draft-ietf-ospf-te-link-attr-reuse-06.txt   draft-ietf-ospf-te-link-attr-reuse-07.txt 
LSR Working Group P. Psenak, Ed. LSR Working Group P. Psenak, Ed.
Internet-Draft Cisco Systems, Inc. Internet-Draft L. Ginsberg
Intended status: Standards Track A. Lindem Intended status: Standards Track Cisco Systems
Expires: May 13, 2019 L. Ginsberg Expires: October 13, 2019 W. Henderickx
Cisco Systems
W. Henderickx
Nokia Nokia
J. Tantsura J. Tantsura
Nuage Networks Apstra
H. Gredler
RtBrick Inc.
J. Drake J. Drake
Juniper Networks Juniper Networks
November 9, 2018 April 11, 2019
OSPF Link Traffic Engineering (TE) Attribute Reuse OSPF Link Traffic Engineering (TE) Attribute Reuse
draft-ietf-ospf-te-link-attr-reuse-06.txt draft-ietf-ospf-te-link-attr-reuse-07.txt
Abstract Abstract
Various link attributes have been defined in OSPF in the context of Various link attributes have been defined in OSPF in the context of
the MPLS Traffic Engineering (TE) and GMPLS. Many of these link the MPLS Traffic Engineering (TE) and GMPLS. Many of these link
attributes can be used for applications other than MPLS Traffic attributes can be used for applications other than MPLS Traffic
Engineering or GMPLS. This document defines how to distribute such Engineering or GMPLS. This document defines how to distribute such
attributes in OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 for applications other than MPLS attributes in OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 for applications other than MPLS
Traffic Engineering or GMPLS. Traffic Engineering or GMPLS.
skipping to change at page 1, line 45 skipping to change at page 1, line 41
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 May 13, 2019. This Internet-Draft will expire on October 13, 2019.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 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
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
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
skipping to change at page 2, line 35 skipping to change at page 2, line 27
Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
than English. than English.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Requirements notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.1. Requirements notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Link attributes examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. Advertisement of Link Attributes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Advertising Link Attributes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.1. OSPFv2 Extended Link Opaque LSA and OSPFv3 E-Router-LSA . 4
3.1. OSPFv2 TE Opaque LSA and OSPFv3 Intra-Area-TE-LSA . . . . 4 3. Advertisement of Application Specific Values . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. OSPFv2 Extended Link Opaque LSA and OSPFv3 E-Router-LSA . 5 4. Reused TE link attributes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.3. Selected Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.1. Shared Risk Link Group (SRLG) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4. Reused TE link attributes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.2. Extended Metrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1. Shared Risk Link Group (SRLG) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.3. Administrative Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.2. Extended Metrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.4. Traffic Engineering Metric . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.3. Traffic Engineering Metric . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5. Maximum Link Bandwidth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.4. Administrative Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6. Local Interface IPv6 Address Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5. Advertisement of Application Specific Values . . . . . . . . 8 7. Remote Interface IPv6 Address Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6. Maximum Link Bandwidth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 8. Deployment Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7. Local Interface IPv6 Address Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 9. Attribute Advertisements and Enablement . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8. Remote Interface IPv6 Address Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 10. Backward Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9. Deployment Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 11. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
10. Attribute Advertisements and Enablement . . . . . . . . . . . 13 12. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
11. Backward Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 12.1. OSPFv2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
12. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 12.2. OSPFv3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
13. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 13. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
13.1. OSPFv2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 14. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
13.2. OSPFv3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 15. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
14. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 15.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
15. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 15.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
15.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
15.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
Various link attributes have been defined in OSPFv2 [RFC2328] and Various link attributes have been defined in OSPFv2 [RFC2328] and
OSPFv3 [RFC5340] in the context of the MPLS traffic engineering and OSPFv3 [RFC5340] in the context of the MPLS traffic engineering and
GMPLS. All these attributes are distributed by OSPFv2 as sub-TLVs of GMPLS. All these attributes are distributed by OSPFv2 as sub-TLVs of
the Link-TLV advertised in the OSPFv2 TE Opaque LSA [RFC3630]. In the Link-TLV advertised in the OSPFv2 TE Opaque LSA [RFC3630]. In
OSPFv3, they are distributed as sub-TLVs of the Link-TLV advertised OSPFv3, they are distributed as sub-TLVs of the Link-TLV advertised
in the OSPFv3 Intra-Area-TE-LSA as defined in [RFC5329]. in the OSPFv3 Intra-Area-TE-LSA as defined in [RFC5329].
Many of these link attributes are useful outside of traditional MPLS Many of these link attributes are useful outside of traditional MPLS
Traffic Engineering or GMPLS. This brings its own set of problems, Traffic Engineering or GMPLS. This brings its own set of problems,
in particular how to distribute these link attributes in OSPFv2 and in particular how to distribute these link attributes in OSPFv2 and
OSPFv3 when MPLS TE and GMPLS are not deployed or are deployed in OSPFv3 when MPLS TE and GMPLS are not deployed or are deployed in
parallel with other applications that use these link attributes. parallel with other applications that use these link attributes.
[RFC7855] discusses use cases/requirements for SR. Included among [RFC7855] discusses use cases/requirements for Segment Routing.
these use cases is SRTE. If both RSVP-TE and SRTE are deployed in a Included among these use cases is SRTE. If both RSVP-TE and SRTE are
network, link attribute advertisements can be used by one or both of deployed in a network, link attribute advertisements can be used by
these applications. As there is no requirement for the link one or both of these applications. As there is no requirement for
attributes advertised on a given link used by SRTE to be identical to the link attributes advertised on a given link used by SRTE to be
the link attributes advertised on that same link used by RSVP-TE, identical to the link attributes advertised on that same link used by
there is a clear requirement to indicate independently which link RSVP-TE, there is a clear requirement to indicate independently which
attribute advertisements are to be used by each application. link attribute advertisements are to be used by each application.
As the number of applications which may wish to utilize link As the number of applications which may wish to utilize link
attributes may grow in the future, an additional requirement is that attributes may grow in the future, an additional requirement is that
the extensions defined allow the association of additional the extensions defined allow the association of additional
applications to link attributes without altering the format of the applications to link attributes without altering the format of the
advertisements or introducing new backwards compatibility issues. advertisements or introducing new backwards compatibility issues.
