< draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions-21.txt		draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions-22.txt >
	Open Shortest Path First IGP P. Psenak, Ed.		Open Shortest Path First IGP P. Psenak, Ed.
	Internet-Draft S. Previdi, Ed.		Internet-Draft S. Previdi, Ed.
	Intended status: Standards Track C. Filsfils		Intended status: Standards Track C. Filsfils
	Expires: April 27, 2018 Cisco Systems, Inc.		Expires: May 31, 2018 Cisco Systems, Inc.
	H. Gredler		H. Gredler
	RtBrick Inc.		RtBrick Inc.
	R. Shakir		R. Shakir
	Google, Inc.		Google, Inc.
	W. Henderickx		W. Henderickx
	Nokia		Nokia
	J. Tantsura		J. Tantsura
	Individual		Individual
	October 24, 2017		November 27, 2017
	OSPF Extensions for Segment Routing		OSPF Extensions for Segment Routing
	draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions-21		draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions-22
	Abstract		Abstract
	Segment Routing (SR) allows a flexible definition of end-to-end paths		Segment Routing (SR) allows a flexible definition of end-to-end paths
	within IGP topologies by encoding paths as sequences of topological		within IGP topologies by encoding paths as sequences of topological
	sub-paths, called "segments". These segments are advertised by the		sub-paths, called "segments". These segments are advertised by the
	link-state routing protocols (IS-IS and OSPF).		link-state routing protocols (IS-IS and OSPF).
	This draft describes the OSPF extensions required for Segment		This draft describes the OSPF extensions required for Segment
	Routing.		Routing.
	skipping to change at page 2, line 4 ¶		skipping to change at page 2, line 4 ¶
	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 27, 2018.		This Internet-Draft will expire on May 31, 2018.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2017 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
	(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 10, line 35 ¶		skipping to change at page 10, line 35 ¶
	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
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| Type | Length |		| Type | Length |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| Preference | Reserved |		| Preference | Reserved |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	where:		where:
	Type: 13		Type: 15
	Length: 4 octets		Length: 4 octets
	Preference: 1 octet. SRMS preference value from 0 to 255.		Preference: 1 octet. SRMS preference value from 0 to 255.
	When multiple SRMS Preference TLVs are received from a given router,		When multiple SRMS Preference TLVs are received from a given router,
	the receiver SHOULD use the first occurrence of the TLV in the Router		the receiver SHOULD use the first occurrence of the TLV in the Router
	Information LSA. If the SRMS Preference TLV appears in multiple		Information LSA. If the SRMS Preference TLV appears in multiple
	Router Information LSAs that have different flooding scopes, the SRMS		Router Information LSAs that have different flooding scopes, the SRMS
	Preference TLV in the Router Information LSA with the narrowest		Preference TLV in the Router Information LSA with the narrowest
	skipping to change at page 22, line 25 ¶		skipping to change at page 22, line 25 ¶
	8. IANA Considerations		8. IANA Considerations
	This specification updates several existing OSPF registries.		This specification updates several existing OSPF registries.
	8.1. OSPF OSPF Router Information (RI) TLVs Registry		8.1. OSPF OSPF Router Information (RI) TLVs Registry
	o 8 (IANA Preallocated) - SR-Algorithm TLV		o 8 (IANA Preallocated) - SR-Algorithm TLV
	o 9 (IANA Preallocated) - SID/Label Range TLV		o 9 (IANA Preallocated) - SID/Label Range TLV
	o 13 - SRMS Preference TLV
	o 14 - SR Local Block TLV		o 14 - SR Local Block TLV
			o 15 - SRMS Preference TLV
	8.2. OSPF Extended Prefix LSA TLV Registry		8.2. OSPF Extended Prefix LSA TLV Registry
	Following values are allocated:		Following values are allocated:
	o 2 - OSPF Extended Prefix Range TLV		o 2 - OSPF Extended Prefix Range TLV
	8.3. OSPF Extended Prefix LSA Sub-TLV Registry		8.3. OSPF Extended Prefix LSA Sub-TLV Registry
	Following values are allocated:		Following values are allocated:
	skipping to change at page 23, line 7 ¶		skipping to change at page 23, line 7 ¶
	Following initial values are allocated:		Following initial values are allocated:
	o 1 - SID/Label Sub-TLV		o 1 - SID/Label Sub-TLV
	o 2 - Adj-SID Sub-TLV		o 2 - Adj-SID Sub-TLV
	o 3 - LAN Adj-SID/Label Sub-TLV		o 3 - LAN Adj-SID/Label Sub-TLV
	8.5. IGP Algorithm Type Registry		8.5. IGP Algorithm Type Registry
	IANA is requested to set up a registry called "IGP Algorithm Type".		IANA is requested to set up a registry called "IGP Algorithm Type"
	The registration policy for this registry is "Standards Action"		under a new category of "Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) Parameters"
	([RFC8126] and [RFC7120]).		IANA registries. The registration policy for this registry is
			"Standards Action" ([RFC8126] and [RFC7120]).
