< draft-acee-ospf-admin-tags-05.txt		draft-acee-ospf-admin-tags-06.txt >
	Network Working Group A. Lindem, Ed.		Network Working Group A. Lindem, Ed.
	Internet-Draft P. Psenak		Internet-Draft P. Psenak
	Intended status: Standards Track Cisco Systems		Intended status: Standards Track Cisco Systems
	Expires: March 16, 2017 September 12, 2016		Expires: March 27, 2021 September 23, 2020
	Extensions to OSPF for Advertising Prefix/Link Administrative Tags		Extensions to OSPF for Advertising Prefix/Link Administrative Tags
	draft-acee-ospf-admin-tags-05.txt		draft-acee-ospf-admin-tags-06
	Abstract		Abstract
	It is useful for routers in an OSPFv2 or OSPFv3 routing domain to be		It is useful for routers in an OSPFv2 or OSPFv3 routing domain to be
	able to associate tags with prefixes and links. Previously, OSPFv2		able to associate tags with prefixes and links. Previously, OSPFv2
	and OSPFv3 were relegated to a single tag for AS External and Not-So-		and OSPFv3 were relegated to a single tag for AS External and Not-So-
	Stubby-Area (NSSA) prefixes. With the flexible encodings provided by		Stubby-Area (NSSA) prefixes. With the flexible encodings provided by
	OSPFv2 Prefix/Link Attribute Advertisement and OSPFv3 Extended LSAs,		OSPFv2 Prefix/Link Attribute Advertisement and OSPFv3 Extended LSAs,
	multiple administrative tags may advertised for all types of prefixes		multiple administrative tags may advertised for all types of prefixes
	and links. These administrative tags can be used for many		and links. These administrative tags can be used for many
	skipping to change at page 1, line 35 ¶		skipping to change at page 1, line 35 ¶
	RFC 5130.		RFC 5130.
	Status of This Memo		Status of This Memo
	This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the		This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
	provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.		provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
	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 http://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 16, 2017.		This Internet-Draft will expire on March 27, 2021.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the		Copyright (c) 2020 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
	(http://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
	described in the Simplified BSD License.		described in the Simplified BSD License.
	Table of Contents		Table of Contents
	1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2		1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
	skipping to change at page 2, line 29 ¶		skipping to change at page 2, line 29 ¶
	2. 32-Bit Administrative Tag Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		2. 32-Bit Administrative Tag Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	3. Administrative Tag Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		3. Administrative Tag Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	4. Protocol Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		4. Protocol Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	4.1. Equal-Cost Multipath Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . 5		4.1. Equal-Cost Multipath Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	Appendix A. 64-Bit Administrative Tag Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . 7		Appendix A. 64-Bit Administrative Tag Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . 8
	Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8		Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	1. Introduction		1. Introduction
	It is useful for routers in an OSPFv2 [OSPF] or OSPFv3 [OSPF] routing		It is useful for routers in an OSPFv2 [RFC2328] or OSPFv3 [RFC5340]
	domain to be able to associate tags with prefixes and links.		routing domain to be able to associate tags with prefixes and links.
	Previously, OSPFv3 and OSPFv3 were relegated to a single tag for AS		Previously, OSPFv3 and OSPFv3 were relegated to a single tag for AS
	External and Not-So-Stubby-Area (NSSA) prefixes. With the flexible		External and Not-So-Stubby-Area (NSSA) prefixes. With the flexible
	encodings provided by OSPFv2 Prefix/Link Attribute Advertisement		encodings provided by OSPFv2 Prefix/Link Attribute Advertisement
	([OSPFV2-PREFIX-LINK]) and OSPFv3 Extended LSA		([RFC7684]) and OSPFv3 Extended LSA ([RFC8362]), multiple
	([OSPFV3-EXTENDED-LSA]), multiple administrative tags may be		administrative tags may be advertised for all types of prefixes and
	advertised for all types of prefixes and links. These administrative		links. These administrative tags can be used many applications
	tags can be used many applications including (but not limited to):		including (but not limited to):
	1. Controlling which routes are redistributed into other protocols		1. Controlling which routes are redistributed into other protocols
	for readvertisement.		for readvertisement.
	2. Prioritizing selected prefixes for faster convergence and		2. Prioritizing selected prefixes for faster convergence and
	installation in the forwarding plane.		installation in the forwarding plane.
	3. Identifying selected prefixes for Loop-Free Alternative (LFA)		3. Identifying selected prefixes for Loop-Free Alternative (LFA)
	protection.		protection.
