< draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-gmpls-extensions-11.txt   draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-gmpls-extensions-12.txt >
Network Working Group K. Kompella, Editor Network Working Group K. Kompella, Editor
Internet Draft Y. Rekhter, Editor Internet Draft Y. Rekhter, Editor
Category: Standards Track Juniper Networks Category: Standards Track Juniper Networks
Updates: 3630 October 2003 Updates: 3630 October 2003
Expires: April 2004 Expires: April 2004
OSPF Extensions in Support of Generalized OSPF Extensions in Support of Generalized
Multi-Protocol Label Switching Multi-Protocol Label Switching
draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-gmpls-extensions-11.txt draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-gmpls-extensions-12.txt
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts. Drafts.
skipping to change at page 2, line 10 skipping to change at page 2, line 10
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved. Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved.
Abstract Abstract
This document specifies encoding of extensions to the OSPF routing This document specifies encoding of extensions to the OSPF routing
protocol in support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching. protocol in support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching.
Summary for Sub-IP Area
(This section to be removed before publication.)
0.1. Summary
This document specifies encoding of extensions to the OSPF routing
protocol in support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS). The description of the extensions is specified in [GMPLS-
ROUTING].
0.2. Where does it fit in the Picture of the Sub-IP Work
This work fits squarely in either the CCAMP or OSPF box.
0.3. Why is it Targeted at this WG
This draft is targeted at the CCAMP or the OSPF WG, because this
draft specifies the extensions to the OSPF routing protocols in
support of GMPLS, because GMPLS is within the scope of the CCAMP WG,
and because OSPF is within the scope of the OSPF WG.
0.4. Justification
The WG should consider this document as it specifies the extensions
to the OSPF routing protocols in support of GMPLS.
Specification of Requirements Specification of Requirements
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 2119 [RFC2119]. document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
This document specifies extensions to the OSPF routing protocol in This document specifies extensions to the OSPF routing protocol in
support of carrying link state information for Generalized support of carrying link state information for Generalized
Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS). The set of required Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS). The set of required
enhancements to OSPF are outlined in [GMPLS-ROUTING]. enhancements to OSPF are outlined in [GMPLS-ROUTING].
2. OSPF Routing Enhancements
In this section we define the enhancements to the TE properties of In this section we define the enhancements to the TE properties of
GMPLS TE links that can be announced in OSPF TE LSAs. The Traffic GMPLS TE links that can be announced in OSPF TE LSAs. The Traffic
Engineering (TE) LSA, which is an opaque LSA with area flooding scope Engineering (TE) LSA, which is an opaque LSA with area flooding scope
[OSPF-TE], has only one top-level Type/Length/Value (TLV) triplet and [OSPF-TE], has only one top-level Type/Length/Value (TLV) triplet and
has one or more nested sub-TLVs for extensibility. The top-level TLV has one or more nested sub-TLVs for extensibility. The top-level TLV
can take one of two values (1) Router Address or (2) Link. In this can take one of two values (1) Router Address or (2) Link. In this
document, we enhance the sub-TLVs for the Link TLV in support of document, we enhance the sub-TLVs for the Link TLV in support of
GMPLS. Specifically, we add the following sub-TLVs to the Link TLV: GMPLS. Specifically, we add the following sub-TLVs to the Link TLV:
Sub-TLV Type Length Name Sub-TLV Type Length Name
11 8 Link Local/Remote Identifiers 11 8 Link Local/Remote Identifiers
14 4 Link Protection Type 14 4 Link Protection Type
15 variable Interface Switching Capability Descriptor 15 variable Interface Switching Capability Descriptor
16 variable Shared Risk Link Group 16 variable Shared Risk Link Group
2.1. Link Local/Remote Identifiers 1.1. Link Local/Remote Identifiers
A Link Local/Remote Identifiers is a sub-TLV of the Link TLV. The A Link Local/Remote Identifiers is a sub-TLV of the Link TLV. The
type of this sub-TLV is 11, and length is eight octets. The value type of this sub-TLV is 11, and length is eight octets. The value
field of this sub-TLV contains four octets of Link Local Identifier field of this sub-TLV contains four octets of Link Local Identifier
followed by four octets of Link Remote Idenfier (see Section "Support followed by four octets of Link Remote Idenfier (see Section "Support
for unnumbered links" of [GMPLS-ROUTING]). If the Link Remote for unnumbered links" of [GMPLS-ROUTING]). If the Link Remote
Identifier is unknown, it is set to 0. Identifier is unknown, it is set to 0.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Link Local Identifier | | Link Local Identifier |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Link Remote Identifier | | Link Remote Identifier |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
A node can communicate its Link Local Identifier to its neighbor A node can communicate its Link Local Identifier to its neighbor
using a link local Opaque LSA, as described in Section "Exchanging using a link local Opaque LSA, as described in Section "Exchanging
Link Local TE Information". Link Local TE Information".