	Values in this registry must come from the range 0-255.		Values in this registry must come from the range 0-255.
	The initial values in the IGP Algorithm Type registry are:		The initial values in the IGP Algorithm Type registry are:
	0: Shortest Path First (SPF) algorithm based on link metric. This		0: Shortest Path First (SPF) algorithm based on link metric. This
	is the standard shortest path algorithm as computed by the IGP		is the standard shortest path algorithm as computed by the IGP
	protocol. Consistent with the deployed practice for link-state		protocol. Consistent with the deployed practice for link-state
	protocols, Algorithm 0 permits any node to overwrite the SPF path		protocols, Algorithm 0 permits any node to overwrite the SPF path
	with a different path based on its local policy.		with a different path based on its local policy.
	skipping to change at page 26, line 7 ¶		skipping to change at page 26, line 7 ¶
	We would like to thank Anton Smirnov for his contribution.		We would like to thank Anton Smirnov for his contribution.
	Thanks to Acee Lindem for the detail review of the draft,		Thanks to Acee Lindem for the detail review of the draft,
	corrections, as well as discussion about details of the encoding.		corrections, as well as discussion about details of the encoding.
	13. References		13. References
	13.1. Normative References		13.1. Normative References
	[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing]		[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing]
	Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Decraene, B., Litkowski, S.,		Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Ginsberg, L., Decraene, B.,
	and R. Shakir, "Segment Routing Architecture", draft-ietf-		Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment Routing
	spring-segment-routing-12 (work in progress), June 2017.		Architecture", draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-13 (work
			in progress), October 2017.
	[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>.
	[RFC4915] Psenak, P., Mirtorabi, S., Roy, A., Nguyen, L., and P.		[RFC4915] Psenak, P., Mirtorabi, S., Roy, A., Nguyen, L., and P.
	Pillay-Esnault, "Multi-Topology (MT) Routing in OSPF",		Pillay-Esnault, "Multi-Topology (MT) Routing in OSPF",
	RFC 4915, DOI 10.17487/RFC4915, June 2007,		RFC 4915, DOI 10.17487/RFC4915, June 2007,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4915>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4915>.
	skipping to change at page 27, line 14 ¶		skipping to change at page 27, line 20 ¶
	[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop]		[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop]
	Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Bashandy, A., Decraene, B., and		Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Bashandy, A., Decraene, B., and
	S. Litkowski, "Segment Routing interworking with LDP",		S. Litkowski, "Segment Routing interworking with LDP",
	draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop-09 (work in		draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop-09 (work in
	progress), September 2017.		progress), September 2017.
	[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls]		[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls]
	Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Bashandy, A., Decraene, B.,		Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Bashandy, A., Decraene, B.,
	Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment Routing with MPLS		Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment Routing with MPLS
	data plane", draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls-10		data plane", draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls-11
	(work in progress), June 2017.		(work in progress), October 2017.
	[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>.
	[RFC7474] Bhatia, M., Hartman, S., Zhang, D., and A. Lindem, Ed.,		[RFC7474] Bhatia, M., Hartman, S., Zhang, D., and A. Lindem, Ed.,
	"Security Extension for OSPFv2 When Using Manual Key		"Security Extension for OSPFv2 When Using Manual Key
	Management", RFC 7474, DOI 10.17487/RFC7474, April 2015,		Management", RFC 7474, DOI 10.17487/RFC7474, April 2015,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7474>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7474>.
End of changes. 10 change blocks.
	15 lines changed or deleted		17 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/