idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-ospf-prefix-link-attr-10.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 seems to contain a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but was first submitted on or after 10 November 2008. The disclaimer is usually necessary only for documents that revise or obsolete older RFCs, and that take significant amounts of text from those RFCs. If you can contact all authors of the source material and they are willing to grant the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, you can and should remove the disclaimer. Otherwise, the disclaimer is needed and you can ignore this comment. (See the Legal Provisions document at https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.) -- The document date (August 11, 2015) is 3180 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(See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Outdated reference: A later version (-18) exists of draft-ietf-bier-ospf-bier-extensions-00 == Outdated reference: A later version (-23) exists of draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-lsa-extend-06 == Outdated reference: A later version (-27) exists of draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions-04 == Outdated reference: A later version (-02) exists of draft-francois-spring-segment-routing-ti-lfa-01 Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 6 warnings (==), 1 comment (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group P. Psenak 3 Internet-Draft Cisco Systems 4 Intended status: Standards Track H. Gredler 5 Expires: February 12, 2016 Juniper Networks, Inc. 6 R. Shakir 7 Individual Contributor 8 W. Henderickx 9 Alcatel-Lucent 10 J. Tantsura 11 Ericsson 12 A. Lindem 13 Cisco Systems 14 August 11, 2015 16 OSPFv2 Prefix/Link Attribute Advertisement 17 draft-ietf-ospf-prefix-link-attr-10.txt 19 Abstract 21 OSPFv2 requires functional extension beyond what can readily be done 22 with the fixed-format Link State Advertisements (LSAs) as described 23 in RFC 2328. This document defines OSPF opaque LSAs based on Type- 24 Length-Value (TLV) tuples that can be used to associate additional 25 attributes with prefixes or links. Dependent on the application, 26 these prefixes and links may or not be advertised in the fixed-format 27 LSAs. The OSPF opaque LSAs are optional and fully backward 28 compatible. 30 Status of This Memo 32 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 33 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 35 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 36 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 37 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 38 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 40 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 41 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 42 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 43 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 45 This Internet-Draft will expire on February 12, 2016. 47 Copyright Notice 49 Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 50 document authors. All rights reserved. 52 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 53 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 54 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 55 publication of this document. Please review these documents 56 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 57 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 58 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 59 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 60 described in the Simplified BSD License. 62 This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF 63 Contributions published or made publicly available before November 64 10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this 65 material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow 66 modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process. 67 Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling 68 the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified 69 outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may 70 not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format 71 it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other 72 than English. 