Finally, there may still be many cases where a single attribute value Finally, there may still be many cases where a single attribute value
can be shared among multiple applications, so the solution should can be shared among multiple applications, so the solution should
minimize advertising duplicate link/attribute when possible. minimize advertising duplicate link/attribute when possible.
1.1. Requirements notation 1.1. Requirements notation
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
2. Link attributes examples 2. Advertisement of Link Attributes
This section lists some of the link attributes originally defined for
MPLS Traffic Engineering that can be used for other applications in
OSPFv2 and OSPFv3. The list doesn't necessarily contain all the
required attributes.
1. Remote Interface IP address [RFC3630] - OSPFv2 currently cannot
distinguish between parallel links between two OSPFv2 routers.
As a result, the two-way connectivity check performed during SPF
may succeed when the two routers disagree on which of the links
to use for data traffic.
2. Link Local/Remote Identifiers - [RFC4203] - Used for the two-way
connectivity check for parallel unnumbered links. Also used for
identifying adjacencies for unnumbered links in Segment Routing
traffic engineering.
3. Shared Risk Link Group (SRLG) [RFC4203] - In IPFRR, the SRLG is
used to compute diverse backup paths [RFC5714].
4. Unidirectional Link Delay/Loss Metrics [RFC7471] - Could be used
for the shortest path first (SPF) computation using alternate
metrics within an OSPF area.
3. Advertising Link Attributes
This section outlines possible approaches for advertising link
attributes originally defined for MPLS Traffic Engineering or GMPLS
when they are used for other applications.
3.1. OSPFv2 TE Opaque LSA and OSPFv3 Intra-Area-TE-LSA
One approach for advertising link attributes is to continue to use
the OSPFv2 TE Opaque LSA [RFC3630] or the OSPFv3 Intra-Area-TE-LSA
[RFC5329]. There are several problems with this approach:
1. Whenever the link is advertised in an OSPFv2 TE Opaque LSA or in
an OSPFv3 Intra-Area-TE-LSA, the link becomes a part of the TE
topology, which may not match IP routed topology. By making the
link part of the TE topology, remote nodes may mistakenly believe
that the link is available for MPLS TE or GMPLS, when, in fact,
MPLS is not enabled on the link.
2. The OSPFv2 TE Opaque LSA and OSPFv3 Intra-Area-TE-LSA advertise
link attributes that are not used or required by MPLS TE or
GMPLS. There is no mechanism in these TE LSAs to indicate which
of the link attributes are passed to the MPLS TE application and
which are used by other applications including OSPF itself.
3. Link attributes used for non-TE applications are partitioned
across multiple LSAs - the TE Opaque LSA and the Extended Link
Opaque LSA in OSPFv2 and the OSPFv3 Intra-Area-TE-LSA and OSPFv3
Extended LSA Router-Link TLV [RFC8362] in OSPFv3. This
partitioning will require implementations to lookup multiple LSAs
to extract link attributes for a single link, bringing needless
complexity to OSPF implementations.
The advantage of this approach is that there is no additional This section outlines the solution for advertising link attributes
standardization requirement to advertise the TE/GMPL attributes for originally defined for MPLS Traffic Engineering or GMPLS when they
other applications. Additionally, link attributes are only are used for other applications.
advertised once when both OSPF TE and other applications are deployed
on the same link. This is not expected to be a common deployment
scenario.
3.2. OSPFv2 Extended Link Opaque LSA and OSPFv3 E-Router-LSA 2.1. OSPFv2 Extended Link Opaque LSA and OSPFv3 E-Router-LSA
An alternative approach for advertising link attributes is to use
Extended Link Opaque LSAs as defined in [RFC7684] for OSPFv2 and Extended Link Opaque LSAs as defined in [RFC7684] for OSPFv2 and
Extended Router-LSAs [RFC8362] for OSPFv3. These LSAs were defined Extended Router-LSAs [RFC8362] for OSPFv3 are used to advertise link
as a generic containers for distribution of the extended link attributes that are used by applications other then MPLS traffic
attributes. There are several advantages in using them: engineering or GMPLS. These LSAs were defined as a generic
containers for distribution of the extended link attributes. There
are several advantages in using them:
1. Advertisement of the link attributes does not make the link part 1. Advertisement of the link attributes does not make the link part
of the TE topology. It avoids any conflicts and is fully of the TE topology. It avoids any conflicts and is fully
compatible with the [RFC3630] and [RFC5329]. compatible with [RFC3630] and [RFC5329].
2. The OSPFv2 TE Opaque LSA and OSPFv3 Intra-Area-TE-LSA remains 2. The OSPFv2 TE Opaque LSA and OSPFv3 Intra-Area-TE-LSA remains
truly opaque to OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 as originally defined in truly opaque to OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 as originally defined in
[RFC3630] and [RFC5329] respectively. Their contents are not [RFC3630] and [RFC5329] respectively. Their contents are not
inspected by OSPF, that act as a pure transport. inspected by OSPF, that acts as a pure transport.
3. There is clear distinction between link attributes used by TE and 3. There is clear distinction between link attributes used by TE and
link attributes used by other OSPFv2 or OSPFv3 applications. link attributes used by other OSPFv2 or OSPFv3 applications.
4. All link attributes that are used by other applications are 4. All link attributes that are used by other applications are
advertised in a single LSA, the Extended Link Opaque LSA in advertised in a single LSA, the Extended Link Opaque LSA in
OSPFv2 or the OSPFv3 E-Router-LSA [RFC8362] in OSPFv3. OSPFv2 or the OSPFv3 E-Router-LSA [RFC8362] in OSPFv3.
The disadvantage of this approach is that in rare cases, the same The disadvantage of this approach is that in rare cases, the same
link attribute is advertised in both the TE Opaque and Extended Link link attribute is advertised in both the TE Opaque and Extended Link
Attribute LSAs in OSPFv2 or the Intra-Area-TE-LSA and E-Router-LSA in Attribute LSAs in OSPFv2 or the Intra-Area-TE-LSA and E-Router-LSA in
OSPFv3. Additionally, there will be additional standardization OSPFv3. Additionally, there will be additional standardization
effort. However, this could also be viewed as an advantage as the effort. However, this could also be viewed as an advantage as the
non-TE use cases for the TE link attributes are documented and non-TE use cases for the TE link attributes are documented and
validated by the LSR working group. validated by the LSR working group.
