idnits 2.17.1 draft-ppsenak-ospf-lls-interface-id-00.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 (February 15, 2017) is 2626 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) No issues found here. Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 1 comment (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Open Shortest Path First IGP P. Psenak, Ed. 3 Internet-Draft K. Talaulikar 4 Intended status: Standards Track Cisco Systems, Inc. 5 Expires: August 19, 2017 W. Henderickx 6 Nokia 7 P. Pillay-Esnault 8 Huawei 9 February 15, 2017 11 OSPF LLS Extensions for Local Interface ID Advertisement 12 draft-ppsenak-ospf-lls-interface-id-00 14 Abstract 16 This draft describes the extensions to OSPF link-local signaling to 17 advertise Local Interface Identifier. 19 Requirements Language 21 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 22 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 23 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. 25 Status of This Memo 27 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 28 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 30 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 31 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 32 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 33 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 35 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 36 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 37 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 38 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 40 This Internet-Draft will expire on August 19, 2017. 42 Copyright Notice 44 Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 45 document authors. All rights reserved. 47 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 48 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 49 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 50 publication of this document. Please review these documents 51 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 52 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 53 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 54 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 55 described in the Simplified BSD License. 57 Table of Contents 59 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 60 2. Interface ID Exchange using TE Opaque LSA . . . . . . . . . . 2 61 3. Interface ID Exchange using OSPF LLS . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 62 3.1. Local Interface Identifier TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 63 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 64 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 65 6. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 66 7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 67 8. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 68 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 70 1. Introduction 72 Local/Remote Interface Identifiers are flooded by OSPF [RFC2328] as 73 defined in [RFC4203]. From the perspective of the advertising 74 router, the Local Interface Identifier is a known value, however the 75 Remote Interface Identifier needs to be learnt before it can be 76 advertised. [RFC4203] suggests to use TE Link Local LSA [RFC3630] to 77 communicate Local Interface Identifier to neighbors on the link. 78 Though such mechanism works, it has some drawbacks. 80 This draft proposes an extension to OSPF link-local signaling (LLS) 81 [RFC5613] to advertise the Local Interface Identifier. 83 2. Interface ID Exchange using TE Opaque LSA 85 Usage of the Link Local TE Opaque LSA to propagate the Local 86 Interface Identifier to the neighbors on the link is described in 87 [RFC4203]. This mechanism has following problems: 89 LSAs can only be flooded over an existing adjacency that is in 90 Exchange state or greater. The adjacency state machine progresses 91 independently on each side of the adjacency and, as such, may 92 reach the Full state on one side before the TE Link Opaque LSA 93 arrives. The consequence is that link can be initially advertised 94 without the Remote Interface Identifier. Later when the TE Link 95 Opaque LSA arrives, the link must be advertised again, this time 96 with the valid Remote Interface Identifier. Implementation may 97 choose to wait before advertising the link, but there is no 98 guarantee that the neighbor will ever advertise the TE Link Opaque 99 LSA with the Interface Identifier. In summary, the existing 100 mechanism does not guarantee that Remote Interface Identifier is 101 known at the time the link is advertised. 103 TE Opaque LSA is defined for MPLS Traffic Engineering, but the 104 knowledge of the Remote Interface Identifier is useful for other 105 cases where MPLS TE is not used. One example is the lack of valid 106 2-way connectivity check for remote parallel point-to-point links 107 in OSPF. In such case, TE Opaque LSAs are not exchanged solely 108 for 2-way connectivity correctness. 110 3. Interface ID Exchange using OSPF LLS 112 To address the problems described earlier and to allow the Interface 113 Identifiers exchange to be part of the neighbor discovery process, we 114 propose to extend OSPF link-local signaling to advertise the Local 115 Interface Identifier in OSPF and OSPFv3 [RFC5340] Hello and Database 116 Description packets. 118 3.1. Local Interface Identifier TLV 120 The Local Interface Identifier TLV is a new LLS TLV. It has 121 following format: 123 0 1 2 3 124 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 1 125 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 126 | Type | Length | 127 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 128 | Local Interface Identifier | 129 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 131 where: 133 Type: TBD, suggested value 18 135 Length: 4 octet 137 Local Interface Identifier: The value of the local Interface 138 Identifier. 140 If the Local Interface ID is advertised in both OSPF LLS and in Link 141 Local TE Opaque LSA, the value of the Local Interface ID MUST be the 142 same in both advertisements. If different values are advertised in 143 OSPF LLS and in Link Local TE Opaque LSA, then the receiver SHOULD 144 ignore both values and treat it as if the Local Interface ID was not 145 advertised at all. 147 4. IANA Considerations 149 This specification updates Link Local Signalling TLV Identifiers 150 registry. 152 Following values is allocated: 154 o 18 - Local Interface Identifier TLV 156 5. Security Considerations 158 Implementations must assure that malformed LLS TLV and Sub-TLV 159 permutations do not result in errors which cause hard OSPF failures. 161 6. Contributors 163 7. Acknowledgements 165 8. Normative References 167 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 168 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 169 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 170 . 172 [RFC2328] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328, 173 DOI 10.17487/RFC2328, April 1998, 174 . 176 [RFC3630] Katz, D., Kompella, K., and D. Yeung, "Traffic Engineering 177 (TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC 3630, 178 DOI 10.17487/RFC3630, September 2003, 179 . 181 [RFC4203] Kompella, K., Ed. and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "OSPF Extensions in 182 Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching 183 (GMPLS)", RFC 4203, DOI 10.17487/RFC4203, October 2005, 184 . 186 [RFC5340] Coltun, R., Ferguson, D., Moy, J., and A. Lindem, "OSPF 187 for IPv6", RFC 5340, DOI 10.17487/RFC5340, July 2008, 188 . 190 [RFC5613] Zinin, A., Roy, A., Nguyen, L., Friedman, B., and D. 191 Yeung, "OSPF Link-Local Signaling", RFC 5613, 192 DOI 10.17487/RFC5613, August 2009, 193 . 195 Authors' Addresses 197 Peter Psenak (editor) 198 Cisco Systems, Inc. 199 Apollo Business Center 200 Mlynske nivy 43 201 Bratislava 821 09 202 Slovakia 204 Email: ppsenak@cisco.com 206 Ketan Jivan Talaulikar 207 Cisco Systems, Inc. 208 S.No. 154/6, Phase I, Hinjawadi 209 PUNE, MAHARASHTRA 411 057 210 India 212 Email: ppsenak@cisco.com 214 Wim Henderickx 215 Nokia 216 Copernicuslaan 50 217 Antwerp 2018 218 BE 220 Email: wim.henderickx@nokia.com 222 Padma Pillay-Esnault 223 Huawei 224 2330 Central Expressway 225 Santa Clara, CA 95050 226 USA 228 Email: padma@huawei.com