74 Table of Contents 76 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 77 1.1. Requirements notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 78 2. OSPFv2 Extended Prefix Opaque LSA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 79 2.1. OSPFv2 Extended Prefix TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 80 3. OSPFv2 Extended Link Opaque LSA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 81 3.1. OSPFv2 Extended Link TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 82 4. Backward Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 83 5. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 84 5.1. Implementation Survey Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 85 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 86 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 87 7.1. OSPF Extended Prefix Opaque LSA TLV Registry . . . . . . 12 88 7.2. OSPF Extended Prefix TLV Sub-TLV Registry . . . . . . . . 12 89 7.3. OSPF Extended Link Opaque LSA TLV Registry . . . . . . . 13 90 7.4. OSPF Extended Link TLV Sub-TLV Registry . . . . . . . . . 13 91 8. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 92 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 93 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 94 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 96 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 98 1. Introduction 100 OSPFv2 requires functional extension beyond what can readily be done 101 with the fixed-format Link State Advertisements (LSAs) as described 102 in RFC 2328 [OSPFV2]. This document defines OSPF opaque LSAs based 103 on Type-Length-Value (TLV) tuples that can be used to associate 104 additional attributes with prefixes or links. Dependent on the 105 application, these prefixes and links may or not be advertised in the 106 fixed-format LSAs. The OSPF opaque LSAs are optional and fully 107 backward compatible. This is in contrast to the approach taken in 108 OSPFv3 [I-D.ietf-ospf-ospfv3-lsa-extend] where the existing LSAs will 109 be replaced by TLV-based extended LSAs. 111 New requirements such as source/destination routing, route tagging, 112 and segment routing necessitate this extension. 114 This specification defines the following OSPFv2 opaque LSAs: 116 1. OSPFv2 Extended Prefix Opaque LSA - Allows advertisement of 117 additional attributes for prefixes advertised in Router-LSAs, 118 Network-LSAs, Network-Summary-LSAs, NSSA-LSAs, and AS-External- 119 LSAs [OSPFV2] 121 2. OSPFv2 Extended Link Opaque LSA - Allows advertisement of 122 additional attributes for links advertised in Router-LSAs. 124 Additionally, the following TLVs are defined: 126 1. OSPFv2 Extended Prefix TLV - Top-level TLV advertising attributes 127 for a prefix in the OSPFv2 Extended Prefix Opaque LSA. 129 2. OSPFv2 Extended Link TLV - Top-level TLV advertising attributes 130 for a link in the OSPFv2 Extended Link Opaque LSA. 132 1.1. Requirements notation 134 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 135 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 136 document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC-KEYWORDS]. 138 2. OSPFv2 Extended Prefix Opaque LSA 140 The OSPFv2 Extended Prefix Opaque LSA will be used to advertise 141 additional prefix attributes. Opaque LSAs are described in [OPAQUE]. 143 Multiple OSPFv2 Extended Prefix Opaque LSAs can be advertised by an 144 OSPFv2 router. The flooding scope of the OSPFv2 Extended Prefix 145 Opaque LSA depends on the scope of the advertised prefixes and is 146 under the control of the advertising router. In some cases (e.g., 147 mapping server deployment [SEGMENT-ROUTING]), the LSA flooding scope 148 may be greater than the scope of the corresponding prefixes. 150 The format of the OSPFv2 Extended Prefix Opaque LSA is as follows: 152 0 1 2 3 153 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 1 154 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 155 | LS age | Options | 9, 10, or 11 | 156 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 157 | Opaque type | Instance | 158 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 159 | Advertising Router | 160 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 161 | LS sequence number | 162 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 163 | LS checksum | length | 164 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 165 | | 166 +- TLVs -+ 167 | ... | 169 OSPFv2 Extended Prefix Opaque LSA 171 The opaque type used by OSPFv2 Extended Prefix Opaque LSA is 7. The 172 opaque type is used to differential the various type of OSPFv2 Opaque 173 LSA and is described in section 3 of [OPAQUE]. 