3.3. Selected Approach
It is RECOMMENDED to use the Extended Link Opaque LSA [RFC7684] and It is RECOMMENDED to use the Extended Link Opaque LSA [RFC7684] and
E-Router-LSA [RFC8362] to advertise any link attributes used for non- E-Router-LSA [RFC8362] to advertise any link attributes used for non-
TE applications in OSPFv2 or OSPFv3 respectively, including those TE applications in OSPFv2 or OSPFv3 respectively, including those
that have been originally defined for TE applications. that have been originally defined for TE applications.
It is also RECOMMENDED that TE link attributes used for RSVP-TE/GMPLS It is also RECOMMENDED that TE link attributes used for RSVP-TE/GMPLS
continue to use OSPFv2 TE Opaque LSA [RFC3630] and OSPFv3 Intra-Area- continue to use OSPFv2 TE Opaque LSA [RFC3630] and OSPFv3 Intra-Area-
TE-LSA [RFC5329]. TE-LSA [RFC5329].
It is also RECOMMENDED to keep the format of the link attribute TLVs The format of the link attribute TLVs that have been defined for TE
that have been defined for TE applications unchanged even when they applications will be kept unchanged even when they are used for non-
are used for non-TE applications. TE applications. Unique code points will be allocated for these TE
link attribute TLVs from the OSPFv2 Extended Link TLV Sub-TLV
Registry [RFC7684] and from the OSPFv3 Extended LSA Sub-TLV Registry
Finally, it is RECOMMENDED to allocate unique code points for these
TE link attribute TLVs in the OSPFv2 Extended Link TLV Sub-TLV
Registry [RFC7684] and in the OSPFv3 Extended LSA Sub-TLV Registry
[RFC8362]. For each reused TLV, the code point will be defined in an [RFC8362]. For each reused TLV, the code point will be defined in an
IETF document along with the expected use-case(s). IETF document along with the expected use-case(s).
4. Reused TE link attributes 3. Advertisement of Application Specific Values
This section defines the use case and code points for the OSPFv2
Extended Link TLV Sub-TLV Registry and OSPFv3 Extended LSA Sub-TLV
Registry for some of the link attributes that have been originally
defined for TE or GMPLS.
Remote interface IP address and Link Local/Remote Identifiers have
been added as sub-TLVs of OSPFv2 Extended Link TLV by [RFC8379].
Link Local/Remote Identifiers are already included in the OSPFv3
Router-Link TLV [RFC8362].
4.1. Shared Risk Link Group (SRLG)
The SRLG of a link can be used in IPFRR to compute a backup path that
does not share any SRLG group with the protected link.
To advertise the SRLG of the link in the OSPFv2 Extended Link TLV,
the same format for the sub-TLV defined in section 1.3 of [RFC4203]
is used and TLV type TBD1 is used. Similarly, for OSPFv3 to
advertise the SRLG in the OSPFv3 Router-Link TLV, TLV type TBD2 is
used.
4.2. Extended Metrics
[RFC3630] defines several link bandwidth types. [RFC7471] defines
extended link metrics that are based on link bandwidth, delay and
loss characteristics. All these can be used to compute best paths
within an OSPF area to satisfy requirements for bandwidth, delay
(nominal or worst case) or loss.
To advertise extended link metrics in the OSPFv2 Extended Link TLV,
the same format for the sub-TLVs defined in [RFC7471] is used with
the following TLV types:
TBD3 - Unidirectional Link Delay
TBD4 - Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay
TBD5 - Unidirectional Delay Variation
TBD6 - Unidirectional Link Loss
TBD7 - Unidirectional Residual Bandwidth
TBD8 - Unidirectional Available Bandwidth
TBD9 - Unidirectional Utilized Bandwidth
To advertise extended link metrics in the OSPFv3 Extended LSA Router-
Link TLV, the same format for the sub-TLVs defined in [RFC7471] is
used with the following TLV types:
TBD10 - Unidirectional Link Delay
TBD11 - Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay
TBD12 - Unidirectional Delay Variation
TBD13 - Unidirectional Link Loss
TBD14 - Unidirectional Residual Bandwidth
TBD15 - Unidirectional Available Bandwidth
TBD16 - Unidirectional Utilized Bandwidth
4.3. Traffic Engineering Metric
[RFC3630] defines Traffic Engineering Metric.
To advertise the Traffic Engineering Metric in the OSPFv2 Extended
Link TLV, the same format for the sub-TLV defined in section 2.5.5 of
[RFC3630] is used and TLV type TBD27 is used. Similarly, for OSPFv3
to advertise the Traffic Engineering Metric in the OSPFv3 Router-Link
TLV, TLV type TBD28 is used.
4.4. Administrative Group
[RFC3630] and [RFC7308] define the Administrative Group and Extended
Administrative Group sub-TLVs respectively.
One use case where advertisement of the Extended Administrative
Group(s) for a link is required is described in
[I-D.ietf-lsr-flex-algo].
To advertise the Administrative Group and Extended Administrative
Group in the OSPFv2 Extended Link TLV, the same format for the sub-
TLVs defined in [RFC3630] and [RFC7308] is used with the following
TLV types:
TBD17 - Administrative Group
TBD18 - Extended Administrative Group
To advertise Administrative Group and Extended Administrative Group
in the OSPFv3 Router-Link TLV, the same format for the sub-TLVs
defined in [RFC3630] and [RFC7308] is used with the following TLV
types:
TBD19 - Administrative Group
TBD20 - Extended Administrative Group
5. Advertisement of Application Specific Values
Multiple applications can utilize link attributes that are advertised
by OSPF. Some examples of applications using the link attributes are
Segment Routing Traffic Engineering and LFA [RFC5286].
In some cases the link attribute MAY have different values for
different applications. An example could be SRLG [Section 4.1],
where values used by LFA could be different then the values used by
Segment Routing Traffic Engineering.
