draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-prefix-originator-04.txt   draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-prefix-originator-05.txt 
LSR Working Group A. Wang LSR Working Group A. Wang
Internet-Draft China Telecom Internet-Draft China Telecom
Intended status: Standards Track A. Lindem Intended status: Standards Track A. Lindem
Expires: March 15, 2020 Cisco Systems Expires: May 28, 2020 Cisco Systems
J. Dong J. Dong
Huawei Technologies Huawei Technologies
P. Psenak P. Psenak
K. Talaulikar K. Talaulikar
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
September 12, 2019 November 25, 2019
OSPF Prefix Originator Extension OSPF Prefix Originator Extension
draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-prefix-originator-04 draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-prefix-originator-05
Abstract Abstract
This document defines Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) encodings to This document defines Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) encodings to
advertise the router-id of the originator of inter-area prefixes for advertise the router-id of the originator of inter-area prefixes for
OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 Link-State Advertisements (LSAs). The source OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 Link-State Advertisements (LSAs). The source
originator is needed in several multi-area OSPF use cases. originator is needed in several multi-area OSPF use cases.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
skipping to change at page 1, line 39 skipping to change at page 1, line 39
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on March 15, 2020. This Internet-Draft will expire on May 28, 2020.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 2, line 16 skipping to change at page 2, line 16
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Inter-Area Prefix Source Advertisement Use Cases . . . . . . 4 4. Inter-Area Prefix Source Advertisement Use Cases . . . . . . 4
5. Prefix Source Router-ID sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5. External Prefix Source Advertisement Use Cases . . . . . . . 5
6. Elements of Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6. Prefix Source Router-ID sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 7. Elements of Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 7.1. Inter-Area Prefixes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
9. Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 7.2. External Prefixes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 10. Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Appendix A. Inter-Area Topology Retrieval Process . . . . . . . 9 11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Appendix A. Inter-Area Topology Retrieval Process . . . . . . . 10
Appendix B. Special Considerations on Inter-Area Topology Appendix B. Special Considerations on Inter-Area Topology
Retrieval . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Retrieval . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
[I-D.ietf-ospf-mpls-elc] defines mechanisms to advertise Entropy [I-D.ietf-ospf-mpls-elc] defines mechanisms to advertise Entropy
Readable Label Depth (ERLD) for ingress Label Switching Routers (LSR) Readable Label Depth (ERLD) for ingress Label Switching Routers (LSR)
to discover other LSR's capability of performing Entropy Label based to discover other LSR's capability of performing Entropy Label based
load-balancing in MPLS networks. The ingress LSR can use this load-balancing in MPLS networks. The ingress LSR can use this
information to construct the appropriate label stack for specific information to construct the appropriate label stack for specific
traffic requirements, especially in segment routed networks and other traffic requirements, especially in segment routed networks and other
deployments requiring stacked LSPs. deployments requiring stacked LSPs.
skipping to change at page 3, line 32 skipping to change at page 3, line 35
rebuild the inter-area topology. rebuild the inter-area topology.
[RFC7794] introduces the Intermediate System to Intermediate System [RFC7794] introduces the Intermediate System to Intermediate System
(IS-IS) "IPv4/IPv6 Source Router IDs" Type-Length-Value (TLV) to (IS-IS) "IPv4/IPv6 Source Router IDs" Type-Length-Value (TLV) to
advertise the source of prefixes leaked from a different IS-IS level. advertise the source of prefixes leaked from a different IS-IS level.
This TLV can be used in the above scenarios. Such solution can also This TLV can be used in the above scenarios. Such solution can also
be applied in networks that run the OSPF protocol, but existing OSPF be applied in networks that run the OSPF protocol, but existing OSPF
LSAs TLVs must be extended to include the router originating the LSAs TLVs must be extended to include the router originating the
prefix. prefix.
This draft provides such solution for the OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 This draft provides such solution for the OSPFv2 [RFC2328] and OSPFv3
protocols. [RFC5340] protocols.
2. Conventions used in this document 2. Conventions used in this document
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here. capitals, as shown here.
