| TOC |
|
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as “work in progress.”
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on October 19, 2008.
This document describes extensions to OSPFv3 to support intra-area Traffic Engineering (TE). This document extends OSPFv2 TE to handle IPv6 networks. A new TLV and several new sub-TLVs are defined to support IPv6 networks.
1.
Introduction
1.1.
Requirements notation
2.
Intra-Area-TE-LSA
2.1.
Intra-Area-TE-LSA Payload
3.
Router IPv6 Address TLV
4.
Link TLV
4.1.
Link ID Sub-TLV
4.2.
Neighbor ID Sub-TLV
4.3.
Local Interface IPv6 Address Sub-TLV
4.4.
Remote Interface IPv6 Address Sub-TLV
5.
Security Considerations
6.
IANA Considerations
7.
References
7.1.
Normative References
7.2.
Informative References
Appendix A.
Acknowledgments
§
Authors' Addresses
§
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements
| TOC |
OSPFv3 has a very flexible mechanism for adding new LS types. Unknown LS types are flooded properly based on the flooding scope bits in the LS type [OSPFV3] (Coltun, R., Ferguson, D., and J. Moy, “OSPF for IPv6,” April 1998.). This document defines the Intra-Area-TE LSA to OSPFv3.
For Traffic Engineering, this document uses "Traffic Engineering Extensions to OSPF" [TE] (Katz, D., Yeung, D., and K. Kompella, “Traffic Engineering Extensions to OSPF,” September 2003.) as a base for TLV definitions. New TLVs and sub-TLVs are added to [TE] (Katz, D., Yeung, D., and K. Kompella, “Traffic Engineering Extensions to OSPF,” September 2003.) to extend TE capabilities to IPv6 networks. Some existing TLVs and sub-TLVs require clarification for OSPFv3 applicability.
GMPLS [GMPLS] (Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, “OSPF Extensions in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Switching (GMPLS),” October 2005.) and the Diff-Serv MPLS Extensions [TE‑DIFF] (Le Faucheur, F., Wu, L., Davie, B., Davari, S., Vaananen, P., Krishnan, R., Cheval, P., and J. Heinanen, “Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Support of Differentiated Services,” .) are based on [TE] (Katz, D., Yeung, D., and K. Kompella, “Traffic Engineering Extensions to OSPF,” September 2003.). These functions can also be extended to OSPFv3 by utilizing the TLVs and sub-TLVs described in this document.
| TOC |
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC2119 [RFC‑KEYWORDS] (Bradner, S., “Key words for use in RFC's to Indicate Requirement Levels,” March 1997.).
| TOC |
A new LS type is defined for the Intra-Area-TE LSA. This is different
from OSPFv2 Traffic Engineering [TE] (Katz, D., Yeung, D., and K. Kompella, “Traffic Engineering Extensions to OSPF,” September 2003.) where opaque LSAs are used to
advertise TE information [OPAQUE] (Coltun, R., “The OSPF Opaque LSA Option,” July 1998.). The LSA function
code is 10, the U bit is set, and the scope is set to 01 for area-scoping.
When the U bit is set to 1, an OSPFv3 router must flood the LSA at its
defined flooding scope even if it does not recognize the LS type [OSPFV3] (Coltun, R., Ferguson, D., and J. Moy, “OSPF for IPv6,” April 1998.).
0 1 2 3
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LS age |0|1|1| 10 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Link State ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Advertising Router |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LS sequence number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LS checksum | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+- TLVs -+
| ... |
| OSPFv3 Intra-Area-TE-LSA |
The Link State ID of an Intra-Area-TE LSA is an arbitrary value used to maintain multiple Traffic Engineering LSAs. The LSA ID has no topological significance.
The format of the TLVs within the body of an Intra-Area-TE LSA
is the same as the format used by the Traffic Engineering
Extensions to OSPF [TE] (Katz, D., Yeung, D., and K. Kompella, “Traffic Engineering Extensions to OSPF,” September 2003.). The LSA payload consists of one or
more nested Type/Length/Value (TLV) triplets. The format of
each TLV is:
0 1 2 3 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Value... | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| TLV Format |
The Length field defines the length of the value portion in octets (thus a TLV with no value portion would have a length of zero). The TLV is padded to four-octet alignment; padding is not included in the length field (so a three octet value would have a length of three, but the total size of the TLV would be eight octets). Nested TLVs are also 32-bit aligned. For example, a one-byte value would have the length field set to 1, and three octets of padding would be added to the end of the value portion of the TLV. Unrecognized types are ignored.
| TOC |
An Intra-Area-TE-LSA contains one top-level TLV. There are two applicable top-level TLVs:
- 2 - Link TLV
- 3 - Router IPv6 Address TLV
| TOC |
The Router IPv6 Address TLV advertises a reachable IPv6 address. This is a stable IPv6 address that is always reachable if there is connectivity to the OSPFv3 router.
