< draft-ietf-ospf-prefix-link-attr-04.txt   draft-ietf-ospf-prefix-link-attr-05.txt >
Network Working Group P. Psenak Network Working Group P. Psenak
Internet-Draft Cisco Systems Internet-Draft Cisco Systems
Intended status: Standards Track H. Gredler Intended status: Standards Track H. Gredler
Expires: October 16, 2015 Juniper Networks, Inc. Expires: November 18, 2015 Juniper Networks, Inc.
R. Shakir R. Shakir
British Telcom British Telcom
W. Henderickx W. Henderickx
Alcatel-Lucent Alcatel-Lucent
J. Tantsura J. Tantsura
Ericsson Ericsson
A. Lindem A. Lindem
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
April 14, 2015 May 17, 2015
OSPFv2 Prefix/Link Attribute Advertisement OSPFv2 Prefix/Link Attribute Advertisement
draft-ietf-ospf-prefix-link-attr-04.txt draft-ietf-ospf-prefix-link-attr-05.txt
Abstract Abstract
OSPFv2 requires functional extension beyond what can readily be done OSPFv2 requires functional extension beyond what can readily be done
with the fixed-format Link State Advertisements (LSAs) as described with the fixed-format Link State Advertisements (LSAs) as described
in RFC 2328. This document defines OSPF opaque LSAs based on Type- in RFC 2328. This document defines OSPF opaque LSAs based on Type-
Length-Value (TLV) tuples that can be used to associate additional Length-Value (TLV) tuples that can be used to associate additional
attributes with prefixes or links. Dependent on the application, attributes with prefixes or links. Dependent on the application,
these prefixes and links may or not be advertised in the fixed-format these prefixes and links may or not be advertised in the fixed-format
LSAs. The OSPF opaque LSAs are optional and fully backward LSAs. The OSPF opaque LSAs are optional and fully backward
skipping to change at page 1, line 46 skipping to change at page 1, line 46
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 October 16, 2015. This Internet-Draft will expire on November 18, 2015.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2015 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
skipping to change at page 2, line 36 skipping to change at page 2, line 36
the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
than English. than English.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Requirements notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1. Requirements notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. OSPFv2 Extended Prefix Opaque LSA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. OSPFv2 Extended Prefix Opaque LSA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. OSPFv2 Extended Prefix TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.1. OSPFv2 Extended Prefix TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. OSPFv2 Extended Link Opaque LSA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3. OSPFv2 Extended Link Opaque LSA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.1. OSPFv2 Extended Link TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.1. OSPFv2 Extended Link TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4. Backward Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4. Backward Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5.1. Implementation Survey Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.1. OSPF Extended Prefix Opaque LSA TLV Registry . . . . . . 10 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.2. OSPF Extended Prefix TLV Sub-TLV Registry . . . . . . . . 11 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.3. OSPF Extended Link Opaque LSA TLV Registry . . . . . . . 11 7.1. OSPF Extended Prefix Opaque LSA TLV Registry . . . . . . 12
6.4. OSPF Extended Link TLV Sub-TLV Registry . . . . . . . . . 12 7.2. OSPF Extended Prefix TLV Sub-TLV Registry . . . . . . . . 12
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 7.3. OSPF Extended Link Opaque LSA TLV Registry . . . . . . . 12
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 7.4. OSPF Extended Link TLV Sub-TLV Registry . . . . . . . . . 13
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 8. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
OSPFv2 requires functional extension beyond what can readily be done OSPFv2 requires functional extension beyond what can readily be done
with the fixed-format Link State Advertisements (LSAs) as described with the fixed-format Link State Advertisements (LSAs) as described
in RFC 2328 [OSPFV2]. This document defines OSPF opaque LSAs based in RFC 2328 [OSPFV2]. This document defines OSPF opaque LSAs based
on Type-Length-Value (TLV) tuples that can be used to associate on Type-Length-Value (TLV) tuples that can be used to associate
additional attributes with prefixes or links. Dependent on the additional attributes with prefixes or links. Dependent on the
application, these prefixes and links may or not be advertised in the application, these prefixes and links may or not be advertised in the
fixed-format LSAs. The OSPF opaque LSAs are optional and fully fixed-format LSAs. The OSPF opaque LSAs are optional and fully
skipping to change at page 3, line 45 skipping to change at page 3, line 47
2. OSPFv2 Extended Link TLV - Top-level TLV advertising attributes 2. OSPFv2 Extended Link TLV - Top-level TLV advertising attributes
for a link in the OSPFv2 Extended Link Opaque LSA. for a link in the OSPFv2 Extended Link Opaque LSA.
