idnits 2.17.1 draft-chen-bier-te-ospf-03.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (24 November 2021) is 877 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '1' on line 105 -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '65535' on line 105 == Unused Reference: 'RFC5226' is defined on line 246, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC8279' is defined on line 260, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC8362' is defined on line 266, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC5250' is defined on line 273, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC8296' is defined on line 277, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC8444' is defined on line 288, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC8556' is defined on line 294, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Outdated reference: A later version (-13) exists of draft-ietf-bier-te-arch-11 ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 5226 (Obsoleted by RFC 8126) Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 9 warnings (==), 3 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group H. Chen 3 Internet-Draft M. McBride 4 Intended status: Standards Track Futurewei 5 Expires: 28 May 2022 A. Wang 6 China Telecom 7 G. Mishra 8 Verizon Inc. 9 Y. Fan 10 Casa Systems 11 L. Liu 12 Fujitsu 13 X. Liu 14 Volta Networks 15 24 November 2021 17 OSPF Extensions for BIER-TE 18 draft-chen-bier-te-ospf-03 20 Abstract 22 This document describes OSPF extensions for distributing BitPositions 23 configured on the links in "Bit Index Explicit Replication Traffic 24 Engineering" (BIER-TE) domain. 26 Requirements Language 28 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 29 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 30 document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119] [RFC8174] 31 when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here. 33 Status of This Memo 35 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 36 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 38 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 39 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 40 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 41 Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 43 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 44 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 45 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 46 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 48 This Internet-Draft will expire on 28 May 2022. 50 Copyright Notice 52 Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 53 document authors. All rights reserved. 55 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 56 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/ 57 license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. 58 Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights 59 and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components 60 extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as 61 described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are 62 provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License. 64 Table of Contents 66 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 67 1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 68 2. Extensions to OSPFv2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 69 3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 70 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 71 5. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 72 6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 73 6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 74 6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 75 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 77 1. Introduction 79 [I-D.ietf-bier-te-arch] introduces Bit Index Explicit Replication 80 (BIER) Traffic/Tree Engineering (BIER-TE). It is an architecture for 81 per-packet stateless explicit point to multipoint (P2MP) multicast 82 path/tree. A link in a BIER-TE domain has its BitPositions. For a 83 link between two nodes X and Y, there are two BitPositions for two 84 forward connected adjacencies. These two adjacency BitPositions 85 could be configured on nodes X and Y respectively. The BitPosition 86 configured on X is the forward connected adjacency of Y. The 87 BitPosition configured on Y is the forward connected adjacency of X. 89 This document proposes OSPF extensions for distributing BitPositions 90 configured on the links in "Bit Index Explicit Replication Traffic 91 Engineering" (BIER-TE) domain. 93 1.1. Terminology 95 BIER: Bit Index Explicit Replication. 97 BIER-TE: BIER Traffic Engineering. 99 BFR: Bit-Forwarding Router. 101 BFIR: Bit-Forwarding Ingress Router. 103 BFER: Bit-Forwarding Egress Router. 105 BFR-id: BFR Identifier. It is a number in the range [1,65535]. 107 BFR-NBR: BFR Neighbor. 109 LSA: Link State Advertisement. 111 OSPF: Open Shortest Path First. 113 2. Extensions to OSPFv2 115 This section describes protocol extensions to OSPFv2 for distributing 116 BIER-TE information such as the BitPositions configured on the links 117 in a BIER-TE domain. 119 [RFC7684] defines the OSPFv2 Extended Link TLV to advertise the 120 information about a link. Multiple Link TLVs for the links of a 121 router are included in the OSPFv2 Extended Link Opaque LSA of the 122 router. The OSPFv2 Extended Link TLV has the following format: 124 0 1 2 3 125 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 1 126 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 127 | Type (1) | Length (Variable) | 128 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 129 | Link Type | Reserved | 130 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 131 | Link ID | 132 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 133 | Link Data | 134 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 135 | Sub-TLVs (variable) | 136 ~ ~ 137 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 139 Figure 1: OSPFv2 Extended Link TLV 141 Type: 1. 143 Length: Variable, dependent on Sub-TLVs. 145 Link Type, Link ID and Link Data: They are defined in Section A.4.2 146 of [RFC2328]. 148 Reserved: MUST be set to 0 on transmission and MUST be ignored on 149 reception. 