3. Terminology 3. Terminology
The following terms are used in this document: The following terms are used in this document:
o ABR: Area Border Router o ABR: Area Border Router
o ASBR: Autonomous System Border Router
o ERLD: Entropy Readable Label Depth o ERLD: Entropy Readable Label Depth
o EL: Entropy Label o EL: Entropy Label
o IS-IS: Intermediate System to Intermediate System o IS-IS: Intermediate System to Intermediate System
o LSA: Link-State Advertisement o LSA: Link-State Advertisement
o MSD: Maximum SID Depths o MSD: Maximum SID Depths
o NLRI: Network Layer Reachability Information o NLRI: Network Layer Reachability Information
o OSPF: Open Shortest Path First o OSPF: Open Shortest Path First
skipping to change at page 5, line 13 skipping to change at page 5, line 38
another area, it should know the ERLD and MSD values associated with another area, it should know the ERLD and MSD values associated with
the node T1, and then construct the right label stack at the ingress the node T1, and then construct the right label stack at the ingress
node for traffic destined to prefix Lt1. node for traffic destined to prefix Lt1.
In another scenario, If R0 has some method to learn the originator of In another scenario, If R0 has some method to learn the originator of
network N1 and reports such information to IP SDN controller, then it network N1 and reports such information to IP SDN controller, then it
is possible for the controller to reconstruct the topology in the is possible for the controller to reconstruct the topology in the
non-backbone areas. The topology reconstruction process and its non-backbone areas. The topology reconstruction process and its
limitations are described in the Appendix A and Appendix B. limitations are described in the Appendix A and Appendix B.
From the above scenarios, we can conclude it is useful to define the 5. External Prefix Source Advertisement Use Cases
OSPF prefix originator sub TLV .
5. Prefix Source Router-ID sub-TLV Figure 2 illustrates a topology where OSPF is running in different
domain that is connected by an Autonomous System Border Router
(ASBR). A, B, and C are routers in the Domain 1; C, D, and E are
routers in Domain 2. Router C is the ASBR between the two domains.
When router E receives an external prefix, it will redistribute it as
an AS-External LSA within domain 2. When C receives such LSA, the
originator information for such external prefix will be lost when it
encodes the prefix information with the current LSA format field. In
some situations, it will be helpful if C can advertise such
originator information.
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| | External Prefix |
| +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +-|-+ |
| | A +-------+ B +----------| C +---------+ D +---------+ E |------|
| +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ |
| Domain 1 | Domain 2 |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
Figure 2: OSPF External Prefix Originator Scenario
From the above scenarios, we can conclude that it is useful to define
the OSPF prefix originator sub TLV .
6. Prefix Source Router-ID sub-TLV
[RFC7684] and [RFC8362] respectively define TLV-based LSAs for OSPFv2 [RFC7684] and [RFC8362] respectively define TLV-based LSAs for OSPFv2
and OSPFv3. These documents facilitate addition of new attributes and OSPFv3. These documents facilitate addition of new attributes
for prefixes and provide the basis for a sub-TLV to advertise the for prefixes and provide the basis for a sub-TLV to advertise the
"Prefix Source Router ID". For OSPFv2, this sub-TLV is a sub-TLV of "Prefix Source Router ID". For OSPFv2, this sub-TLV is a sub-TLV of
OSPFv2 Extended Prefix TLV which SHOULD be included in the "OSPFv2 OSPFv2 Extended Prefix TLV which SHOULD be included in the "OSPFv2
Extended Prefix Opaque LSA" [RFC7684] for inter-area prefixes. For Extended Prefix Opaque LSA" [RFC7684] for inter-area prefixes. For
OSPFv3, this sub-TLV is a sub-TLV of "Inter-Area-Prefix TLV", which OSPFv3, this sub-TLV is a sub-TLV of "Inter-Area-Prefix TLV", which
SHOULD be included in the "E-Inter-Area-Prefix-LSA" [RFC8362]. SHOULD be included in the "E-Inter-Area-Prefix-LSA" [RFC8362].
