< draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv2-hbit-04.txt		draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv2-hbit-05.txt >
	OSPF K. Patel		OSPF K. Patel
	Internet-Draft Arrcus		Internet-Draft Arrcus
	Intended status: Standards Track P. Pillay-Esnault		Intended status: Standards Track P. Pillay-Esnault
	Expires: August 1, 2018 Huawei Technologies		Expires: February 2, 2019 Huawei Technologies
	M. Bhardwaj		M. Bhardwaj
	S. Bayraktar		S. Bayraktar
	Cisco Systems		Cisco Systems
	January 28, 2018		August 1, 2018
	H-bit Support for OSPFv2		H-bit Support for OSPFv2
	draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv2-hbit-04		draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv2-hbit-05
	Abstract		Abstract
	OSPFv3 defines an option field for router-LSAs known as a R-bit in		OSPFv3 defines an option bit for router-LSAs known as the 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 flooding, however it will not used as a transit router.
	the transit traffic. In such cases, an OSPF router would only accept		In such cases, other routers in the OSPFv3 routing domain only
	traffic intended for local delivery. This draft defines R-bit		install routes to allow local traffic delivery. This draft defines
	functionality for OSPFv2 defined in RFC2328.		the H-bit functionality to prevent other OSPFv2 routers from using
			the router for transit traffic in OSPFv2 routing domains as described
			in RFC 2328.
	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 August 1, 2018.		This Internet-Draft will expire on February 2, 2019.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the		Copyright (c) 2018 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 16 ¶		skipping to change at page 2, line 18 ¶
	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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		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 Backward Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . 5
	6. OSPF AS-External-LSAs/NSSA LSAs with Type 2 Metrics . . . . . 6		6. OSPF AS-External-LSAs/NSSA LSAs with Type 2 Metrics . . . . . 6
	7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	10. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	1. Introduction		1. Introduction
	OSPFv3 [RFC5340] defines an option field for router-LSAs known as a		OSPFv3 [RFC5340] defines an option bit for router-LSAs known as the
	R-bit. If the R-bit is clear, an OSPF router can participate in		R-bit. If the R-bit is clear, an OSPFv3 router can participate in
	OSPFv3 topology distribution without acting as a forwarder to forward		OSPFv3 topology flooding without acting as a transit router. In such
	the transit traffic. In such cases, an OSPF router would only accept		cases, other routers in the OSPFv3 routing domain only install routes
	traffic intended for local delivery.		used for local traffic.
	This functionality is particularly useful for BGP Route Reflectors		This functionality is particularly useful for BGP Route Reflectors,
	known as virtual Route Reflectors (vRRs) that are not in the		known as virtual Route Reflectors (vRRs), that are not in the
	forwarding path but are in central location such as data centers.		forwarding path but are in central locations such as data centers.
	Such Route Reflectors typically are used for route distribution and		Such Route Reflectors typically are used for route distribution and
	are not capable of forwarding data traffic. However, they need to		are not capable of forwarding transit traffic. However, they need to
	participate in the IGP routing for: 1) computing SPFs for Optimal		learn the OSPF topology for:
	Route Reflection functionality defined in
	[I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-optimal-route-reflection], and 2) resolving
	reachability for its Route Reflector Clients.
	This draft defines R-bit functionality for OSPFv2 defined in		1. SPF computation for Optimal Route Reflection functionality as
	[RFC2328] by introducing a new Router LSA bit known as a "H-bit".		defined in [I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-optimal-route-reflection]
			2. Reachability resolution for its Route Reflector Clients.
			This draft defines the R-bit functionality equivalent for OSPFv2
			defined in [RFC2328] by introducing a new router-LSA bit known as the
			"H-bit".
	2. Requirements Language		2. 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", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this		"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
	document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119] only when		"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
	they appear in all upper case. They may also appear in lower or		14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
	mixed case as English words, without any normative meaning.		capitals, as shown here.
	3. H-bit Support		3. H-bit Support
	This draft defines a new Router-LSA bit known as a Host Bit or a		This document defines a new router-LSA bit known as the Host Bit or
	H-bit. The H-bit indicates the OSPFv2's capability of acting as a		the H-bit. An OSPFv2 router advertising a router-LSA with the H-bit
	transit router. When set, the OSPFv2 router indicates that the		set indicates to other OSPFv2 routers in the area supporting the
	transit capability is disabled. The bit value usage of the H-bit is		functionality that it MUST NOT be used as a transit router. The bit
	reversed as opposed to the R-bit value defined in OSPFv3 [RFC5340] to		value usage of the H-bit is reversed from the R-bit defined in OSPFv3
	support backward compatibility. The OSPFv2 Router LSA format is		[RFC5340] to support backward compatibility. The modified OSPFv2
	defined as:		router-LSA format 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
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| LS age | Options | 1 |		| LS age | Options | 1 |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| Link State ID |		| Link State ID |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| Advertising Router |		| Advertising Router |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	skipping to change at page 4, line 38 ¶		skipping to change at page 4, line 38 ¶
	| TOS | 0 | TOS metric |		| TOS | 0 | TOS metric |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| Link ID |		| Link ID |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| Link Data |		| Link Data |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| ... |		| ... |
	bit H		bit H
	When set, an OSPFv2 router is a non-transit router and is		When set, an OSPFv2 router is a non-transit router and is
	incapable of acting as a forwarder.		incapable of forwarding transit traffic.
