idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-ospf-encapsulation-cap-06.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 (July 16, 2017) is 2476 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(See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Outdated reference: A later version (-22) exists of draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps-06 ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 5226 (Obsoleted by RFC 8126) == Outdated reference: A later version (-08) exists of draft-ietf-bier-architecture-07 == Outdated reference: A later version (-12) exists of draft-ietf-bier-mpls-encapsulation-07 == Outdated reference: A later version (-04) exists of draft-xu-mpls-unified-source-routing-instruction-02 -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 5512 (Obsoleted by RFC 9012) Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 5 warnings (==), 2 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 OSPF Working Group X. Xu, Ed. 3 Internet-Draft Huawei 4 Intended status: Standards Track B. Decraene, Ed. 5 Expires: January 17, 2018 Orange 6 R. Raszuk 7 Bloomberg LP 8 L. Contreras 9 Telefonica I+D 10 L. Jalil 11 Verizon 12 July 16, 2017 14 Advertising Tunneling Capability in OSPF 15 draft-ietf-ospf-encapsulation-cap-06 17 Abstract 19 Networks use tunnels for a variety of reasons. A large variety of 20 tunnel types are defined and the ingress needs to select a type of 21 tunnel which is supported by the egress and itself. This document 22 defines how to advertise egress tunnel capabilities in OSPF Router 23 Information Link State Advertisement (LSAs). 25 Requirements Language 27 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 28 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 29 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. 31 Status of This Memo 33 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 34 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 36 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 37 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 38 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 39 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 41 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 42 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 43 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 44 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 46 This Internet-Draft will expire on January 17, 2018. 48 Copyright Notice 50 Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 51 document authors. All rights reserved. 53 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 54 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 55 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 56 publication of this document. Please review these documents 57 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 58 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 59 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 60 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 61 described in the Simplified BSD License. 63 Table of Contents 65 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 66 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 67 3. Advertising Encapsulation Capability . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 68 4. Tunnel Encapsulation Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 69 5. Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Sub-TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . 4 70 5.1. Encapsulation Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 71 5.2. Protocol Type Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 72 5.3. Endpoint Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 73 5.4. Color Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 74 5.5. Load-Balancing Block Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 75 5.6. IP QoS Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 76 5.7. UDP Destination Port . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 77 6. Usage of the Tunnel Encapsulation attribute . . . . . . . . . 6 78 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 79 7.1. OSPF Router Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 80 7.2. OSPF Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Sub-TLVs Registry . . 7 81 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 82 9. