idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-gmpls-extensions-02.txt: ** The Abstract section seems to be numbered Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** Looks like you're using RFC 2026 boilerplate. This must be updated to follow RFC 3978/3979, as updated by RFC 4748. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The document seems to lack a 1id_guidelines paragraph about 6 months document validity -- however, there's a paragraph with a matching beginning. Boilerplate error? == No 'Intended status' indicated for this document; assuming Proposed Standard == The page length should not exceed 58 lines per page, but there was 8 longer pages, the longest (page 2) being 61 lines Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The document seems to lack an Introduction section. ** The document seems to lack an IANA Considerations section. (See Section 2.2 of https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist for how to handle the case when there are no actions for IANA.) ** The document seems to lack an Authors' Addresses Section. ** The document seems to lack separate sections for Informative/Normative References. All references will be assumed normative when checking for downward references. ** There is 1 instance of too long lines in the document, the longest one being 3 characters in excess of 72. ** The abstract seems to contain references ([GMPLS-ROUTING]), which it shouldn't. Please replace those with straight textual mentions of the documents in question. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008. If you have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore this comment. If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer. (See the Legal Provisions document at https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.) -- Couldn't find a document date in the document -- date freshness check skipped. 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: '3' on line 81 == Unused Reference: 'OSPF-TE' is defined on line 246, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Outdated reference: A later version (-10) exists of draft-katz-yeung-ospf-traffic-04 == Outdated reference: A later version (-09) exists of draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-signaling-04 == Outdated reference: A later version (-09) exists of draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-routing-00 Summary: 9 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 6 warnings (==), 3 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 CCAMP Working Group K. Kompella (Juniper Networks) 3 Internet Draft Y. Rekhter (Juniper Networks) 4 Expiration Date: July 2002 A. Banerjee (Calient Networks) 5 J. Drake (Calient Networks) 6 G. Bernstein (Ciena) 7 D. Fedyk (Nortel Networks) 8 E. Mannie (GTS Network) 9 D. Saha (Tellium) 10 V. Sharma (Metanoia, Inc.) 12 OSPF Extensions in Support of Generalized MPLS 14 draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-gmpls-extensions-02.txt 16 1. Status of this Memo 18 This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with 19 all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. 21 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 22 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that 23 other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- 24 Drafts. 26 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 27 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 28 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 29 material or to cite them other than as ``work in progress.'' 31 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 32 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt 34 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 35 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 37 2. Abstract 39 This document specifies encoding of extensions to the OSPF routing 40 protocol in support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching 41 (GMPLS). The description of the extensions is specified in [GMPLS- 42 ROUTING]. 44 3. Summary for Sub-IP Area 46 3.1. Summary 48 This document specifies encoding of extensions to the OSPF routing 49 protocol in support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching 50 (GMPLS). The description of the extensions is specified in [GMPLS- 51 ROUTING]. 