	Throughout this document, OSPF is used when the text applies to both		Throughout this document, OSPF is used when the text applies to both
	OSPFv2 and OSPFv3. OSPFv2 or OSPFv3 is used when the text is		OSPFv2 and OSPFv3. OSPFv2 or OSPFv3 is used when the text is
	specific to one version of the OSPF protocol.		specific to one version of the OSPF protocol.
	The ISIS protocol supports a similar mechanism that is described in		The ISIS protocol supports a similar mechanism that is described in
	RFC 5130 [ISIS-ADMIN-TAGS].		RFC 5130 [RFC5130].
	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", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
	document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC-KEYWORDS].		"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
			14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
			capitals, as shown here.
	2. 32-Bit Administrative Tag Sub-TLV		2. 32-Bit Administrative Tag Sub-TLV
	This document creates a new Administrative Tag Sub-TLV for OSPFv2 and		This document creates a new Administrative Tag Sub-TLV for OSPFv2 and
	OSPFv3. This Sub-TLV specifies one or more 32-bit unsigned integers		OSPFv3. This Sub-TLV specifies one or more 32-bit unsigned integers
	that may be associated with an OSPF advertised prefix or OSPF Link.		that may be associated with an OSPF advertised prefix or OSPF Link.
	The precise usage of these tags is beyond the scope of this document.		The precise usage of these tags is beyond the scope of this document.
	The format of this Sub-TLV is the same as the format used by the		The format of this Sub-TLV is the same as the format used by the
	Traffic Engineering Extensions to OSPF [TE]. The LSA payload		Traffic Engineering Extensions to OSPF [RFC3630]. The LSA payload
	consists of one or more nested Type/Length/Value (TLV) triplets. The		consists of one or more nested Type/Length/Value (TLV) triplets. The
	format of each TLV is:		format of each TLV is:
	0 1 2 3		0 1 2 3
	0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1		0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| Type | Length |		| Type | Length |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| Value... |		| Value... |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	skipping to change at page 4, line 40 ¶		skipping to change at page 4, line 40 ¶
	tags.		tags.
	32-bit Administrative Tag Sub-TLV		32-bit Administrative Tag Sub-TLV
	This sub-TLV will carry one or more 32-bit unsigned integer values		This sub-TLV will carry one or more 32-bit unsigned integer values
	that will be used as administrative tags.		that will be used as administrative tags.
	3. Administrative Tag Applicability		3. Administrative Tag Applicability
	The administrative tag TLV specified herein will be valid as a sub-		The administrative tag TLV specified herein will be valid as a sub-
	TLV of the following TLVs specified in [OSPFV2-PREFIX-LINK]:		TLV of the following TLVs specified in [RFC7684]:
	1. Extended Prefix TLV advertised in the OSPFv2 Extended Prefix LSA		1. Extended Prefix TLV advertised in the OSPFv2 Extended Prefix LSA
	2. Extended Link TLV advertised in the OSPFv2 Extended Prefix LSA		2. Extended Link TLV advertised in the OSPFv2 Extended Prefix LSA
	The administrative tag TLV specified herein will be valid as a sub-		The administrative tag TLV specified herein will be valid as a sub-
	TLV of the following TLVs specified in [OSPFV3-EXTENDED-LSA]:		TLV of the following TLVs specified in [RFC8362]:
	1. Router-Link TLV advertised in the E-Router-LSA		1. Router-Link TLV advertised in the E-Router-LSA
	2. Inter-Area-Prefix TLV advertised in the E-Inter-Area-Prefix-LSA		2. Inter-Area-Prefix TLV advertised in the E-Inter-Area-Prefix-LSA
	3. Intra-Area-Prefix TLV advertised in the E-Link-LSA and the E-		3. Intra-Area-Prefix TLV advertised in the E-Link-LSA and the E-
	Intra-Area-LSA		Intra-Area-Prefix-LSA
	4. External-Prefix TLV advertised in the E-AS-External-LSA and the		4. External-Prefix TLV advertised in the E-AS-External-LSA and the
	E-NSSA-LSA		E-NSSA-LSA
	4. Protocol Operation		4. Protocol Operation
	An OSPF router supporting this specification MUST propagate		An OSPF router supporting this specification MUST propagate
	administrative tags when acting as an Area Border Router and		administrative tags when acting as an Area Border Router and
	originating summary advertisements into other areas. Similarly, an		originating summary advertisements into other areas. Similarly, an
	OSPF router supporting this specification and acting as an ABR for a		OSPF router supporting this specification and acting as an ABR for a
	Not-So-Stubby Area (NSSA) MUST propagate tags when translating NSSA		Not-So-Stubby Area (NSSA) MUST propagate tags when translating NSSA
	routes to AS External advertisements [NSSA]. The number of tags		routes to AS External advertisements [RFC3101]. The number of tags
	supported MAY limit the number of tags that are propagated. When		supported MAY limit the number of tags that are propagated. When
	propagating multiple tags, the order of the the tags must be		propagating multiple tags, the order of the the tags must be
	preserved.		preserved.
