< draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv2-hbit-01.txt		draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv2-hbit-02.txt >
	OSPF K. Patel		OSPF K. Patel
	Internet-Draft Cisco Systems		Internet-Draft Arrcus
	Intended status: Standards Track P. Pillay-Esnault		Intended status: Standards Track P. Pillay-Esnault
	Expires: January 6, 2017 Huawei Technologies		Expires: October 12, 2017 Huawei Technologies
	M. Bhardwaj		M. Bhardwaj
	S. Bayraktar		S. Bayraktar
	Cisco Systems		Cisco Systems
	July 5, 2016		April 10, 2017
	H-bit Support for OSPFv2		H-bit Support for OSPFv2
	draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv2-hbit-01		draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv2-hbit-02
	Abstract		Abstract
	OSPFv3 defines an option field for router-LSAs known as a R-bit in		OSPFv3 defines an option field for router-LSAs known as a R-bit in
	RFC5340. If the R-bit is clear, an OSPFv3 router can participate in		RFC5340. If the R-bit is clear, an OSPFv3 router can participate in
	OSPF topology distribution without acting as a forwarder to forward		OSPF topology distribution without acting as a forwarder to forward
	the transit traffic. In such cases, an OSPF router would only accept		the transit traffic. In such cases, an OSPF router would only accept
	traffic intended for local delivery. This draft defines R-bit		traffic intended for local delivery. This draft defines R-bit
	functionality for OSPFv2 defined in RFC2328.		functionality for OSPFv2 defined in RFC2328.
	skipping to change at page 1, line 39 ¶		skipping to change at page 1, line 39 ¶
	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 http://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 January 6, 2017.		This Internet-Draft will expire on October 12, 2017.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the		Copyright (c) 2017 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		(http://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
	2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2		2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	3. H-bit Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		3. H-bit Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	4. SPF Modifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		4. SPF Modifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	5. Auto Discovery and Backwards Compatibility . . . . . . . . . 5		5. Auto Discovery and Backwards Compatibility . . . . . . . . . 5
	6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		6. OSPF AS-External-LSAs/NSSA LSAs with Type 2 Metrics . . . . . 6
	7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	9. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		10. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
			11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	1. Introduction		1. Introduction
	OSPFv3 [RFC5340] defines an option field for router-LSAs known as a		OSPFv3 [RFC5340] defines an option field for router-LSAs known as a
	R-bit. If the R-bit is clear, an OSPF router can participate in		R-bit. If the R-bit is clear, an OSPF router can participate in
	OSPFv3 topology distribution without acting as a forwarder to forward		OSPFv3 topology distribution without acting as a forwarder to forward
	the transit traffic. In such cases, an OSPF router would only accept		the transit traffic. In such cases, an OSPF router would only accept
	traffic intended for local delivery.		traffic intended for local delivery.
	skipping to change at page 6, line 15 ¶		skipping to change at page 6, line 15 ¶
	The Auto Discovery via announcement of the Host Support Functional		The Auto Discovery via announcement of the Host Support Functional
	Capability ensures that the H-bit functionality and its associated		Capability ensures that the H-bit functionality and its associated
	SPF changes SHOULD only take effect if all the routers in a given		SPF changes SHOULD only take effect if all the routers in a given
	OSPF area support this functionality.		OSPF area support this functionality.
	Implementations are encouraged to provide a knob to manually override		Implementations are encouraged to provide a knob to manually override
	enforcement of the H-bit functionality in partial deployment		enforcement of the H-bit functionality in partial deployment
	scenarios for cases where the topology guarantees that the router		scenarios for cases where the topology guarantees that the router
	supporting the H-bit will not cause routing loops.		supporting the H-bit will not cause routing loops.
	6. IANA Considerations		6. OSPF AS-External-LSAs/NSSA LSAs with Type 2 Metrics
			When calculating the path to an OSPF AS-External-LSA or NSSA-LSA with
			a Type-2 metric, the advertised Type-2 metric is taken an more
			significant than the OSPF intra-area or inter-area path. Hence,
			advertising the links with MaxLinkMetric as specified in [RFC6987]
			does not discourage transit traffic when calculating AS external or
			NSSA routes. Consequently, OSPF routers implementing [RFC6987] or
			this specification should advertise a Type-2 metric of LSInfinity for
			any self-originated AS-External-LSAs or NSSA-LSAs in situations when
			the OSPF router is acting as a stub router [RFC6987] or implementing
			this specification.