175 The Instance field is an arbitrary value used to maintain multiple 176 Extended Prefix Opaque LSAs. For OSPFv2 Extended Prefix Opaque LSAs, 177 the Instance has no semantic significance other than to differentiate 178 Extended Prefix Opaque LSAs originated by the same OSPFv2 router. If 179 multiple Extended Prefix Opaque LSAs include the same prefix, the 180 attributes from the Opaque LSA with the lowest Instance will be used. 182 The format of the TLVs within the body of the OSPFv2 Extended Prefix 183 Opaque LSA is the same as the format used by the Traffic Engineering 184 Extensions to OSPF [TE]. The variable TLV section consists of one or 185 more nested Type/Length/Value (TLV) tuples. Nested TLVs are also 186 referred to as sub-TLVs. The format of each TLV is: 188 0 1 2 3 189 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 1 190 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 191 | Type | Length | 192 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 193 | Value... | 194 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 196 TLV Format 198 The Length field defines the length of the value portion in octets 199 (thus a TLV with no value portion would have a length of 0). The TLV 200 is padded to 4-octet alignment; padding is not included in the length 201 field (so a 3-octet value would have a length of 3, but the total 202 size of the TLV would be 8 octets). Nested TLVs are also 32-bit 203 aligned. For example, a 1-byte value would have the length field set 204 to 1, and 3 octets of padding would be added to the end of the value 205 portion of the TLV. 207 2.1. OSPFv2 Extended Prefix TLV 209 The OSPF Extended Prefix TLV is used to advertise additional 210 attributes associated with the prefix. Multiple OSPF Extended Prefix 211 TLVs MAY be advertised in each OSPFv2 Extended Prefix Opaque LSA. 212 However, since the opaque LSA type defines the flooding scope, the 213 LSA flooding scope MUST satisfy the application specific requirements 214 for all the prefixes included in a single OSPFv2 Extended Prefix 215 Opaque LSA. The OSPF Extended Prefix TLV has the following format: 217 0 1 2 3 218 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 1 219 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 220 | Type | Length | 221 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 222 | Route Type | Prefix Length | AF | Flags | 223 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 224 | Address Prefix (variable) | 225 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 226 | Sub-TLVs (variable) | 227 +- -+ 228 | | 230 OSPFv2 Extended Prefix TLV 232 Type 233 The TLV type. The value is 1 for this TLV type. 235 Length 236 Variable dependent on sub-TLVs. 238 Route Type 239 Route type: type of the OSPF route. If the route type is 0 240 (Unspecified), the information inside the OSPF External Prefix TLV 241 applies to the prefix regardless of prefix's route-type. This is 242 useful when prefix specific attributes are advertised by an 243 external entity that is not aware of the route-type associated 244 with the prefix. Supported types are: 246 0 - Unspecified 248 1 - Intra-Area 250 3 - Inter-Area 252 5 - AS External 254 7 - NSSA External 256 These route types correspond directly to the OSPFv2 LSAs types as 257 defined in http://www.iana.org/assignments/ospfv2-parameters/ 258 ospfv2-parameters.xhtml#ospfv2-parameters-5. 260 Prefix Length 261 Length in the prefix in bits. 263 AF 264 Address family for the prefix. Currently, the only supported 265 value is 0 for IPv4 unicast. OSPFv3 [OSPFV3] is used for OSPF 266 advertisement of IPv6 prefixes so this address family is not 267 applicable. The inclusion of address family in this TLV allows 268 for future extension. 