The Router IPv6 Address TLV has type 3, length 16, and a value
containing a 16 octet local IPv6 address. It MUST appear in exactly
one Traffic Engineering LSA originated by an OSPFv3 router supporting
the TE extensions. The Router IPv6 Address TLV is a top-level TLV as
defined in Traffic Engineering Extensions to OSPF [TE] (Katz, D., Yeung, D., and K. Kompella, “Traffic Engineering Extensions to OSPF,” September 2003.) and only one
top-level TLV may be contained in an LSA.
0 1 2 3
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 3 | 16 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+-+-+-+- -+-+-+-+
| |
+-+-+-+- Router IPv6 Address -+-+-+-+
| |
+-+-+-+- -+-+-+-+
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type A 16-bit field set to 3.
Length A 16-bit field that indicates the length of the value
portion in octets. For this TLV it is always 16.
Value A stable and routable IPv6 address.
| Router IPv6 Address TLV |
| TOC |
The Link TLV describes a single link and consists of a set of sub-TLVs [TE] (Katz, D., Yeung, D., and K. Kompella, “Traffic Engineering Extensions to OSPF,” September 2003.). All of the sub-TLVs in [TE] (Katz, D., Yeung, D., and K. Kompella, “Traffic Engineering Extensions to OSPF,” September 2003.) other than the Link ID sub-TLV are applicable to OSPFv3. The Link ID sub-TLV can't be used in OSPFv3 since it is defined to use the OSPFv2 identification for the Designated Router (DR) on multi-access networks. In OSPFv2, neighbors on point-to-point networks and virtual links are identified by their Router IDs while neighbors on broadcast, Non-Broadcast Multi-Access (NBMA), and Point-to-Multipoint links are identified by their IPv4 interface addresses (Refer to section 8.2 in [OSPFV2] (Moy, J., “OSPF Version 2,” April 1998.)). The IPv4 interface address is not known to OSPFv3. In contrast to OSPFv2, OSPFv3 always identifies neighboring routers by their Router IDs (Refer to section 2.11 in [OSPFV3] (Coltun, R., Ferguson, D., and J. Moy, “OSPF for IPv6,” April 1998.)).
Three new sub-TLVs for the Link TLV are defined:
- 18 - Neighbor ID (8 octets)
- 19 - Local Interface IPv6 Address (16N octets, where N is the number of IPv6 addresses)
- 20 - Remote Interface IPv6 Address (16N octets, where N is the number of IPv6 addresses)
The Neighbor ID Sub-TLV is mandatory for OSPF3 Traffic Engineering support. It MUST appear exactly once in a Link TLV. All other sub-TLVs defined in this document MAY occur at most once in a Link TLV.
| TOC |
The Link ID sub-TLV is used in OSPFv2 to identify the other end of the link. In OSPFv3, the Neighbor ID sub-TLV MUST be used for link identification. In OSPFv3, The Link ID sub-TLV SHOULD NOT be sent and MUST be ignored upon receipt.
| TOC |
In OSPFv2, the Link ID is used to identify the other end of a link. In OSPFv3, the combination of Neighbor Interface ID and Neighbor Router ID is used for neighbor link identification. Both are advertised in the Neighbor ID Sub-TLV.
Neighbor Interface ID and Neighbor Router ID values are the same as
described in RFC 2740 [OSPFV3] (Coltun, R., Ferguson, D., and J. Moy, “OSPF for IPv6,” April 1998.) A.4.3 Router-LSAs.
0 1 2 3
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 18 | 8 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Neighbor Interface ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Neighbor Router ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type A 16-bit field set to 18.
Length A 16-bit field that indicates the length of the value
portion in octets. For this sub-TLV it is always 8.
Value The neighbor's interface ID and router ID.
| Neighbor ID Sub-TLV |
| TOC |
The Local Interface IPv6 Address sub-TLV specifies the IPv6
address(es) of the interface corresponding to this link. If there
are multiple local addresses assigned to the link then they MAY all be
listed in this sub-TLV. Link-local addresses MUST NOT be included
in this sub-TLV.
