< draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-prefix-originator-07.txt   draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-prefix-originator-08.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: April 23, 2021 Cisco Systems Expires: September 9, 2021 Cisco Systems
J. Dong J. Dong
Huawei Technologies Huawei Technologies
P. Psenak P. Psenak
K. Talaulikar K. Talaulikar
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
October 20, 2020 March 8, 2021
OSPF Prefix Originator Extensions OSPF Prefix Originator Extensions
draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-prefix-originator-07 draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-prefix-originator-08
Abstract Abstract
This document defines OSPF extensions to include information This document defines OSPF extensions to include information
associated with the node originating a prefix along with the prefix associated with the node originating a prefix along with the prefix
advertisement. advertisement.
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
skipping to change at page 1, line 38 skipping to change at page 1, line 38
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 April 23, 2021. This Internet-Draft will expire on September 9, 2021.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2020 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
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 18 skipping to change at page 2, line 18
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Protocol Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Protocol Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Prefix Source Router-ID Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.1. Prefix Source Router-ID Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. Prefix Originator Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.2. Prefix Originator Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Elements of Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3. Elements of Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6. Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
Prefix attributes are advertised in OSPFv2 [RFC2328] using the Prefix attributes are advertised in OSPFv2 [RFC2328] using the
Extended Prefix Opaque Link State Advertisement (LSA) [RFC7684] and Extended Prefix Opaque Link State Advertisement (LSA) [RFC7684] and
in OSPFv3 [RFC5340] using the various Extended Prefix LSA types in OSPFv3 [RFC5340] using the various Extended Prefix LSA types
[RFC8362]. [RFC8362].
The identification of the originating router for a prefix in OSPF The identification of the originating router for a prefix in OSPF
varies by the type of the prefix and is currently not always varies by the type of the prefix and is currently not always
possible. For intra-area prefixes, the originating router is possible. For intra-area prefixes, the originating router is
identified by the advertising Router ID field of the area-scoped LSA identified by the Advertising Router field of the area-scoped LSA
used for those prefix advertisements. However, for the inter-area used for those prefix advertisements. However, for the inter-area
prefixes advertised by the Area Border Router (ABR), the advertising prefixes advertised by the Area Border Router (ABR), the Advertising
Router ID field of their area-scoped LSAs is set to the ABR itself Router field of their area-scoped LSAs is set to the ABR itself and
and the information about the router originating the prefix the information about the router originating the prefix advertisement
advertisement is lost in this process of prefix propagation across is lost in this process of prefix propagation across areas. For
areas. For Autonomous System (AS) external prefixes, the originating Autonomous System (AS) external prefixes, the originating router may
router may be considered as the Autonomous System Border Router be considered as the Autonomous System Border Router (ASBR) and is
(ASBR) and is identified by the advertising Router ID field of the identified by the Advertising Router field of the AS-scoped LSA used.
AS-scoped LSA used. However, the actual originating router for the However, the actual originating router for the prefix may be a remote
prefix may be a remote router outside the OSPF domain. Similarly, router outside the OSPF domain. Similarly, when an ABR performs
when an ABR performs translation of Not-So-Stubby Area (NSSA) translation of Not-So-Stubby Area (NSSA) [RFC3101] LSAs to AS-
[RFC3101] LSAs to AS-external LSAs, the information associated with external LSAs, the information associated with the NSSA ASBR (or the
the NSSA ASBR (or the router outside the OSPF domain) is not conveyed router outside the OSPF domain) is not conveyed across the OSPF
across the OSPF domain. domain.
While typically the originator of information in OSPF is identified While typically the originator of information in OSPF is identified
by its OSPF Router ID, it does not necessarily represent a reachable by its OSPF Router ID, it does not necessarily represent a reachable
address for the router. The IPv4/IPv6 Router Address as defined in address for the router. The IPv4/IPv6 Router Address as defined in
[RFC3630] and [RFC5329] for OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 respectively provide an [RFC3630] and [RFC5329] for OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 respectively provide an
address to reach that router. address to reach that router.