270 Flags: 1 octet field. The following flags are defined: 272 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 273 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 274 |A|N| | | | | | | 275 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 277 where: 279 A-Flag: Attach flag. An Area Border Router (ABR) generating an 280 Extended Prefix TLV for inter-area prefix that is locally 281 connected or attached in other connected area SHOULD set this 282 flag. 284 N-Flag: Set when the prefix identifies the advertising router 285 i.e., the prefix is a host prefix advertising a globally 286 reachable address typically associated with a loopback address. 287 The advertising router MAY choose to NOT set this flag even 288 when the above conditions are met. If the flag is set and the 289 prefix length is NOT a host prefix then the flag MUST be 290 ignored. The flag is preserved when the OSPFv2 Extended Prefix 291 Opaque LSA is propagated between areas. 293 Address Prefix 294 The prefix itself encoded as a 32-bit value. The default route is 295 represented by a prefix of length 0. 297 If this TLV is advertised multiple times for the same prefix in the 298 same OSPFv2 Extended Prefix Opaque LSA, only the first instance is 299 used by receiving OSPFv2 Routers. This situation SHOULD be logged as 300 an error. 302 If this TLV is advertised multiple times for the same prefix in 303 different OSPFv2 Extended Prefix Opaque LSAs originated by the same 304 OSPF router, the OSPF advertising router is re-originating Extended 305 Prefix Opaque LSAs for multiple prefixes and is most likely repacking 306 Extended-Prefix-TLVs in Extended Prefix Opaque LSAs. In this case, 307 the Extended-Prefix-TLV in the Extended Prefix Opaque LSA with the 308 smallest Instance is used by receiving OSPFv2 Routers. This 309 situation MAY be logged as a warning. 311 It is RECOMMENDED that OSPF routers advertising Extended Prefix TLVs 312 in different Extended Prefix Opaque LSAs re-originate these LSAs in 313 ascending order of Instance to minimize the disruption. 315 If this TLV is advertised multiple times for the same prefix in 316 different OSPFv2 Extended Prefix Opaque LSAs originated by the 317 different OSPF routers, the application using the information is 318 required to determine which OSPFv2 Extended Prefix Opaque LSA is 319 used. For example, the application could prefer the LSA providing 320 the best path to the prefix. 322 This document creates a registry for OSPF Extended Prefix sub-TLVs in 323 Section 7. 325 3. OSPFv2 Extended Link Opaque LSA 327 The OSPFv2 Extended Link Opaque LSA will be used to advertise 328 additional link attributes. Opaque LSAs are described in [OPAQUE]. 330 The OSPFv2 Extended Link Opaque LSA has an area flooding scope. 331 Multiple OSPFv2 Extended Link Opaque LSAs can be advertised by a 332 single router in an area. 334 The format of the OSPFv2 Extended Link Opaque LSA is as follows: 336 0 1 2 3 337 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 1 338 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 339 | LS age | Options | 10 | 340 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 341 | Opaque type | Instance | 342 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 343 | Advertising Router | 344 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 345 | LS sequence number | 346 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 347 | LS checksum | length | 348 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 349 | | 350 +- TLVs -+ 351 | ... | 353 OSPFv2 Extended Link Opaque LSA 355 The Opaque type used by OSPFv2 Extended Link Opaque LSA is 8. The 356 opaque type is used to differential the various type of OSPFv2 Opaque 357 LSA and is described in section 3 of [OPAQUE]. 359 The Instance field is an arbitrary value used to maintain multiple 360 Extended Prefix Opaque LSAs. For OSPFv2 Extended Link Opaque LSAs, 361 the Instance has no semantic significance other than to differentiate 362 Extended Link Opaque LSAs originated by the same OSPFv2 router. If 363 multiple Extended Link Opaque LSAs include the same link, the 364 attributes from the Opaque LSA with the lowest Instance will be used. 366 The format of the TLVs within the body of the OSPFv2 Extended Link 367 Opaque LSA is the same as described in Section 2. 