1.1. Requirements notation 1.1. Requirements notation
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", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC-KEYWORDS]. document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC-KEYWORDS].
1.2. Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Anton Smirnov for his contribution.
Thanks to Tony Przygienda for his review and comments.
2. OSPFv2 Extended Prefix Opaque LSA 2. OSPFv2 Extended Prefix Opaque LSA
The OSPFv2 Extended Prefix Opaque LSA will be used to advertise The OSPFv2 Extended Prefix Opaque LSA will be used to advertise
additional prefix attributes. Opaque LSAs are described in [OPAQUE]. additional prefix attributes. Opaque LSAs are described in [OPAQUE].
Multiple OSPFv2 Extended Prefix Opaque LSAs can be advertised by an Multiple OSPFv2 Extended Prefix Opaque LSAs can be advertised by an
OSPFv2 router. The flooding scope of the OSPFv2 Extended Prefix OSPFv2 router. The flooding scope of the OSPFv2 Extended Prefix
Opaque LSA depends on the scope of the advertised prefixes and is Opaque LSA depends on the scope of the advertised prefixes and is
under the control of the advertising router. In some cases (e.g., under the control of the advertising router. In some cases (e.g.,
mapping server deployment), the LSA flooding scope may be greater mapping server deployment), the LSA flooding scope may be greater
skipping to change at page 7, line 43 skipping to change at page 7, line 43
ascending order of Instance to minimize the disruption. ascending order of Instance to minimize the disruption.
If this TLV is advertised multiple times for the same prefix in If this TLV is advertised multiple times for the same prefix in
different OSPFv2 Extended Prefix Opaque LSAs originated by the different OSPFv2 Extended Prefix Opaque LSAs originated by the
different OSPF routers, the application using the information is different OSPF routers, the application using the information is
required to determine which OSPFv2 Extended Prefix Opaque LSA is required to determine which OSPFv2 Extended Prefix Opaque LSA is
used. For example, the application could prefer the LSA providing used. For example, the application could prefer the LSA providing
the best path to the prefix. the best path to the prefix.
This document creates a registry for OSPF Extended Prefix sub-TLVs in This document creates a registry for OSPF Extended Prefix sub-TLVs in
Section 6. Section 7.
3. OSPFv2 Extended Link Opaque LSA 3. OSPFv2 Extended Link Opaque LSA
The OSPFv2 Extended Link Opaque LSA will be used to advertise The OSPFv2 Extended Link Opaque LSA will be used to advertise
additional link attributes. Opaque LSAs are described in [OPAQUE]. additional link attributes. Opaque LSAs are described in [OPAQUE].
The OSPFv2 Extended Link Opaque LSA has an area flooding scope. The OSPFv2 Extended Link Opaque LSA has an area flooding scope.
Multiple OSPFv2 Extended Link Opaque LSAs can be advertised by a Multiple OSPFv2 Extended Link Opaque LSAs can be advertised by a
single router in an area. single router in an area.
skipping to change at page 10, line 6 skipping to change at page 10, line 6
different OSPFv2 Extended Link Opaque LSAs originated by the same different OSPFv2 Extended Link Opaque LSAs originated by the same
OSPF router, the Extended Link TLV in the Extended Link Opaque LSA OSPF router, the Extended Link TLV in the Extended Link Opaque LSA
with the smallest Instance is used by receiving OSPFv2 Routers. This with the smallest Instance is used by receiving OSPFv2 Routers. This
situation MAY be logged as a warning. situation MAY be logged as a warning.
It is RECOMMENDED that OSPF routers advertising Extended Link TLVs in It is RECOMMENDED that OSPF routers advertising Extended Link TLVs in
different Extended Link Opaque LSAs re-originate these LSAs in different Extended Link Opaque LSAs re-originate these LSAs in
ascending order of Instance to minimize the disruption. ascending order of Instance to minimize the disruption.
This document creates a registry for OSPF Extended Link sub-TLVs in This document creates a registry for OSPF Extended Link sub-TLVs in
Section 6. Section 7.
