenever required by the regular OSPF procedure (LSA refresh (every
LSRefreshTime)). LSRefreshTime)).
The TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV is OPTIONAL and MUST NOT appear The TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV is OPTIONAL and MUST NOT appear
more than once in an OSPF Router Information LSA. If a TE Node more than once in an OSPF Router Information LSA. If a TE Node
Capability Descriptor TLV appears more than once in an OSPF Router Capability Descriptor TLV appears more than once in an OSPF Router
Information LSA, only the first occurrence MUST be processed and Information LSA, only the first occurrence MUST be processed and
other MUST be ignored. others MUST be ignored.
When an OSPF LSA does not contain any TE Node capability Descriptor When an OSPF Router Information LSA does not contain any TE Node
TLV, this means that the TE Capabilities of that LSR are unknown. Capability Descriptor TLV, this means that the TE node capabilities
of that LSR are unknown.
Note that a change in any of these capabilities MAY trigger CSPF Note that a change in any of these capabilities MAY trigger
computation, but MUST NOT trigger normal SPF computation. Constrained Shortest Path First (CSPF) computation, but MUST NOT
trigger normal SPF computation.
Note also that TE node capabilities are expected to be fairly static. Note also that TE node capabilities are expected to be fairly static.
They may change as the result of configuration change, or software They may change as the result of configuration change or software
upgrade. This is expected not to appear more than once a day. upgrade. This is expected not to appear more than once a day.
5.2. IS-IS 5.2. IS-IS
The TE Node Capability sub-TLV is carried within an IS-IS CAPABILITY The TE Node Capability sub-TLV is carried within an IS-IS CAPABILITY
TLV defined in [IS-IS-CAP]. As such, elements of procedure are TLV defined in [RFC4971]. As such, elements of procedure are
inherited from those defined in [IS-IS-CAP]. inherited from those defined in [RFC4971].
The TE Node Capability Descriptor sub-TLV advertises capabilities The TE Node Capability Descriptor sub-TLV advertises capabilities
that may be taken into account as constraints during path selection. that may be taken into account as constraints during path selection.
Hence its flooding is area-local, and MUST be carried within an IS-IS Hence, its flooding is area-local, and it MUST be carried within an
CAPABILITY TLV having the S flag cleared. IS-IS CAPABILITY TLV having the S flag cleared.
An IS-IS router MUST originate a new IS-IS LSP whenever the content An IS-IS router MUST originate a new IS-IS LSP whenever the content
of any of the TE Node Capability sub-TLV changes or whenever required of any of the TE Node Capability sub-TLV changes or whenever required
by the regular IS-IS procedure (LSP refresh). by the regular IS-IS procedure (LSP refresh).
The TE Node Capability Descriptor sub-TLV is OPTIONAL and MUST NOT The TE Node Capability Descriptor sub-TLV is OPTIONAL and MUST NOT
appear more than once in an ISIS Router Capability TLV. appear more than once in an ISIS Router Capability TLV.
When an IS-IS LSP does not contain any TE Node capability Descriptor When an IS-IS LSP does not contain any TE Node Capability Descriptor
sub-TLV, this means that the TE Capabilities of that LSR are unknown. sub-TLV, this means that the TE node capabilities of that LSR are
unknown.
Note that a change in any of these capabilities MAY trigger CSPF Note that a change in any of these capabilities MAY trigger CSPF
computation, but MUST NOT trigger normal SPF computation. computation, but MUST NOT trigger normal SPF computation.
Note also that TE node capabilities are expected to be fairly static. Note also that TE node capabilities are expected to be fairly static.
They may change as the result of configuration change, or software They may change as the result of configuration change, or software
upgrade. This is expected not to appear more than once a day. upgrade. This is expected not to appear more than once a day.
6. Backward Compatibility 6. Backward Compatibility
The TE Node Capability Descriptor TLVs defined in this document do The TE Node Capability Descriptor TLVs defined in this document do
not introduce any interoperability issue. For OSPF, a router not not introduce any interoperability issues. For OSPF, a router not
supporting the TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV will just silently supporting the TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV will just silently
ignore the TLV as specified in [OSPF-CAP]. For IS-IS a router not ignore the TLV, as specified in [RFC4970]. For IS-IS, a router not
supporting the TE Node Capability Descriptor sub-TLV will just supporting the TE Node Capability Descriptor sub-TLV will just
silently ignore the sub-TLV as specified in [IS-IS-CAP]. silently ignore the sub-TLV, as specified in [RFC4971].
When the TE Node capability Descriptor TLV is absent, this means that When the TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV is absent, this means that
the TE Capabilities of that LSR are unknown. the TE Capabilities of that LSR are unknown.