To allow advertisement of the application specific values of the link To allow advertisement of the application specific values of the link
attribute, a new Application Specific Link Attributes (ASLA) sub-TLV attribute, a new Application Specific Link Attributes (ASLA) sub-TLV
is defined. The ASLA sub-TLV is a sub-TLV of the OSPFv2 Extended is defined. The ASLA sub-TLV is a sub-TLV of the OSPFv2 Extended
Link TLV [RFC7471] and OSPFv3 Router-Link TLV [RFC8362]. The ASLA Link TLV [RFC7471] and OSPFv3 Router-Link TLV [RFC8362].
sub-TLV is an optional sub-TLV and can appear multiple times in the
OSPFv2 Extended Link TLV and OSPFv3 Router-Link TLV. It has the The ASLA sub-TLV is an optional sub-TLV and can appear multiple times
following format: in the OSPFv2 Extended Link TLV and OSPFv3 Router-Link TLV. It 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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| SABML | UDABML | Reserved | | SABML | UDABML | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Standard Application Bit-Mask | | Standard Application Bit-Mask |
+- -+ +- -+
skipping to change at page 9, line 34 skipping to change at page 5, line 40
| User Defined Application Bit-Mask | | User Defined Application Bit-Mask |
+- -+ +- -+
| ... | | ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Link Attribute sub-sub-TLVs | | Link Attribute sub-sub-TLVs |
+- -+ +- -+
| ... | | ... |
where: where:
Type: TBD21 (OSPFv2), TBD22 (OSPFv3) Type: 10 (OSPFv2), TBD1 (OSPFv3)
Length: variable Length: variable
SABML: Standard Application Bit-Mask Length. It MUST be a SABML: Standard Application Bit-Mask Length. It MUST be a
multiple of 4 bytes. If the Standard Application Bit-Mask is not multiple of 4 bytes. If the Standard Application Bit-Mask is not
present, the Standard Application Bit-Mask Length MUST be set to present, the Standard Application Bit-Mask Length MUST be set to
0. 0.
UDABML: User Defined Application Bit-Mask Length. It MUST be a UDABML: User Defined Application Bit-Mask Length. It MUST be a
multiple of 4 bytes. If the User Defined Application Bit-Mask is multiple of 4 bytes. If the User Defined Application Bit-Mask is
skipping to change at page 11, line 44 skipping to change at page 8, line 5
- Unidirectional Available Bandwidth - Unidirectional Available Bandwidth
- Unidirectional Utilized Bandwidth - Unidirectional Utilized Bandwidth
- Administrative Group - Administrative Group
- Extended Administrative Group - Extended Administrative Group
- Traffic Engineering Metric - Traffic Engineering Metric
6. Maximum Link Bandwidth 4. Reused TE link attributes
This section defines the use case and code points from the OSPFv2
Extended Link TLV Sub-TLV Registry and OSPFv3 Extended LSA Sub-TLV
Registry for some of the link attributes that have been originally
defined for TE or GMPLS.
4.1. Shared Risk Link Group (SRLG)
The SRLG of a link can be used in OSPF calculated IPFRR [RFC5714] to
compute a backup path that does not share any SRLG group with the
protected link.
To advertise the SRLG of the link in the OSPFv2 Extended Link TLV,
the same format for the sub-TLV defined in section 1.3 of [RFC4203]
is used and TLV type 11 is used. Similarly, for OSPFv3 to advertise
the SRLG in the OSPFv3 Router-Link TLV, TLV type TBD2 is used.
4.2. Extended Metrics
[RFC3630] defines several link bandwidth types. [RFC7471] defines
extended link metrics that are based on link bandwidth, delay and
loss characteristics. All these can be used to compute primary and
backup paths within an OSPF area to satisfy requirements for
bandwidth, delay (nominal or worst case) or loss.
To advertise extended link metrics in the OSPFv2 Extended Link TLV,
the same format for the sub-TLVs defined in [RFC7471] is used with
the following TLV types:
12 - Unidirectional Link Delay
13 - Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay
14 - Unidirectional Delay Variation
15 - Unidirectional Link Loss
16 - Unidirectional Residual Bandwidth
17 - Unidirectional Available Bandwidth
18 - Unidirectional Utilized Bandwidth
To advertise extended link metrics in the OSPFv3 Extended LSA Router-
Link TLV, the same format for the sub-TLVs defined in [RFC7471] is
used with the following TLV types:
TBD3 - Unidirectional Link Delay
TBD4 - Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay
TBD5 - Unidirectional Delay Variation
TBD6 - Unidirectional Link Loss
TBD7 - Unidirectional Residual Bandwidth
TBD8 - Unidirectional Available Bandwidth
TBD9 - Unidirectional Utilized Bandwidth
4.3. Administrative Group
[RFC3630] and [RFC7308] define the Administrative Group and Extended
Administrative Group sub-TLVs respectively.
One use case where advertisement of the Extended Administrative
Group(s) for a link is required is described in
[I-D.ietf-lsr-flex-algo].
To advertise the Administrative Group and Extended Administrative
Group in the OSPFv2 Extended Link TLV, the same format for the sub-
TLVs defined in [RFC3630] and [RFC7308] is used with the following
TLV types:
19 - Administrative Group
20 - Extended Administrative Group
To advertise Administrative Group and Extended Administrative Group
in the OSPFv3 Router-Link TLV, the same format for the sub-TLVs
defined in [RFC3630] and [RFC7308] is used with the following TLV
types:
TBD10 - Administrative Group
TBD11 - Extended Administrative Group
4.4. Traffic Engineering Metric
[RFC3630] defines Traffic Engineering Metric.
To advertise the Traffic Engineering Metric in the OSPFv2 Extended
Link TLV, the same format for the sub-TLV defined in section 2.5.5 of
[RFC3630] is used and TLV type TBD12 is used. Similarly, for OSPFv3
to advertise the Traffic Engineering Metric in the OSPFv3 Router-Link
TLV, TLV type TBD13 is used.
5. Maximum Link Bandwidth
Maximum link bandwidth is an application independent attribute of the Maximum link bandwidth is an application independent attribute of the
link that is defined in [RFC3630]. Because it is an application link that is defined in [RFC3630]. Because it is an application
independent attribute, it MUST NOT be advertised in ASLA sub-TLV. independent attribute, it MUST NOT be advertised in ASLA sub-TLV.