369 3.1. OSPFv2 Extended Link TLV 371 The OSPFv2 Extended Link TLV is used to advertise various attributes 372 of the link. It describes a single link and is constructed of a set 373 of Sub-TLVs. There are no ordering requirements for the Sub-TLVs. 374 Only one Extended Link TLV SHALL be advertised in each Extended Link 375 Opaque LSA, allowing for fine granularity changes in the topology. 377 The Extended Link TLV has following format: 379 0 1 2 3 380 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 1 381 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 382 | Type | Length | 383 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 384 | Link-Type | Reserved | 385 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 386 | Link ID | 387 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 388 | Link Data | 389 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 390 | Sub-TLVs (variable) | 391 +- -+ 392 | | 394 OSPFv2 Extended Link TLV 396 Type 397 The TLV type. The value is 1 for this TLV type. 399 Length 400 Variable dependent on sub-TLVs. 402 Link-Type 403 Link-Type is defined in section A.4.2 of [OSPFV2] and 404 http://www.iana.org/assignments/ospfv2-parameters/ 405 ospfv2-parameters.xhtml#ospfv2-parameters-6. 407 Link-ID 408 Link-ID is defined in section A.4.2 of [OSPFV2]. 410 Link Data 411 Link-Data is defined in section A.4.2 of [OSPFV2]. 413 If this TLV is advertised multiple times in the same OSPFv2 Extended 414 Link Opaque LSA, only the first instance is used by receiving OSPFv2 415 Routers. This situation SHOULD be logged as an error. 417 If this TLV is advertised multiple times for the same link in 418 different OSPFv2 Extended Link Opaque LSAs originated by the same 419 OSPF router, the Extended Link TLV in the Extended Link Opaque LSA 420 with the smallest Instance is used by receiving OSPFv2 Routers. This 421 situation MAY be logged as a warning. 423 It is RECOMMENDED that OSPF routers advertising Extended Link TLVs in 424 different Extended Link Opaque LSAs re-originate these LSAs in 425 ascending order of Instance to minimize the disruption. 427 This document creates a registry for OSPF Extended Link sub-TLVs in 428 Section 7. 430 4. Backward Compatibility 432 Since opaque OSPFv2 LSAs are optional and backward compatible 433 [OPAQUE], the extensions described herein are fully backward 434 compatible. However, future OSPFv2 extensions utilizing these 435 extensions MUST address backward compatibility of the corresponding 436 functionality. 438 5. Implementation Status 440 Note to RFC Editor: this section may be removed on publication as an 441 RFC. 443 This section records the status of known implementations of the 444 protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of this 445 Internet-Draft, and is based on a proposal described in RFC 6982. 446 The description of implementations in this section is intended to 447 assist the IETF in its decision processes in progressing drafts to 448 RFCs. Please note that the listing of any individual implementation 449 here does not imply endorsement by the IETF. Furthermore, no effort 450 has been spent to verify the information presented here that was 451 supplied by IETF contributors. This is not intended as, and must not 452 be construed to be, a catalog of available implementations or their 453 features. Readers are advised to note that other implementations may 454 exist. 456 According to RFC 6982, "this will allow reviewers and working groups 457 to assign due consideration to documents that have the benefit of 458 running code, which may serve as evidence of valuable experimentation 459 and feedback that have made the implemented protocols more mature. 461 It is up to the individual working groups to use this information as 462 they see fit". 464 5.1. Implementation Survey Results 466 An implementation survey with seven questions related to the 467 implementer's support of OSPFv2 Prefix/Link Attributes was sent to 468 the OSPF WG list and several known implementers. This section 469 contains responses from four implementers who completed the survey. 