The absence of a word of capability flags in OSPF or an octet of The absence of a word of capability flags in OSPF or an octet of
capability flags in IS-IS means that these capabilities are unknown. capability flags in IS-IS means that these capabilities are unknown.
7. Security Considerations 7. Security Considerations
This document specifies the content of the TE Node Capability This document specifies the content of the TE Node Capability
Descriptor TLV in ISIS and OSPF, to be used for (G)MPLS-TE path Descriptor TLV in IS-IS and OSPF to be used for (G)MPLS-TE path
computation. As this TLV is not used for SPF computation or normal computation. As this TLV is not used for SPF computation or normal
routing, the extensions specified here have no direct effect on IP routing, the extensions specified here have no direct effect on IP
routing. Tampering with this TLV may have an effect on Traffic routing. Tampering with this TLV may have an effect on Traffic
Engineering computation. Mechanisms defined to secure ISIS Link State Engineering computation. Mechanisms defined to secure IS-IS Link
PDUs [RFC3567], OSPF LSAs [RFC2154], and their TLVs, can be used to State PDUs [RFC3567], OSPF LSAs [RFC2154], and their TLVs can be used
secure this TLV as well. to secure this TLV as well.
8. IANA considerations 8. IANA Considerations
8.1. OSPF TLV 8.1. OSPF TLV
[OSPF-CAP] defines a new code point registry for TLVs carried in the [RFC4970] defines a new codepoint registry for TLVs carried in the
Router Information LSA defined in [OSPF-CAP]. Router Information LSA defined in [RFC4970].
IANA is requested to make a new codepoint assignment from that IANA has made a new codepoint assignment from that registry for the
registry for the TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV defined in this TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV defined in this document and
document and carried within the Router Information LSA. The value 1 carried within the Router Information LSA. The value is 5. See
is suggested. See Section 4.1 of this document. Section 4.1 of this document.
8.2. ISIS sub-TLV 8.2. ISIS sub-TLV
[IS-IS-CAP] defines a new code point registry for sub-TLVs carried in IANA has defined a registry for sub-TLVs of the IS-IS CAPABILITY TLV
the ISIS CAPABILITY TLV defined in [IS-IS-CAP]. defined in [RFC4971].
IANA is requested to make a new codepoint assignment from that IANA has made a new codepoint assignment from that registry for the
registry for the TE Node Capability Descriptor sub-TLV defined in TE Node Capability Descriptor sub-TLV defined in this document, and
this document, and carried within the ISIS CAPABILITY TLV. The value carried within the ISIS CAPABILITY TLV. The value is 1. See Section
1 is suggested. See Section 4.2 of this document. 4.2 of this document.
8.3. Capability Registry 8.3. Capability Registry
IANA is requested to create a new registry to manage the space of IANA has created a new registry to manage the space of capability bit
capability bit flags carried within the OSPF and ISIS TE Node flags carried within the OSPF and ISIS TE Node Capability Descriptor.
Capability Descriptor.
A single registry must be defined for both protocols. It is suggested A single registry must be defined for both protocols. A new base
that a new base registry be created to cover IGP-TE registries that registry has been created to cover IGP-TE registries that apply to
apply to both OSPF and ISIS, and that the new registry requested by both OSPF and IS-IS, and the new registry requested by this document
this document should be a sub-registry of this new bas registry. is a sub-registry of this new base registry.
Bits in the new regstry should be numbered in the usual IETF notation Bits in the new registry should be numbered in the usual IETF
starting with the most significant bit as bit zero. notation, starting with the most significant bit as bit zero.
New bit numbers may be allocated only by an IETF Consensus action. New bit numbers may be allocated only by an IETF Consensus action.
Each bit should be tracked with the following qualities: Each bit should be tracked with the following qualities:
- Bit number - Bit number
- Defining RFC - Defining RFC
- Name of bit - Name of bit
IANA is requested to make assignments for the five TE node IANA has made assignments for the five TE node capabilities defined
capabilities defined in this document (see Sections 8.1 and 8.2) in this document (see Sections 8.1 and 8.2) using the following
using the following suggested values: values:
Bit No. Name Reference Bit No. Name Reference
--------+---------------------------------------+----------- --------+---------------------------------------+---------------
1 B bit: P2MP Branch LSR capability [This.I-D] 0 B bit: P2MP Branch LSR capability [RFC5073]
2 E bit: P2MP Bud LSR capability [This.I-D] 1 E bit: P2MP Bud LSR capability [RFC5073]
3 M bit: MPLS-TE support [This.I-D] 2 M bit: MPLS-TE support [RFC5073]
4 G bit: GMPLS support [This.I-D] 3 G bit: GMPLS support [RFC5073]
5 P bit: P2MP RSVP-TE support [This.I-D] 4 P bit: P2MP RSVP-TE support [RFC5073]
5-7 Unassigned [RFC5073]
9. Acknowledgments 9. Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Benoit Fondeviole, Adrian Farrel, Dimitri We would like to thank Benoit Fondeviole, Adrian Farrel, Dimitri
Papadimitriou, Acee Lindem and David Ward for their useful comments Papadimitriou, Acee Lindem, and David Ward for their useful comments
and suggestions. and suggestions.
