< draft-ppsenak-ospf-te-link-attr-reuse-04.txt   draft-ppsenak-ospf-te-link-attr-reuse-05.txt >
Network Working Group P. Psenak Network Working Group P. Psenak
Internet-Draft A. Lindem Internet-Draft A. Lindem
Intended status: Standards Track L. Ginsberg Intended status: Standards Track L. Ginsberg
Expires: August 31, 2017 Cisco Systems Expires: December 25, 2017 Cisco Systems
W. Henderickx W. Henderickx
Nokia Nokia
J. Tantsura J. Tantsura
Individual Individual
H. Gredler H. Gredler
RtBrick Inc. RtBrick Inc.
February 27, 2017 June 23, 2017
OSPFv2 Link Traffic Engineering (TE) Attribute Reuse OSPFv2 Link Traffic Engineering (TE) Attribute Reuse
draft-ppsenak-ospf-te-link-attr-reuse-04.txt draft-ppsenak-ospf-te-link-attr-reuse-05.txt
Abstract Abstract
Various link attributes have been defined in OSPFv2 in the context of Various link attributes have been defined in OSPFv2 in the context of
the MPLS Traffic Engineering (TE) and GMPLS. Many of these link the MPLS Traffic Engineering (TE) and GMPLS. Many of these link
attributes can be used for purposes other than MPLS Traffic attributes can be used for purposes other than MPLS Traffic
Engineering or GMPLS. This documents defines how to distribute such Engineering or GMPLS. This documents defines how to distribute such
attributes in OSPFv2 for applications other than MPLS Traffic attributes in OSPFv2 for applications other than MPLS Traffic
Engineering or GMPLS purposes. Engineering or GMPLS purposes.
skipping to change at page 1, line 42 skipping to change at page 1, line 42
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 August 31, 2017. This Internet-Draft will expire on December 25, 2017.
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
(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 34 skipping to change at page 2, line 34
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
2. Link attributes examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Link attributes examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Advertising Link Attributes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. Advertising Link Attributes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. TE Opaque LSA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.1. TE Opaque LSA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. Extended Link Opaque LSA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.2. Extended Link Opaque LSA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.3. Selected Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.3. Selected Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Reused TE link attributes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4. Reused TE link attributes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. Remote interface IP address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4.1. Remote interface IP address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2. Link Local/Remote Identifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.2. Link Local/Remote Identifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.3. Shared Risk Link Group (SRLG) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.3. Shared Risk Link Group (SRLG) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.4. Extended Metrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.4. Extended Metrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. Advertisement of Application Specific Values . . . . . . . . 7 5. Advertisement of Application Specific Values . . . . . . . . 7
6. Backward Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 6. Deployment Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 7. Attribute Advertisements and Enablement . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 8. Backward Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 11. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
Various link attributes have been defined in OSPFv2 [RFC2328] in the Various link attributes have been defined in OSPFv2 [RFC2328] in the
context of the MPLS traffic engineering and GMPLS. All these context of the MPLS traffic engineering and GMPLS. All these
attributes are distributed by OSPFv2 as sub-TLVs of the Link-TLV attributes are distributed by OSPFv2 as sub-TLVs of the Link-TLV
advertised in the OSPFv2 TE Opaque LSA [RFC3630]. advertised in the OSPFv2 TE Opaque LSA [RFC3630].
Many of these link attributes are useful outside of the traditional Many of these link attributes are useful outside of the traditional
MPLS Traffic Engineering or GMPLS. This brings its own set of MPLS Traffic Engineering or GMPLS. This brings its own set of
problems, in particular how to distribute these link attributes in problems, in particular how to distribute these link attributes in
OSPFv2 when MPLS TE or GMPLS are not deployed or are deployed in OSPFv2 when MPLS TE or GMPLS are not deployed or are deployed in
parallel with other applications that use these link attributes. parallel with other applications that use these link attributes.