0 1 2 3
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 19 | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+-+-+-+- -+-+-+-+
| |
+-+-+-+- Local Interface IPv6 Address -+-+-+-+
| |
+-+-+-+- -+-+-+-+
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| o |
| o |
| o |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+-+-+-+- -+-+-+-+
| |
+-+-+-+- Local Interface IPv6 Address -+-+-+-+
| |
+-+-+-+- -+-+-+-+
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type A 16-bit field set to 19.
Length A 16-bit field that indicates the length of the value
portion in octets. For this sub-TLV, it MUST always be a
multiple of 16 octets dependent on the number of IPv6
global addresses advertised.
Value A list of one or more local IPv6 interface addresses
each consuming 16 octets.
| Local Interface IPv6 Address Sub-TLV |
| TOC |
The Remote Interface IPv6 Address sub-TLV advertises the IPv6
address(es) associated with the neighbor's interface. This Sub-TLV and
the Local Interface IPv6 address Sub-TLV are used to discern amongst
parallel links between OSPFv3 routers. If the Link Type is multi-access,
the Remote Interface IPv6 Address MAY be set to ::. Alternately,
an implementation MAY choose not to send this sub-TLV. Link-local
addresses MUST NOT be advertised in this sub-TLV. Neighbor addresses
advertised in Link-LSAs with a prefix length of 128 and the LA bit
set MAY be advertised.
0 1 2 3
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 20 | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+-+-+-+- -+-+-+-+
| |
+-+-+-+- Remote Interface IPv6 Address -+-+-+-+
| |
+-+-+-+- -+-+-+-+
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| o |
| o |
| o |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+-+-+-+- -+-+-+-+
| |
+-+-+-+- Remote Interface IPv6 Address -+-+-+-+
| |
+-+-+-+- -+-+-+-+
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type A 16-bit field set to 20.
Length A 16-bit field that indicates the length of the value
portion in octets. For this sub-TLV, it MUST be a
multiple of 16 octets dependent on the number of IPv6
global addresses advertised.
Value A variable length remote interface IPv6 address list.
| Remote Interface IPv6 Address Sub-TLV |
| TOC |
The function described in this document does not create any new security issues for the OSPFv3 protocol. Security considerations for the base OSPFv3 protocol are covered in [OSPFV3] (Coltun, R., Ferguson, D., and J. Moy, “OSPF for IPv6,” April 1998.).
| TOC |
The following IANA assignments are to be made from existing registries:
| TOC |
| TOC |
| [OSPFV2] | Moy, J., “OSPF Version 2,” RFC 2328, April 1998. |
| [OSPFV3] | Coltun, R., Ferguson, D., and J. Moy, “OSPF for IPv6,” RFC 2740, April 1998. |
| [RFC-KEYWORDS] | Bradner, S., “Key words for use in RFC's to Indicate Requirement Levels,” RFC 2119, March 1997. |
| [TE] | Katz, D., Yeung, D., and K. Kompella, “Traffic Engineering Extensions to OSPF,” RFC 3630, September 2003. |
| TOC |
| [GMPLS] | Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, “OSPF Extensions in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Switching (GMPLS),” RFC 4203, October 2005. |
| [OPAQUE] | Coltun, R., “The OSPF Opaque LSA Option,” RFC 2370, July 1998. |
| [TE-DIFF] | Le Faucheur, F., Wu, L., Davie, B., Davari, S., Vaananen, P., Krishnan, R., Cheval, P., and J. Heinanen, “Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Support of Differentiated Services,” RFC 3270. |
| TOC |
Thanks to Kireeti Kompella, Alex Zinin, Adrian Farrell, and Mach Chen for their comments.
The RFC text was produced using Marshall Rose's xml2rfc tool.
| TOC |
| Kunihiro Ishiguro | |
| IP Infusion, Inc | |
| 125 South Market Street, Suite 900 | |
| San Jose, CA 95113 | |
| USA | |
| Email: | kunihiro@ipinfusion.com |
| Vishwas Manral | |
| IP Infusion, Inc | |
| #41, Ground Floor, 5th Cross Road | |
| 8th Main Road | |
| Vasanth Nagar, Bangalore 560052 | |
| India | |
| Email: | vishwas@ipinfusion.com |
| Alan Davey | |
| Data Connection Limited | |
| 100 Church Street | |
| Enfield | |
| EN2 6BQ | |
| UK | |
| Email: | Alan.Davey@dataconnection.com |
| Acee Lindem | |
| Redback Networks | |
| 102 Carric Bend Court | |
| Cary, NC 27519 | |
| USA | |
| Email: | acee@redback.com |
| TOC |
Copyright © The IETF Trust (2008).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an “AS IS” basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in this document or the extent to which any license under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org.