2.2. Link Protection Type 1.2. Link Protection Type
The Link Protection Type is a sub-TLV of the Link TLV. The type of The Link Protection Type is a sub-TLV of the Link TLV. The type of
this sub-TLV is 14, and length is four octets. this sub-TLV is 14, and length is four octets.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Protection Cap | Reserved | |Protection Cap | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
skipping to change at page 5, line 31 skipping to change at page 4, line 5
0x40 Reserved 0x40 Reserved
0x80 Reserved 0x80 Reserved
The remaining three octets SHOULD be set to zero by the sender, and The remaining three octets SHOULD be set to zero by the sender, and
SHOULD be ignored by the receiver. SHOULD be ignored by the receiver.
The Link Protection Type sub-TLV may occur at most once within the The Link Protection Type sub-TLV may occur at most once within the
Link TLV. Link TLV.
2.3. Shared Risk Link Group (SRLG) 1.3. Shared Risk Link Group (SRLG)
The SRLG is a sub-TLV (of type 16) of the Link TLV. The length is The SRLG is a sub-TLV (of type 16) of the Link TLV. The length is
the length of the list in octets. The value is an unordered list of the length of the list in octets. The value is an unordered list of
32 bit numbers that are the SRLGs that the link belongs to. The 32 bit numbers that are the SRLGs that the link belongs to. The
format of the value field is as shown below: format of the value field is as shown below:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Shared Risk Link Group Value | | Shared Risk Link Group Value |
skipping to change at page 6, line 5 skipping to change at page 4, line 27
| ............ | | ............ |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Shared Risk Link Group Value | | Shared Risk Link Group Value |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
This sub-TLV carries the Shared Risk Link Group information (see This sub-TLV carries the Shared Risk Link Group information (see
Section "Shared Risk Link Group Information" of [GMPLS-ROUTING]). Section "Shared Risk Link Group Information" of [GMPLS-ROUTING]).
The SRLG sub-TLV may occur at most once within the Link TLV. The SRLG sub-TLV may occur at most once within the Link TLV.
2.4. Interface Switching Capability Descriptor 1.4. Interface Switching Capability Descriptor
The Interface Switching Capability Descriptor is a sub-TLV (of type The Interface Switching Capability Descriptor is a sub-TLV (of type
15) of the Link TLV. The length is the length of value field in 15) of the Link TLV. The length is the length of value field in
octets. The format of the value field is as shown below: octets. The format of the value field is as shown below:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Switching Cap | Encoding | Reserved | | Switching Cap | Encoding | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
skipping to change at page 7, line 6 skipping to change at page 5, line 25
4 Packet-Switch Capable-4 (PSC-4) 4 Packet-Switch Capable-4 (PSC-4)
51 Layer-2 Switch Capable (L2SC) 51 Layer-2 Switch Capable (L2SC)
100 Time-Division-Multiplex Capable (TDM) 100 Time-Division-Multiplex Capable (TDM)
150 Lambda-Switch Capable (LSC) 150 Lambda-Switch Capable (LSC)
200 Fiber-Switch Capable (FSC) 200 Fiber-Switch Capable (FSC)
The Encoding field contains one of the values specified in Section The Encoding field contains one of the values specified in Section
3.1.1 of [GMPLS-SIG]. 3.1.1 of [GMPLS-SIG].
Maximum LSP Bandwidth is encoded as a list of eight 4 octet fields in Maximum LSP Bandwidth is encoded as a list of eight 4 octet fields in
the IEEE floating point format, with priority 0 first and priority 7 the IEEE floating point format [IEEE], with priority 0 first and
last. The units are bytes (not bits!) per second. priority 7 last. The units are bytes (not bits!) per second.
The content of the Switching Capability specific information field The content of the Switching Capability specific information field
depends on the value of the Switching Capability field. depends on the value of the Switching Capability field.