The primary use case for the extensions proposed in this document is The primary use case for the extensions proposed in this document is
to be able to identify the originator of the prefix in the network. to be able to identify the originator of a prefix in the network. In
In cases where multiple prefixes are advertised by a given router, it cases where multiple prefixes are advertised by a given router, it is
is also useful to be able to associate all these prefixes with a also useful to be able to associate all these prefixes with a single
single router even when prefixes are advertised outside of the area router even when prefixes are advertised outside of the area in which
in which they originated. It also helps to determine when the same they originated. It also helps to determine when the same prefix is
prefix is being originated by multiple routers across areas. being originated by multiple routers across areas.
This document proposes extensions to the OSPF protocol for inclusion This document proposes extensions to the OSPF protocol for inclusion
of information associated with the router originating the prefix of information associated with the router originating the prefix
along with the prefix advertisement. These extensions do not change along with the prefix advertisement. These extensions do not change
the core OSPF route computation functionality. They provide useful the core OSPF route computation functionality. They provide useful
information for topology analysis and traffic engineering, especially information for topology analysis and traffic engineering, especially
on a controller when this information is advertised as an attribute on a controller when this information is advertised as an attribute
of the prefixes via mechanisms such as Border Gateway Protocol Link- of the prefixes via mechanisms such as Border Gateway Protocol Link-
State (BGP-LS) [RFC7752]. State (BGP-LS) [RFC7752] [I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext].
1.1. Requirements Language 1.1. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here. capitals, as shown here.
2. Protocol Extensions 2. Protocol Extensions
skipping to change at page 4, line 24 skipping to change at page 4, line 24
Where: Where:
o Type: 4 for OSPFv2 and 27 for OSPFv3 o Type: 4 for OSPFv2 and 27 for OSPFv3
o Length: 4 o Length: 4
o OSPF Router ID : the OSPF Router ID of the OSPF router that o OSPF Router ID : the OSPF Router ID of the OSPF router that
originated the prefix advertisement in the OSPF domain. originated the prefix advertisement in the OSPF domain.
A prefix advertisement MAY include more than one Prefix Source The parent TLV of a prefix advertisement MAY include more than one
Router-ID sub-TLV, one corresponding to each of the Equal-Cost Multi- Prefix Source Router-ID sub-TLV, one corresponding to each of the
Path (ECMP) nodes that originated the given prefix. Equal-Cost Multi-Path (ECMP) nodes that originated the given prefix.
For intra-area prefix advertisements, the Prefix Source Router-ID
Sub-TLV MUST be considered invalid and ignored if it is not the same
as Advertising Router ID for the prefix advertisement.
A received Prefix Source Router-ID Sub-TLV with OSPF Router ID set to A received Prefix Source Router-ID Sub-TLV with OSPF Router ID set to
0 MUST be considered invalid and ignored. Additionally, reception of 0 MUST be considered invalid and ignored. Additionally, reception of
such Sub-TLV SHOULD be logged as an error (subject to rate-limiting). such Sub-TLV SHOULD be logged as an error (subject to rate-limiting).
2.2. Prefix Originator Sub-TLV 2.2. Prefix Originator Sub-TLV
For OSPFv2, the Prefix Originator Sub-TLV is an optional Sub-TLV of For OSPFv2, the Prefix Originator Sub-TLV is an optional Sub-TLV of
the OSPFv2 Extended Prefix TLV [RFC7684]. For OSPFv3, the Prefix the OSPFv2 Extended Prefix TLV [RFC7684]. For OSPFv3, the Prefix
Originator Sub-TLV is an optional Sub-TLV of the Intra-Area-Prefix Originator Sub-TLV is an optional Sub-TLV of the Intra-Area-Prefix
skipping to change at page 5, line 10 skipping to change at page 5, line 22
Figure 2: Prefix Originator Sub-TLV Format Figure 2: Prefix Originator Sub-TLV Format
Where: Where:
o Type: TBD1 for OSPFv2 and TBD2 for OSPFv3 o Type: TBD1 for OSPFv2 and TBD2 for OSPFv3
o Length: 4 or 16 o Length: 4 or 16
o Router Address: A reachable IPv4 or IPv6 router address for the o Router Address: A reachable IPv4 or IPv6 router address for the
router that originated the IPv4 or IPv6 prefix advertisement. router that originated the IPv4 or IPv6 prefix advertisement
Such an address would be semantically equivalent to what may be respectively. Such an address would be semantically equivalent to
advertised in the OSPFv2 Router Address TLV [RFC3630] or in the what may be advertised in the OSPFv2 Router Address TLV [RFC3630]
OSPFv3 Router IPv6 Address TLV [RFC5329]. or in the OSPFv3 Router IPv6 Address TLV [RFC5329].