[RFC7855] discusses use cases/requirements for SR. Included among
these use cases is SRTE. If both RSVP-TE and SRTE are deployed in a
network, link attribute advertisements can be used by one or both of
these applications. As there is no requirement for the link
attributes advertised on a given link used by SRTE to be identical to
the link attributes advertised on that same link used by RSVP-TE,
there is a clear requirement to indicate independently which link
attribute advertisements are to be used by each application.
As the number of applications which may wish to utilize link
attributes may grow in the future, an additional requirement is that
the extensions defined allow the association of additional
applications to link attributes without altering the format of the
advertisements or introducing new backwards compatibility issues.
Finally, there may still be many cases where a single attribute value
can be shared among multiple applications, so the solution should
minimize advertising duplicate link/attribute when possible.
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 [RFC2119]. document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
2. Link attributes examples 2. Link attributes examples
This section lists some of the link attributes originally defined for This section lists some of the link attributes originally defined for
MPLS Traffic Engineering that can be used for other purposes in MPLS Traffic Engineering that can be used for other purposes in
skipping to change at page 8, line 10 skipping to change at page 8, line 18
attribute, a new Extended Link Attribute sub-TLV of the Extended Link attribute, a new Extended Link Attribute sub-TLV of the Extended Link
TLV [RFC7471] is defined. The Extended Link Attribute sub-TLV is an TLV [RFC7471] is defined. The Extended Link Attribute sub-TLV is an
optional sub-TLV and can appear multiple times in the Extended Link optional sub-TLV and can appear multiple times in the Extended Link
TLV. It has following format: TLV. It has following format:
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Application Bit-Mask Length | Reserved | | SABML | UDABML | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Application Bit-Mask | | Standard Application Bit-Mask |
+- -+
| ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| User Defined Application Bit-Mask |
+- -+ +- -+
| ... | | ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Link Attribute sub-sub-TLVs | | Link Attribute sub-sub-TLVs |
+- -+ +- -+
| ... | | ... |
where: where:
Type: TBD11, suggested value 14 Type: TBD11, suggested value 14
Length: variable Length: variable
Application Bit-Mask Length: length of the Application Bit-Mask. SABML: Standard Application Bit-Mask Length. If the Standard
If the Application Bit-Mask is not present, the Application Bit- Application Bit-Mask is not present, the Standard Application Bit-
Mask Length MUST be set to 0. Mask Length MUST be set to 0.
Application Bit-Mask: Optional set of bits, where each bit UDABML: User Defined Application Bit-Mask Length. If the User
represents a single application. The following bits are defined Defined Application Bit-Mask is not present, the User Defined
by this document: Application Bit-Mask Length MUST be set to 0.
Bit-0: Segment Routing Traffic Engineering Standard Application Bit-Mask: Optional set of bits, where each
bit represents a single standard application. The following bits
are defined by this document:
Bit-1: LFA Bit-0: RSVP Traffic Engineering
Bit-1: Segment Routing Traffic Engineering
Undefined bits in Application Bit-Mask MUST be transmitted as 0 and Bit-2: Loop Free Alternate (LFA). Includes all LFA types.
MUST be ignored on receipt. Bits that are NOT transmitted MUST be
treated as if they are set to 0 on receipt. User Defined Application Bit-Mask: Optional set of bits, where
each bit represents a single user defined application.
Standard Application Bits are defined/sent starting with Bit 0.
Additional bit definitions that may be defined in the future SHOULD
be assigned in ascending bit order so as to minimize the number of
octets that will need to be transmitted.
User Defined Application bits have no relationship to Standard
Application bits and are NOT managed by IANA or any other standards
body. It is recommended that bits are used starting with Bit 0 so as
to minimize the number of octets required to advertise all of them.
Undefined bits in both Bit-Masks MUST be transmitted as 0 and MUST be
ignored on receipt. Bits that are NOT transmitted MUST be treated as
if they are set to 0 on receipt.