			7. IANA Considerations
	This draft defines a new Router LSA bit known as a H-bit. This draft		This draft defines a new Router LSA bit known as a H-bit. This draft
	requests IANA to 1) Create a new OSPF Router LSA bits registry and 2)		requests IANA to 1) Create a new OSPF Router LSA bits registry and 2)
	assign a H-bit code type from the newly allocated OSPF Router LSA bit		assign a H-bit code type from the newly allocated OSPF Router LSA bit
	registry.		registry.
	This draft defines a new Router Functional Capability known as a Host		This draft defines a new Router Functional Capability known as a Host
	Support Functional Capability. This draft requests IANA to allocate		Support Functional Capability. This draft requests IANA to allocate
	the value of this capability from the Router Functional Capability		the value of this capability from the Router Functional Capability
	Bits TLV.		Bits TLV.
	7. Security Considerations		8. Security Considerations
	This document introduces no new security considerations above and		This document introduces no new security considerations above and
	beyond those already specified in [RFC2328] and [RFC5340].		beyond those already specified in [RFC2328] and [RFC5340].
	8. Acknowledgements		9. Acknowledgements
	The authors would like to acknowledge Acee Lindem, Abhay Roy, David		The authors would like to acknowledge Hasmit Grover for discovery of
	Ward, Burjiz Pithawala and Michael Barnes for their comments.		the limitation in [RFC6987], Acee Lindem, Abhay Roy, David Ward,
			Burjiz Pithawala and Michael Barnes for their comments.
	9. Change Log		10. Change Log
	Initial Version: April 23 2015		Initial Version: April 23 2015
	10. References		11. References
	10.1. Normative References		11.1. Normative References
	[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,
	<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.		<http://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,
	<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2328>.		<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2328>.
	[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,
	<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5340>.		<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5340>.
	[RFC7770] Lindem, A., Ed., Shen, N., Vasseur, JP., Aggarwal, R., and		[RFC7770] Lindem, A., Ed., Shen, N., Vasseur, JP., Aggarwal, R., and
	S. Shaffer, "Extensions to OSPF for Advertising Optional		S. Shaffer, "Extensions to OSPF for Advertising Optional
	Router Capabilities", RFC 7770, DOI 10.17487/RFC7770,		Router Capabilities", RFC 7770, DOI 10.17487/RFC7770,
	February 2016, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7770>.		February 2016, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7770>.
	10.2. Informative References		11.2. Informative References
	[I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-optimal-route-reflection]		[I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-optimal-route-reflection]
	Raszuk, R., Cassar, C., Aman, E., Decraene, B., Litkowski,		Raszuk, R., Cassar, C., Aman, E., Decraene, B., Litkowski,
	S., and K. Wang, "BGP Optimal Route Reflection (BGP-ORR)",		S., and K. Wang, "BGP Optimal Route Reflection (BGP-ORR)",
	draft-ietf-idr-bgp-optimal-route-reflection-11 (work in		draft-ietf-idr-bgp-optimal-route-reflection-13 (work in
	progress), January 2016.		progress), January 2017.
	[RFC6987] Retana, A., Nguyen, L., Zinin, A., White, R., and D.		[RFC6987] Retana, A., Nguyen, L., Zinin, A., White, R., and D.
	McPherson, "OSPF Stub Router Advertisement", RFC 6987,		McPherson, "OSPF Stub Router Advertisement", RFC 6987,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC6987, September 2013,		DOI 10.17487/RFC6987, September 2013,
	<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6987>.		<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6987>.
	Authors' Addresses		Authors' Addresses
	Keyur Patel		Keyur Patel
	Cisco Systems		Arrcus
	170 W. Tasman Drive
	San Jose CA 95134,
	USA
	Email: keyupate@cisco.com
			Email: keyur@arrcus.com
	Padma Pillay-Esnault		Padma Pillay-Esnault
	Huawei Technologies		Huawei Technologies
	2330 Central Expressway		2330 Central Expressway
	Santa Clara, CA 95050		Santa Clara, CA 95050
	USA		USA
	Email: padma@huawei.com		Email: padma@huawei.com
	Manish Bhardwaj		Manish Bhardwaj
	Cisco Systems		Cisco Systems
	170 W. Tasman Drive		170 W. Tasman Drive
	San Jose, CA 95134		San Jose, CA 95134
	USA		USA
	Email: manbhard@cisco.com		Email: manbhard@cisco.com
	Serpil Bayraktar		Serpil Bayraktar
	Cisco Systems		Cisco Systems
End of changes. 20 change blocks.
	31 lines changed or deleted		43 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/