A prefix advertisement MAY include more than one Prefix Originator A prefix advertisement MAY include more than one Prefix Originator
sub-TLV, one corresponding to each of the Equal-Cost Multi-Path sub-TLV, one corresponding to each of the Equal-Cost Multi-Path
(ECMP) nodes that originated the given prefix. (ECMP) nodes that originated the given prefix.
A received Prefix Originator Sub-TLV that has an invalid length (not A received Prefix Originator Sub-TLV that has an invalid length (i.e.
4 or 16) or a Router Address containing an invalid IPv4 or IPv6 not consistent with the prefix's address family) or a Router Address
address (dependent on address family of the associated prefix) MUST containing an invalid IPv4 or IPv6 address (dependent on address
be considered invalid and ignored. Additionally, reception of such family of the associated prefix) MUST be considered invalid and
Sub-TLV SHOULD be logged as an error (subject to rate-limiting). ignored. Additionally, reception of such Sub-TLV SHOULD be logged as
an error (subject to rate-limiting).
[RFC7794] provides similar functionality for the Intermediate System
to Intermediate System (IS-IS) protocol.
3. Elements of Procedure 3. Elements of Procedure
This section describes the procedure for advertisement of the Prefix This section describes the procedure for advertisement of the Prefix
Source Router-ID and Prefix Originator Sub-TLVs along with the prefix Source Router-ID and Prefix Originator Sub-TLVs along with the prefix
advertisement. advertisement.
The OSPF Router ID of the Prefix Source Router-ID is set to the OSPF The OSPF Router ID of the Prefix Source Router-ID is set to the OSPF
Router ID of the node originating the prefix in the OSPF domain. Router ID of the node originating the prefix in the OSPF domain.
If the originating node is advertising an OSPFv2 Router Address TLV If the originating node is advertising an OSPFv2 Router Address TLV
[RFC3630] or an OSPFv3 Router IPv6 Address TLV [RFC5329], then that [RFC3630] or an OSPFv3 Router IPv6 Address TLV [RFC5329], then the
value is set in the Router Address field of the Prefix Originator same address SHOULD be used in the Router Address field of the Prefix
Sub-TLV. When the originating node is not advertising such an Originator Sub-TLV. When the originating node is not advertising
address, implementations MAY support mechanisms to determine a such an address, implementations MAY support mechanisms to determine
reachable address (e.g., advertised with the N-flag set [RFC7684] or a reachable address (e.g., advertised with the N-flag set [RFC7684]
N-bit set [RFC8362] and either matching the OSPF Router ID or the or N-bit set [RFC8362] and either matching the OSPF Router ID or the
highest IP address) belonging to the originating node to set in the highest IP address) belonging to the originating node to set in the
Router Address field. Router Address field.
Implementations MAY support the selection of specific prefixes for Implementations MAY support the selection of specific prefixes for
which the originating node information needs to be included with which the originating node information needs to be included with
their prefix advertisements. their prefix advertisements.