	For configured area ranges, NSSA ranges, and configurated		For configured area ranges, NSSA ranges, and configurated
	summarization of redistributed routes, tags from component routes		summarization of redistributed routes, tags from component routes
	SHOULD NOT be propagated to the summary. Implementations SHOULD		SHOULD NOT be propagated to the summary. Implementations SHOULD
	provide a mechanism to configure tags for area ranges, NSSA ranges,		provide a mechanism to configure tags for area ranges, NSSA ranges,
	and redistributed route summaries.		and redistributed route summaries.
	skipping to change at page 6, line 7 ¶		skipping to change at page 6, line 7 ¶
	When multiple LSAs contribute to an OSPF route, it is possible that		When multiple LSAs contribute to an OSPF route, it is possible that
	these LSAs will all have different tags. In this situation, the OSPF		these LSAs will all have different tags. In this situation, the OSPF
	router MUST associate the tags from one of the LSAs contributing a		router MUST associate the tags from one of the LSAs contributing a
	path and, if the implementation supports multiple tags, MAY associate		path and, if the implementation supports multiple tags, MAY associate
	tags for multiple contributing LSAs up to the maximum number of tags		tags for multiple contributing LSAs up to the maximum number of tags
	supported.		supported.
	5. Security Considerations		5. Security Considerations
	This document describes both a generic mechanism for advertising		This document describes a generic mechanism for advertising
	administrative tags for OSPF prefixes and links. The administrative		administrative tags for both OSPF prefixes and links. The
	tags are generally less critical than the topology information		administrative tags are generally less critical than the topology
	currently advertised by the base OSPF protocol. The security		information currently advertised by the base OSPF protocol. The
	considerations for the generic mechanism are dependent on the future		security considerations for the generic mechanism are dependent on
	application and, as such, should be described as additional		the future application and, as such, should be described as
	capabilities are proposed for advertisement. Security considerations		additional capabilities are proposed for advertisement. Security
	for the base OSPF protocol are covered in [OSPF] and [OSPFV3].		considerations for the base OSPF protocol are covered in [RFC2328]
			and [RFC5340].
	6. IANA Considerations		6. IANA Considerations
	The following values should be allocated from the OSPF Extended		The following values should be allocated from the OSPF Extended
	Prefix TLV Sub-TLV Registry [OSPFV2-PREFIX-LINK]:		Prefix TLV Sub-TLV Registry [RFC7684]:
	o TBD - 32-bit Administrative Tag TLV		o TBD - 32-bit Administrative Tag TLV
	The following values should be allocated from the OSPF Extended Link		The following values should be allocated from the OSPF Extended Link
	TLV Sub-TLV Registry [OSPFV2-PREFIX-LINK]:		TLV Sub-TLV Registry [RFC7684]:
	o TBD - 32-bit Administrative Tag TLV		o TBD - 32-bit Administrative Tag TLV
	The following values should be allocated from the OSPFv3 Extended-LSA		The following values should be allocated from the OSPFv3 Extended-LSA
	Sub-TLV Registry [OSPFV3-EXTENDED-LSA]:		Sub-TLV Registry [RFC8362]:
	o TBD - 32-bit Administrative Tag TLV		o TBD - 32-bit Administrative Tag TLV
	7. Acknowledgments		7. Acknowledgments
	The authors of RFC 5130 are acknowledged since this document draws		The authors of RFC 5130 are acknowledged since this document draws
	upon both the ISIS specification and deployment experience.		upon both the ISIS specification and deployment experience.
	Thanks to Donnie Savage for his comments and questions.		Thanks to Donnie Savage for his comments and questions.
	The RFC text was produced using Marshall Rose's xml2rfc tool.		The RFC text was produced using Marshall Rose's xml2rfc tool.
	8. References		8. References
	8.1. Normative References		8.1. Normative References
	[OSPF] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328, April 1998.		[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
			Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
			DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
			<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
	[OSPFV2-PREFIX-LINK]		[RFC2328] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328,
	Psenak, P., Gredler, H., Shakir, R., Henderickx, W.,		DOI 10.17487/RFC2328, April 1998,
	Tantsura, J., and A. Lindem, "OSPFv2 Prefix/Link Attribute		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2328>.