If the link attribute advertisement is limited to be used by a If the link attribute advertisement is limited to be used by a
specific set of applications, Application Bit-Mask MUST be present specific set of applications, corresponding Bit-Masks MUST be present
and application specific bit(s) MUST be set for all applications that and application specific bit(s) MUST be set for all applications that
use the link attributes advertised in the Extended Link Attribute use the link attributes advertised in the Extended Link Attribute
sub-TLV. sub-TLV.
Application Bit-Mask applies to all link attributes that support Application Bit-Masks apply to all link attributes that support
application specific values and are advertised in the Extended Link application specific values and are advertised in the Extended Link
Attribute sub-TLV. Attribute sub-TLV.
The advantage of not making the Application Bit-Mask part of the The advantage of not making the Application Bit-Masks part of the
attribute advertisement itself is that we can keep the format of the attribute advertisement itself is that we can keep the format of the
link attributes that have been defined previously and reuse the same link attributes that have been defined previously and reuse the same
format when advertising them in the Extended Link Attribute sub-TLV. format when advertising them in the Extended Link Attribute sub-TLV.
If the link attribute is advertised and there is no Application Bit- If the link attribute is advertised and there is no Application Bit-
Mask present in the Extended Link Attribute Sub-TLV, the link Mask present in the Extended Link Attribute Sub-TLV, the link
attribute advertisement MAY be used by any application. If, however, attribute advertisement MAY be used by any application. If, however,
another advertisement of the same link attribute includes Application another advertisement of the same link attribute includes any
Bit-Mask in the Extended Link Attribute sub-TLV, applications that Application Bit-Mask in the Extended Link Attribute sub-TLV,
are listed in the Application Bit-Mask of such Extended Link applications that are listed in the Application Bit-Masks of such
Attribute sub-TLV SHOULD use the attribute advertisement which has Extended Link Attribute sub-TLV SHOULD use the attribute
the application specific bit set in the Application Bit-Mask. advertisement which has the application specific bit set in the
Application Bit-Masks.
If the same application is listed in the Application Bit-Mask of more If the same application is listed in the Application Bit-Masks of
then one Extended Link Attribute sub-TLV, the application SHOULD use more then one Extended Link Attribute sub-TLV, the application SHOULD
the first advertisement and ignore any subsequent advertisements of use the first advertisement and ignore any subsequent advertisements
the same attribute. This situation SHOULD be logged as an error. of the same attribute. This situation SHOULD be logged as an error.
This document defines the set of link attributes for which the This document defines the set of link attributes for which the
Application Bit-Mask may be advertised. If the Application Bit-Mask Application Bit-Masks may be advertised. If any of the Application
is included in the Extended Link Attribute sub-TLV that advertises Bit-Masks is included in the Extended Link Attribute sub-TLV that
any link attribute(s) NOT listed below, the Application Bit-Mask MUST advertises any link attribute(s) NOT listed below, the Application
NOT be used for such link attribute(s). It MUST be used for those Bit-Masks MUST NOT be used for such link attribute(s). It MUST be
attribute(s) that support application specific values. Documents used for those attribute(s) that support application specific values.
which define new link attributes MUST state whether the new Documents which define new link attributes MUST state whether the new
attributes support application specific values. The link attributes attributes support application specific values. The link attributes
to which the Application Bit-Mask may apply are: to which the Application Bit-Masks may apply are:
- Shared Risk Link Group - Shared Risk Link Group
- Unidirectional Link Delay - Unidirectional Link Delay
- Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay - Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay
- Unidirectional Delay Variation - Unidirectional Delay Variation
- Unidirectional Link Loss - Unidirectional Link Loss
- Unidirectional Residual Bandwidth - Unidirectional Residual Bandwidth
- Unidirectional Available Bandwidth - Unidirectional Available Bandwidth
- Unidirectional Utilized Bandwidth - Unidirectional Utilized Bandwidth
6. Backward Compatibility 6. Deployment Considerations
If link attributes are advertised associated with zero length
application bit masks for both standard applications and user defined
applications, then that set of link attributes MAY be used by any
application. If support for a new application is introduced on any
node in a network in the presence of such advertisements, these
advertisements MAY be used by the new application. If this is not
what is intended, then existing advertisements MUST be readvertised
with an explicit set of applications specified before a new
application is introduced.