4. Backward Compatibility 4. Backward Compatibility
Since opaque OSPFv2 LSAs are optional and backward compatible Since opaque OSPFv2 LSAs are optional and backward compatible
[OPAQUE], the extensions described herein is fully backward [OPAQUE], the extensions described herein is fully backward
compatible. However, future OSPFv2 extensions utilizing these compatible. However, future OSPFv2 extensions utilizing these
extensions must address backward compatibility of the corresponding extensions must address backward compatibility of the corresponding
functionality. functionality.
5. Security Considerations 5. Implementation Status
This section records the status of known implementations of the
protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of this
Internet-Draft, and is based on a proposal described in RFC 6982.
The description of implementations in this section is intended to
assist the IETF in its decision processes in progressing drafts to
RFCs. Please note that the listing of any individual implementation
here does not imply endorsement by the IETF. Furthermore, no effort
has been spent to verify the information presented here that was
supplied by IETF contributors. This is not intended as, and must not
be construed to be, a catalog of available implementations or their
features. Readers are advised to note that other implementations may
exist.
According to RFC 6982, "this will allow reviewers and working groups
to assign due consideration to documents that have the benefit of
running code, which may serve as evidence of valuable experimentation
and feedback that have made the implemented protocols more mature.
It is up to the individual working groups to use this information as
they see fit".
5.1. Implementation Survey Results
An implementation survey with seven questions related to the
implementer's support of OSPFv2 Prefix/Link Attributes was sent to
the OSPF WG list and several known implementers. This section
contains responses from four implementers who completed the survey.
No external means were used to verify the accuracy of the information
submitted by the respondents. The respondents are considered experts
on the products they reported on. Additionally, responses were
omitted from implementers who indicated that they have not
implemented the function yet.
Four vendors replied to the survey. These include Alcatel-Lucent,
Cisco, Huawei, Juniper. Cisco and Alcatel-Lucent also did
interoperability testing. The Cisco and Alcatel-Lucent
implementations are in released software versions. The Huawei and
Juniper implementation software releases are pending. For prefix
attributes, the recent change incorporating the A-Flag is pending
implementation for all four vendors. Implementation of the N-flag is
pending for the Huawei and Juniper implementations. Otherwise, the
vendors have full implementations. For all four vendors, segment
routing [SEGMENT-ROUTING] was an application making use of the
extensions. Additionally, Cisco has implemented Topology-Independent
Loop-Free Alternatives (TI-LFA) [TI-LFA] and Bit Indexed Egress
Replication (BIER) advertisement [BIER].
Alcatel-Lucent's support of this specification is included in SR OS,
Release 13.0.R4. Cisco's support is included in IOS-XR 5.3.2.
Huawei and Juniper will respectively provide support in future
versions Versatile Routing Platform (VRP) and JUniper Network
Operating System (JUNOS).
6. Security Considerations
In general, new LSAs defined in this document are subject to the same In general, new LSAs defined in this document are subject to the same
security concerns as those described in [OSPFV2]. Additionally, security concerns as those described in [OSPFV2]. Additionally,
implementations must assure that malformed TLV and Sub-TLV implementations must assure that malformed TLV and Sub-TLV
permutations do not result in errors that cause hard OSPF failures. permutations do not result in errors that cause hard OSPF failures.
6. IANA Considerations 7. IANA Considerations
This specification updates the Opaque Link-State Advertisements (LSA) This specification updates the Opaque Link-State Advertisements (LSA)
Option Types with the following values: Option Types with the following values:
o 7 (IANA Early Allocation [RFC7120]) - OSPFv2 Extended Prefix o 7 (IANA Early Allocation [RFC7120]) - OSPFv2 Extended Prefix
Opaque LSA Opaque LSA
o 8 (IANA Early Allocation [RFC7120]) - OSPFv2 Extended Link Opaque o 8 (IANA Early Allocation [RFC7120]) - OSPFv2 Extended Link Opaque
LSA LSA
This specification also creates four new registries: This specification also creates four new registries:
o OSPF Extended Prefix Opaque LSA TLVs o OSPF Extended Prefix Opaque LSA TLVs
o OSPF Extended Prefix TLV Sub-TLVs o OSPF Extended Prefix TLV Sub-TLVs
o OSPF Extended Link Opaque LSA TLVs o OSPF Extended Link Opaque LSA TLVs
o OSPF Extended Link TLV Sub-TLVs o OSPF Extended Link TLV Sub-TLVs
6.1. OSPF Extended Prefix Opaque LSA TLV Registry 7.1. OSPF Extended Prefix Opaque LSA TLV Registry
The OSPF Extend Prefix Opaque LSA TLV registry will define top-level The OSPF Extend Prefix Opaque LSA TLV registry will define top-level
TLVs for Extended Prefix Opaque LSA and should be placed in the TLVs for Extended Prefix Opaque LSA and should be placed in the
existing OSPF IANA registry. New values can be allocated via IETF existing OSPF IANA registry. New values can be allocated via IETF
Consensus or IESG Approval. Consensus or IESG Approval.