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 83 10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 84 11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 85 11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 86 11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 87 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 89 1. Introduction 91 Networks use tunnels for a variety of reasons, such as: 93 o Partial deployment of MPLS-SPRING as described in 94 [I-D.xu-mpls-unified-source-routing-instruction], where IP tunnels 95 are used between MPLS-SPRING-enabled routers to traverse non-MPLS 96 routers. 98 o Partial deployment of MPLS-BIER as described in 99 [I-D.ietf-bier-architecture], where IP tunnels are used between 100 MPLS-BIER-capable routers to traverse non MPLS-BIER 101 [I-D.ietf-bier-mpls-encapsulation] routers. 103 o Partial deployment of IPv6 in IPv4 networks or IPv4 in IPv6 104 networks as described in [RFC5565], where IPvx tunnels are used 105 between IPvx-enabled routers so as to traverse non-IPvx routers. 107 o Remote Loop-Free Alternate (RLFA) repair tunnels as described in 108 [RFC7490], where tunnels are used between the Point of Local 109 Repair and the selected PQ node. 111 The ingress needs to select a type of tunnel which is supported by 112 the egress and itself. This document describes how to use OSPF 113 Router Information Link State Advertisements (LSAs) to advertise the 114 egress tunneling capabilities of OSPF routers. In this document, 115 OSPF refers to both OSPFv2 [RFC2328] and OSPFv3 [RFC5340]. 117 2. Terminology 119 This memo makes use of the terms defined in [RFC7770]. 121 3. Advertising Encapsulation Capability 123 Routers advertise their supported encapsulation type(s) by 124 advertising a new TLV of the OSPF Router Information (RI) Opaque LSA 125 [RFC7770], referred to as the Encapsulation Capability TLV. This TLV 126 is applicable to both OSPFv2 and OSPFv3. The Encapsulation 127 Capability TLV SHOULD NOT appear more than once within a given OSPF 128 Router Information (RI) Opaque LSA. If the Encapsulation Capability 129 TLV appears more than once in an OSPF Router Information LSA, only 130 the first occurrence MUST be processed and others MUST be ignored. 131 The scope of the advertisement depends on the application but it is 132 recommended that it SHOULD be domain-wide. The Type code of the 133 Encapsulation Capability TLV is TBD1, the Length value is variable, 134 and the Value field contains one or more Tunnel Encapsulation Type 135 Sub-TLVs. Each Encapsulation Type Sub-TLVs indicates a particular 136 encapsulation format that the advertising router supports along with 137 the parameters to be used for the tunnel. 139 4. Tunnel Encapsulation Type 141 The Tunnel Encapsulation Type Sub-TLV is structured as follows: 143 0 1 2 3 144 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 1 145 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 146 | Tunnel Type (2 Octets) | Length (2 Octets) | 147 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 148 | | 149 | Sub-TLVs | 150 | | 151 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 153 Tunnel Type (2 octets): Identifies the type of tunneling 154 technology being signaled. Tunnel types are shared with the BGP 155 extension [RFC5512] and hence are defined in the IANA registry 156 "BGP Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Tunnel Types". Unknown types 157 are to be ignored and skipped upon receipt. 159 Length (2 octets): Unsigned 16-bit integer indicating the total 160 number of octets of the value field. 162 Value (variable): Zero or more Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Sub- 163 TLVs as defined in Section 5. 165 5. Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Sub-TLVs 167 Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Sub-TLV are structured as follows: 169 +-----------------------------------+ 170 | Sub-TLV Type (2 Octets) | 171 +-----------------------------------+ 172 | Sub-TLV Length (2 Octets) | 173 +-----------------------------------+ 174 | Sub-TLV Value (Variable) | 175 | | 176 +-----------------------------------+ 178 Sub-TLV Type (2 octets): Each Sub-TLV type defines a certain 179 property of the tunnel TLV that contains this Sub-TLV. Types are 180 registered in the IANA registry "OSPF Tunnel Encapsulation 181 Attribute Sub-TLVs" Section 7.2. 183 Sub-TLV Length (2 octets): Unsigned 16-bit integer indicating the 184 total number of octets of the Sub-TLV value field. 