< draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-prefix-originator-00.txt		draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-prefix-originator-01.txt >
	LSR Working Group A. Wang		LSR Working Group A. Wang
	Internet-Draft China Telecom		Internet-Draft China Telecom
	Intended status: Standards Track A. Lindem		Intended status: Standards Track A. Lindem
	Expires: September 2, 2019 Cisco Systems		Expires: January 2, 2020 Cisco Systems
	J. Dong		J. Dong
	Huawei Technologies		Huawei Technologies
	K. Talaulikar		K. Talaulikar
	P. Psenak		P. Psenak
	Cisco Systems		Cisco Systems
	March 1, 2019		July 1, 2019
	OSPF Extension for Prefix Originator		OSPF Extension for Prefix Originator
	draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-prefix-originator-00		draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-prefix-originator-01
	Abstract		Abstract
	This document describes OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 encodings to advertise the		This document describes OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 encodings to advertise the
	router-id of the originator of inter-area prefixes for OSPFv2 and		router-id of the originator of inter-area prefixes for OSPFv2 and
	OSPFv3 LSAs, which are needed in several use cases in several multi-		OSPFv3 LSAs, which are needed in several use cases in multi-area OSPF
	area OSPF use cases.		use cases.
	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 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 September 2, 2019.		This Internet-Draft will expire on January 2, 2020.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the		Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
	document authors. All rights reserved.		document authors. All rights reserved.
	This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal		This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
	Provisions Relating to IETF Documents		Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
	(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of		(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
	publication of this document. Please review these documents		publication of this document. Please review these documents
	skipping to change at page 2, line 18 ¶		skipping to change at page 2, line 18 ¶
	described in the Simplified BSD License.		described in the Simplified BSD License.
	Table of Contents		Table of Contents
	1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2		1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
	2. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		2. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	3. Scenario Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		3. Scenario Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	4. Prefix Source Router-ID sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		4. Prefix Source Router-ID sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	5. Extended LSA Elements of Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		5. Extended LSA Elements of Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	8. Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		8. Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	Appendix A. Inter-Area Topology Retrieval Process . . . . . . . 7		Appendix A. Inter-Area Topology Retrieval Process . . . . . . . 7
	Appendix B. Special Considerations on Inter-Area Topology		Appendix B. Special Considerations on Inter-Area Topology
	Retrieval . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8		Retrieval . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8		Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	1. Introduction		1. Introduction
	skipping to change at page 5, line 12 ¶		skipping to change at page 5, line 12 ¶
	The "Prefix Source Router-ID" sub-TLV has the following format:		The "Prefix Source Router-ID" sub-TLV has the following format:
	0 1 2 3		0 1 2 3
	0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1		0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| Type | Length |		| Type | Length |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| Prefix Source Router-ID |		| Prefix Source Router-ID |
	+---------------------------------------------------------------+		+---------------------------------------------------------------+
			Fig. 2 Prefix Source Router-ID sub-TLV Format
	o Source Router-ID Sub-TLV Type: TBD1[RFC7684] or TBD2 [RFC8362]		o Source Router-ID Sub-TLV Type: TBD1[RFC7684] or TBD2 [RFC8362]
	o Length: 4		o Length: 4
	o Value: Router-ID of OSPFv2/OSPFv3 source router		o Value: Router-ID of OSPFv2/OSPFv3 source router
	This sub-TLV can be included in the "OSPFv2 Extended Prefix Opaque		This sub-TLV can be included in the "OSPFv2 Extended Prefix Opaque
	LSA" [RFC7684] or the "E-Inter-Area-Prefix-LSA" [RFC8362].		LSA" [RFC7684] or the "E-Inter-Area-Prefix-LSA" [RFC8362].
	skipping to change at page 5, line 46 ¶		skipping to change at page 5, line 47 ¶
	When R0 receives such LSA, it learns the Prefix Source Router-id and		When R0 receives such LSA, it learns the Prefix Source Router-id and
	includes it in the prefix information advertised to an SDN controller		includes it in the prefix information advertised to an SDN controller
	as described in[I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext]. The SDN		as described in[I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext]. The SDN
	controller can then use such information to build the inter-area		controller can then use such information to build the inter-area
	topology according to the process described in the Appendix A. The		topology according to the process described in the Appendix A. The
	topology retrieval process may not suitable for some environments as		topology retrieval process may not suitable for some environments as
	stated in Appendix B.		stated in Appendix B.
