idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-ospf-cap-07.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** It looks like you're using RFC 3978 boilerplate. You should update this to the boilerplate described in the IETF Trust License Policy document (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info), which is required now. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3978, Section 5.1 on line 20. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3978, Section 5.5 on line 430. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 1 on line 407. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 2 on line 414. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 3 on line 420. ** This document has an original RFC 3978 Section 5.4 Copyright Line, instead of the newer IETF Trust Copyright according to RFC 4748. ** This document has an original RFC 3978 Section 5.5 Disclaimer, instead of the newer disclaimer which includes the IETF Trust according to RFC 4748. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == No 'Intended status' indicated for this document; assuming Proposed Standard Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the RFC 3978 Section 5.4 Copyright Line does not match the current year -- 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.) -- The document date (May 19, 2005) is 6911 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) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2370 (ref. 'OPAQUE') (Obsoleted by RFC 5250) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2740 (ref. 'OSPFV3') (Obsoleted by RFC 5340) == Outdated reference: A later version (-06) exists of draft-ietf-isis-igp-p2p-over-lan-05 -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 3137 (ref. 'STUB') (Obsoleted by RFC 6987) == Outdated reference: A later version (-02) exists of draft-vasseur-ccamp-automesh-00 Summary: 5 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 4 warnings (==), 8 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group A. Lindem (Editor) 3 Internet-Draft N. Shen 4 Expires: November 20, 2005 J. Vasseur 5 Cisco Systems 6 R. Aggarwal 7 Juniper Networks 8 S. Shaffer 9 BridgePort Networks 10 May 19, 2005 12 Extensions to OSPF for Advertising Optional Router Capabilities 13 draft-ietf-ospf-cap-07.txt 15 Status of this Memo 17 By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any 18 applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware 19 have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes 20 aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. 22 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 23 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that 24 other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- 25 Drafts. 27 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 28 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 29 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 30 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 32 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 33 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. 35 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 36 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 38 This Internet-Draft will expire on November 20, 2005. 40 Copyright Notice 42 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). 44 Abstract 46 It is useful for routers in an OSPFv2 or OSPFv3 routing domain to 47 know the capabilities of their neighbors and other routers in the 48 routing domain. This draft proposes extensions to OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 49 for advertising optional router capabilities. A new Router 50 Information (RI) LSA is proposed for this purpose. In OSPFv2, the RI 51 LSA will be implemented with a new opaque LSA type ID. In OSPFv3, 52 the RI LSA will be implemented with a new LSA type function code. In 53 both protocols, the RI LSA can be advertised at any of the defined 54 flooding scopes (link, area, or AS). 56 Table of Contents 58 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 59 1.1 Requirements notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 60 2. OSPF Router Information (RI) LSA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 61 2.1 OSPFv2 Router Information (RI) Opaque LSA . . . . . . . . 4 62 2.2 OSPFv3 Router Information (RI) Opaque LSA . . . . . . . . 5 63 2.3 OSPF Router Informational Capabilities TLV . . . . . . . . 5 64 2.4 Assigned OSPF Router Informational Capability Bits . . . . 6 65 2.5 Flooding Scope of the Router Information LSA . . . . . . . 7 66 3. Router Information LSA Opaque Usage and Applicability . . . . 8 67 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 68 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 69 6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 70 6.1 Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 71 6.2 Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 72 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 73 A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 74 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . 14 76 1. Introduction 78 It is useful for routers in an OSPFv2 [OSPF] or OSPFv3 [OSPFV3] 79 routing domain to know the capabilities of their neighbors and other 80 routers in the routing domain. This can be useful for both the 81 advertisement and discovery of OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 capabilities. 82 Throughout this document, OSPF will be used when the specification is 83 applicable to both OSPFv2 and OSPFv3. Similarly, OSPFv2 or OSPFv3 84 will be used when the text is protocol specific. 86 OSPF uses the options field in LSAs and hello packets to advertise 87 optional router capabilities. In the case of OSPFv2, all the bits in 88 this field have been allocated and there is no way to advertise new 89 optional capabilities. This document proposes extensions to OSPF to 90 advertise these optional capabilities via opaque LSAs in OSPFv2 and 91 new LSAs in OSPFv3. For existing OSPF capabilities, backward 92 compatibility issues dictate that this advertisement is used 93 primarily for informational purposes. For future OSPF features, this 94 advertisement MAY be used as the sole mechanism for advertisement and 95 discovery. 97 1.1 Requirements notation 99 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 100 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 101 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC2119 [RFC2119]. 103 2. OSPF Router Information (RI) LSA 105 OSPF routers MAY optionally advertise their optional capabilities in 106 a link-scoped, area-scoped, or AS-scoped LSA. For existing OSPF 107 capabilities, this advertisement will be used primarily for 108 informational purposes. Future OSPF features could use the RI LSA as 109 the sole mechanism for advertisement and discovery. The RI LSA will 110 be originated initially when an OSPF router instance is created and 111 whenever one of the advertised capabilities is configured or changed. 113 2.1 OSPFv2 Router Information (RI) Opaque LSA 115 OSPFv2 routers will advertise a link scoped, area-scoped, or AS- 116 scoped Opaque-LSA [OPAQUE]. The OSPFv2 Router Information LSA has an 117 Opaque type of 4 and Opaque ID of 0. 119 0 1 2 3 120 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 1 121 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 122 | LS age | Options | 9, 10 or 11 | 123 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 124 | 4 | 0 | 125 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 126 | Advertising Router | 127 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 128 | LS sequence number | 129 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 130 | LS checksum | length | 131 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 132 | | 133 +- TLVs -+ 134 | ... | 136 The format of the TLVs within the body of an RI LSA is the same as 137 the format used by the Traffic Engineering Extensions to OSPF [TE]. 138 The LSA payload consists of one or more nested Type/Length/Value 139 (TLV) triplets. The format of each TLV is: 141 0 1 2 3 142 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 1 143 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 144 | Type | Length | 145 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 146 | Value... | 147 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 149 The Length field defines the length of the value portion in octets 150 (thus a TLV with no value portion would have a length of zero). The 151 TLV is padded to four-octet alignment; padding is not included in 152 the length field (so a three octet value would have a length of 153 three, but the total size of the TLV would be eight octets). Nested 154 TLVs are also 32-bit aligned. For example, a one byte value would 155 have the length field set to 1, and three octets of padding would be 156 added to the end of the value portion of the TLV. Unrecognized types 157 are ignored. 159 2.2 OSPFv3 Router Information (RI) Opaque LSA 161 The OSPFv3 Router Information LSA has a function code of 12 while the 162 S1/S2 bit are dependent on the desired flooding scope for the LSA. 163 The U bit will be set indicating the OSPFv3 RI LSA should be flooded 164 even if it is not understood. The Link State ID (LSID) value for 165 this LSA is 0. This is unambiguous since an OSPFv3 router will only 166 advertise a single RI LSA per flooding scope. 168 0 1 2 3 169 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 1 170 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 171 | LS age |1|S12| 12 | 172 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 173 | 0 (Link State ID) | 174 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 175 | Advertising Router | 176 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 177 | LS sequence number | 178 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 179 | LS checksum | Length | 180 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 181 | | 182 +- TLVs -+ 183 | ... | 185 The format of the TLVs within the body of an RI LSA as defined in 186 Section 2.1 188 When a new Router Information LSA TLV is defined, the specification 189 MUST explicitly state whether the TLV is applicable to OSPFv2 only, 190 OSPFv3 only, or both OSPFv2 and OSPFv3. 