The "Prefix Source Router-ID" sub-TLV has the following format: The "Prefix Source Router-ID" 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 | Length | | Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Prefix Source Router-ID | | Prefix Source Router-ID |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+ +---------------------------------------------------------------+
Figure 2: Prefix Source Router-ID sub-TLV Format Figure 3: Prefix Source Router-ID sub-TLV Format
o Source Router-ID Sub-TLV Type: TBD1 [RFC7684] or TBD2 [RFC8362] o Source Router-ID Sub-TLV Type: 4 (IANA TEMPORARY allocation)
[RFC7684] or 27 (IANA TEMPORARY allocation) [RFC8362]
o Length: 4 o Length: 4
o Value: Router-ID of OSPFv2/OSPFv3 router that is the source of the o Value: Router-ID of OSPFv2/OSPFv3 router that is the source of the
prefix. prefix.
This sub-TLV provides the same functionality as the IS-IS "IPv4/IPv6 This sub-TLV provides the same functionality as the IS-IS "IPv4/IPv6
Source Router" TLV defined in [RFC7794]. Source Router" TLV defined in [RFC7794].
6. Elements of Procedure 7. Elements of Procedure
The following sections describe the procedure to include the newly
defined "Source Router-ID Sub-TLV" in the related LSA for inter-area
prefixes and external prefixes respectively.
7.1. Inter-Area Prefixes
When an ABR, for example R2 in Figure 1, receives a Router-LSA When an ABR, for example R2 in Figure 1, receives a Router-LSA
advertisement in area 2, it SHOULD originate the corresponding advertisement in area 2, it SHOULD originate the corresponding
"OSPFv2 Extended Prefix Opaque LSA" for OSPFv2 or "E-Inter-Area- "OSPFv2 Extended Prefix Opaque LSA" for OSPFv2 or "E-Inter-Area-
Prefix-LSA" for OSPFv3 that includes the Source Router-ID sub-TLV for Prefix-LSA" for OSPFv3 that includes the Source Router-ID sub-TLV for
the network prefixes. For example, to identify the source router the network prefixes. For example, to identify the source router
prefix Lt1 and other inter-area prefixes in Figure 1. prefix Lt1 and other inter-area prefixes in Figure 1.
When a router in another area, e.g., S1, receives such LSA, it then When a router in another area, e.g., S1, receives such LSA, it then
can ascertain that prefix Lt1 is associated with node T1 and obtain can ascertain that prefix Lt1 is associated with node T1 and obtain
skipping to change at page 6, line 29 skipping to change at page 7, line 35
When a router in another area, e.g., R0, receives such LSA, it learns When a router in another area, e.g., R0, receives such LSA, it learns
the Prefix Source Router-id and includes it in the prefix information the Prefix Source Router-id and includes it in the prefix information
advertised to an SDN controller as described in advertised to an SDN controller as described in
[I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext]. The SDN controller can [I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext]. The SDN controller can
then use such information to build the inter-area topology according then use such information to build the inter-area topology according
to the process described in the Appendix A. The topology retrieval to the process described in the Appendix A. The topology retrieval
process may not suitable for some environments as stated in process may not suitable for some environments as stated in
Appendix B. Appendix B.
7. Security Considerations 7.2. External Prefixes
When an ASBR, for example C in Figure 2, receives an AS-External LSA
for an external prefix in domain 2, it SHOULD extract the originator
information from the "Advertising Router" field from the LSA header.
When the prefix is advertised into domain 1 as an AS-External LSA,
router C may also advertise the Source Router-ID using a AS-scoped
OSPFv2 Extended Prefix Opaque LSA or as a Sub-TLV in the OSPFv3 AS-
External LSA.
8. Security Considerations
Since this document extends the "OSPFv2 Extended Prefix LSA" and Since this document extends the "OSPFv2 Extended Prefix LSA" and
"OSPFv3 E-Inter-Area-Prefix LSA", the security considerations for "OSPFv3 E-Inter-Area-Prefix LSA", the security considerations for
[RFC7684] and [RFC8362] are applicable. [RFC7684] and [RFC8362] are applicable.