Instead, it MAY be advertised as a sub-TLV of the Extended Link Instead, it MAY be advertised as a sub-TLV of the Extended Link
Opaque LSA Extended Link TLV in OSPFv2 [RFC7684] or sub-TLV of OSPFv3 Opaque LSA Extended Link TLV in OSPFv2 [RFC7684] or sub-TLV of OSPFv3
E-Router-LSA Router-Link TLV in OSPFv3 [RFC8362]. E-Router-LSA Router-Link TLV in OSPFv3 [RFC8362].
To advertise the Maximum link bandwidth in the OSPFv2 Extended Link To advertise the Maximum link bandwidth in the OSPFv2 Extended Link
TLV, the same format for sub-TLV defined in [RFC3630] is used with TLV, the same format for sub-TLV defined in [RFC3630] is used with
TLV type TBD23. TLV type TBD14.
To advertise the Maximum link bandwidth in the OSPFv3 Router-Link To advertise the Maximum link bandwidth in the OSPFv3 Router-Link
TLV, the same format for sub-TLV defined in [RFC3630] is used with TLV, the same format for sub-TLV defined in [RFC3630] is used with
TLV type TBD24. TLV type TBD15.
7. Local Interface IPv6 Address Sub-TLV 6. Local Interface IPv6 Address Sub-TLV
The Local Interface IPv6 Address Sub-TLV is an application The Local Interface IPv6 Address Sub-TLV is an application
independent attribute of the link that is defined in [RFC5329]. independent attribute of the link that is defined in [RFC5329].
Because it is an application independent attribute, it MUST NOT be Because it is an application independent attribute, it MUST NOT be
advertised in the ASLA sub-TLV. Instead, it MAY be advertised as a advertised in the ASLA sub-TLV. Instead, it MAY be advertised as a
sub-TLV of the OSPFv3 E-Router-LSA Router-Link TLV [RFC8362]. sub-TLV of the OSPFv3 E-Router-LSA Router-Link TLV [RFC8362].
To advertise the Local Interface IPv6 Address Sub-TLV in the OSPFv3 To advertise the Local Interface IPv6 Address Sub-TLV in the OSPFv3
Router-Link TLV, the same format for sub-TLV defined in [RFC5329] is Router-Link TLV, the same format for sub-TLV defined in [RFC5329] is
used with TLV type TBD25. used with TLV type TBD16.
8. Remote Interface IPv6 Address Sub-TLV 7. Remote Interface IPv6 Address Sub-TLV
The Remote Interface IPv6 Address Sub-TLV is an application The Remote Interface IPv6 Address Sub-TLV is an application
independent attribute of the link that is defined in [RFC5329]. independent attribute of the link that is defined in [RFC5329].
Because it is an application independent attribute, it MUST NOT be Because it is an application independent attribute, it MUST NOT be
advertised in the ASLA sub-TLV. Instead, it MAY be advertised as a advertised in the ASLA sub-TLV. Instead, it MAY be advertised as a
sub-TLV of the OSPFv3 E-Router-LSA Router-Link TLV [RFC8362]. sub-TLV of the OSPFv3 E-Router-LSA Router-Link TLV [RFC8362].
To advertise the Remote Interface IPv6 Address Sub-TLV in the OSPFv3 To advertise the Remote Interface IPv6 Address Sub-TLV in the OSPFv3
Router-Link TLV, the same format for sub-TLV defined in [RFC5329] is Router-Link TLV, the same format for sub-TLV defined in [RFC5329] is
used with TLV type TBD26. used with TLV type TBD17.
9. Deployment Considerations 8. Deployment Considerations
If link attributes are advertised associated with zero length If link attributes are advertised associated with zero length
application bit masks for both standard applications and user defined application bit masks for both standard applications and user defined
applications, then that set of link attributes MAY be used by any applications, then that set of link attributes MAY be used by any
application. If support for a new application is introduced on any application. If support for a new application is introduced on any
node in a network in the presence of such advertisements, these node in a network in the presence of such advertisements, these
advertisements MAY be used by the new application. If this is not advertisements MAY be used by the new application. If this is not
what is intended, then existing advertisements MUST be readvertised what is intended, then existing advertisements MUST be readvertised
with an explicit set of applications specified before a new with an explicit set of applications specified before a new
application is introduced. application is introduced.
10. Attribute Advertisements and Enablement 9. Attribute Advertisements and Enablement
This document defines extensions to support the advertisement of This document defines extensions to support the advertisement of
application specific link attributes. application specific link attributes.
Whether the presence of link attribute advertisements for a given Whether the presence of link attribute advertisements for a given
application indicates that the application is enabled on that link application indicates that the application is enabled on that link
depends upon the application. Similarly, whether the absence of link depends upon the application. Similarly, whether the absence of link
attribute advertisements indicates that the application is not attribute advertisements indicates that the application is not
enabled depends upon the application. enabled depends upon the application.
skipping to change at page 13, line 45 skipping to change at page 12, line 8
[I-D.ietf-lsr-flex-algo]. [I-D.ietf-lsr-flex-algo].
If, in the future, additional standard applications are defined to If, in the future, additional standard applications are defined to
use this mechanism, the specification defining this use MUST define use this mechanism, the specification defining this use MUST define
the relationship between application specific link attribute the relationship between application specific link attribute
advertisements and enablement for that application. advertisements and enablement for that application.
This document allows the advertisement of application specific link This document allows the advertisement of application specific link
attributes with no application identifiers i.e., both the Standard attributes with no application identifiers i.e., both the Standard
Application Bit Mask and the User Defined Application Bit Mask are Application Bit Mask and the User Defined Application Bit Mask are
not present Section 5. This supports the use of the link attribute not present (See Section 3). This supports the use of the link
by any application. In the presence of an application where the attribute by any application. In the presence of an application
advertisement of link attribute advertisements is used to infer the where the advertisement of link attribute advertisements is used to
enablement of an application on that link (e.g., RSVP-TE), the infer the enablement of an application on that link (e.g., RSVP-TE),
absence of the application identifier leaves ambiguous whether that the absence of the application identifier leaves ambiguous whether
application is enabled on such a link. This needs to be considered that application is enabled on such a link. This needs to be
when making use of the "any application" encoding. considered when making use of the "any application" encoding.
