Last Modified: 2005-05-20
|Done||Gather operational experience with the OSPF protocol and submit the document as an Informational RFC.|
|Done||Develop multiple implementations, and test against each other.|
|Done||Design the routing protocol, and write its specification.|
|Done||Obtain performance data for the protocol.|
|Done||Make changes to the specification (if necessary) and publish the protocol as a Draft Standard RFC.|
|Done||Submit OSPF for IPv6 to IESG for consideration as a Standard.|
|Done||Update the OSPF NSSA option specified in RFC 1587 and submit to IESG for consideration as a Proposed Standard|
|Done||Develop Traffic Engineering extensions for OSPFv2 and submit it to the IESG as a Proposed Standard|
|Done||Submit to IESG a document which updates RFC 1793 allowing detection of demand circuit neighbors whose OSPF process has exited.|
|Done||Submit to IESG a BCP advocating that OSPF LSA refreshes be spread out over time|
|Done||Develop a hitless restart mechanism for OSPF and submit it to the IESG as a Proposed Standard.|
|Done||Document Alternative ABR implementations and submit ti IESG as an Informational RFC|
|Nov 03||Develop OSPF for IPv6 MIB and submit to IESG for consideration as a Proposed Standard.|
|Nov 03||Extend the hitless restart mechanism to OSPFv3 and submit it to the IESG as a Proposed Standard|
|Nov 03||Develop Traffic Engineering extensions for OSPFv3 and submit it to the IESG as a Proposed Standard.|
|Nov 03||Submit to IESG a BCP advocating that OSPF Hellos be given preference over other OSPF control traffic.|
|Nov 03||Update OSPFv2 MIB and submit to IESG as a Standard, replacing RFC 1850|
|Nov 03||Specify IPSEC usage with OSPFv3 and submit to IESG for consideration as a Proposed Standard|
|RFC1245||I||OSPF Protocol Analysis|
|RFC1246||I||Experience with the OSPF Protocol|
|RFC1247||DS||OSPF Version 2|
|RFC1248||PS||OSPF Version 2 Management Information Base|
|RFC1252||PS||OSPF Version 2 Management Information Base|
|RFC1253||PS||OSPF Version 2 Management Information Base|
|RFC1583||DS||OSPF Version 2|
|RFC1586||I||Guidelines for Running OSPF Over Frame Relay Networks|
|RFC1587||PS||The OSPF NSSA Option|
|RFC1765||E||OSPF Database Overflow|
|RFC1793||PS||Extending OSPF to Support Demand Circuits|
|RFC1850||DS||OSPF Version 2 Management Information Base|
|RFC2096||PS||IP Forwarding Table MIB|
|RFC2178||DS||OSPF Version 2|
|RFC2328||Standard||OSPF Version 2|
|RFC2329||I||OSPF Standardization Report|
|RFC2370||PS||The OSPF Opaque LSA Option|
|RFC2740||PS||OSPF for IPv6|
|RFC2844||E||OSPF over ATM and Proxy PAR|
|RFC3101||PS||The OSPF Not-So-Stubby Area (NSSA) Option|
|RFC3137||I||OSPF Stub Router Advertisement|
|RFC3509||I||Alternative Implementations of OSPF Area Border Routers|
|RFC3623||Standard||Graceful OSPF Restart|
|RFC3630||PS||Traffic Engineering (TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2|
|RFC3883||Standard||Detecting Inactive Neighbors over OSPF Demand Circuits|
Open Shortest Path First WG (ospf) - Scribe: Dimitri Papadimitriou
Wednesday, August 3 at 1030-1230
CHAIRS: Rohit Dubeo) Document status (Acee)
Progress achieved since Minneapolis meeting (IETF 62)
Draft on the table
Acee: This function exists and people do it for years but is there much of a rush to make it a separate document ?