Modification of the "Prefix Source Sub-TLV" could be used for a Modification of the "Prefix Source Sub-TLV" could be used for a
Denial-of-Service attack and could inhibit the use cases described in Denial-of-Service attack and could inhibit the use cases described in
Section 4. If the OSPF domain is vulnerable to such attacks, OSPF Section 4. If the OSPF domain is vulnerable to such attacks, OSPF
authentication should be used as defined for OSPFv2 in [RFC5709] and authentication should be used as defined for OSPFv2 in [RFC5709] and
[RFC7474] and for OSPFv3 in [RFC7166]. [RFC7474] and for OSPFv3 in [RFC7166].
Additionally, advertisement of the prefix source for inter-area Additionally, advertisement of the prefix source for inter-area
prefixes facilitates reconstruction of the OSPF topology for other prefixes facilitates reconstruction of the OSPF topology for other
areas. Network operators may consider their topologies to be areas. Network operators may consider their topologies to be
sensitive confidential data. For OSPFv3, IPsec can be used to sensitive confidential data. For OSPFv3, IPsec can be used to
provide confidentiality [RFC4552]. Since there is no standard provide confidentiality [RFC4552]. Since there is no standard
defined for native OSPFv2 IPsec, some form of secure tunnel is defined for native OSPFv2 IPsec, some form of secure tunnel is
required to provide confidentiality. required to provide confidentiality.
8. IANA Considerations 9. IANA Considerations
This specification defines the Prefix Source Router-ID sub-TLV as This specification defines the Prefix Source Router-ID sub-TLV as
described in Section 5. This value should be added to the both described in Section 6. This value should be added to the both
existing "OSPFv2 Extended Prefix TLV Sub-TLVs" and "OSPFv3 Extended- existing "OSPFv2 Extended Prefix TLV Sub-TLVs" and "OSPFv3 Extended-
LSA Sub-TLVs" registries. LSA Sub-TLVs" registries.
The following sub-TLV is added to the "OSPFv2 Extended Prefix TLV The following sub-TLV is added to the "OSPFv2 Extended Prefix TLV
Sub-TLVs" registry. The allocation policy is IETF Review as defined Sub-TLVs" registry. The allocation policy is IETF Review as defined
in [RFC7684] in [RFC7684]
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Code Point | Description | Status | | Code Point | Description | Status |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| TBD | Prefix Source Sub-TLV | Allocation from IANA | | 4 | Prefix Source Sub-TLV | Allocation from IANA |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3: Code Point in "OSPFv2 Extended Prefix TLV Sub-TLVs" Figure 4: Code Point in "OSPFv2 Extended Prefix TLV Sub-TLVs"
The following sub-TLV is added to the "OSPFv3 Extended-LSA Sub-TLVs" The following sub-TLV is added to the "OSPFv3 Extended-LSA Sub-TLVs"
registry. The allocation policy is IETF Review as defined in registry. The allocation policy is IETF Review as defined in
[RFC8362] [RFC8362]
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Code Point | Description | Status | | Code Point | Description | Status |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| TBD | Prefix Source Sub-TLV | Allocation from IANA | | 27 | Prefix Source Sub-TLV | Allocation from IANA |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 4: Code Point in "OSPFv3 Extended-LSA Sub-TLVs" Figure 5: Code Point in "OSPFv3 Extended-LSA Sub-TLVs"
9. Acknowledgement 10. Acknowledgement
Many thanks to Les Ginsberg for his suggestions on this draft. Also Many thanks to Les Ginsberg for his suggestions on this draft. Also
thanks to Jeff Tantsura, Rob Shakir, Gunter Van De Velde, Goethals thanks to Jeff Tantsura, Rob Shakir, Gunter Van De Velde, Goethals
Dirk, Shaofu Peng, and John E Drake for their valuable comments. Dirk, Smita Selot, Shaofu Peng, and John E Drake for their valuable
comments.
10. References 11. References
10.1. Normative References 11.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC2328] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2328, April 1998,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2328>.
[RFC4552] Gupta, M. and N. Melam, "Authentication/Confidentiality [RFC4552] Gupta, M. and N. Melam, "Authentication/Confidentiality
for OSPFv3", RFC 4552, DOI 10.17487/RFC4552, June 2006, for OSPFv3", RFC 4552, DOI 10.17487/RFC4552, June 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4552>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4552>.