	When H-bit is set, an OSPFv2 router is a non-transit router and is		When the H-bit is set, an OSPFv2 router is a non-transit router and
	incapable of acting as a forwarder. In this mode, the other OSPFv2		should not be used to forward transit traffic. In this mode, the
	routers SHOULD NOT use the originating OSPFv2 router for the transit		other OSPFv2 routers in the area SHOULD NOT use the originating
	traffic, but they will use the OSPFv2 router for data traffic		OSPFv2 router for transit traffic, but MAY use the OSPFv2 router for
	destined to that OSPFv2 router. An OSPFv2 router originating a		local traffic destined to that OSPFv2 router.
	Router LSA with the H-bit set SHOULD advertise its LINKS with MAX
	Link cost as defined in Section 3 of [RFC6987]. This is to increase
	the applicability of the H-bit in partial deployments where it is the
	responsibility of the operator to ensure that the H-bit does not
	result in routing loops.
	When H-bit is set, IPv4 prefixes associated with local interfaces MAY		An OSPFv2 router originating a router-LSA with the H-bit set SHOULD
	be advertised in summary LSAs. Non-local IPv4 prefixes, e.g., those		advertise all its non-local router links with a link cost of
	advertised by other routers and installed during the SPF computation,		MaxLinkMetric as defined in Section 3 of [RFC6987]. This is to
	MAY be advertised in summary-LSAs if configured by policy. Likewise,		increase the applicability of the H-bit to partial deployments where
	when H-bit is set, only IPv4 prefixes associated with local		it is the responsibility of the operator to ensure that OSPFv2
	interfaces MAY be advertised in AS-external LSAs. Non-local IPv4		routers not supporting the H-bit do not install routes causing
	prefixes, e.g., those exported from other routing protocols, MUST NOT		routing loops.
	be advertised in AS-external-LSAs. Finally, when H-bit is set, an
	ABR MUST advertise a consistent H-bit setting in its self-originated		When the H-bit is set, IPv4 prefixes associated with local interfaces
	router-LSAs for all attached areas.		in other areas MAY be advertised in summary LSAs. Non-local IPv4
			prefixes, e.g., those advertised by other routers and installed
			during the SPF computation, MAY be advertised in summary-LSAs if
			configured by policy. Likewise, when the H-bit is set, only IPv4
			prefixes associated with local interfaces MAY be advertised in AS-
			external LSAs. Non-local IPv4 prefixes, e.g., those exported from
			other routing protocols, MUST NOT be advertised in AS-external-LSAs.
			Finally, when the H-bit is set, an Area Border Router (ABR) MUST
			advertise a consistent H-bit setting in its self-originated router-
			LSAs for all attached areas.
	4. SPF Modifications		4. SPF Modifications
	The SPF calculation described in section 16.1 [RFC2328] will be		The SPF calculation described in section 16.1 [RFC2328] will be
	modified to assure that the routers originating router-LSAs with the		modified to ensure that the routers originating router-LSAs with the
	H-bit set will not be used for transit traffic. Step 2 is modified		H-bit set will not be used for transit traffic. Step 2 is modified
	as follows:		as follows:
	2) Call the vertex just added to the		2) Call the vertex just added to the
	tree vertex V. Examine the LSA		tree vertex V. Examine the LSA
	associated with vertex V. This is		associated with vertex V. This is
	a lookup in the Area A's link state		a lookup in the Area A's link state
	database based on the Vertex ID. If		database based on the Vertex ID. If
	this is a router-LSA, and the H-bit		this is a router-LSA, and the H-bit
	of the router-LSA is set, and		of the router-LSA is set, and
	skipping to change at page 5, line 42 ¶		skipping to change at page 5, line 45 ¶
	and step (3) should be executed		and step (3) should be executed
	immediately. If this is a router-LSA,		immediately. If this is a router-LSA,
	and bit V of the router-LSA (see		and bit V of the router-LSA (see
	Section A.4.2) is set, set Area A's		Section A.4.2) is set, set Area A's
	TransitCapability to TRUE. In any case,		TransitCapability to TRUE. In any case,
	each link described by the LSA gives		each link described by the LSA gives
	the cost to an adjacent vertex. For		the cost to an adjacent vertex. For
	each described link, (say it joins		each described link, (say it joins
	vertex V to vertex W):		vertex V to vertex W):
	5. Auto Discovery and Backwards Compatibility		5. Auto Discovery and Backward Compatibility
	To avoid the possibility of any routing loops due to partial		To avoid the possibility of any routing loops due to partial
	deployments, this draft defines a new OSPF Router Functional		deployment, this document defines a OSPF Router-Information LSA
	Capability known as a Host Support Capability. The value of this		functional capability bit known as the Host Support capability.
	capability is a bit value to be assigned by IANA from OSPF Router
	Functional Capability Bits registry [RFC7770] .