When the Switching Capability field is PSC-1, PSC-2, PSC-3, or PSC-4, When the Switching Capability field is PSC-1, PSC-2, PSC-3, or PSC-4,
the Switching Capability specific information field includes Minimum the Switching Capability specific information field includes Minimum
LSP Bandwidth, Interface MTU, and padding. LSP Bandwidth, Interface MTU, and padding.
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
skipping to change at page 8, line 16 skipping to change at page 6, line 39
ignored by the receiver. ignored by the receiver.
When the Switching Capability field is LSC, there is no Switching When the Switching Capability field is LSC, there is no Switching
Capability specific information field present. Capability specific information field present.
To support interfaces that have more than one Interface Switching To support interfaces that have more than one Interface Switching
Capability Descriptor (see Section "Interface Switching Capability Capability Descriptor (see Section "Interface Switching Capability
Descriptor" of [GMPLS-ROUTING]) the Interface Switching Capability Descriptor" of [GMPLS-ROUTING]) the Interface Switching Capability
Descriptor sub-TLV may occur more than once within the Link TLV. Descriptor sub-TLV may occur more than once within the Link TLV.
3. Implications on Graceful Restart 2. Implications on Graceful Restart
The restarting node should follow the OSPF restart procedures [OSPF- The restarting node should follow the OSPF restart procedures
RESTART], and the RSVP-TE restart procedures [GMPLS-RSVP]. [OSPF-RESTART], and the RSVP-TE restart procedures [GMPLS-RSVP].
When a restarting node is going to originate its TE LSAs, the TE LSAs When a restarting node is going to originate its TE LSAs, the TE LSAs
containing Link TLV should be originated with 0 unreserved bandwidth, containing Link TLV should be originated with 0 unreserved bandwidth,
Traffic Engineering metric set to 0xffffffff, and if the Link has LSC Traffic Engineering metric set to 0xffffffff, and if the Link has LSC
or FSC as its Switching Capability then also with 0 as Max LSP or FSC as its Switching Capability then also with 0 as Max LSP
Bandwidth, until the node is able to determine the amount of Bandwidth, until the node is able to determine the amount of
unreserved resources taking into account the resources reserved by unreserved resources taking into account the resources reserved by
the already established LSPs that have been preserved across the the already established LSPs that have been preserved across the
restart. Once the restarting node determines the amount of restart. Once the restarting node determines the amount of
unreserved resources, taking into account the resources reserved by unreserved resources, taking into account the resources reserved by
skipping to change at page 9, line 5 skipping to change at page 7, line 21
Switching Capability then also with 0 as Max LSP Bandwidth. This Switching Capability then also with 0 as Max LSP Bandwidth. This
would discourage new LSP establishment through the restarting router. would discourage new LSP establishment through the restarting router.
Neighbors of the restarting node should continue advertise the actual Neighbors of the restarting node should continue advertise the actual
unreserved bandwidth on the TE links from the neighbors to that node. unreserved bandwidth on the TE links from the neighbors to that node.
Regular graceful restart should not be aborted if a TE LSA or TE Regular graceful restart should not be aborted if a TE LSA or TE
topology changes. TE graceful restart need not be aborted if a TE topology changes. TE graceful restart need not be aborted if a TE
LSA or TE topology changes. LSA or TE topology changes.
4. Exchanging Link Local TE Information 3. Exchanging Link Local TE Information
It is often useful for a node to communicate some Traffic Engineering It is often useful for a node to communicate some Traffic Engineering
information for a given interface to its neighbors on that interface. information for a given interface to its neighbors on that interface.
One example of this is a Link Local Identifier. If nodes X and Y are One example of this is a Link Local Identifier. If nodes X and Y are
connected by an unnumbered point-to-point interface I, then X's Link connected by an unnumbered point-to-point interface I, then X's Link
Local Identifier for I is Y's Link Remote Identifier for I. X can Local Identifier for I is Y's Link Remote Identifier for I. X can
communicate its Link Local Identifer for I by exchanging with Y a TE communicate its Link Local Identifer for I by exchanging with Y a TE
link local opaque LSA described below. Note that this information link local opaque LSA described below. Note that this information
need only be exchanged over interface I, hence the use of a link need only be exchanged over interface I, hence the use of a link
local Opaque LSA. local Opaque LSA.
skipping to change at page 10, line 5 skipping to change at page 8, line 16
The format of the TLVs that make up the body of the TE Link Local LSA The format of the TLVs that make up the body of the TE Link Local LSA
is the same as that of the TE TLVs: a 2-octet Type field followed by is the same as that of the TE TLVs: a 2-octet Type field followed by
a 2-octet Length field which indicates the length of the Value field a 2-octet Length field which indicates the length of the Value field
in octets. The Value field is zero-padded at the end to a four octet in octets. The Value field is zero-padded at the end to a four octet
boundary. boundary.