192 2.3 OSPF Router Informational Capabilities TLV 194 The first defined TLV in the body of an RI LSA is the Router 195 Informational Capabilities TLV. A router advertising an RI LSA MAY 196 include the Router Informational Capabilities TLV. If included, it 197 MUST be the first TLV in the LSA. Additionally, the TLV MUST 198 accurately reflect the OSPF router's capabilities in the scope it is 199 advertised. However, the informational capabilities advertised have 200 no impact on the OSPF's operation - they are advertised purely for 201 informational purposes 203 The format of the Router Informational Capabilities TLV is as 204 follows: 206 0 1 2 3 207 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 1 208 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 209 | Type | Length | 210 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 211 | Informational Capabilities | 212 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 214 Type A 16 bit field set to 1. 215 Length A 16 bit field that indicates the length of the value 216 portion in octets and will be a multiple of 4 octets 217 dependent on the number of capabilities advertised. 218 Initially, the length will be 4 denoting 4 octets of 219 informational capability bits. 220 Value A variable length sequence of capability bits rounded 221 to a multiple of 4 octets padded with undefined bits. 222 Initially, there are 4 octets of capability bits. 224 The Router Informational Capabilities TLV MAY be followed by optional 225 TLVs that further specify a capability. 227 2.4 Assigned OSPF Router Informational Capability Bits 229 The following informational capability bits assigned: 231 Bit Capabilities 233 1 OSPF graceful restart capable [GRACE] 234 2 OSPF graceful restart helper [GRACE] 235 3 OSPF Stub Router support [STUB] 236 4 OSPF Traffic Engineering support [TE] 237 5 OSPF point-to-point over LAN [P2PLAN] 238 6-31 Future assignments 240 2.5 Flooding Scope of the Router Information LSA 242 The flooding scope for a Router Information LSA is determined by the 243 LSA type. For OSPFv2, type 9 (link-scoped), type 10 (area-scoped), 244 or a type 11 (AS-scoped) opaque LSA may be flooded. For OSPFv3, the 245 flooding scope is determined by the S1 and S2 bits in the LSA type. 246 If AS wide flooding scope is chosen, the originating router should 247 also advertise area scoped LSA(s) into any attached NSSA area(s). An 248 OSPF router MAY advertise different capabilities when both NSSA area 249 scoped LSA(s) and an AS scoped LSA is advertised. This allows 250 functional capabilities to be limited in scope. For example, a 251 router may be an area border router but only support traffic 252 engineering (TE) in a subset of its attached areas. Another example 253 relates to the capability of a node to be part of a specific MPLS 254 Traffic Engineering mesh group. When the mesh group is contained 255 within an OSPF area, the flooding scope of such capability should be 256 restricted to the corresponding OSPF area. Conversely, some mesh 257 groups may require routing domain flooding scope (see [TE-AUTO]). 259 The choice of flooding scope is made by the advertising router and is 260 a matter of local policy. The originating router MAY advertise 261 multiple RI LSAs as long as the flooding scopes differ. TLV flooding 262 scope rules will be specified on a per-TLV basis and MUST be 263 specified in the accompanying specifications for new Router 264 Information LSA TLVs. 266 3. Router Information LSA Opaque Usage and Applicability 268 The purpose of the Router Information (RI) LSA is to advertise 269 information relating to the aggregate OSPF router. Normally, this 270 should be confined to TLVs with a single value or very few values. 271 It is not meant to be a generic container to carry any and all 272 information. The intent is to both limit the size of the RI LSA to 273 the point where an OSPF router will always be able to contain the 274 TLVs in a single LSA and to keep the task of determining what has 275 changed between LSA instances reasonably simple. Hence, discretion 276 and sound engineering judgment MUST be adhered to when deciding 277 whether newly proposed TLV(s) in support of a new application are 278 advertised in the RI LSA or warrant the creation of an application 279 specific LSA. 281 4. Security Considerations 283 The function described in this document does not create any new 284 security issues for the OSPF protocol. Security considerations for 285 the base OSPF protocol are covered in [OSPF] and [OSPFV3]. 