Acee: The base spec is implemented for years
Alex: Check for having informational reference
o) OSPFv3 Update 10 minutes draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-update-04.txt AceeSummary:
Acee: yes, 2 messages but no responses; I think the original intention was an attempt to limit size of the DB but it does not work but as dependent on the topology
Alex: Problem with the fwd'ing address ?
Alex: There was a problem when mapping the fwd'ding address to the ext-hop address (link-local)
Acee: Not using link-local address as a fwd'ding address; The problem has been fixed by not advertising the fwd'ing address except for NSSAs; The reason for doing this is that we do not do anything like that in OSPFv2
Alex: This is not what I mean: when an ASBR advertises an AS-external-LSA with as fwd'ing address the (global) address of a router connected to this ASBR, the calculating router will have to map this address to a link-local address
Acee: Which is not advertised
Alex: Indeed, but in IPv6, the next-hop must be link-local and you may not have a routing entry to perform this resolution
Acee: I do understand the problem but I did not fix it, for NSSA you must have a fwd'ing address
Alex: Will continue the discussion on the list
o Extensions to OSPFv2 for Advertising Optional 15 minutes Route/Link Attribute - draft-miratorabl-ospf-tag-00.txt Sina MirtorabiPurpose
Inter-Area/External Route Attribute TLV (RA-TLV) (TLV Type 2/3/4)
Definitions of sub-TLV
Ask for WG I-D ... consideration as WG I-D ?
Acee: Will send a pointer to the list
Acee: The encoding as sub-TLV for the topology is to find rapidly information and this the first case of nested sub-TLV but would be introduced incrementally; Also, the document suggests a partition of the LSA ID field (Attr LS Type + ID)
Alex: In this new LSA, is the announced information part of the (original) router LSA ?
Sina: Yes you are making a reference to this LSA
Alex: So no substitution to the existing type ?
Sina: No... but we could - this is why there is no metric field we do not do that for the time being and just do this for the existing LSA
Alex: We already have the TE LSA for some equivalent purposes
Sina: Usage of this LSA is to associate one of more attributes to routes
Alex: What kind of information do you envision as associated to routes ?
Sina: TAGs can be associated to routing information for filtering e.g. for fast convergence or situation where you want to carry BGP community information; Also in some situations when using IGP and there is a need to carry BGP attributes transparently
Alex: This is similar to the IS-IS discussion ... referring to the VPN attribute information better define a specific attribute for doing this
Sina: Here any attribute can be associated to the TAGs
Acee: TAGs are used for different purposes and this goes already like this today; it is difficult to get advertisement for TAGs
Alex: TAGs are needed (not questioning the reason for TAGs) but if you have a mechanism to automatically do something you want not necessarily to expose this to the operation
Acee: Here looking for more flexibility... TLVs do not overload the protocols - People overload protocols.
Sina: Carry standard TAGs for NSSAs but they carry single TAG and not multiple so would like to be able to carry more than one tag anyway
o) OSPFv3 Graceful Restart - 10 minutes draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-graceful-restart-01.txt Padma Pillay-Esnault
Padma: questions ?
?: Grace LSA would not require usage of the interface ID
Padma: There are other LSAs that use the interface ID e.g. TE specific LSA
Acee: The network LSA uses the interface ID as the LSID.
Editors note: As does the link LSA.
o) OSPF MANET Design Team Update and Next Steps 20-30 minutes Tom Henderson (Acee presenting)Evaluation of proposal for using OSPF for IGP in MANET experimental protocol and field trial
Both drafts focus on selecting more efficient relay node sets RNS for flooding
Differences between drafts:
Review of draft-ogier*
Design team evaluation software
Acee: evaluate the two designs so it would be interesting to look at this Boeing code and I am going to look at it.