53 3.2. Where does it fit in the Picture of the Sub-IP Work 55 This work fits squarely in either the CCAMP or OSPF box. 57 3.3. Why is it Targeted at this WG 59 This draft is targeted at the CCAMP or the OSPF WG, because this 60 draft specifies the extensions to the OSPF routing protocols in 61 support of GMPLS, because GMPLS is within the scope of the CCAMP WG, 62 and because OSPF is within the scope of the OSPF WG. 64 3.4. Justification 66 The WG should consider this document as it specifies the extensions 67 to the OSPF routing protocols in support of GMPLS. 69 4. Introduction 71 This document specifies extensions to the OSPF routing protocol in 72 support of carrying link state information for Generalized Multi- 73 Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS). The set of required enhancements to 74 OSPF are outlined in [GMPLS-ROUTING]. 76 5. OSPF Routing Enhancements 78 In this section we define the enhancements to the TE properties of 79 GMPLS TE links that can be announced in OSPF TE LSAs. The Traffic 80 Engineering (TE) LSA, which is an opaque LSA with area flooding scope 81 [3], has only one top-level Type/Length/Value (TLV) triplet and has 82 one or more nested TLVs for extensibility. The top-level TLV can 83 take one of two values (1) Router Address or (2) Link. In this 84 document, we enhance the sub-TLVs for the Link TLV in support of 85 GMPLS. Specifically, we add the following sub-TLVs: 87 1. Outgoing Interface Identifier, 88 2. Incoming Interface Identifier, 89 3. Link Protection Type, 90 4. Shared Risk Link Group, and 91 5. Interface Switching Capability Descriptor. 93 This brings the list of sub-TLVs of the TE Link TLV to: 95 Sub-TLV Type Length Name 96 1 1 Link type 97 2 4 Link ID 98 3 variable Local interface IP address 99 4 variable Remote interface IP address 100 5 4 Traffic engineering metric 101 6 4 Maximum bandwidth 102 7 4 Maximum reservable bandwidth 103 8 32 Unreserved bandwidth 104 9 4 Resource class/color 105 11 4 Link Local Identifier 106 12 4 Link Remote Identifier 107 14 4 Link Protection Type 108 15 variable Interface Switching Capability Descriptor 109 16 variable Shared Risk Link Group 110 32768-32772 - Reserved for Cisco-specific extensions 111 5.1. Link Local Identifier 113 An Outgoing Interface Identifier is a sub-TLV of the Link TLV with 114 type 11, and length 4. 116 5.2. Link Remote Identifier 118 An Incoming Interface Identifier is a sub-TLV of the Link TLV with 119 type 12, and length 4. 121 5.3. Link Protection Type 123 The Link Protection Type is a sub-TLV of the Link TLV, with type 14, 124 and length of four octets, the first of which is a bit vector 125 describing the protection capabilities of the link. They are: 127 0x01 Extra Traffic 129 0x02 Unprotected 131 0x04 Shared 133 0x08 Dedicated 1:1 135 0x10 Dedicated 1+1 137 0x20 Enhanced 139 0x40 Reserved 141 0x80 Reserved 143 5.4. Shared Risk Link Group (SRLG) 145 The SRLG is a sub-TLV of the Link TLV with type 16. The length is the 146 length of the list in octets. The value is an unordered list of 32 147 bit numbers that are the SRLGs that the link belongs to. The format 148 of the value field is as shown below: 150 0 1 2 3 151 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 1 152 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 153 | Shared Risk Link Group Value | 154 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 155 | ............ | 156 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 157 | Shared Risk Link Group Value | 158 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 160 5.5. Interface Switching Capability Descriptor 162 The Interface Switching Capability Descriptor is a sub-TLV of the 163 Link TLV with type 15. The length is the length of value field in 164 octets. The format of the value field is as shown below: 166 0 1 2 3 167 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 1 168 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 169 | Switching Cap | Encoding | Reserved | 170 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 171 | Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 0 | 172 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 173 | Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 1 | 174 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 175 | Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 2 | 176 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 177 | Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 3 | 178 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 179 | Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 4 | 180 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 181 | Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 5 | 182 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 183 | Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 6 | 184 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 185 | Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 7 | 186 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 187 | Switching Capability-specific information | 188 | (variable) | 189 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 191 The Switching Capability (Switching Cap) field contains one of the 192 following values: 194 1 Packet-Switch Capable-1 (PSC-1) 195 2 Packet-Switch Capable-2 (PSC-2) 196 3 Packet-Switch Capable-3 (PSC-3) 197 4 Packet-Switch Capable-4 (PSC-4) 198 51 Layer-2 Switch Capable (L2SC) 199 100 Time-Division-Multiplex Capable (TDM) 200 150 Lambda-Switch Capable (LSC) 201 200 Fiber-Switch Capable (FSC) 203 The Encoding field contains one of the values specified in Section 204 3.1.1 of [GMPLS-SIG]. 206 Maximum LSP Bandwidth is encoded as a list of eight 4 octet fields in 207 the IEEE floating point format, with priority 0 first and priority 7 208 last. The units are bytes (not bits!) per second. 210 The content of the Switching Capability specific information field 211 depends on the value of the Switching Capability field. 213 When the Switching Capability field is PSC-1, PSC-2, PSC-3, or PSC-4, 214 the specific information includes Interface MTU and Minimum LSP 215 Bandwidth. The Interface MTU is encoded as a two octets integer. The 216 Minimum LSP Bandwidth is is encoded in a 4 octets field in the IEEE 217 floating point format. The units are bytes (not bits!) per second. 219 When the Switching Capability field is L2SC, there is no specific 220 information. 222 When the Switching Capability field is TDM, the specific information 223 includes Minimum LSP Bandwidth, which is is encoded in a 4 octets 224 field in the IEEE floating point format. The units are bytes (not 225 bits!) per second. 227 When the Switching Capability field is LSC, there is no specific 228 information. 230 The Interface Switching Capability Descriptor sub-TLV may occur more 231 than once within the Link TLV (this is needed to handle interfaces 232 that support multiple switching capabilities). 234 6. Security Considerations 236 The sub-TLVs proposed in this document does not raise any new 237 security concerns. 239 7. Acknowledgements 241 The authors would like to thank Suresh Katukam, Jonathan Lang and 242 Quaizar Vohra for their comments on the draft. 244 8. References 246 [OSPF-TE] Katz, D., Yeung, D., "Traffic Engineering Extensions to 247 OSPF", 248 draft-katz-yeung-ospf-traffic-04.txt (work in progress) 250 [GMPLS-SIG] "Generalized MPLS - Signaling Functional 251 Description", draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-signaling-04.txt (work 252 in progress) 254 [GMPLS-ROUTING] "Routing Extensions in Support of Generalized MPLS", 255 draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-routing-00.txt 257 9. Authors' Information 259 Kireeti Kompella 260 Juniper Networks, Inc. 261 1194 N. Mathilda Ave 262 Sunnyvale, CA 94089 263 Email: kireeti@juniper.net 265 Yakov Rekhter 266 Juniper Networks, Inc. 267 1194 N. Mathilda Ave 268 Sunnyvale, CA 94089 269 Email: yakov@juniper.net 270 Ayan Banerjee 271 Calient Networks 272 5853 Rue Ferrari 273 San Jose, CA 95138 274 Phone: +1.408.972.3645 275 Email: abanerjee@calient.net 277 John Drake 278 Calient Networks 279 5853 Rue Ferrari 280 San Jose, CA 95138 281 Phone: (408) 972-3720 282 Email: jdrake@calient.net 284 Greg Bernstein 285 Ciena Corporation 286 10480 Ridgeview Court 287 Cupertino, CA 94014 288 Phone: (408) 366-4713 289 Email: greg@ciena.com 291 Don Fedyk 292 Nortel Networks Corp. 293 600 Technology Park Drive 294 Billerica, MA 01821 295 Phone: +1-978-288-4506 296 Email: dwfedyk@nortelnetworks.com 298 Eric Mannie 299 GTS Network Services 300 RDI Department, Core Network Technology Group 301 Terhulpsesteenweg, 6A 302 1560 Hoeilaart, Belgium 303 Phone: +32-2-658.56.52 304 E-mail: eric.mannie@gtsgroup.com 305 Debanjan Saha 306 Tellium Optical Systems 307 2 Crescent Place 308 P.O. Box 901 309 Ocean Port, NJ 07757 310 Phone: (732) 923-4264 311 Email: dsaha@tellium.com 313 Vishal Sharma 314 Metanoia, Inc. 315 335 Elan Village Lane, Unit 203 316 San Jose, CA 95134-2539 317 Phone: +1 408-943-1794 318 Email: v.sharma@ieee.org