186 Sub-TLV Value (variable): Encodings of the value field depend on 187 the Sub-TLV type as enumerated above. The following sub-sections 188 define the encoding in detail. 190 Any unknown Sub-TLVs MUST be ignored and skipped upon receipt. 192 If a Sub-TLV is invalid, its Tunnel Encapsulation TLV MUST be ignored 193 and skipped. However, other Tunnel Encapsulation TLVs MUST be 194 considered. 196 5.1. Encapsulation Sub-TLV 198 This Sub-TLV of type 1 is defined in section 3.2 "Encapsulation Sub- 199 TLVs for Particular Tunnel Types" of [I-D.ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps] 200 from both a syntax and semantic standpoint. Usage is defined in 201 Section 6. 203 5.2. Protocol Type Sub-TLV 205 This Sub-TLV of type 2 is defined in section 3.4.1 "Protocol Type 206 sub-TLV" of [I-D.ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps] from a syntactic, semantic, 207 and usage standpoint. 209 5.3. Endpoint Sub-TLV 211 Type is 3. The value field carries the Network Address to be used as 212 tunnel destination address. 214 If length is 4, the tunnel endpoint is an IPv4 address. 216 If length is 16, the tunnel endpoint is an IPv6 address. 218 5.4. Color Sub-TLV 220 Type is 4. The value field is a 4-octet opaque unsigned integer. 222 The color value is user-defined and configured locally on the 223 advertising routers. It may be used by service providers to define 224 policies on the ingress routers, for example, to control the 225 selection of the tunnel to use. 227 This color value can be referenced by BGP routes carrying Color 228 Extended Community [I-D.ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps]. If the tunnel is 229 used to reach the BGP Next-Hop of BGP routes, then attaching a Color 230 Extended Community attached to those routes express the willingness 231 of the BGP speaker to use a tunnel of the same color. 233 5.5. Load-Balancing Block Sub-TLV 235 This Sub-TLV of type 5 is defined in [RFC5640] from a syntactic, 236 semantic and usage standpoint. 238 5.6. IP QoS Field 240 This Sub-TLV of type 6 is defined in section 3.3.1 "IPv4 DS Field" of 241 [I-D.ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps] from a syntactic, semantic and usage 242 standpoint. 244 5.7. UDP Destination Port 246 This Sub-TLV of type 7 is defined in section 3.3.2 "UDP Destination 247 Port" of [I-D.ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps] from a syntactic, semantic and 248 usage standpoint. 250 6. Usage of the Tunnel Encapsulation attribute 252 The advertisement of an Encapsulation Type Sub-TLVs indicates that 253 the advertising router support a particular tunnel encapsulation 254 along with the parameters to be used for the tunnel. The decision to 255 use that tunnel is driven by the capability of the ingress router to 256 support the encapsulation type and the policy on the ingress router. 257 The color sub-TLV may be used as an input to this policy. Note that 258 some tunnel types may require the execution of an explicit tunnel 259 setup protocol before they can be used to carry data. 261 A tunnel MUST NOT be used if there is no route toward the IP address 262 specified in the Endpoint Sub-TLV or if the route is not advertised 263 by the router advertising the Tunnel Encapsulation attribute for the 264 tunnel. 266 7. IANA Considerations 268 7.1. OSPF Router Information 270 This document requests IANA to allocate a new code point from the 271 OSPF Router Information (RI) registry. 273 Value TLV Name Reference 274 ----- ------------------------------------ ------------- 275 TBD1 Tunnel Capabilities This document 277 7.2. OSPF Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Sub-TLVs Registry 279 This document requests IANA to create a new registry "OSPF Tunnel 280 Encapsulation Attribute Sub-TLVs" with the following registration 281 procedure: 283 The values in the range 1-255 are to be allocated using the 284 "Standards Action" registration procedure as defined in [RFC5226]. 286 The values in the range 256-65499 are to be allocated using the 287 "First Come, First Served" registration procedure. 