	Advertisement", RFC 7684, November 2015.
	[OSPFV3] Coltun, R., Ferguson, D., Moy, J., and A. Lindem, "OSPF		[RFC3630] Katz, D., Kompella, K., and D. Yeung, "Traffic Engineering
	for IPv6", RFC 5340, July 2008.		(TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC 3630,
			DOI 10.17487/RFC3630, September 2003,
			<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3630>.
	[OSPFV3-EXTENDED-LSA]		[RFC5340] Coltun, R., Ferguson, D., Moy, J., and A. Lindem, "OSPF
	Lindem, A., Mirtorabi, S., Roy, A., and F. Baker, "OSPFv3		for IPv6", RFC 5340, DOI 10.17487/RFC5340, July 2008,
	LSA Extendibility", draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-lsa-extend-		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5340>.
	10.txt (work in progress), .
	[RFC-KEYWORDS]		[RFC7684] Psenak, P., Gredler, H., Shakir, R., Henderickx, W.,
	Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFC's to Indicate		Tantsura, J., and A. Lindem, "OSPFv2 Prefix/Link Attribute
	Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.		Advertisement", RFC 7684, DOI 10.17487/RFC7684, November
			2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7684>.
	[TE] Katz, D., Kompella, K., and D. Yeung, "Traffic Engineering		[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
	Extensions to OSPF", RFC 3630, September 2003.		2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
			May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
			[RFC8362] Lindem, A., Roy, A., Goethals, D., Reddy Vallem, V., and
			F. Baker, "OSPFv3 Link State Advertisement (LSA)
			Extensibility", RFC 8362, DOI 10.17487/RFC8362, April
			2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8362>.
	8.2. Informative References		8.2. Informative References
	[ISIS-ADMIN-TAGS]		[RFC3101] Murphy, P., "The OSPF Not-So-Stubby Area (NSSA) Option",
	Previdi, S., Shand, M., and C. Martin, "A Policy Control		RFC 3101, DOI 10.17487/RFC3101, January 2003,
	Mechanism in IS-IS Using Administrative Tags", RFC 5130,		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3101>.
	February 2008.
	[NSSA] Murphy, P., "The OSPF Not-So-Stubby Area (NSSA) Option",		[RFC5130] Previdi, S., Shand, M., Ed., and C. Martin, "A Policy
	RFC 3101, January 2003.		Control Mechanism in IS-IS Using Administrative Tags",
			RFC 5130, DOI 10.17487/RFC5130, February 2008,
			<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5130>.
	Appendix A. 64-Bit Administrative Tag Sub-TLV		Appendix A. 64-Bit Administrative Tag Sub-TLV
	The definition of the 64-bit tag was considered but discard given		The definition of the 64-bit tag was considered but discard given
	that there is no strong requirement or use case. The specification		that there is no strong requirement or use case. The specification
	is included here for information.		is included here for information.
	This sub-TLV will carry one or more 64-bit unsigned integer values		This sub-TLV will carry one or more 64-bit unsigned integer values
	that will be used as administrative tags.		that will be used as administrative tags.
	skipping to change at page 8, line 36 ¶		skipping to change at page 9, line 4 ¶
	dependent on the number of administrative tags		dependent on the number of administrative tags
	advertised. If the sub-TLV is specified, at least one		advertised. If the sub-TLV is specified, at least one
	administrative tag must be advertised.		administrative tag must be advertised.
	Value A variable length list of one or more 64-bit		Value A variable length list of one or more 64-bit
	administrative tags.		administrative tags.
	64-bit Administrative Tag TLV		64-bit Administrative Tag TLV
	Authors' Addresses		Authors' Addresses
	Acee Lindem (editor)		Acee Lindem (editor)
	Cisco Systems		Cisco Systems
	301 Midenhall Way		301 Midenhall Way
	Cary, NC 27513		Cary, NC 27513
	USA		USA
	Email: acee@cisco.com		EMail: acee@cisco.com
	Peter Psenak		Peter Psenak
	Cisco Systems		Cisco Systems
	Apollo Business Center		Apollo Business Center
	Mlynske nivy 43		Mlynske nivy 43
	Bratislava, 821 09		Bratislava, 821 09
	Slovakia		Slovakia
	Email: ppsenak@cisco.com		EMail: ppsenak@cisco.com
End of changes. 31 change blocks.
	56 lines changed or deleted		70 lines changed or added
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/