	6. Security Considerations		6. Security Considerations
	TBD.		Security concerns for OSPF are addressed in [RFC5709]
			Advertisement of the additional information defined in this document
			introduces no new security concerns
	7. IANA Considerations		7. IANA Considerations
	TBD.		This document adds the following new sub-TLV to the registry of
			"OSPFv2 Extended Prefix TLV Sub-TLVs". The allocation policy is IETF
			Review that defined in [RFC7684]
			+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-++++++++
			| Code Point | Description | Status |
			+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-++++++++
			| TBD | Prefix Source Sub-TLV | Allocation from IANA |
			+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-++++++++
			Fig.3: Prefix Source sub-TLV CodePoint from OSPFv2 Extended Prefix TLV Sub-TLVs
			This document adds the following sub-TLV to the registry of "OSPFv3
			Extended-LSA Sub-TLVs". The allocation is IETF Review that defined
			in [RFC8362]
			+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-++++++++
			| Code Point | Description | Status |
			+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-++++++++
			| TBD | Prefix Source Sub-TLV | Allocation from IANA |
			+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-++++++++
			Fig.4: Prefix Source sub-TLV CodePoint from OSPFv3 Extended-LSA Sub-TLVs
	8. Acknowledgement		8. Acknowledgement
	Many thanks to Les Ginsberg for his valuable suggestions on this		Many thanks to Les Ginsberg for his valuable suggestions on this
	draft. And also thanks Jeff Tantsura,Rob Shakir, Van De Velde		draft. And also thanks Jeff Tantsura,Rob Shakir, Van De Velde
	Gunter, Goethals Dirk, Shaofu Peng, John E Drake for their valuable		Gunter, Goethals Dirk, Shaofu Peng, John E Drake for their valuable
	comments on this draft.		comments on this draft.
	9. References		9. References
	9.1. Normative References		9.1. Normative References
	[I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext]
	Previdi, S., Talaulikar, K., Filsfils, C., Gredler, H.,
	and M. Chen, "BGP Link-State extensions for Segment
	Routing", draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext-11
	(work in progress), October 2018.
	[I-D.ietf-ospf-mpls-elc]		[I-D.ietf-ospf-mpls-elc]
	Xu, X., Kini, S., Sivabalan, S., Filsfils, C., and S.		Xu, X., Kini, S., Psenak, P., Filsfils, C., and S.
	Litkowski, "Signaling Entropy Label Capability and Entropy		Litkowski, "Signaling Entropy Label Capability and Entropy
	Readable Label-stack Depth Using OSPF", draft-ietf-ospf-		Readable Label-stack Depth Using OSPF", draft-ietf-ospf-
	mpls-elc-07 (work in progress), September 2018.		mpls-elc-08 (work in progress), May 2019.
	[I-D.ietf-ospf-segment-routing-msd]		[I-D.ietf-ospf-segment-routing-msd]
	Tantsura, J., Chunduri, U., Aldrin, S., and P. Psenak,		Tantsura, J., Chunduri, U., Aldrin, S., and P. Psenak,
	"Signaling MSD (Maximum SID Depth) using OSPF", draft-		"Signaling MSD (Maximum SID Depth) using OSPF", draft-
	ietf-ospf-segment-routing-msd-25 (work in progress),		ietf-ospf-segment-routing-msd-25 (work in progress),
	October 2018.		October 2018.
	[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate		[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
	Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,		Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,		DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
	[RFC2328] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328,		[RFC5709] Bhatia, M., Manral, V., Fanto, M., White, R., Barnes, M.,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC2328, April 1998,		Li, T., and R. Atkinson, "OSPFv2 HMAC-SHA Cryptographic
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2328>.		Authentication", RFC 5709, DOI 10.17487/RFC5709, October
			2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5709>.
	[RFC5340] Coltun, R., Ferguson, D., Moy, J., and A. Lindem, "OSPF
	for IPv6", RFC 5340, DOI 10.17487/RFC5340, July 2008,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5340>.
	[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>.
	[RFC7752] Gredler, H., Ed., Medved, J., Previdi, S., Farrel, A., and		[RFC7752] Gredler, H., Ed., Medved, J., Previdi, S., Farrel, A., and
	S. Ray, "North-Bound Distribution of Link-State and		S. Ray, "North-Bound Distribution of Link-State and
	Traffic Engineering (TE) Information Using BGP", RFC 7752,		Traffic Engineering (TE) Information Using BGP", RFC 7752,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC7752, March 2016,		DOI 10.17487/RFC7752, March 2016,
	skipping to change at page 7, line 23 ¶		skipping to change at page 7, line 38 ¶
	and IPv6 Reachability", RFC 7794, DOI 10.17487/RFC7794,		and IPv6 Reachability", RFC 7794, DOI 10.17487/RFC7794,
	March 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7794>.		March 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7794>.
	[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>.
	9.2. Informative References		9.2. Informative References
	[I-D.wang-idr-bgpls-inter-as-topology-ext]		[I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext]
	Wang, A. and H. Chen, "BGP-LS Extension for Inter-AS		Previdi, S., Talaulikar, K., Filsfils, C., Gredler, H.,
	Topology Retrieval", draft-wang-idr-bgpls-inter-as-		and M. Chen, "BGP Link-State extensions for Segment
	topology-ext-02 (work in progress), August 2018.		Routing", draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext-15
			(work in progress), May 2019.
	Appendix A. Inter-Area Topology Retrieval Process		Appendix A. Inter-Area Topology Retrieval Process
	When an IP SDN Controller receives this information, it should		When an IP SDN Controller receives this information, it should
	compare the prefix NLRI that included in the BGP-LS packet. When it		compare the prefix NLRI that included in the BGP-LS packet. When it
	encounters the same prefix but with different source router ID, it		encounters the same prefix but with different source router ID, it
	should extract the corresponding area-ID, rebuild the link between		should extract the corresponding area-ID, rebuild the link between
	these two different source routers in non-backbone area. Belows is		these two different source routers in non-backbone area. Belows is
	one example that based on the Fig.1:		one example that based on the Fig.1:
End of changes. 14 change blocks.
	28 lines changed or deleted		44 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/