7. Attribute Advertisements and Enablement
This document defines extensions to support the advertisement of
application specific link attributes. The presence or absence of
link attribute advertisements for a given application on a link does
NOT indicate the state of enablement of that application on that
link. Enablement of an application on a link is controlled by other
means.
For some applications, the concept of enablement is implicit. For
example, SRTE implicitly is enabled on all links which are part of
the Segment Routing enabled topology. Advertisement of link
attributes supports constraints which may be applied when specifying
an explicit path through that topology.
For other applications enablement is controlled by local
configuration. For example, use of a link as an LFA can be
controlled by local enablement/disablement and/or the use of
administrative tags.
It is an application specific policy as to whether a given link can
be used by that application even in the absence of any application
specific link attributes.
8. Backward Compatibility
Link attributes may be concurrently advertised in both the TE Opaque Link attributes may be concurrently advertised in both the TE Opaque
LSA [RFC3630] and the Extended Link Opaque LSA [RFC7684]. LSA [RFC3630] and the Extended Link Opaque LSA [RFC7684].
In fact, there is at least one OSPF implementation that utilizes the In fact, there is at least one OSPF implementation that utilizes the
link attributes advertised in TE Opaque LSAs [RFC3630] for Non-RSVP link attributes advertised in TE Opaque LSAs [RFC3630] for Non-RSVP
TE applications. For example, this implementation of LFA and remote TE applications. For example, this implementation of LFA and remote
LFA utilizes links attributes such as Shared Risk Link Groups (SRLG) LFA utilizes links attributes such as Shared Risk Link Groups (SRLG)
[RFC4203] and Admin Group [[RFC3630]advertised in TE Opaque LSAs. [RFC4203] and Admin Group [[RFC3630]advertised in TE Opaque LSAs.
These applications are described in [RFC5286], [RFC7490], These applications are described in [RFC5286], [RFC7490],
[I-D.ietf-rtgwg-lfa-manageability] and [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-lfa-manageability] and
[I-D.psarkar-rtgwg-rlfa-node-protection]. [I-D.psarkar-rtgwg-rlfa-node-protection].
When an OSPF routing domain includes routers using link attributes When an OSPF routing domain includes routers using link attributes
from TE Opaque LSAs for Non-RSVP TE applications such as LFA, OSPF from TE Opaque LSAs for Non-RSVP TE applications such as LFA, OSPF
routers in that domain should continue to advertise such TE Opaque routers in that domain should continue to advertise such TE Opaque
LSAs. If there are also OSPF routers using the link attributes LSAs. If there are also OSPF routers using the link attributes
described herein for Non-RSVP applications, OSPF routers in the described herein for any application, OSPF routers in the routing
routing domain will also need to advertise these attributes in OSPF domain will also need to advertise these attributes in OSPF Extended
Extended Link Attributes LSAs [RFC7684]. In such a deployment, the Link Attributes LSAs [RFC7684]. In such a deployment, the advertised
advertised attributes SHOULD be the same and Non-RSVP application attributes SHOULD be the same and Non-RSVP application access to link
access to link attributes is a matter of local policy. attributes is a matter of local policy.
7. Security Considerations 9. Security Considerations
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 OSPFv2 failures. permutations do not result in errors that cause hard OSPFv2 failures.
