idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-ospf-encapsulation-cap-07.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: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The page length should not exceed 58 lines per page, but there was 1 longer page, the longest (page 1) being 61 lines Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** There are 7 instances of too long lines in the document, the longest one being 10 characters in excess of 72. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (September 10, 2017) is 2420 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(See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Outdated reference: A later version (-22) exists of draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps-07 ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 5226 (Obsoleted by RFC 8126) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 5512 (Obsoleted by RFC 9012) Summary: 2 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 3 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: March 14, 2018 Orange 6 R. Raszuk 7 Bloomberg LP 8 L. Contreras 9 Telefonica I+D 10 L. Jalil 11 Verizon 12 September 10, 2017 14 Advertising Tunnel Encapsulation Capabilities in OSPF 15 draft-ietf-ospf-encapsulation-cap-07 17 Abstract 19 Networks use tunnels for a variety of reasons. A large variety of 20 tunnel types are defined and the ingress tunnel router needs to 21 select a type of tunnel which is supported by the egress tunnel 22 router and itself. This document defines how to advertise the tunnel 23 encapsulation capabilities of egress tunnel routers in OSPF Router 24 Information Link State Advertisement (LSAs). 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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. 32 Status of This Memo 34 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 35 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 37 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task 38 Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other 39 groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. 41 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 42 http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html 44 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 45 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html 47 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 48 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 49 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 50 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 52 This Internet-Draft will expire on March 14, 2018. 54 Copyright Notice 56 Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 57 document authors. All rights reserved. 59 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions 60 Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) 61 in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please 62 review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights 63 and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components 64 extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License 65 text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions 66 and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified 67 BSD License. 69 Table of Contents 71 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 72 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 73 3. Tunnel Encapsulation Capabilities TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 74 4. Tunnel Encapsulation Type Sub-TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 75 5. Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Sub-TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . 4 76 5.1. Encapsulation Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 77 5.2. Protocol Type Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 78 5.3. Endpoint Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 79 5.4. Color Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 80 5.5. Load-Balancing Block Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 81 5.6. IP QoS Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 82 5.7. UDP Destination Port . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 83 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 84 6.1. OSPF Router Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 85 6.2. Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Sub-TLVs Registry . . . . 6 86 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 87 8. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 88 9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 89 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 90 10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 91 10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 92 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 94 1. Introduction 96 Networks use tunnels for a variety of reasons, such as: 98 o Partial deployment of IPv6 in IPv4 networks or IPv4 in IPv6 99 networks as described in [RFC5565], where IPvx tunnels are used 100 between IPvx-enabled routers so as to traverse non-IPvx routers. 102 o Remote Loop-Free Alternate (RLFA) repair tunnels as described in 103 [RFC7490], where tunnels are used between the Point of Local 104 Repair and the selected PQ node. 106 The ingress tunnel router needs to select a type of tunnel which is 107 supported by the egress tunnel router and itself. This document 108 describes how to use OSPF Router Information Link State 109 Advertisements (LSAs) to advertise the tunneling capabilities of OSPF 110 routers acting as egress tunnel routers. In this document, OSPF 111 refers to both OSPFv2 [RFC2328] and OSPFv3 [RFC5340]. 113 2. Terminology 115 This memo makes use of the terms defined in [RFC7770]. 