The following initial values are allocated: The following initial values are allocated:
o 0 - Reserved o 0 - Reserved
o 1 - OSPF Extended Prefix TLV o 1 - OSPF Extended Prefix TLV
Types in the range 32768-33023 are for experimental use; these will Types in the range 32768-33023 are for experimental use; these will
not be registered with IANA, and MUST NOT be mentioned by RFCs. not be registered with IANA, and MUST NOT be mentioned by RFCs.
Types in the range 33024-65535 are not to be assigned at this time. Types in the range 33024-65535 are not to be assigned at this time.
Before any assignments can be made in the 33024-65535 range, there Before any assignments can be made in the 33024-65535 range, there
MUST be an IETF specification that specifies IANA Considerations that MUST be an IETF specification that specifies IANA Considerations that
covers the range being assigned. covers the range being assigned.
6.2. OSPF Extended Prefix TLV Sub-TLV Registry 7.2. OSPF Extended Prefix TLV Sub-TLV Registry
The OSPF Extended Prefix TLV sub-TLV registry will define sub-TLVs at The OSPF Extended Prefix TLV sub-TLV registry will define sub-TLVs at
any level of nesting for Extended Prefix TLV and should be placed in any level of nesting for Extended Prefix TLV and should be placed in
the existing OSPF IANA registry. New values can be allocated via the existing OSPF IANA registry. New values can be allocated via
IETF Consensus or IESG Approval. IETF Consensus or IESG Approval.
The following initial values are allocated: The following initial values are allocated:
o 0 - Reserved o 0 - Reserved
Types in the range 32768-33023 are for experimental use; these will Types in the range 32768-33023 are for experimental use; these will
not be registered with IANA, and MUST NOT be mentioned by RFCs. not be registered with IANA, and MUST NOT be mentioned by RFCs.
Types in the range 33024-65535 are not to be assigned at this time. Types in the range 33024-65535 are not to be assigned at this time.
Before any assignments can be made in the 33024-65535 range, there Before any assignments can be made in the 33024-65535 range, there
MUST be an IETF specification that specifies IANA Considerations that MUST be an IETF specification that specifies IANA Considerations that
covers the range being assigned. covers the range being assigned.
6.3. OSPF Extended Link Opaque LSA TLV Registry 7.3. OSPF Extended Link Opaque LSA TLV Registry
The OSPF Extended Link Opaque LSA TLV registry will define top-level The OSPF Extended Link Opaque LSA TLV registry will define top-level
TLVs for Extended Link Opaque LSAs and should be placed in the TLVs for Extended Link Opaque LSAs and should be placed in the
existing OSPF IANA registry. New values can be allocated via IETF existing OSPF IANA registry. New values can be allocated via IETF
Consensus or IESG Approval. Consensus or IESG Approval.
Following initial values are allocated: Following initial values are allocated:
o 0 - Reserved o 0 - Reserved
o 1 - OSPFv2 Extended Link TLV o 1 - OSPFv2 Extended Link TLV
Types in the range 32768-33023 are for experimental use; these will Types in the range 32768-33023 are for experimental use; these will
not be registered with IANA, and MUST NOT be mentioned by RFCs. not be registered with IANA, and MUST NOT be mentioned by RFCs.
Types in the range 33024-65535 are not to be assigned at this time. Types in the range 33024-65535 are not to be assigned at this time.
Before any assignments can be made in the 33024-65535 range, there Before any assignments can be made in the 33024-65535 range, there
MUST be am IETF specification that specifies IANA Considerations that MUST be am IETF specification that specifies IANA Considerations that
covers the range being assigned. covers the range being assigned.