The only TLV defined here is the Link Local Identifier TLV, with Type The only TLV defined here is the Link Local Identifier TLV, with Type
1, Length 4 and Value the 32 bit Link Local Identifier for the link 1, Length 4 and Value the 32 bit Link Local Identifier for the link
over which the TE Link Local LSA is exchanged. over which the TE Link Local LSA is exchanged.
5. Normative References 4. Contributors
[GMPLS-ROUTING] Kompella, K., and Rekhter, Y. (Editors), "Routing
Extensions in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching", (work in progress) [draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-
routing-08.txt]
[GMPLS-RSVP] Berger, L., (Editor), "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic
Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473, January 2003
[GMPLS-SIG] Berger, L. (Editor), "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC 3471,
January 2003
[OSPF] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328, April 1998.
[OSPF-RESTART] Moy, J., Pillay-Esnault, P., Lindem, A., "Graceful
OSPF Restart", (work in progress) [draft-ietf-ospf-hitless-
restart-08.txt]
[OSPF-SIG] Murphy, S., Badger, M., and B. Wellington, "OSPF with
Digital Signatures", RFC 2154, June 1997.
[OSPF-TE] Katz, D., Kompella, K. and Yeung, D., "Traffic Engineering
(TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC 3630, September 2003.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
6. Security Considerations
This document specifies the contents of Opaque LSAs in OSPFv2. As
Opaque LSAs are not used for SPF computation or normal routing, the
extensions specified here have no direct effect on IP routing.
Tampering with GMPLS TE LSAs may have an effect on the underlying
transport (optical and/or SONET-SDH) network. [OSPF-TE] suggests
mechanisms such as [OSPF-SIG] to protect the transmission of this
information, and those or other mechanisms should be used to secure
and/or authenticate the information carried in the Opaque LSAs.
7. IANA Considerations
The memo introduces 4 new sub-TLVs of the TE Link TLV in the TE
Opaque LSA for OSPF v2; [OSPF-TE] says that the sub-TLVs of the TE
Link TLV in the range 10-32767 must be assigned by Expert Review, and
must be registered with IANA.
The memo has four suggested values for the four sub-TLVs of the TE
Link TLV; it is strongly recommended that the suggested values be
granted, as there are interoperable implementations using these
values.
8. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Suresh Katukam, Jonathan Lang,
Quaizar Vohra, and Alex Zinin for their comments on the draft.
9. Contributors
Ayan Banerjee Ayan Banerjee
Calient Networks Calient Networks
5853 Rue Ferrari 5853 Rue Ferrari
San Jose, CA 95138 San Jose, CA 95138
Phone: +1.408.972.3645 Phone: +1.408.972.3645
Email: abanerjee@calient.net Email: abanerjee@calient.net
John Drake John Drake
Calient Networks Calient Networks
skipping to change at page 12, line 4 skipping to change at page 8, line 38
San Jose, CA 95138 San Jose, CA 95138
Phone: +1.408.972.3720 Phone: +1.408.972.3720
Email: jdrake@calient.net Email: jdrake@calient.net
Greg Bernstein Greg Bernstein
Ciena Corporation Ciena Corporation
10480 Ridgeview Court 10480 Ridgeview Court
Cupertino, CA 94014 Cupertino, CA 94014
Phone: +1.408.366.4713 Phone: +1.408.366.4713
Email: greg@ciena.com Email: greg@ciena.com
Don Fedyk Don Fedyk
Nortel Networks Corp. Nortel Networks Corp.
