< draft-ietf-ospf-prefix-link-attr-05.txt		draft-ietf-ospf-prefix-link-attr-06.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: November 18, 2015 Juniper Networks, Inc.		Expires: December 9, 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
	May 17, 2015		June 7, 2015
	OSPFv2 Prefix/Link Attribute Advertisement		OSPFv2 Prefix/Link Attribute Advertisement
	draft-ietf-ospf-prefix-link-attr-05.txt		draft-ietf-ospf-prefix-link-attr-06.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 November 18, 2015.		This Internet-Draft will expire on December 9, 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 51 ¶		skipping to change at page 2, line 51 ¶
	5. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		5. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	5.1. Implementation Survey Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		5.1. Implementation Survey Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11		6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
	7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11		7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
	7.1. OSPF Extended Prefix Opaque LSA TLV Registry . . . . . . 12		7.1. OSPF Extended Prefix Opaque LSA TLV Registry . . . . . . 12
	7.2. OSPF Extended Prefix TLV Sub-TLV Registry . . . . . . . . 12		7.2. OSPF Extended Prefix TLV Sub-TLV Registry . . . . . . . . 12
	7.3. OSPF Extended Link Opaque LSA TLV Registry . . . . . . . 12		7.3. OSPF Extended Link Opaque LSA TLV Registry . . . . . . . 12
	7.4. OSPF Extended Link TLV Sub-TLV Registry . . . . . . . . . 13		7.4. OSPF Extended Link TLV Sub-TLV Registry . . . . . . . . . 13
	8. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		8. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
	9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
	9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
	9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14		9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
	Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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
	skipping to change at page 10, line 50 ¶		skipping to change at page 10, line 50 ¶
	An implementation survey with seven questions related to the		An implementation survey with seven questions related to the
	implementer's support of OSPFv2 Prefix/Link Attributes was sent to		implementer's support of OSPFv2 Prefix/Link Attributes was sent to
	the OSPF WG list and several known implementers. This section		the OSPF WG list and several known implementers. This section
	contains responses from four implementers who completed the survey.		contains responses from four implementers who completed the survey.
	No external means were used to verify the accuracy of the information		No external means were used to verify the accuracy of the information
	submitted by the respondents. The respondents are considered experts		submitted by the respondents. The respondents are considered experts
	on the products they reported on. Additionally, responses were		on the products they reported on. Additionally, responses were
	omitted from implementers who indicated that they have not		omitted from implementers who indicated that they have not
	implemented the function yet.		implemented the function yet.
	Four vendors replied to the survey. These include Alcatel-Lucent,		Four vendors and one open source entity replied to the survey. These
	Cisco, Huawei, Juniper. Cisco and Alcatel-Lucent also did		included Alcatel-Lucent, Cisco, Huawei, Juniper, and FreeRouter
	interoperability testing. The Cisco and Alcatel-Lucent		(http://freerouter.nop.hu). Cisco and Alcatel-Lucent also did
			interoperability testing. FreeRouter did interoperability testing
			with Cisco. The Cisco, Alcatel-Lucent, and FreeRouter
	implementations are in released software versions. The Huawei and		implementations are in released software versions. The Huawei and
	Juniper implementation software releases are pending. For prefix		Juniper implementation software releases are pending. For prefix
	attributes, the recent change incorporating the A-Flag is pending		attributes, the recent change incorporating the A-Flag is pending
	implementation for all four vendors. Implementation of the N-flag is		implementation for all four vendors. The FreeRouter implementation
	pending for the Huawei and Juniper implementations. Otherwise, the		includes support for the A-Flag. Implementation of the N-flag is
	vendors have full implementations. For all four vendors, segment		pending for the Huawei and Juniper implementations. Otherwise, all
	routing [SEGMENT-ROUTING] was an application making use of the		the survey respondents have full implementations. For all four
	extensions. Additionally, Cisco has implemented Topology-Independent		vendors and the FreeRouter implementation, segment routing
	Loop-Free Alternatives (TI-LFA) [TI-LFA] and Bit Indexed Egress		[SEGMENT-ROUTING] was an application making use of the extensions.
	Replication (BIER) advertisement [BIER].		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,		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.		Release 13.0.R4. Cisco's support is included in IOS-XR 5.3.2. The
	Huawei and Juniper will respectively provide support in future		FreeRouter implementation is available in the FreeRouter 15.6.4
	versions Versatile Routing Platform (VRP) and JUniper Network		distribution. Huawei and Juniper will respectively provide support
	Operating System (JUNOS).		in future versions Versatile Routing Platform (VRP) and JUniper
			Network Operating System (JUNOS).
	6. Security Considerations		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.
	7. IANA Considerations		7. IANA Considerations
	skipping to change at page 13, line 41 ¶		skipping to change at page 13, line 43 ¶
	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.
	8. Acknowledgments		8. Acknowledgments
	We would like to thank Anton Smirnov for his contribution.		We would like to thank Anton Smirnov for his contribution.
	Thanks to Tony Przygienda for his review and comments.		Thanks to Tony Przygienda for his review and comments.
	Thanks to Wim Henderickx, Greg Harkins, Peter Psenak, Eric Wu, and		Thanks to Wim Henderickx, Greg Harkins, Peter Psenak, Eric Wu,
	Shraddha Hegde for their responses to the implementation survey.		Shraddha Hegde, and Csaba Mate for their responses to the
			implementation survey.
	9. References		9. References
	9.1. Normative 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.
End of changes. 10 change blocks.
	22 lines changed or deleted		27 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/