6.4. OSPF Extended Link TLV Sub-TLV Registry 7.4. OSPF Extended Link TLV Sub-TLV Registry
The OSPF Extended Link TLV sub-TLV registry will define sub-TLVs at The OSPF Extended Link TLV sub-TLV registry will define sub-TLVs at
any level of nesting for Extended Link TLV and should be placed in any level of nesting for Extended Link TLV and should be placed in
the existing OSPF IANA registry. New values can be allocated via the existing OSPF IANA registry. New values can be allocated via
IETF Consensus or IESG Approval. IETF Consensus or IESG Approval.
The following initial values are allocated: The following initial values are allocated:
o 0 - Reserved o 0 - Reserved
Types in the range 32768-33023 are for experimental use; these will Types in the range 32768-33023 are for experimental use; these will
not be registered with IANA, and MUST NOT be mentioned by RFCs. not be registered with IANA, and MUST NOT be mentioned by RFCs.
Types in the range 33024-65535 are not to be assigned at this time. Types in the range 33024-65535 are not to be assigned at this time.
Before any assignments can be made in the 33024-65535 range, there Before any assignments can be made in the 33024-65535 range, there
MUST be an IETF specification that specifies IANA Considerations that MUST be an IETF specification that specifies IANA Considerations that
covers the range being assigned. covers the range being assigned.
7. References 8. Acknowledgments
7.1. Normative References We would like to thank Anton Smirnov for his contribution.
Thanks to Tony Przygienda for his review and comments.
Thanks to Wim Henderickx, Greg Harkins, Peter Psenak, Eric Wu, and
Shraddha Hegde for their responses to the implementation survey.
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[OPAQUE] Berger, L., Bryskin, I., Zinin, A., and R. Coltun, "The [OPAQUE] Berger, L., Bryskin, I., Zinin, A., and R. Coltun, "The
OSPF Opaque LSA Option", RFC 5250, July 2008. OSPF Opaque LSA Option", RFC 5250, July 2008.
[OSPFV2] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", RFC 2328, April 1998. [OSPFV2] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", RFC 2328, April 1998.
[RFC-KEYWORDS] [RFC-KEYWORDS]
Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, March 1997. Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, March 1997.
[TE] Katz, D., Yeung, D., and K. Kompella, "Traffic Engineering [TE] Katz, D., Yeung, D., and K. Kompella, "Traffic Engineering
Extensions to OSPF", RFC 3630, September 2003. Extensions to OSPF", RFC 3630, September 2003.
7.2. Informative References 9.2. Informative References
[BIER] Psenak, P., Kumar, N., Wijnands, I., Dolganow, A.,
Przygienda, T., Zhang, J., and S. Aldrin, "OSPF Extensions
for BIER", draft-ietf-bier-ospf-bier-extensions-00.txt
(work in progress), April 2015.
[I-D.ietf-ospf-ospfv3-lsa-extend] [I-D.ietf-ospf-ospfv3-lsa-extend]
Lindem, A., Mirtorabi, S., Roy, A., and F. Baker, "OSPFv3 Lindem, A., Mirtorabi, S., Roy, A., and F. Baker, "OSPFv3
LSA Extendibility", draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-lsa-extend-06 LSA Extendibility", draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-lsa-extend-06
(work in progress), February 2015. (work in progress), February 2015.
[RFC7120] Cotton, M., "Early IANA Allocation of Standards Track Code [RFC7120] Cotton, M., "Early IANA Allocation of Standards Track Code
Points", BCP 100, RFC 7120, January 2014. Points", BCP 100, RFC 7120, January 2014.
[SEGMENT-ROUTING]
Psenak, P., Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Gredler, H.,
Shakir, R., Henderickx, W., and J. Tantsura, "OSPF
Extensions for Segment Routing", draft-ietf-ospf-segment-
routing-extensions-04.txt (work in progress), February
2015.
[TI-LFA] Francois, P., Filsfils, C., Bashandy, A., Decraene, B.,
and S. Litkowski, "Topology Independent Fast Reroute using
Segment Routing", draft-francois-spring-segment-routing-
ti-lfa-01.txt (work in progress), October 2014.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Peter Psenak Peter Psenak
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
Apollo Business Center Apollo Business Center
Mlynske nivy 43 Mlynske nivy 43
Bratislava, 821 09 Bratislava, 821 09
Slovakia Slovakia
Email: ppsenak@cisco.com Email: ppsenak@cisco.com
 End of changes. 19 change blocks. 
33 lines changed or deleted 110 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/