470 No external means were used to verify the accuracy of the information 471 submitted by the respondents. The respondents are considered experts 472 on the products they reported on. Additionally, responses were 473 omitted from implementers who indicated that they have not 474 implemented the function yet. 476 Four vendors and one open source entity replied to the survey. These 477 included Alcatel-Lucent, Cisco, Huawei, Juniper, and FreeRouter 478 (http://freerouter.nop.hu). Cisco and Alcatel-Lucent also did 479 interoperability testing. FreeRouter did interoperability testing 480 with Cisco. The Cisco, Alcatel-Lucent, and FreeRouter 481 implementations are in released software versions. The Huawei and 482 Juniper implementation software releases are pending. For prefix 483 attributes, the recent change incorporating the A-Flag is pending 484 implementation for all four vendors. The FreeRouter implementation 485 includes support for the A-Flag. Implementation of the N-flag is 486 pending for the Huawei and Juniper implementations. Otherwise, all 487 the survey respondents have full implementations. For all four 488 vendors and the FreeRouter implementation, segment routing 489 [SEGMENT-ROUTING] was an application making use of the extensions. 490 Additionally, Cisco has implemented Topology-Independent Loop-Free 491 Alternatives (TI-LFA) [TI-LFA] and Bit Indexed Egress Replication 492 (BIER) advertisement [BIER]. 494 Alcatel-Lucent's support of this specification is included in SR OS, 495 Release 13.0.R4. Cisco's support is included in IOS-XR 5.3.2. The 496 FreeRouter implementation is available in the FreeRouter 15.6.4 497 distribution. Huawei and Juniper will respectively provide support 498 in future versions Versatile Routing Platform (VRP) and JUniper 499 Network Operating System (JUNOS). 501 6. Security Considerations 503 In general, new LSAs defined in this document are subject to the same 504 security concerns as those described in [OSPFV2]. Additionally, 505 implementations must assure that malformed TLV and Sub-TLV 506 permutations do not result in errors that cause hard OSPF failures. 508 7. IANA Considerations 510 This specification updates the Opaque Link-State Advertisements (LSA) 511 Option Types with the following values: 513 o 7 (IANA Early Allocation [RFC7120]) - OSPFv2 Extended Prefix 514 Opaque LSA 516 o 8 (IANA Early Allocation [RFC7120]) - OSPFv2 Extended Link Opaque 517 LSA 519 This specification also creates four new registries: 521 o OSPF Extended Prefix Opaque LSA TLVs 523 o OSPF Extended Prefix TLV Sub-TLVs 525 o OSPF Extended Link Opaque LSA TLVs 527 o OSPF Extended Link TLV Sub-TLVs 529 7.1. OSPF Extended Prefix Opaque LSA TLV Registry 531 The "OSPF Extend Prefix Opaque LSA TLV" registry will define top- 532 level TLVs for the Extended Prefix Opaque LSAs and should be added to 533 the "Open Shortest Path First v2 (OSPFv2) Parameters" registries 534 group. New values can be allocated via IETF Review or IESG Approval. 536 The following initial values are allocated: 538 o 0 - Reserved 540 o 1 - OSPF Extended Prefix TLV 542 Types in the range 32768-33023 are for experimental use; these will 543 not be registered with IANA, and MUST NOT be mentioned by RFCs. 545 Types in the range 33024-65535 are not to be assigned at this time. 546 Before any assignments can be made in the 33024-65535 range, there 547 MUST be an IETF specification that specifies IANA Considerations that 548 covers the range being assigned. 550 7.2. OSPF Extended Prefix TLV Sub-TLV Registry 552 The "OSPF Extended Prefix TLV sub-TLV" registry will define sub-TLVs 553 at any level of nesting for Extended Prefix TLVs and should be added 554 to the "Open Shortest Path First v2 (OSPFv2) Parameters" registries 555 group. New values can be allocated via IETF Review or IESG Approval. 557 The following initial values are allocated: 559 o 0 - Reserved 561 Types in the range 32768-33023 are for experimental use; these will 562 not be registered with IANA, and MUST NOT be mentioned by RFCs. 564 Types in the range 33024-65535 are not to be assigned at this time. 565 Before any assignments can be made in the 33024-65535 range, there 566 MUST be an IETF specification that specifies IANA Considerations that 567 covers the range being assigned. 569 7.3. OSPF Extended Link Opaque LSA TLV Registry 571 The "OSPF Extended Link Opaque LSA TLV" registry will define top- 572 level TLVs for Extended Link Opaque LSAs and should be added to the 573 "Open Shortest Path First v2 (OSPFv2) Parameters" registries group. 574 New values can be allocated via IETF Review or IESG Approval. 