[RFC5340] Coltun, R., Ferguson, D., Moy, J., and A. Lindem, "OSPF
for IPv6", RFC 5340, DOI 10.17487/RFC5340, July 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5340>.
[RFC5709] Bhatia, M., Manral, V., Fanto, M., White, R., Barnes, M., [RFC5709] Bhatia, M., Manral, V., Fanto, M., White, R., Barnes, M.,
Li, T., and R. Atkinson, "OSPFv2 HMAC-SHA Cryptographic Li, T., and R. Atkinson, "OSPFv2 HMAC-SHA Cryptographic
Authentication", RFC 5709, DOI 10.17487/RFC5709, October Authentication", RFC 5709, DOI 10.17487/RFC5709, October
2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5709>. 2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5709>.
[RFC7166] Bhatia, M., Manral, V., and A. Lindem, "Supporting [RFC7166] Bhatia, M., Manral, V., and A. Lindem, "Supporting
Authentication Trailer for OSPFv3", RFC 7166, Authentication Trailer for OSPFv3", RFC 7166,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7166, March 2014, DOI 10.17487/RFC7166, March 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7166>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7166>.
skipping to change at page 9, line 5 skipping to change at page 10, line 24
[RFC8362] Lindem, A., Roy, A., Goethals, D., Reddy Vallem, V., and [RFC8362] Lindem, A., Roy, A., Goethals, D., Reddy Vallem, V., and
F. Baker, "OSPFv3 Link State Advertisement (LSA) F. Baker, "OSPFv3 Link State Advertisement (LSA)
Extensibility", RFC 8362, DOI 10.17487/RFC8362, April Extensibility", RFC 8362, DOI 10.17487/RFC8362, April
2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8362>. 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8362>.
[RFC8476] Tantsura, J., Chunduri, U., Aldrin, S., and P. Psenak, [RFC8476] Tantsura, J., Chunduri, U., Aldrin, S., and P. Psenak,
"Signaling Maximum SID Depth (MSD) Using OSPF", RFC 8476, "Signaling Maximum SID Depth (MSD) Using OSPF", RFC 8476,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8476, December 2018, DOI 10.17487/RFC8476, December 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8476>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8476>.
10.2. Informative References 11.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext] [I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext]
Previdi, S., Talaulikar, K., Filsfils, C., Gredler, H., Previdi, S., Talaulikar, K., Filsfils, C., Gredler, H.,
and M. Chen, "BGP Link-State extensions for Segment and M. Chen, "BGP Link-State extensions for Segment
Routing", draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext-16 Routing", draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext-16
(work in progress), June 2019. (work in progress), June 2019.
[I-D.ietf-ospf-mpls-elc] [I-D.ietf-ospf-mpls-elc]
Xu, X., Kini, S., Psenak, P., Filsfils, C., and S. Xu, X., Kini, S., Psenak, P., Filsfils, C., Litkowski, S.,
Litkowski, "Signaling Entropy Label Capability and Entropy and M. Bocci, "Signaling Entropy Label Capability and
Readable Label-stack Depth Using OSPF", draft-ietf-ospf- Entropy Readable Label-stack Depth Using OSPF", draft-
mpls-elc-09 (work in progress), September 2019. ietf-ospf-mpls-elc-12 (work in progress), October 2019.
[RFC7752] Gredler, H., Ed., Medved, J., Previdi, S., Farrel, A., and [RFC7752] Gredler, H., Ed., Medved, J., Previdi, S., Farrel, A., and
S. Ray, "North-Bound Distribution of Link-State and S. Ray, "North-Bound Distribution of Link-State and
Traffic Engineering (TE) Information Using BGP", RFC 7752, Traffic Engineering (TE) Information Using BGP", RFC 7752,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7752, March 2016, DOI 10.17487/RFC7752, March 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7752>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7752>.
Appendix A. Inter-Area Topology Retrieval Process Appendix A. Inter-Area Topology Retrieval Process
When an IP SDN Controller receives BGP-LS [RFC7752] information, it When an IP SDN Controller receives BGP-LS [RFC7752] information, it
 End of changes. 29 change blocks. 
39 lines changed or deleted 94 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.47. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/