11. Backward Compatibility 10. Backward Compatibility
Link attributes may be concurrently advertised in both the TE Opaque Link attributes may be concurrently advertised in both the TE Opaque
LSA and the Extended Link Opaque LSA in OSPFv2 and the OSPFv3 Intra- LSA and the Extended Link Opaque LSA in OSPFv2 and the OSPFv3 Intra-
Area-TE-LSA and OSPFv3 Extended LSA Router-Link TLV in OSPFv3. Area-TE-LSA and OSPFv3 Extended LSA Router-Link TLV in OSPFv3.
In fact, there is at least one OSPF implementation that utilizes the In fact, there is at least one OSPF implementation that utilizes the
link attributes advertised in TE Opaque LSAs [RFC3630] for Non-RSVP link attributes advertised in TE Opaque LSAs [RFC3630] for Non-RSVP
TE applications. For example, this implementation of LFA and remote TE applications. For example, this implementation of LFA and remote
LFA utilizes links attributes such as Shared Risk Link Groups (SRLG) LFA utilizes links attributes such as Shared Risk Link Groups (SRLG)
[RFC4203] and Admin Group [[RFC3630] advertised in TE Opaque LSAs. [RFC4203] and Admin Group [[RFC3630] advertised in TE Opaque LSAs.
skipping to change at page 14, line 31 skipping to change at page 12, line 42
Non-RSVP TE applications such as LFA, OSPF routers in that domain Non-RSVP TE applications such as LFA, OSPF routers in that domain
SHOULD continue to advertise such OSPFv2 TE Opaque LSAs or the OSPFv3 SHOULD continue to advertise such OSPFv2 TE Opaque LSAs or the OSPFv3
Intra-Area-TE-LSA. If there are also OSPF routers using the link Intra-Area-TE-LSA. If there are also OSPF routers using the link
attributes described herein for any other application, OSPF routers attributes described herein for any other application, OSPF routers
in the routing domain will also need to advertise these attributes in in the routing domain will also need to advertise these attributes in
OSPFv2 Extended Link Attributes LSAs or OSPFv3 E-Router-LSA. In such OSPFv2 Extended Link Attributes LSAs or OSPFv3 E-Router-LSA. In such
a deployment, the advertised attributes SHOULD be the same and Non- a deployment, the advertised attributes SHOULD be the same and Non-
RSVP application access to link attributes is a matter of local RSVP application access to link attributes is a matter of local
policy. policy.
12. Security Considerations 11. Security Considerations
Implementations must assure that malformed TLV and Sub-TLV Existing security extensions as described in [RFC2328], [RFC5340] and
permutations do not result in errors that cause hard OSPF failures. [RFC8362] apply to extensions defined in this document. While OSPF
is under a single administrative domain, there can be deployments
where potential attackers have access to one or more networks in the
OSPF routing domain. In these deployments, stronger authentication
mechanisms such as those specified in [RFC5709], [RFC7474], [RFC4552]
or [RFC7166] SHOULD be used.
13. IANA Considerations Implementations MUST assure that malformed TLV and Sub-TLV defined in
this document are detected and do not provide a vulnerability for
attackers to crash the OSPF router or routing process. Reception of
a malformed TLV or Sub-TLV SHOULD be counted and/or logged for
further analysis. Logging of malformed TLVs and Sub-TLVs SHOULD be
rate-limited to prevent a Denial of Service (DoS) attack (distributed
or otherwise) from overloading the OSPF control plane.
13.1. OSPFv2 12. IANA Considerations
12.1. OSPFv2
OSPFv2 Extended Link TLV Sub-TLVs registry [RFC7684] defines sub-TLVs OSPFv2 Extended Link TLV Sub-TLVs registry [RFC7684] defines sub-TLVs
at any level of nesting for OSPFv2 Extended Link TLVs. This at any level of nesting for OSPFv2 Extended Link TLVs. This
specification updates OSPFv2 Extended Link TLV sub-TLVs registry with specification updates OSPFv2 Extended Link TLV sub-TLVs registry with
the following TLV types: the following TLV types:
TBD21 (10 Recommended) - Application Specific Link Attributes 10 - Application Specific Link Attributes
TBD1 (11 Recommended) - Shared Risk Link Group 11 - Shared Risk Link Group
TBD3 (12 Recommended) - Unidirectional Link Delay 12 - Unidirectional Link Delay
TBD4 (13 Recommended) - Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay 13 - Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay
TBD5 (14 Recommended) - Unidirectional Delay Variation
TBD6 (15 Recommended) - Unidirectional Link Loss 14 - Unidirectional Delay Variation
TBD7 (16 Recommended) - Unidirectional Residual Bandwidth 15 - Unidirectional Link Loss
TBD8 (17 Recommended) - Unidirectional Available Bandwidth 16 - Unidirectional Residual Bandwidth
TBD9 (18 Recommended) - Unidirectional Utilized Bandwidth 17 - Unidirectional Available Bandwidth
TBD9 (19 Recommended) - Administrative Group 18 - Unidirectional Utilized Bandwidth
TBD17 (20 Recommended) - Extended Administrative Group 19 - Administrative Group
TBD23 (21 Recommended) - Maximum Link Bandwidth 20 - Extended Administrative Group
TBD27 (22 Recommended) - Traffic Engineering Metric TBD12 (22 Recommended) - Traffic Engineering Metric
13.2. OSPFv3 TBD14 (21 Recommended) - Maximum Link Bandwidth
12.2. OSPFv3
OSPFv3 Extended LSA Sub-TLV Registry [RFC8362] defines sub-TLVs at OSPFv3 Extended LSA Sub-TLV Registry [RFC8362] defines sub-TLVs at
any level of nesting for OSPFv3 Extended LSAs. This specification any level of nesting for OSPFv3 Extended LSAs. This specification
updates OSPFv3 Extended LSA Sub-TLV Registry with the following TLV updates OSPFv3 Extended LSA Sub-TLV Registry with the following TLV
types: types:
TBD22 (9 Recommended) - Application Specific Link Attributes TBD1 (10 Recommended) - Application Specific Link Attributes
TBD2 (10 Recommended) - Shared Risk Link Group TBD2 (11 Recommended) - Shared Risk Link Group