We would also like to thank authors of [RFC4420] and [OSPF-CAP] by We would also like to thank authors of [RFC4420] and [RFC4970] by
which some text of this document has been inspired. which some text of this document has been inspired.
Adrian Farrel prpeared the final version of this document for Adrian Farrel prepared the final version of this document for
submission to the IESG. submission to the IESG.
10. References 10. References
10.1. Normative references 10.1. Normative References
[RFC1195] Callon, R., "Use of OSI IS-IS for routing in TCP/IP and [RFC1195] Callon, R., "Use of OSI IS-IS for routing in TCP/IP and
dual environments", RFC 1195, December 1990. dual environments", RFC 1195, December 1990.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2328] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", RFC 2328, April 1998. [RFC2328] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328, April 1998.
[RFC2370] Coltun, R., "The OSPF Opaque LSA Option", RFC 2370, [RFC2370] Coltun, R., "The OSPF Opaque LSA Option", RFC 2370, July
July 1998. 1998.
[RFC2740] Coltun, R., Ferguson, D., and J. Moy, "OSPF for IPv6", [RFC2740] Coltun, R., Ferguson, D., and J. Moy, "OSPF for IPv6",
RFC 2740, December 1999. RFC 2740, December 1999.
[RFC3031] Rosen, E., Viswanathan, A., and R. Callon, "Multiprotocol [RFC3031] Rosen, E., Viswanathan, A., and R. Callon,
Label Switching Architecture", RFC 3031, January 2001. "Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture", RFC 3031,
January 2001.
[RFC3209] Awduche, D., et. al., "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP [RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan,
tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001. V., and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001.
[RFC3473] Berger, L, et. al., "GMPLS Signaling RSVP-TE extensions", [RFC3473] Berger, L., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
RFC 3473, January 2003. Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation
Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC
3473, January 2003.
[RFC3630] Katz, D., Yeung, D., Kompella, K., "Traffic Engineering [RFC3630] Katz, D., Kompella, K., and D. Yeung, "Traffic
Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC 3630, September 2003. Engineering (TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC
3630, September 2003.
[RFC3784] Li, T., Smit, H., "IS-IS extensions for Traffic [RFC3784] Smit, H. and T. Li, "Intermediate System to Intermediate
Engineering", RFC 3784, June 2004. System (IS-IS) Extensions for Traffic Engineering (TE)",
RFC 3784, June 2004.
[IS-IS] "Intermediate System to Intermediate System Intra-Domain [IS-IS] "Intermediate System to Intermediate System Intra-Domain
Routeing Exchange Protocol for use in Conjunction with the Routeing Exchange Protocol for use in Conjunction with
Protocol for Providing the Connectionless-mode Network the Protocol for Providing the Connectionless-mode
Service (ISO 8473)", ISO 10589. Network Service (ISO 8473)", ISO 10589.
[IS-IS-CAP] Vasseur, J.P. et al., "IS-IS extensions for advertising [RFC4971] Vasseur, JP., Ed., Shen, N., Ed., and R. Aggarwal, Ed.,
router information", draft-ietf-isis-caps, work in "Intermediate System to Intermediate System (IS-IS)
progress. Extensions for Advertising Router Information", RFC
4971, July 2007.
[OSPF-CAP] Lindem, A., Shen, N., Aggarwal, R., Shaffer, S., Vasseur, [RFC4970] Lindem, A., Ed., Shen, N., Vasseur, JP., Aggarwal, R.,
J.P., "Extensions to OSPF for advertising Optional Router and S. Shaffer, "Extensions to OSPF for Advertising
Capabilities", draft-ietf-ospf-cap, work in progress. Optional Router Capabilities", RFC 4970, July 2007.
[RSVP-P2MP] Aggarwal, Papadimitriou, Yasukawa, et. al. "Extensions to [RFC4875] Aggarwal, R., Ed., Papadimitriou, D., Ed., and S.
RSVP-TE for point-to-multipoint TE LSPs", draft-ietf-mpls- Yasukawa, Ed., "Extensions to Resource Reservation
rsvp-te-p2mp, work in progress. Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) for Point-to-
Multipoint TE Label Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 4875,
May 2007.