287 5. IANA Considerations 289 The following IANA assignments are to be made from existing 290 registries: 292 1. The OSPFv2 opaque LSA type 4 will need to be reserved for the 293 OSPFv2 RI opaque LSA. 295 2. The OSPFv2 LSA type function code 18 will need to be reserved for 296 the OSPFv3 RI LSA. 298 New registries are defined for the following purposes: 300 1. Registry for OSPF RI TLVs - The value of 1 for the capabilities 301 TLV is defined herein. All TLV additions are subject to OSPF WG 302 review. 304 2. Registry for OSPF Router Informational Capability Bits - The 305 values defined in Section 2.3. All Router Informational 306 Capability TLV additions are subject to OSPF WG review. 308 6. References 310 6.1 Normative References 312 [OPAQUE] Coltun, R., "The OSPF Opaque LSA Option", RFC 2370, 313 July 1998. 315 [OSPF] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", RFC 2328, April 1998. 317 [OSPFV3] Coltun, R., Ferguson, D., and J. Moy, "OSPF for IPv6", 318 RFC 2740, December 1999. 320 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFC's to Indicate 321 Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, March 1997. 323 [TE] Katz, D., Yeung, D., and K. Kompella, "Traffic Engineering 324 Extensions to OSPF", RFC 3630, September 2003. 326 6.2 Informative References 328 [GRACE] Moy, J., Pillay-Esnault, P., and A. Lindem, "Graceful OSPF 329 Restart", RFC 3623, November 2003. 331 [P2PLAN] Shen, N. and A. Zinin, "Point-to-point operation over LAN 332 in link-state routing protocols", 333 draft-ietf-isis-igp-p2p-over-lan-05.txt (work in 334 progress). 336 [STUB] Retana, A., Nguyen, L., White, R., Zinin, A., and D. 337 McPherson, "OSPF Stub Router Advertisement", RFC 3137, 338 June 2001. 340 [TE-AUTO] Vasseur, J. and J. Le Roux, "Routing extensions for 341 discovery of Multiprotocol (MPLS) Label Switch Router 342 (LSR) Traffic Engineering (TE) mesh membership", 343 draft-vasseur-ccamp-automesh-00.txt (work in progress). 345 Authors' Addresses 347 Acee Lindem 348 Cisco Systems 349 7025 Kit Creek Road 350 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 351 USA 353 Email: acee@cisco.com 354 Naiming Shen 355 Cisco Systems 356 225 West Tasman Drive 357 San Jose, CA 95134 358 USA 360 Email: naiming@cisco.com 362 Jean-Philippe Vasseur 363 Cisco Systems 364 300 Beaver Brook Road 365 Boxborough, MA 01719 366 USA 368 Email: jpv@cisco.com 370 Rahul Aggarwal 371 Juniper Networks 372 1194 N. Mathilda Ave. 373 Sunnyvale, CA 94089 374 USA 376 Email: rahul@juniper.net 378 Scott Shaffer 379 BridgePort Networks 380 One Main Street, 7th Floor 381 Cambridge, MA 02142 382 USA 384 Email: sshafferl@bridgeport-networks.com 386 Appendix A. Acknowledgments 388 The idea for this work grew out of a conversation with Andrew Partan 389 and we would like to thank him for his contribution. The authors 390 would like to thanks Peter Psenak for his review and helpful comments 391 on early versions of the draft. 393 Comments from Abhay Roy, Vishwas Manral, Vivek Dubey, and Adrian 394 Farrel have been incorporated into later draft versions. 396 The RFC text was produced using Marshall Rose's xml2rfc tool. 398 Intellectual Property Statement 400 The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any 401 Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to 402 pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in 403 this document or the extent to which any license under such rights 404 might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has 405 made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information 406 on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be 407 found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. 409 Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any 410 assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an 411 attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of 412 such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this 413 specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at 414 http://www.ietf.org/ipr. 416 The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any 417 copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary 418 rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement 419 this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at 420 ietf-ipr@ietf.org. 422 Disclaimer of Validity 424 This document and the information contained herein are provided on an 425 "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS 426 OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET 427 ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, 428 INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE 429 INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED 430 WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 432 Copyright Statement 434 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). This document is subject 435 to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and 436 except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. 438 Acknowledgment 440 Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the 441 Internet Society.