TBD10 (11 Recommended) - Unidirectional Link Delay TBD3 (12 Recommended) - Unidirectional Link Delay
TBD11 (12 Recommended) - Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay TBD4 (13 Recommended) - Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay
TBD12 (13 Recommended) - Unidirectional Delay Variation TBD5 (14 Recommended) - Unidirectional Delay Variation
TBD13 (14 Recommended) - Unidirectional Link Loss TBD6 (15 Recommended) - Unidirectional Link Loss
TBD14 (15 Recommended) - Unidirectional Residual Bandwidth TBD7 (16 Recommended) - Unidirectional Residual Bandwidth
TBD15 (16 Recommended) - Unidirectional Available Bandwidth TBD8 (17 Recommended) - Unidirectional Available Bandwidth
TBD16 (17 Recommended) - Unidirectional Utilized Bandwidth TBD9 (18 Recommended) - Unidirectional Utilized Bandwidth
TBD19 (18 Recommended) - Administrative Group TBD10 (19 Recommended) - Administrative Group
TBD20 (19 Recommended) - Extended Administrative Group TBD11 (20 Recommended) - Extended Administrative Group
TBD24 (20 Recommended) - Maximum Link Bandwidth TBD13 (21 Recommended) - Traffic Engineering Metric
TBD25 (21 Recommended) - Local Interface IPv6 Address Sub-TLV
TBD26 (22 Recommended) - Local Interface IPv6 Address Sub-TLV TBD15 (22 Recommended) - Maximum Link Bandwidth
TBD28 (23 Recommended) - Traffic Engineering Metric TBD16 (23 Recommended) - Local Interface IPv6 Address Sub-TLV
TBD17 (24 Recommended) - Local Interface IPv6 Address Sub-TLV
13. Contributors
The following people contributed to the content of this document and
should be considered as co-authors:
Acee Lindem
Cisco Systems
301 Midenhall Way
Cary, NC 27513
USA
Email: acee@cisco.com
Ketan Talaulikar
Cisco Systems, Inc.
India
Email: ketant@cisco.com
Hannes Gredler
RtBrick Inc.
Austria
Email: hannes@rtbrick.com
14. Acknowledgments 14. Acknowledgments
Thanks to Chris Bowers for his review and comments. Thanks to Chris Bowers for his review and comments.
15. References 15. References
15.1. Normative References 15.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
skipping to change at page 16, line 37 skipping to change at page 16, line 5
[RFC5329] Ishiguro, K., Manral, V., Davey, A., and A. Lindem, Ed., [RFC5329] Ishiguro, K., Manral, V., Davey, A., and A. Lindem, Ed.,
"Traffic Engineering Extensions to OSPF Version 3", "Traffic Engineering Extensions to OSPF Version 3",
RFC 5329, DOI 10.17487/RFC5329, September 2008, RFC 5329, DOI 10.17487/RFC5329, September 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5329>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5329>.
[RFC5340] Coltun, R., Ferguson, D., Moy, J., and A. Lindem, "OSPF [RFC5340] Coltun, R., Ferguson, D., Moy, J., and A. Lindem, "OSPF
for IPv6", RFC 5340, DOI 10.17487/RFC5340, July 2008, for IPv6", RFC 5340, DOI 10.17487/RFC5340, July 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5340>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5340>.
[RFC5714] Shand, M. and S. Bryant, "IP Fast Reroute Framework",
RFC 5714, DOI 10.17487/RFC5714, January 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5714>.
[RFC7308] Osborne, E., "Extended Administrative Groups in MPLS [RFC7308] Osborne, E., "Extended Administrative Groups in MPLS
Traffic Engineering (MPLS-TE)", RFC 7308, Traffic Engineering (MPLS-TE)", RFC 7308,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7308, July 2014, DOI 10.17487/RFC7308, July 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7308>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7308>.
[RFC7684] Psenak, P., Gredler, H., Shakir, R., Henderickx, W., [RFC7684] Psenak, P., Gredler, H., Shakir, R., Henderickx, W.,
Tantsura, J., and A. Lindem, "OSPFv2 Prefix/Link Attribute Tantsura, J., and A. Lindem, "OSPFv2 Prefix/Link Attribute
Advertisement", RFC 7684, DOI 10.17487/RFC7684, November Advertisement", RFC 7684, DOI 10.17487/RFC7684, November
2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7684>. 2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7684>.
[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>.
15.2. Informative References 15.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-idr-ls-distribution]
Gredler, H., Medved, J., Previdi, S., Farrel, A., and S.
Ray, "North-Bound Distribution of Link-State and TE
Information using BGP", draft-ietf-idr-ls-distribution-13
(work in progress), October 2015.
[I-D.ietf-isis-te-app] [I-D.ietf-isis-te-app]
Ginsberg, L., Psenak, P., Previdi, S., Henderickx, W., and Ginsberg, L., Psenak, P., Previdi, S., Henderickx, W., and
J. Drake, "IS-IS TE Attributes per application", draft- J. Drake, "IS-IS TE Attributes per application", draft-
ietf-isis-te-app-05 (work in progress), October 2018. ietf-isis-te-app-06 (work in progress), April 2019.
[I-D.ietf-lsr-flex-algo] [I-D.ietf-lsr-flex-algo]
Psenak, P., Hegde, S., Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., and Psenak, P., Hegde, S., Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., and
A. Gulko, "IGP Flexible Algorithm", draft-ietf-lsr-flex- A. Gulko, "IGP Flexible Algorithm", draft-ietf-lsr-flex-
algo-00 (work in progress), May 2018. algo-01 (work in progress), November 2018.
[I-D.ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions]
Psenak, P., Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Gredler, H.,
Shakir, R., Henderickx, W., and J. Tantsura, "OSPF
Extensions for Segment Routing", draft-ietf-ospf-segment-
routing-extensions-25 (work in progress), April 2018.
[RFC2328] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328, [RFC2328] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2328, April 1998, DOI 10.17487/RFC2328, April 1998,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2328>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2328>.