10.2. Informative References 10.2. Informative References
[RFC2154] Murphy, S., Badger, M., and B. Wellington, "OSPF with [RFC2154] Murphy, S., Badger, M., and B. Wellington, "OSPF with
Digital Signatures", RFC 2154, June 1997. Digital Signatures", RFC 2154, June 1997.
[RFC3567] Li, T. and R. Atkinson, "Intermediate System to [RFC3567] Li, T. and R. Atkinson, "Intermediate System to
Intermediate System (IS-IS) Cryptographic Authentication", Intermediate System (IS-IS) Cryptographic
RFC 3567, July 2003. Authentication", RFC 3567, July 2003.
[RFC4203] Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., "OSPF extensions in support of
Generalized Multi-protocol Label Switching", RFC4203,
October 2005.
[RFC4205] Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., "IS-IS extensions in support of
Generalized Multi-protocol Label Switching", RFC4205,
October 2005.
[RFC4420] Farrel, A., and al., "Encoding of attributes for MPLS LSPs
establishment Using RSVP-TE", RFC4420, February 2006.
[RFC4461] Yasukawa, S., et. al., "Signaling Requirements for Point to [RFC4203] Kompella, K., Ed., and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "OSPF Extensions
Multipoint Traffic Engineered MPLS LSPs", RFC4461, April in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
2006. (GMPLS)", RFC 4203, October 2005.
[OSPFv3-TE] Ishiguro K., Manral V., Davey A., and Lindem A. "Traffic [RFC4205] Kompella, K., Ed., and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "Intermediate
Engineering Extensions to OSPF version 3", draft-ietf-ospf- System to Intermediate System (IS-IS) Extensions in
ospfv3-traffic, work in progress. Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS)", RFC 4205, October 2005.
11. Editors' Addresses [RFC4420] Farrel, A., Ed., Papadimitriou, D., Vasseur, J.-P., and
A. Ayyangar, "Encoding of Attributes for Multiprotocol
Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Path (LSP)
Establishment Using Resource ReserVation Protocol-
Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)", RFC 4420, February 2006.
Jean-Philippe Vasseur [RFC4461] Yasukawa, S., Ed., "Signaling Requirements for Point-
Cisco Systems, Inc. to-Multipoint Traffic-Engineered MPLS Label Switched
1414 Massachusetts Avenue Paths (LSPs)", RFC 4461, April 2006.
Boxborough , MA - 01719
USA
Email: jpv@cisco.com
Jean-Louis Le Roux [OSPFv3-TE] Ishiguro K., Manral V., Davey A., and Lindem A.,
France Telecom "Traffic Engineering Extensions to OSPF version 3", Work
2, avenue Pierre-Marzin in Progress.
22307 Lannion Cedex
FRANCE
Email: jeanlouis.leroux@orange-ftgroup.com
12. Contributors' Addresses Contributors' Addresses
Seisho Yasukawa Seisho Yasukawa
NTT NTT
3-9-11 Midori-cho, 3-9-11 Midori-cho,
Musashino-shi, Tokyo 180-8585, Japan Musashino-shi, Tokyo 180-8585, Japan
Email: s.yasukawa@hco.ntt.co.jp EMail: s.yasukawa@hco.ntt.co.jp
Stefano Previdi Stefano Previdi
Cisco Systems, Inc Cisco Systems, Inc
Via Del Serafico 200 Via Del Serafico 200
Roma, 00142 Roma, 00142
Italy Italy
Email: sprevidi@cisco.com EMail: sprevidi@cisco.com
Peter Psenak Peter Psenak
Cisco Systems, Inc Cisco Systems, Inc
Pegasus Park DE Kleetlaan 6A Pegasus Park DE Kleetlaan 6A
Diegmen, 1831 Diegmen, 1831
BELGIUM BELGIUM
Email: ppsenak@cisco.com EMail: ppsenak@cisco.com
Paul Mabbey Paul Mabbey
Comcast Comcast
USA USA
13. Intellectual Property Statement Editors' Addresses
Jean-Philippe Vasseur
Cisco Systems, Inc.
1414 Massachusetts Avenue
Boxborough, MA, 01719
USA
EMail: jpv@cisco.com
Jean-Louis Le Roux
France Telecom
2, avenue Pierre-Marzin
22307 Lannion Cedex
FRANCE
EMail: jeanlouis.leroux@orange-ftgroup.com
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
skipping to change at page 13, line 28 skipping to change at line 571
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr. http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org. ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Disclaimer of Validity
This document and the information contained herein are provided
on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE
REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE
IETF TRUST AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL
WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY
WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE
ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS
FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007). This document is subject to the
rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and except as
set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.
 End of changes. 91 change blocks. 
227 lines changed or deleted 254 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/