576 Following initial values are allocated: 578 o 0 - Reserved 580 o 1 - OSPFv2 Extended Link TLV 582 Types in the range 32768-33023 are for experimental use; these will 583 not be registered with IANA, and MUST NOT be mentioned by RFCs. 585 Types in the range 33024-65535 are not to be assigned at this time. 586 Before any assignments can be made in the 33024-65535 range, there 587 MUST be am IETF specification that specifies IANA Considerations that 588 covers the range being assigned. 590 7.4. OSPF Extended Link TLV Sub-TLV Registry 592 The OSPF Extended Link TLV sub-TLV registry will define sub-TLVs at 593 any level of nesting for Extended Link TLVs and should be added to 594 the "Open Shortest Path First v2 (OSPFv2) Parameters" registries 595 group. New values can be allocated via IETF Review or IESG Approval. 597 The following initial values are allocated: 599 o 0 - Reserved 601 Types in the range 32768-33023 are for experimental use; these will 602 not be registered with IANA, and MUST NOT be mentioned by RFCs. 603 Types in the range 33024-65535 are not to be assigned at this time. 604 Before any assignments can be made in the 33024-65535 range, there 605 MUST be an IETF specification that specifies IANA Considerations that 606 covers the range being assigned. 608 8. Acknowledgments 610 We would like to thank Anton Smirnov for his contribution. 612 Thanks to Tony Przygienda for his review and comments. 614 Thanks to Wim Henderickx, Greg Harkins, Peter Psenak, Eric Wu, 615 Shraddha Hegde, and Csaba Mate for their responses to the 616 implementation survey. 618 Thanks to Alia Atlas for AD review and comments. 620 Thanks to Tom Petch for review and comments. 622 Thanks to Carlos Pignataro for Operations Directorate Review and 623 Comments. 625 9. References 627 9.1. Normative References 629 [OPAQUE] Berger, L., Bryskin, I., Zinin, A., and R. Coltun, "The 630 OSPF Opaque LSA Option", RFC 5250, July 2008. 632 [OSPFV2] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", RFC 2328, April 1998. 634 [RFC-KEYWORDS] 635 Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 636 Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, March 1997. 638 [TE] Katz, D., Yeung, D., and K. Kompella, "Traffic Engineering 639 Extensions to OSPF", RFC 3630, September 2003. 641 9.2. Informative References 643 [BIER] Psenak, P., Kumar, N., Wijnands, I., Dolganow, A., 644 Przygienda, T., Zhang, J., and S. Aldrin, "OSPF Extensions 645 for BIER", draft-ietf-bier-ospf-bier-extensions-00.txt 646 (work in progress), April 2015. 648 [I-D.ietf-ospf-ospfv3-lsa-extend] 649 Lindem, A., Mirtorabi, S., Roy, A., and F. Baker, "OSPFv3 650 LSA Extendibility", draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-lsa-extend-06 651 (work in progress), February 2015. 653 [OSPFV3] Coltun, R., Ferguson, D., Moy, J., and A. Lindem, "OSPF 654 for IPv6", RFC 5340, July 2008. 656 [RFC7120] Cotton, M., "Early IANA Allocation of Standards Track Code 657 Points", BCP 100, RFC 7120, January 2014. 659 [SEGMENT-ROUTING] 660 Psenak, P., Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Gredler, H., 661 Shakir, R., Henderickx, W., and J. Tantsura, "OSPF 662 Extensions for Segment Routing", draft-ietf-ospf-segment- 663 routing-extensions-04.txt (work in progress), February 664 2015. 666 [TI-LFA] Francois, P., Filsfils, C., Bashandy, A., Decraene, B., 667 and S. Litkowski, "Topology Independent Fast Reroute using 668 Segment Routing", draft-francois-spring-segment-routing- 669 ti-lfa-01.txt (work in progress), October 2014. 671 Authors' Addresses 673 Peter Psenak 674 Cisco Systems 675 Apollo Business Center 676 Mlynske nivy 43 677 Bratislava, 821 09 678 Slovakia 680 Email: ppsenak@cisco.com 682 Hannes Gredler 683 Juniper Networks, Inc. 684 1194 N. Mathilda Ave. 685 Sunnyvale, CA 94089 686 USA 688 Email: hannes@juniper.net 690 Rob Shakir 691 Individual Contributor 692 London 693 UK 695 Email: rjs@rob.sh 696 Wim Henderickx 697 Alcatel-Lucent 698 Copernicuslaan 699 Antwerp, 2018 94089 700 Belgium 702 Email: wim.henderickx@alcatel-lucent.com 704 Jeff Tantsura 705 Ericsson 706 300 Holger Way 707 San Jose, CA 95134 708 USA 710 Email: jeff.tantsura@ericsson.com 712 Acee Lindem 713 Cisco Systems 714 301 Midenhall Way 715 Cary, NC 27513 716 USA 718 Email: acee@cisco.com