	The Auto Discovery via announcement of the Host Support Functional		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 configuration parameter
	enforcement of the H-bit functionality in partial deployment		to manually override enforcement of the H-bit functionality in
	scenarios for cases where the topology guarantees that the router		partial deployments where the topology guarantees that OSPFv2 routers
	supporting the H-bit will not cause routing loops.		not supporting the H-bit do not compute routes resulting in routing
			loops. More precisely, the advertisement of MaxLinkMetric for the
			router's non-local links will prevent OSPFv2 routers not supporting
			the H-bit from attempting to use it for transit traffic.
	6. OSPF AS-External-LSAs/NSSA LSAs with Type 2 Metrics		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		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 as more		a Type-2 metric, the advertised Type-2 metric is taken as more
	significant than the OSPF intra-area or inter-area path. Hence,		significant than the OSPF intra-area or inter-area path. Hence,
	advertising the links with MaxLinkMetric as specified in [RFC6987]		advertising the links with MaxLinkMetric as specified in [RFC6987]
	does not discourage transit traffic when calculating AS external or		does not discourage transit traffic when calculating AS external or
	NSSA routes. Consequently, OSPF routers implementing [RFC6987] or		NSSA routes. Consequently, OSPF routers implementing [RFC6987] or
	this specification should advertise a Type-2 metric of LSInfinity for		this specification should advertise a Type-2 metric of LSInfinity for
	any self-originated AS-External-LSAs or NSSA-LSAs in situations when		any self-originated AS-External-LSAs or NSSA-LSAs in situations when
	the OSPF router is acting as a stub router [RFC6987] or implementing		the OSPF router is acting as a stub router [RFC6987] or implementing
	this specification.		this specification.
	7. IANA Considerations		7. IANA Considerations
	This draft defines a new Router LSA bit known as a H-bit. This draft		IANA is requested to create the OSPF Router-LSA bit registry with the
	requests IANA to 1) Create a new OSPF Router LSA bits registry and 2)		following assignments:
	assign a H-bit code type from the newly allocated OSPF Router LSA bit
	registry.
	This draft defines a new Router Functional Capability known as a Host		Value Description Reference
	Support Functional Capability. This draft requests IANA to allocate		0x01 Area Border Router (B-bit) [RFC2328]
	the value of this capability from the Router Functional Capability		0x02 AS Boundary Router (E-bit) [RFC2328]
	Bits TLV.		0x04 Virtual Link Endpoint (V-bit) [RFC2328]
			0x08 Historic (W-bit) [RFC1584]
			0x10 Unconditional NSSA Translator (Nt-bit) [RFC3101]
			0x20 Unassigned
			0x40 Unassigned
			0x80 Host (H-bit) This Document
			This document also defines a new Router Functional Capability
			[RFC7770] known as the Host Support Functional Capability. This
			document requests IANA to allocate the value of this capability from
			the Router Functional Capability Bits TLV.
	8. Security Considerations		8. Security Considerations
	This document introduces no new security considerations above and		This document introduces no new security considerations beyond those
	beyond those already specified in [RFC2328] and [RFC5340].		already specified in [RFC6987], [RFC2328], and [RFC5340].
	9. Acknowledgements		9. Acknowledgements
	The authors would like to acknowledge Hasmit Grover for discovery of		The authors would like to acknowledge Hasmit Grover for discovery of
	the limitation in [RFC6987], Acee Lindem, Abhay Roy, David Ward,		the limitation in [RFC6987], Acee Lindem, Abhay Roy, David Ward,
	Burjiz Pithawala and Michael Barnes for their comments.		Burjiz Pithawala and Michael Barnes for their comments.
	10. Change Log		10. References
	Initial Version: April 23 2015
	11. References
	11.1. Normative References		10.1. 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,
	<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",
			RFC 3101, DOI 10.17487/RFC3101, January 2003,
			<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3101>.
	[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>.
	[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, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7770>.		February 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7770>.
	11.2. Informative References		[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
			2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
			May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
			10.2. 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., and K.
	S., and K. Wang, "BGP Optimal Route Reflection (BGP-ORR)",		Wang, "BGP Optimal Route Reflection (BGP-ORR)", draft-
	draft-ietf-idr-bgp-optimal-route-reflection-13 (work in		ietf-idr-bgp-optimal-route-reflection-16 (work in
	progress), January 2017.		progress), April 2018.
			[RFC1584] Moy, J., "Multicast Extensions to OSPF", RFC 1584,
			DOI 10.17487/RFC1584, March 1994,
			<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1584>.
	[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,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6987>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6987>.
	Authors' Addresses		Authors' Addresses
	Keyur Patel		Keyur Patel
	Arrcus		Arrcus
End of changes. 30 change blocks.
	96 lines changed or deleted		121 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/