600 Technology Park Drive 600 Technology Park Drive
Billerica, MA 01821 Billerica, MA 01821
Phone: +1.978.288.4506 Phone: +1.978.288.4506
Email: dwfedyk@nortelnetworks.com Email: dwfedyk@nortelnetworks.com
Eric Mannie Eric Mannie
Independent Consultant Independent Consultant
E-mail: eric_mannie@hotmail.com E-mail: eric_mannie@hotmail.com
Debanjan Saha Debanjan Saha
Tellium Optical Systems Tellium Optical Systems
2 Crescent Place 2 Crescent Place
P.O. Box 901 P.O. Box 901
Ocean Port, NJ 07757 Ocean Port, NJ 07757
Phone: +1.732.923.4264 Phone: +1.732.923.4264
Email: dsaha@tellium.com Email: dsaha@tellium.com
Vishal Sharma Vishal Sharma
Metanoia, Inc. Metanoia, Inc.
335 Elan Village Lane, Unit 203 335 Elan Village Lane, Unit 203
San Jose, CA 95134-2539 San Jose, CA 95134-2539
Phone: +1.408.943.1794 Phone: +1.408.943.1794
Email: v.sharma@ieee.org Email: v.sharma@ieee.org
10. Authors' Information 5. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Suresh Katukam, Jonathan Lang,
Quaizar Vohra, and Alex Zinin for their comments on the draft.
6. Security Considerations
This document specifies the contents of Opaque LSAs in OSPFv2. As
Opaque LSAs are not used for SPF computation or normal routing, the
extensions specified here have no direct effect on IP routing.
Tampering with GMPLS TE LSAs may have an effect on the underlying
transport (optical and/or SONET-SDH) network. [OSPF-TE] suggests
mechanisms such as [OSPF-SIG] to protect the transmission of this
information, and those or other mechanisms should be used to secure
and/or authenticate the information carried in the Opaque LSAs.
IANA Considerations
The memo introduces 4 new sub-TLVs of the TE Link TLV in the TE
Opaque LSA for OSPF v2; [OSPF-TE] says that the sub-TLVs of the TE
Link TLV in the range 10-32767 must be assigned by Expert Review, and
must be registered with IANA.
The memo has four suggested values for the four sub-TLVs of the TE
Link TLV; it is strongly recommended that the suggested values be
granted, as there are interoperable implementations using these
values.
Normative References
[GMPLS-ROUTING] Kompella, K., and Rekhter, Y. (Editors), "Routing
Extensions in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching", (work in progress) [draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-
routing-08.txt]
[GMPLS-RSVP] Berger, L., (Editor), "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic
Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473, January 2003
[GMPLS-SIG] Berger, L. (Editor), "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC 3471,
January 2003
[IEEE] IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Binary Floating-Point Arithmetic",
Standard 754-1985, 1985 (ISBN 1-5593-7653-8).
[OSPF] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328, April 1998.
[OSPF-RESTART] Moy, J., Pillay-Esnault, P., Lindem, A., "Graceful
OSPF Restart", (work in progress) [draft-ietf-ospf-hitless-
restart-08.txt]
[OSPF-SIG] Murphy, S., Badger, M., and B. Wellington, "OSPF with
Digital Signatures", RFC 2154, June 1997.
[OSPF-TE] Katz, D., Kompella, K. and Yeung, D., "Traffic Engineering
(TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC 3630, September 2003.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
Authors' Information
Kireeti Kompella Kireeti Kompella
Juniper Networks, Inc. Juniper Networks, Inc.
1194 N. Mathilda Ave 1194 N. Mathilda Ave
Sunnyvale, CA 94089 Sunnyvale, CA 94089
Email: kireeti@juniper.net Email: kireeti@juniper.net
Yakov Rekhter Yakov Rekhter
Juniper Networks, Inc. Juniper Networks, Inc.
1194 N. Mathilda Ave 1194 N. Mathilda Ave
Sunnyvale, CA 94089 Sunnyvale, CA 94089
Email: yakov@juniper.net Email: yakov@juniper.net
11. Intellectual Property Rights Notices Intellectual Property Rights Notices
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; neither does it represent that it might or might not be available; neither does it represent that it
has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the
IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and
standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11. Copies of standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11. Copies of
claims of rights made available for publication and any assurances of claims of rights made available for publication and any assurances of
skipping to change at page 13, line 46 skipping to change at page 12, line 24
included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
English. English.
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns. revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assignees.
This document and the information contained herein is provided on an This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
 End of changes. 17 change blocks. 
103 lines changed or deleted 77 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/