When an ABR generates inter-area prefix advertisements into its non- When an ABR generates inter-area prefix advertisements into its non-
backbone areas corresponding to an inter-area prefix advertisement backbone areas corresponding to an inter-area prefix advertisement
from the backbone area, the only way to determine the originating from the backbone area, the only way to determine the originating
node information is based on the Prefix Source Router-ID and Prefix node information is based on the Prefix Source Router-ID and Prefix
Originator Sub-TLVs present in the inter-area prefix advertisement Originator Sub-TLVs present in the inter-area prefix advertisement
originated into the backbone area by an ABR for another non-backbone originated into the backbone area by an ABR from another non-backbone
area. The ABR performs its prefix calculation to determine the set area. The ABR performs its prefix calculation to determine the set
of nodes that contribute to the best prefix reachability. It MUST of nodes that contribute to the best prefix reachability. It MUST
use the prefix originator information only from this set of nodes. use the prefix originator information only from this set of nodes.
The ABR MUST NOT include the Prefix Source Router-ID or the Prefix The ABR MUST NOT include the Prefix Source Router-ID or the Prefix
Originator Sub-TLVs when it is unable to determine the information of Originator Sub-TLVs when it is unable to determine the information of
the best originating node. the best originating node.
Implementations MAY provide control on ABRs to selectively disable Implementations MAY provide control on ABRs to selectively disable
the propagation of the originating node information across area the propagation of the originating node information across area
boundaries. boundaries.
Implementations MAY support the propagation of the originating node Implementations may support the propagation of the originating node
information along with a redistributed prefix into the OSPF domain information along with a redistributed prefix into the OSPF domain
from another routing domain. The details of such mechanisms are from another routing domain. The details of such mechanisms are
outside the scope of this document. Such implementations MAY also outside the scope of this document. Such implementations may also
provide control on whether the Router Address in the Prefix provide control on whether the Router Address in the Prefix
Originator Sub-TLV is set as the ABSR node address or as the address Originator Sub-TLV is set as the ABSR node address or as the address
of the actual node outside the OSPF domain that owns the prefix. of the actual node outside the OSPF domain that owns the prefix.
When translating the NSSA prefix advertisements [RFC3101] to the AS When translating the NSSA prefix advertisements [RFC3101] to the AS
external prefix advertisements, the NSSA ABR, follows the same external prefix advertisements, the NSSA ABR, follows the same
procedures as an ABR generating inter-area prefix advertisements for procedures as an ABR generating inter-area prefix advertisements for
the propagation of the originating node information. the propagation of the originating node information.
4. Security Considerations 4. Security Considerations
Since this document extends the OSPFv2 Extended Prefix LSA, the Since this document extends the OSPFv2 Extended Prefix LSA, the
security considerations for [RFC7684] are applicable. Similarly, security considerations for [RFC7684] are applicable. Similarly,
since this document extends the OSPFv3 E-Intra-Area-Prefix-LSA, E- since this document extends the OSPFv3 E-Intra-Area-Prefix-LSA, E-
Inter-Area-Prefix-LSA, E-AS-External LSA and E-NSSA-LSA, the security Inter-Area-Prefix-LSA, E-AS-External LSA and E-NSSA-LSA, the security
considerations for [RFC8362] are applicable. considerations for [RFC8362] are applicable. The new sub-TLVs
introduced in this document are optional and do not affect the OSPF
route computation and therefore do not affect the security aspects of
OSPF protocol operations.
5. IANA Considerations 5. IANA Considerations
This document requests IANA for the allocation of the codepoint from This document requests IANA for the allocation of the codepoints from
the "OSPFv2 Extended Prefix TLV Sub-TLVs" registry under the "Open the "OSPFv2 Extended Prefix TLV Sub-TLVs" registry under the "Open
Shortest Path First v2 (OSPFv2) Parameters" registry. Shortest Path First v2 (OSPFv2) Parameters" registry.
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Code | Description | IANA Allocation | | Code | Description | IANA Allocation |
| Point | | Status | | Point | | Status |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 4 | Prefix Source Router-ID Sub-TLV | early allocation done | | 4 | Prefix Source Router-ID Sub-TLV | early allocation done |
| TBD1 | Prefix Originator Sub-TLV | pending | | TBD1 | Prefix Originator Sub-TLV | pending |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3: Code Points in OSPFv2 Extended Prefix TLV Sub-TLVs Figure 3: Codepoints in OSPFv2 Extended Prefix TLV Sub-TLVs
This document requests IANA for the allocation of the codepoint from This document requests IANA for the allocation of the codepoints from
the "OSPFv3 Extended Prefix TLV Sub-TLVs" registry under the "Open the "OSPFv3 Extended Prefix TLV Sub-TLVs" registry under the "Open
Shortest Path First v3 (OSPFv3) Parameters" registry. Shortest Path First v3 (OSPFv3) Parameters" registry.