8. IANA Considerations 10. IANA Considerations
OSPFv2 Extended Link TLV Sub-TLVs registry [RFC7684] defines sub-TLVs OSPFv2 Extended Link TLV Sub-TLVs registry [RFC7684] defines sub-TLVs
at any level of nesting for OSPFv2 Extended Link TLVs. This at any level of nesting for OSPFv2 Extended Link TLVs. This
specification updates OSPFv2 Extended Link TLV sub-TLVs registry with specification updates OSPFv2 Extended Link TLV sub-TLVs registry with
the following TLV types: the following TLV types:
TBD1 (4 Recommended) - Remote interface IP address TBD1 (4 Recommended) - Remote interface IP address
TBD2 (5 Recommended) - Link Local/Remote Identifiers TBD2 (5 Recommended) - Link Local/Remote Identifiers
skipping to change at page 11, line 4 skipping to change at page 12, line 23
TBD2 (5 Recommended) - Link Local/Remote Identifiers TBD2 (5 Recommended) - Link Local/Remote Identifiers
TBD3 (6 Recommended) - Shared Risk Link Group TBD3 (6 Recommended) - Shared Risk Link Group
TBD4 (7 Recommended) - Unidirectional Link Delay TBD4 (7 Recommended) - Unidirectional Link Delay
TBD5 (8 Recommended) - Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay TBD5 (8 Recommended) - Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay
TBD6 (9 Recommended) - Unidirectional Delay Variation TBD6 (9 Recommended) - Unidirectional Delay Variation
TBD7 (10 Recommended) - Unidirectional Link Loss TBD7 (10 Recommended) - Unidirectional Link Loss
TBD8 (11 Recommended) - Unidirectional Residual Bandwidth TBD8 (11 Recommended) - Unidirectional Residual Bandwidth
TBD9 (12 Recommended) - Unidirectional Available Bandwidth TBD9 (12 Recommended) - Unidirectional Available Bandwidth
TBD10 (13 Recommended) - Unidirectional Utilized Bandwidth TBD10 (13 Recommended) - Unidirectional Utilized Bandwidth
TBD11 (14 Recommended) - Extended Link Attribute TBD11 (14 Recommended) - Extended Link Attribute
This specification defines a new Link-Attribute-Applicability This specification defines a new Link-Attribute-Applicability
Application Bits registry and defines following bits: Application Bits registry and defines following bits:
Bit-0 - Segment Routing Traffic Engineering Bit-0 - Segment Routing Traffic Engineering
Bit-1 - LFA Bit-1 - LFA
9. Acknowledgments 11. Acknowledgments
Thanks to Chris Bowers for his review and comments. Thanks to Chris Bowers for his review and comments.
10. References 12. References
10.1. Normative References 12.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC3630] Katz, D., Kompella, K., and D. Yeung, "Traffic Engineering
(TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC 3630,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3630, September 2003,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3630>.
[RFC5714] Shand, M. and S. Bryant, "IP Fast Reroute Framework",
RFC 5714, DOI 10.17487/RFC5714, January 2010,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5714>.
[RFC7684] Psenak, P., Gredler, H., Shakir, R., Henderickx, W.,
Tantsura, J., and A. Lindem, "OSPFv2 Prefix/Link Attribute
Advertisement", RFC 7684, DOI 10.17487/RFC7684, November
2015, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7684>.
12.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-idr-ls-distribution] [I-D.ietf-idr-ls-distribution]
Gredler, H., Medved, J., Previdi, S., Farrel, A., and S. Gredler, H., Medved, J., Previdi, S., Farrel, A., and S.
Ray, "North-Bound Distribution of Link-State and TE Ray, "North-Bound Distribution of Link-State and TE
Information using BGP", draft-ietf-idr-ls-distribution-13 Information using BGP", draft-ietf-idr-ls-distribution-13
(work in progress), October 2015. (work in progress), October 2015.
[I-D.ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions] [I-D.ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions]
Psenak, P., Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Gredler, H., Psenak, P., Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Gredler, H.,
Shakir, R., Henderickx, W., and J. Tantsura, "OSPF Shakir, R., Henderickx, W., and J. Tantsura, "OSPF
Extensions for Segment Routing", draft-ietf-ospf-segment- Extensions for Segment Routing", draft-ietf-ospf-segment-
routing-extensions-10 (work in progress), October 2016. routing-extensions-16 (work in progress), May 2017.
