< draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-admin-tags-00.txt		draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-admin-tags-01.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: July 24, 2021 January 20, 2021		Expires: September 22, 2021 March 21, 2021
	Extensions to OSPF for Advertising Prefix Administrative Tags		Extensions to OSPF for Advertising Prefix Administrative Tags
	draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-admin-tags-00		draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-admin-tags-01
	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. Previously, OSPFv2 and OSPFv3		able to associate tags with prefixes. Previously, OSPFv2 and OSPFv3
	were relegated to a single tag for AS External and Not-So-Stubby-Area		were relegated to a single tag for AS External and Not-So-Stubby-Area
	(NSSA) prefixes. With the flexible encodings provided by OSPFv2		(NSSA) prefixes. With the flexible encodings provided by OSPFv2
	Prefix/Link Attribute Advertisement and OSPFv3 Extended LSAs,		Prefix/Link Attribute Advertisement and OSPFv3 Extended LSAs,
	multiple administrative tags may advertised for all types of		multiple administrative tags may advertised for all types of
	prefixes. These administrative tags can be used for many		prefixes. These administrative tags can be used for many
	skipping to change at page 1, line 42 ¶		skipping to change at page 1, line 42 ¶
	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 July 24, 2021.		This Internet-Draft will expire on September 22, 2021.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the		Copyright (c) 2021 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 6, line 5 ¶		skipping to change at page 6, line 5 ¶
	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 a generic mechanism for advertising		This document describes a generic mechanism for advertising
	administrative tags for OSPF prefixes. The administrative tags are		administrative tags for OSPF prefixes. The administrative tags are
	generally less critical than the topology information currently		generally less critical than the topology information currently
	advertised by the base OSPF protocol. The security considerations		advertised by the base OSPF protocol. The security considerations
	for the generic mechanism are dependent on the future application		for the generic mechanism are dependent on their application. One
	and, as such, should be described as additional capabilities are		such application is to control leaking of OSPF routes to other
	proposed for advertisement. Security considerations for the base		protocols (e.g., BGP [RFC4271]). If an attacker were able to modify
	OSPF protocol are covered in [RFC2328] and [RFC5340].		the admin tags associated with OSPF routes and they were be used for
			this application, such routes could be prevented from being
			advertised in routing domains where they are required (subtle denial
			or service) or they could be advertised into routing domains where
			they shouldn't be advertised (routing vulnerability). Security
			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 [RFC7684]:		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 OSPFv3 Extended-LSA		The following values should be allocated from the OSPFv3 Extended-LSA
	Sub-TLV Registry [RFC8362]:		Sub-TLV Registry [RFC8362]:
	skipping to change at page 7, line 25 ¶		skipping to change at page 7, line 34 ¶
	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>.
	8.2. Informative References		8.2. Informative References
	[RFC3101] Murphy, P., "The OSPF Not-So-Stubby Area (NSSA) Option",		[RFC3101] Murphy, P., "The OSPF Not-So-Stubby Area (NSSA) Option",
	RFC 3101, DOI 10.17487/RFC3101, January 2003,		RFC 3101, DOI 10.17487/RFC3101, January 2003,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3101>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3101>.
			[RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A
			Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271,
			DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006,
			<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4271>.
	[RFC5130] Previdi, S., Shand, M., Ed., and C. Martin, "A Policy		[RFC5130] Previdi, S., Shand, M., Ed., and C. Martin, "A Policy
	Control Mechanism in IS-IS Using Administrative Tags",		Control Mechanism in IS-IS Using Administrative Tags",
	RFC 5130, DOI 10.17487/RFC5130, February 2008,		RFC 5130, DOI 10.17487/RFC5130, February 2008,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5130>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5130>.
	[RFC8920] Psenak, P., Ed., Ginsberg, L., Henderickx, W., Tantsura,		[RFC8920] Psenak, P., Ed., Ginsberg, L., Henderickx, W., Tantsura,
	J., and J. Drake, "OSPF Application-Specific Link		J., and J. Drake, "OSPF Application-Specific Link
	Attributes", RFC 8920, DOI 10.17487/RFC8920, October 2020,		Attributes", RFC 8920, DOI 10.17487/RFC8920, October 2020,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8920>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8920>.
End of changes. 5 change blocks.
	7 lines changed or deleted		18 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/