289 Registry Name: OSPF Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Sub-TLVs 291 Value Name Reference 292 ----------- ------------------------------------ ------------- 293 0 Reserved This document 294 1 Encapsulation This document 295 2 Protocol Type This document 296 3 Endpoint This document 297 4 Color This document 298 5 Load-Balancing Block This document 299 6 IP QoS This document 300 7 UDP Destination Port This document 301 8-65499 Unassigned 302 65500-65535 Experimental This document 303 65535 Reserved This document 305 8. Security Considerations 307 Security considerations applicable to softwires can be found in the 308 mesh framework [RFC5565]. In general, security issues of the tunnel 309 protocols signaled through this OSPF capability extension are 310 inherited. 312 If a third-party is able to modify any of the information that is 313 used to form encapsulation headers, to choose a tunnel type, or to 314 choose a particular tunnel for a particular payload type, user data 315 packets may end up getting misrouted, misdelivered, and/or dropped. 317 Security considerations for the base OSPF protocol are covered in 318 [RFC2328] and [RFC5340]. 320 9. Contributors 322 Uma Chunduri 323 Huawei 324 Email: uma.chunduri@gmail.com 326 10. Acknowledgements 328 This document is partially inspired by [RFC5512]. 330 The authors would like to thank Greg Mirsky, John E Drake, Carlos 331 Pignataro and Karsten Thomann for their valuable comments on this 332 document. Special thanks should be given to Acee Lindem for his 333 multiple detailed reviews of this document and help. 335 11. References 337 11.1. Normative References 339 [I-D.ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps] 340 Rosen, E., Patel, K., and G. Velde, "The BGP Tunnel 341 Encapsulation Attribute", draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps-06 342 (work in progress), June 2017. 344 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 345 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 346 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 347 . 349 [RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an 350 IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", RFC 5226, 351 DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008, 352 . 354 [RFC5640] Filsfils, C., Mohapatra, P., and C. Pignataro, "Load- 355 Balancing for Mesh Softwires", RFC 5640, 356 DOI 10.17487/RFC5640, August 2009, 357 . 359 [RFC7770] Lindem, A., Ed., Shen, N., Vasseur, JP., Aggarwal, R., and 360 S. Shaffer, "Extensions to OSPF for Advertising Optional 361 Router Capabilities", RFC 7770, DOI 10.17487/RFC7770, 362 February 2016, . 364 11.2. Informative References 366 [I-D.ietf-bier-architecture] 367 Wijnands, I., Rosen, E., Dolganow, A., Przygienda, T., and 368 S. Aldrin, "Multicast using Bit Index Explicit 369 Replication", draft-ietf-bier-architecture-07 (work in 370 progress), June 2017. 372 [I-D.ietf-bier-mpls-encapsulation] 373 Wijnands, I., Rosen, E., Dolganow, A., Tantsura, J., 374 Aldrin, S., and I. Meilik, "Encapsulation for Bit Index 375 Explicit Replication in MPLS and non-MPLS Networks", 376 draft-ietf-bier-mpls-encapsulation-07 (work in progress), 377 June 2017. 379 [I-D.xu-mpls-unified-source-routing-instruction] 380 Xu, X., Bryant, S., Raszuk, R., Chunduri, U., Contreras, 381 L., Jalil, L., Assarpour, H., Velde, G., Tantsura, J., and 382 S. Ma, "Unified Source Routing Instruction using MPLS 383 Label Stack", draft-xu-mpls-unified-source-routing- 384 instruction-02 (work in progress), June 2017. 386 [RFC2328] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328, 387 DOI 10.17487/RFC2328, April 1998, 388 . 390 [RFC5340] Coltun, R., Ferguson, D., Moy, J., and A. Lindem, "OSPF 391 for IPv6", RFC 5340, DOI 10.17487/RFC5340, July 2008, 392 . 394 [RFC5512] Mohapatra, P. and E. Rosen, "The BGP Encapsulation 395 Subsequent Address Family Identifier (SAFI) and the BGP 396 Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute", RFC 5512, 397 DOI 10.17487/RFC5512, April 2009, 398 . 400 [RFC5565] Wu, J., Cui, Y., Metz, C., and E. Rosen, "Softwire Mesh 401 Framework", RFC 5565, DOI 10.17487/RFC5565, June 2009, 402 . 404 [RFC7490] Bryant, S., Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Shand, M., and N. 405 So, "Remote Loop-Free Alternate (LFA) Fast Reroute (FRR)", 406 RFC 7490, DOI 10.17487/RFC7490, April 2015, 407 . 409 Authors' Addresses 411 Xiaohu Xu (editor) 412 Huawei 414 Email: xuxiaohu@huawei.com 415 Bruno Decraene (editor) 416 Orange 418 Email: bruno.decraene@orange.com 420 Robert Raszuk 421 Bloomberg LP 423 Email: robert@raszuk.net 425 Luis M. Contreras 426 Telefonica I+D 428 Email: luismiguel.contrerasmurillo@telefonica.com 430 Luay Jalil 431 Verizon 433 Email: luay.jalil@verizon.com