[I-D.ietf-rtgwg-lfa-manageability] [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-lfa-manageability]
Litkowski, S., Decraene, B., Filsfils, C., Raza, K., and Litkowski, S., Decraene, B., Filsfils, C., Raza, K., and
M. Horneffer, "Operational management of Loop Free M. Horneffer, "Operational management of Loop Free
Alternates", draft-ietf-rtgwg-lfa-manageability-11 (work Alternates", draft-ietf-rtgwg-lfa-manageability-11 (work
in progress), June 2015. in progress), June 2015.
[I-D.psarkar-rtgwg-rlfa-node-protection] [I-D.psarkar-rtgwg-rlfa-node-protection]
psarkar@juniper.net, p., Gredler, H., Hegde, S., Bowers, psarkar@juniper.net, p., Gredler, H., Hegde, S., Bowers,
C., Litkowski, S., and H. Raghuveer, "Remote-LFA Node C., Litkowski, S., and H. Raghuveer, "Remote-LFA Node
Protection and Manageability", draft-psarkar-rtgwg-rlfa- Protection and Manageability", draft-psarkar-rtgwg-rlfa-
node-protection-05 (work in progress), June 2014. node-protection-05 (work in progress), June 2014.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<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>.
[RFC3630] Katz, D., Kompella, K., and D. Yeung, "Traffic Engineering [RFC4203] Kompella, K., Ed. and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "OSPF Extensions in
(TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC 3630, Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
DOI 10.17487/RFC3630, September 2003, (GMPLS)", RFC 4203, DOI 10.17487/RFC4203, October 2005,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3630>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4203>.
[RFC5250] Berger, L., Bryskin, I., Zinin, A., and R. Coltun, "The
OSPF Opaque LSA Option", RFC 5250, DOI 10.17487/RFC5250,
July 2008, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5250>.
[RFC5286] Atlas, A., Ed. and A. Zinin, Ed., "Basic Specification for [RFC5286] Atlas, A., Ed. and A. Zinin, Ed., "Basic Specification for
IP Fast Reroute: Loop-Free Alternates", RFC 5286, IP Fast Reroute: Loop-Free Alternates", RFC 5286,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5286, September 2008, DOI 10.17487/RFC5286, September 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5286>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5286>.
[RFC5714] Shand, M. and S. Bryant, "IP Fast Reroute Framework", [RFC7471] Giacalone, S., Ward, D., Drake, J., Atlas, A., and S.
RFC 5714, DOI 10.17487/RFC5714, January 2010, Previdi, "OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5714>. Extensions", RFC 7471, DOI 10.17487/RFC7471, March 2015,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7471>.
[RFC7490] Bryant, S., Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Shand, M., and N. [RFC7490] Bryant, S., Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Shand, M., and N.
So, "Remote Loop-Free Alternate (LFA) Fast Reroute (FRR)", So, "Remote Loop-Free Alternate (LFA) Fast Reroute (FRR)",
RFC 7490, DOI 10.17487/RFC7490, April 2015, RFC 7490, DOI 10.17487/RFC7490, April 2015,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7490>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7490>.
[RFC7684] Psenak, P., Gredler, H., Shakir, R., Henderickx, W., [RFC7855] Previdi, S., Ed., Filsfils, C., Ed., Decraene, B.,
Tantsura, J., and A. Lindem, "OSPFv2 Prefix/Link Attribute Litkowski, S., Horneffer, M., and R. Shakir, "Source
Advertisement", RFC 7684, DOI 10.17487/RFC7684, November Packet Routing in Networking (SPRING) Problem Statement
2015, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7684>. and Requirements", RFC 7855, DOI 10.17487/RFC7855, May
2016, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7855>.
10.2. Informative References
[RFC4203] Kompella, K., Ed. and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "OSPF Extensions in
Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS)", RFC 4203, DOI 10.17487/RFC4203, October 2005,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4203>.
[RFC7471] Giacalone, S., Ward, D., Drake, J., Atlas, A., and S.
Previdi, "OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric
Extensions", RFC 7471, DOI 10.17487/RFC7471, March 2015,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7471>.
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
 End of changes. 36 change blocks. 
92 lines changed or deleted 175 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/