117 3. Tunnel Encapsulation Capabilities TLV 119 Routers advertise their supported encapsulation type(s) by 120 advertising a new TLV of the OSPF Router Information (RI) Opaque LSA 121 [RFC7770], referred to as the Tunnel Encapsulation Capabilities TLV. 122 This TLV is applicable to both OSPFv2 and OSPFv3. The Tunnel 123 Encapsulation Capabilities TLV SHOULD NOT appear more than once 124 within a given OSPF Router Information (RI) Opaque LSA. If the 125 Tunnel Encapsulation Capabilities TLV appears more than once in an 126 OSPF Router Information LSA, only the first occurrence MUST be 127 processed and others SHOULD be ignored. The scope of the 128 advertisement depends on the application but it is recommended that 129 it SHOULD be domain-wide. The Type code of the Tunnel Encapsulation 130 Capabilities TLV is TBD1, the Length value is variable, and the Value 131 field contains one or more Tunnel Encapsulation Type Sub-TLVs (see 132 Section 4). Each Encapsulation Type Sub-TLVs indicates a particular 133 encapsulation format that the advertising router supports along with 134 the parameters to be used for the tunnel. 136 4. Tunnel Encapsulation Type Sub-TLVs 138 The Tunnel Encapsulation Type Sub-TLV is structured as follows: 140 0 1 2 3 141 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 1 142 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 143 | Tunnel Type (2 Octets) | Length (2 Octets) | 144 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 145 | | 146 | Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Sub-TLVs | 147 | | 148 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 149 Tunnel Type (2 octets): Identifies the type of tunneling 150 technology being signaled. Tunnel types are shared with the BGP 151 extension [I-D.ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps] and hence are defined in 152 the IANA registry "BGP Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Tunnel 153 Types". Unknown types are to be ignored and skipped upon receipt. 155 Length (2 octets): Unsigned 16-bit integer indicating the total 156 number of octets of the value field. Note that this is a padding 157 to be ignored if the length field is longer than the field 158 indicated by the sub-TLVs. 160 Value (variable): Zero or more Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Sub- 161 TLVs as defined in Section 5. 163 5. Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Sub-TLVs 165 Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Sub-TLV are structured as follows: 167 +-----------------------------------+ 168 | Sub-TLV Type (2 Octets) | 169 +-----------------------------------+ 170 | Sub-TLV Length (2 Octets) | 171 +-----------------------------------+ 172 | Sub-TLV Value (Variable) | 173 | | 174 +-----------------------------------+ 176 Sub-TLV Type (2 octets): Each Sub-TLV type defines a certain 177 property of the tunnel TLV that contains this Sub-TLV. Types are 178 registered in the IANA registry "OSPF Tunnel Encapsulation 179 Attribute Sub-TLVs" Section 6.2. 181 Sub-TLV Length (2 octets): Unsigned 16-bit integer indicating the 182 total number of octets of the Sub-TLV value field. 184 Sub-TLV Value (variable): Encodings of the value field depend on 185 the Sub-TLV type as enumerated above. The following sub-sections 186 define the encoding in detail. 188 Any unknown Sub-TLVs MUST be deemed as invalid Sub-TLVs and therefore 189 MUST be ignored and skipped upon receipt. When a reserved value (See 190 Section 6.2) is seen in an LSA, it SHOULD be treated as an invalid 191 Sub-TLV. If a Sub-TLV is invalid, its Tunnel Encapsulation Type TLV 192 MUST be ignored and skipped. However, other Tunnel Encapsulation 193 Type TLVs MUST be considered. 195 The advertisement of an Encapsulation Type Sub-TLV (See Section 5.1) 196 indicates that the advertising router support a particular tunnel 197 encapsulation along with the parameters to be used for the tunnel. 198 The decision to use that tunnel is driven by the capability of the 199 ingress router to support the encapsulation type and the policy on 200 the ingress router. The Color Sub-TLV (See Section 5.4) may be used 201 as an input to this policy. Note that some tunnel types may require 202 the execution of an explicit tunnel setup protocol before they can be 203 used to carry data. A tunnel MUST NOT be used if there is no route 204 toward the IP address specified in the Endpoint Sub-TLV (See 205 Section 5.3) or if the route is not advertised by the router 206 advertising the Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Sub-TLVs for the 207 tunnel. 209 5.1. Encapsulation Sub-TLV 211 This Sub-TLV of type 1 is defined in Section 3.2 "Encapsulation Sub- 212 TLVs for Particular Tunnel Types" of [I-D.ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps] 213 from both a syntax and semantic standpoint. 215 5.2. Protocol Type Sub-TLV 217 This Sub-TLV of type 2 is defined in Section 3.4.1 "Protocol Type 218 sub-TLV" of [I-D.ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps] from a syntactic, semantic, 219 and usage standpoint. 221 5.3. Endpoint Sub-TLV 223 Type is 3. The value field carries the Network Address to be used as 224 tunnel destination address. 226 If length is 4, the tunnel endpoint is an IPv4 address. 228 If length is 16, the tunnel endpoint is an IPv6 address. 230 5.4. Color Sub-TLV 232 Type is 4. The value field is a 4-octet opaque unsigned integer. 234 The color value is user-defined and configured locally on the 235 advertising routers. It may be used by service providers to define 236 policies on the ingress tunnel routers, for example, to control the 237 selection of the tunnel to use. 239 This color value can be referenced by BGP routes carrying Color 240 Extended Community [I-D.ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps]. If the tunnel is 241 used to reach the BGP Next-Hop of BGP routes, then attaching a Color 242 Extended Community attached to those routes express the willingness 243 of the BGP speaker to use a tunnel of the same color. 