Acee: any comments ?
o) MT Routing Fwd'ing considerations (Alex Zinin)
In both ISIS MT and OSPF MT, cases with multiple AF on same interface. In general MT requires separate FIBs and need to map incoming packets to MT/FIBs. Implementations have different demux'ing options such as DSCP or arb. IP field (policy-based) but there is no method which is mandatory so interoperability issue
Method works but:
Would like to encourage discussions and drafts
Tony Li: seems to be unnecessary ... market will do it
Alex: which market ?
Tony: the market determines interoperability
Alex: so ... is interoperability not necessary in your view ?
Tony: Specify how implementations interoperate is not necessary since the market is going to drive what you are going to implement so you may end with something relevant so no need or irrelevant
Dave Ward: Nothing to be standardized at the data plane level however something informational around the mapping for topology that would otherwise not form adjacencies - but nothing to standardize at the data plane level as explain usage of DSCP code-points would fall into the problem of standardizing code-points - the best-case scenario: have the flexibility to mark the packets and how operators want to use his
Acee: I think the usefulness is going to be difficult - we end up with nice names but impossible to have the ISP to implement what we documented here - so it may potentially generate a lot of work without necessarily standardizing the actual usagex
Alex: Would that not be useful ?
Acee: I share on Dave's views - some level of information document but this may not be complete
Chris Hopps: Agree - Tony has a really good point - the interoperability is going to be determined by the providers and the market(ing) is going to drive the different behavior in terms of forwarding
Dave: we are discussing intra-domain (?)
Alex: Inter-domain single carrier case is also part of this ... there was a requirement for doing this from the operator side to the vendors
Tony: At the IETF, we generally standardize the protocols on the wire not their implementation
Alex: So we agree that we disagree
Tony: You require a configuration option
Alex: This is not resulting from a configuration option - here just mappings - anything that is specific in a protocol can potentially be part of the specification but this is not a protocol specification
Tony: protocol specification is about protocol on the wire; take a look at the history of the IETF documents e.g. configuration of stub areas
Alex: This is not a good analogy here we are speaking about the consistent forwarding behavior
Tony: we do not have documents that are specifying forwarding behavior
Alex: you have to be capable to forward on the longest prefix match
Tony: this is purely a per-system operation
Chris: is this not an operator issue ? ... so, it is not up to the spec to fix bad configuration
Alex: Purpose is to make easier to specify a common profile between different implementations
Tony: Show hand... more hands showing disagreement
Dave: We will never be able to limit to this specific case (inter-vendor case)... so we are going to specify a new specific forwarding behavior but what can be standardized is the correlation and the prevention of mis-configurations that can happen, leading to mis-advertisement of specific prefixes but this is outside of the IGP protocol specification and separated from the forwarding behavior asked here
Alex: A, B, C being the possible behaviors (possible mappings)
Dave: Yes, we could be marking topology X, Y, Z with an ID with the possible behaviors A, B, C ... but I do not have all the details here
Acee: Lots of things that are no in the charter that are going to be added in the charter (Annoncement before everyone sneaks off to lunch).
o Issues with existing Cryptographic Protection Methods 15 minutes for Routing Protocols draft-manral-rp-existingcrypto-01 Russ White or Vishwas ManralDiscussion:
Acee: In practice, for OSPFv2 the sequence numbers are not monotically increasing; Usage of router's clock for cryptographic sequence number generation reduces the chance for replay attacks across restarts.
Vishwas: OSPF spec does not state that the clock should be used for cryptographic sequence numbers.
Acee: Graceful Restart document recommends this as one way to avoid saving the sequence numbers in non-volatile storage.
Rich Graveman: This is a good document for someone that understand protocol security but don't understand the routing protocol issues and for someone that understand the security aspects it is now possible to work on required security properties for the routing protocol - example: layer violation have big effect on security or issues due to the message length that may have an impact on choice of security mechanism
Acee: Please, read this draft and articulate what's missing on the RSPEC list.
Russ: In RSPEC this may become an informational document and if requirements come out of this it would be interesting to have discussion about the security implication of some of the protocol choices such as for instance usage of multicast