[RFC4203] Kompella, K., Ed. and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "OSPF Extensions in [RFC4203] Kompella, K., Ed. and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "OSPF Extensions in
Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS)", RFC 4203, DOI 10.17487/RFC4203, October 2005, (GMPLS)", RFC 4203, DOI 10.17487/RFC4203, October 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4203>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4203>.
[RFC4552] Gupta, M. and N. Melam, "Authentication/Confidentiality
for OSPFv3", RFC 4552, DOI 10.17487/RFC4552, June 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4552>.
[RFC5286] Atlas, A., Ed. and A. Zinin, Ed., "Basic Specification for [RFC5286] Atlas, A., Ed. and A. Zinin, Ed., "Basic Specification for
IP Fast Reroute: Loop-Free Alternates", RFC 5286, IP Fast Reroute: Loop-Free Alternates", RFC 5286,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5286, September 2008, DOI 10.17487/RFC5286, September 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5286>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5286>.
[RFC5709] Bhatia, M., Manral, V., Fanto, M., White, R., Barnes, M.,
Li, T., and R. Atkinson, "OSPFv2 HMAC-SHA Cryptographic
Authentication", RFC 5709, DOI 10.17487/RFC5709, October
2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5709>.
[RFC5714] Shand, M. and S. Bryant, "IP Fast Reroute Framework",
RFC 5714, DOI 10.17487/RFC5714, January 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5714>.
[RFC7166] Bhatia, M., Manral, V., and A. Lindem, "Supporting
Authentication Trailer for OSPFv3", RFC 7166,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7166, March 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7166>.
[RFC7471] Giacalone, S., Ward, D., Drake, J., Atlas, A., and S. [RFC7471] Giacalone, S., Ward, D., Drake, J., Atlas, A., and S.
Previdi, "OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Previdi, "OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric
Extensions", RFC 7471, DOI 10.17487/RFC7471, March 2015, Extensions", RFC 7471, DOI 10.17487/RFC7471, March 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7471>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7471>.
[RFC7474] Bhatia, M., Hartman, S., Zhang, D., and A. Lindem, Ed.,
"Security Extension for OSPFv2 When Using Manual Key
Management", RFC 7474, DOI 10.17487/RFC7474, April 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7474>.
[RFC7490] Bryant, S., Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Shand, M., and N. [RFC7490] Bryant, S., Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Shand, M., and N.
So, "Remote Loop-Free Alternate (LFA) Fast Reroute (FRR)", So, "Remote Loop-Free Alternate (LFA) Fast Reroute (FRR)",
RFC 7490, DOI 10.17487/RFC7490, April 2015, RFC 7490, DOI 10.17487/RFC7490, April 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7490>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7490>.
[RFC7855] Previdi, S., Ed., Filsfils, C., Ed., Decraene, B., [RFC7855] Previdi, S., Ed., Filsfils, C., Ed., Decraene, B.,
Litkowski, S., Horneffer, M., and R. Shakir, "Source Litkowski, S., Horneffer, M., and R. Shakir, "Source
Packet Routing in Networking (SPRING) Problem Statement Packet Routing in Networking (SPRING) Problem Statement
and Requirements", RFC 7855, DOI 10.17487/RFC7855, May and Requirements", RFC 7855, DOI 10.17487/RFC7855, May
2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7855>. 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7855>.
skipping to change at page 18, line 26 skipping to change at page 18, line 5
[RFC7916] Litkowski, S., Ed., Decraene, B., Filsfils, C., Raza, K., [RFC7916] Litkowski, S., Ed., Decraene, B., Filsfils, C., Raza, K.,
Horneffer, M., and P. Sarkar, "Operational Management of Horneffer, M., and P. Sarkar, "Operational Management of
Loop-Free Alternates", RFC 7916, DOI 10.17487/RFC7916, Loop-Free Alternates", RFC 7916, DOI 10.17487/RFC7916,
July 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7916>. July 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7916>.
[RFC8102] Sarkar, P., Ed., Hegde, S., Bowers, C., Gredler, H., and [RFC8102] Sarkar, P., Ed., Hegde, S., Bowers, C., Gredler, H., and
S. Litkowski, "Remote-LFA Node Protection and S. Litkowski, "Remote-LFA Node Protection and
Manageability", RFC 8102, DOI 10.17487/RFC8102, March Manageability", RFC 8102, DOI 10.17487/RFC8102, March
2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8102>. 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8102>.
[RFC8379] Hegde, S., Sarkar, P., Gredler, H., Nanduri, M., and L.
Jalil, "OSPF Graceful Link Shutdown", RFC 8379,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8379, May 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8379>.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Peter Psenak (editor) Peter Psenak (editor)
Cisco Systems, Inc. Cisco Systems
Eurovea Centre, Central 3 Eurovea Centre, Central 3
Pribinova Street 10 Pribinova Street 10
Bratislava 81109 Bratislava 81109
Slovakia Slovakia
Email: ppsenak@cisco.com Email: ppsenak@cisco.com
Acee Lindem
Cisco Systems
301 Midenhall Way
Cary, NC 27513
USA
Email: acee@cisco.com
Les Ginsberg Les Ginsberg
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
821 Alder Drive 821 Alder Drive
MILPITAS, CA 95035 MILPITAS, CA 95035
USA USA
Email: ginsberg@cisco.com Email: ginsberg@cisco.com
Wim Henderickx Wim Henderickx
Nokia Nokia
Copernicuslaan 50 Copernicuslaan 50
Antwerp, 2018 94089 Antwerp, 2018 94089
Belgium Belgium
Email: wim.henderickx@nokia.com Email: wim.henderickx@nokia.com
Jeff Tantsura Jeff Tantsura
Nuage Networks Apstra
US US
Email: jefftant.ietf@gmail.com Email: jefftant.ietf@gmail.com
Hannes Gredler
RtBrick Inc.
Email: hannes@rtbrick.com
John Drake John Drake
Juniper Networks Juniper Networks
1194 N. Mathilda Ave
Sunnyvale, California 94089
USA
Email: jdrake@juniper.net Email: jdrake@juniper.net
 End of changes. 76 change blocks. 
331 lines changed or deleted 284 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/