245 5.5. Load-Balancing Block Sub-TLV 247 This Sub-TLV of type 5 is defined in [RFC5640] from a syntactic, 248 semantic and usage standpoint. 250 5.6. IP QoS Field 252 This Sub-TLV of type 6 is defined in Section 3.3.1 "IPv4 DS Field" of 253 [I-D.ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps] from a syntactic, semantic and usage 254 standpoint. 256 5.7. UDP Destination Port 258 This Sub-TLV of type 7 is defined in Section 3.3.2 "UDP Destination 259 Port" of [I-D.ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps] from a syntactic, semantic and 260 usage standpoint. 262 6. IANA Considerations 264 6.1. OSPF Router Information 266 This document requests IANA to allocate a new code point from the 267 OSPF Router Information (RI) registry. 269 Value TLV Name Reference 270 ----- --------------------------------- ------------- 271 TBD1 Tunnel Encapsulation Capabilities This document 273 6.2. Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Sub-TLVs Registry 275 This document requests IANA to create a new registry "Tunnel 276 Encapsulation Attribute Sub-TLVs" with the following registration 277 procedure: 279 The values in the range 1-255 are to be allocated using the 280 "Standards Action" registration procedure as defined in [RFC5226]. 282 The values in the range 256-65499 are to be allocated using the 283 "First Come, First Served" registration procedure. 285 Registry Name: OSPF Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Sub-TLVs 287 Value Name Reference 288 ----------- -------------------- -------------------------------------------- 289 0 Reserved This document 290 1 Encapsulation This document & [I-D.ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps] 291 2 Protocol Type This document & [I-D.ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps] 292 3 Endpoint This document 293 4 Color This document 294 5 Load-Balancing Block This document & [RFC5640] 295 6 IP QoS This document & [I-D.ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps] 296 7 UDP Destination Port This document & [I-D.ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps] 297 8-65499 Unassigned 298 65500-65534 Experimental This document 299 65535 Reserved This document 301 7. Security Considerations 303 Security considerations applicable to softwires can be found in the 304 mesh framework [RFC5565]. In general, security issues of the tunnel 305 protocols signaled through this OSPF capability extension are 306 inherited. 308 If a third-party is able to modify any of the information that is 309 used to form encapsulation headers, to choose a tunnel type, or to 310 choose a particular tunnel for a particular payload type, user data 311 packets may end up getting misrouted, misdelivered, and/or dropped. 312 However, since an OSPF routing domain is usually well-controlled and 313 well-managed network, the possiblity of the above risk is very low. 315 Security considerations for the base OSPF protocol are covered in 316 [RFC2328] and [RFC5340]. 318 8. Contributors 320 Uma Chunduri 321 Huawei 322 Email: uma.chunduri@gmail.com 324 9. Acknowledgements 326 This document is partially inspired by [RFC5512]. 328 The authors would like to thank Greg Mirsky, John E Drake, Carlos 329 Pignataro and Karsten Thomann for their valuable comments on this 330 document. Special thanks should be given to Acee Lindem for his 331 multiple detailed reviews of this document and help. The authors 332 would like to thank Pete Resnick, Joe Touch, David Mandelberg, 333 Sabrina Tanamal, Tim Wicinski, Amanda Baber for their Last Call 334 reviews and thank Spencer Dawkins, Mirja Kuehlewind, Ben Campbell, 335 Benoit Claise, Alvaro Retana, Adam Roach and Suresh Krishnan for 336 their AD reviews. 338 10. References 340 10.1. Normative References 342 [I-D.ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps] 343 Rosen, E., Patel, K., and G. Velde, "The BGP Tunnel 344 Encapsulation Attribute", draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps-07 345 (work in progress), July 2017. 347 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 348 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 349 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 350 . 352 [RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an 353 IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", RFC 5226, 354 DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008, 355 . 357 [RFC5640] Filsfils, C., Mohapatra, P., and C. Pignataro, "Load- 358 Balancing for Mesh Softwires", RFC 5640, 359 DOI 10.17487/RFC5640, August 2009, 360 . 362 [RFC7770] Lindem, A., Ed., Shen, N., Vasseur, JP., Aggarwal, R., and 363 S. Shaffer, "Extensions to OSPF for Advertising Optional 364 Router Capabilities", RFC 7770, DOI 10.17487/RFC7770, 365 February 2016, . 367 10.2. Informative References 369 [RFC2328] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328, 370 DOI 10.17487/RFC2328, April 1998, 371 . 373 [RFC5340] Coltun, R., Ferguson, D., Moy, J., and A. Lindem, "OSPF 374 for IPv6", RFC 5340, DOI 10.17487/RFC5340, July 2008, 375 . 377 [RFC5512] Mohapatra, P. and E. Rosen, "The BGP Encapsulation 378 Subsequent Address Family Identifier (SAFI) and the BGP 379 Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute", RFC 5512, 380 DOI 10.17487/RFC5512, April 2009, 381 . 383 [RFC5565] Wu, J., Cui, Y., Metz, C., and E. Rosen, "Softwire Mesh 384 Framework", RFC 5565, DOI 10.17487/RFC5565, June 2009, 385 . 387 [RFC7490] Bryant, S., Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Shand, M., and N. 388 So, "Remote Loop-Free Alternate (LFA) Fast Reroute (FRR)", 389 RFC 7490, DOI 10.17487/RFC7490, April 2015, 390 . 392 Authors' Addresses 394 Xiaohu Xu (editor) 395 Huawei 397 Email: xuxiaohu@huawei.com 399 Bruno Decraene (editor) 400 Orange 402 Email: bruno.decraene@orange.com 404 Robert Raszuk 405 Bloomberg LP 407 Email: robert@raszuk.net 409 Luis M. Contreras 410 Telefonica I+D 412 Email: luismiguel.contrerasmurillo@telefonica.com 414 Luay Jalil 415 Verizon 417 Email: luay.jalil@verizon.com