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Code | Description | IANA Allocation | | Code | Description | IANA Allocation |
| Point | | Status | | Point | | Status |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 27 | Prefix Source Router-ID Sub-TLV | early allocation done | | 27 | Prefix Source Router-ID Sub-TLV | early allocation done |
| TBD2 | Prefix Originator Sub-TLV | pending | | TBD2 | Prefix Originator Sub-TLV | pending |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 4: Code Points in OSPFv3 Extended-LSA Sub-TLVs Figure 4: Codepoints in OSPFv3 Extended-LSA Sub-TLVs
6. Acknowledgement 6. Acknowledgement
Many thanks to Les Ginsberg for his suggestions on this draft. Also Many thanks to Les Ginsberg for his suggestions on this draft. Also
thanks to Jeff Tantsura, Rob Shakir, Gunter Van De Velde, Goethals thanks to Jeff Tantsura, Rob Shakir, Gunter Van De Velde, Goethals
Dirk, Smita Selot, Shaofu Peng, John E Drake and Baalajee S for their Dirk, Smita Selot, Shaofu Peng, John E Drake and Baalajee S for their
review and valuable comments. review and valuable comments.
7. References 7. References
skipping to change at page 8, line 5 skipping to change at page 8, line 9
[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, [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>.
[RFC3101] Murphy, P., "The OSPF Not-So-Stubby Area (NSSA) Option", [RFC3630] Katz, D., Kompella, K., and D. Yeung, "Traffic Engineering
RFC 3101, DOI 10.17487/RFC3101, January 2003, (TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC 3630,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3101>. DOI 10.17487/RFC3630, September 2003,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3630>.
[RFC5329] Ishiguro, K., Manral, V., Davey, A., and A. Lindem, Ed.,
"Traffic Engineering Extensions to OSPF Version 3",
RFC 5329, DOI 10.17487/RFC5329, September 2008,
<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>.
[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>.
[RFC7794] Ginsberg, L., Ed., Decraene, B., Previdi, S., Xu, X., and
U. Chunduri, "IS-IS Prefix Attributes for Extended IPv4
and IPv6 Reachability", RFC 7794, DOI 10.17487/RFC7794,
March 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7794>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>. May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[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>.
7.2. Informative References 7.2. Informative References
[RFC3630] Katz, D., Kompella, K., and D. Yeung, "Traffic Engineering [I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext]
(TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC 3630, Previdi, S., Talaulikar, K., Filsfils, C., Gredler, H.,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3630, September 2003, and M. Chen, "BGP Link-State extensions for Segment
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3630>. Routing", draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext-16
(work in progress), June 2019.
[RFC5329] Ishiguro, K., Manral, V., Davey, A., and A. Lindem, Ed., [RFC3101] Murphy, P., "The OSPF Not-So-Stubby Area (NSSA) Option",
"Traffic Engineering Extensions to OSPF Version 3", RFC 3101, DOI 10.17487/RFC3101, January 2003,
RFC 5329, DOI 10.17487/RFC5329, September 2008, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3101>.
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5329>.
[RFC5838] Lindem, A., Ed., Mirtorabi, S., Roy, A., Barnes, M., and [RFC5838] Lindem, A., Ed., Mirtorabi, S., Roy, A., Barnes, M., and
R. Aggarwal, "Support of Address Families in OSPFv3", R. Aggarwal, "Support of Address Families in OSPFv3",
RFC 5838, DOI 10.17487/RFC5838, April 2010, RFC 5838, DOI 10.17487/RFC5838, April 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5838>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5838>.
[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,
 End of changes. 26 change blocks. 
72 lines changed or deleted 78 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/