151 Under the OSPFv2 Extended Link TLV for a link, a Sub-TLV, called 152 BIER-TE Sub-TLV, is defined for distributing BIER-TE information 153 about the link. A BIER-TE Sub-TLV is included in the Link TLV for a 154 link of Link Type Point-to-Point or Broadcast (or say LAN or Transit 155 Network). The BIER-TE Sub-TLV has the following format: 157 0 1 2 3 158 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 1 159 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 160 | Type (TBD1) | Length | 161 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 162 | sub-domain-id | MT-ID | BAR | IPA | 163 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 164 | BitPosition | DrEndBitPosition | 165 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 167 Figure 2: BIER-TE Sub-TLV 169 Type: TBD1 is to be assigned by IANA. 171 Length: Variable. 173 sub-domain-id: Unique value identifying a BIER-TE sub-domain. 175 MT-ID: Multi-Topology ID identifying the topology that is associated 176 with the BIER-TE sub-domain. 178 BAR: Single-octet BIER Algorithm used to calculate underlay paths to 179 reach other BFRs. Values are allocated from the "BIER 180 Algorithm" registry defined in [RFC8401]. 182 IPA: Single-octet IGP Algorithm used to either modify, enhance, or 183 replace the calculation of underlay paths to reach other BFRs 184 as defined by the BAR value. Values are defined in the "IGP 185 Algorithm Types" registry. 187 BitPosition: A 2-octet field encoding the BitPosition locally 188 configured on the link/interface when the Link Type of the link 189 in the OSPFv2 Extended Link TLV containing this Sub-TLV is 1 190 (i.e., Point-to-Point connection to another router) or 2 (i.e., 191 connection to Transit Network or say LAN). 193 DrEndBitPosition: A 2-octet field encoding the BitPosition of the 194 connection on the designated router (DR) end. This field is 195 valid when the Link Type in the OSPFv2 Extended Link TLV 196 containing this Sub-TLV is 2 (i.e., Transit Network or LAN). 197 For the other value of the Link Type, this field MUST be 198 ignored. The DrEndBitPosition may be configured on the link/ 199 interface to a transit network (i.e., broadcast link or say 200 LAN). 202 Note that if each of BitPosition and DrEndBitPosition uses more than 203 2 octets, we use 4 or more octets for each of them. 205 3. Security Considerations 207 TBD. 209 4. IANA Considerations 211 Under "OSPFv2 Extended Link TLV Sub-TLVs registry" as defined in 212 [RFC7684], IANA is requested to assign a new registry value for BIER- 213 TE Sub-TLV as follows: 215 +==============+===================+=====================+ 216 | Value | Description | reference | 217 +==============+===================+=====================+ 218 | TBD1 (25) | BIER-TE | This document | 219 +--------------+-------------------+---------------------+ 221 5. Acknowledgements 223 The authors would like to thank Acee Lindem and Tony Przygienda for 224 their comments on this work. 226 6. References 228 6.1. Normative References 230 [I-D.ietf-bier-te-arch] 231 Eckert, T., Cauchie, G., and M. Menth, "Tree Engineering 232 for Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER-TE)", Work in 233 Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-bier-te-arch-11, 15 234 November 2021, . 237 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 238 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 239 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 240 . 242 [RFC2328] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328, 243 DOI 10.17487/RFC2328, April 1998, 244 . 246 [RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an 247 IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", RFC 5226, 248 DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008, 249 . 251 [RFC7684] Psenak, P., Gredler, H., Shakir, R., Henderickx, W., 252 Tantsura, J., and A. Lindem, "OSPFv2 Prefix/Link Attribute 253 Advertisement", RFC 7684, DOI 10.17487/RFC7684, November 254 2015, . 256 [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 257 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 258 May 2017, . 260 [RFC8279] Wijnands, IJ., Ed., Rosen, E., Ed., Dolganow, A., 261 Przygienda, T., and S. Aldrin, "Multicast Using Bit Index 262 Explicit Replication (BIER)", RFC 8279, 263 DOI 10.17487/RFC8279, November 2017, 264 . 266 [RFC8362] Lindem, A., Roy, A., Goethals, D., Reddy Vallem, V., and 267 F. Baker, "OSPFv3 Link State Advertisement (LSA) 268 Extensibility", RFC 8362, DOI 10.17487/RFC8362, April 269 2018, . 271 6.2. Informative References 273 [RFC5250] Berger, L., Bryskin, I., Zinin, A., and R. Coltun, "The 274 OSPF Opaque LSA Option", RFC 5250, DOI 10.17487/RFC5250, 275 July 2008, . 277 [RFC8296] Wijnands, IJ., Ed., Rosen, E., Ed., Dolganow, A., 278 Tantsura, J., Aldrin, S., and I. Meilik, "Encapsulation 279 for Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER) in MPLS and Non- 280 MPLS Networks", RFC 8296, DOI 10.17487/RFC8296, January 281 2018, . 283 [RFC8401] Ginsberg, L., Ed., Przygienda, T., Aldrin, S., and Z. 284 Zhang, "Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER) Support via 285 IS-IS", RFC 8401, DOI 10.17487/RFC8401, June 2018, 286 . 288 [RFC8444] Psenak, P., Ed., Kumar, N., Wijnands, IJ., Dolganow, A., 289 Przygienda, T., Zhang, J., and S. Aldrin, "OSPFv2 290 Extensions for Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER)", 291 RFC 8444, DOI 10.17487/RFC8444, November 2018, 292 . 294 [RFC8556] Rosen, E., Ed., Sivakumar, M., Przygienda, T., Aldrin, S., 295 and A. Dolganow, "Multicast VPN Using Bit Index Explicit 296 Replication (BIER)", RFC 8556, DOI 10.17487/RFC8556, April 297 2019, . 299 Authors' Addresses 301 Huaimo Chen 302 Futurewei 303 Boston, MA, 304 United States of America 306 Email: Huaimo.chen@futurewei.com 308 Mike McBride 309 Futurewei 311 Email: michael.mcbride@futurewei.com 313 Aijun Wang 314 China Telecom 315 Beiqijia Town, Changping District 316 Beijing 317 102209 318 China 320 Email: wangaj3@chinatelecom.cn 322 Gyan S. Mishra 323 Verizon Inc. 324 13101 Columbia Pike 325 Silver Spring, MD 20904 326 United States of America 327 Phone: 301 502-1347 328 Email: gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com 330 Yanhe Fan 331 Casa Systems 332 United States of America 334 Email: yfan@casa-systems.com 336 Lei Liu 337 Fujitsu 338 United States of America 340 Email: liulei.kddi@gmail.com 342 Xufeng Liu 343 Volta Networks 344 McLean, VA 345 United States of America 347 Email: xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com