Synchronisation of Network Parameters
draft-bryant-rtgwg-param-sync-00

Network Working Group                                          S. Bryant
Internet-Draft                                       Huawei Technologies
Intended status: Standards Track                                A. Atlas
Expires: April 15, 2017                                        C. Bowers
                                                        Juniper Networks
                                                        October 12, 2016

                 Synchronisation of Network Parameters
                    draft-bryant-rtgwg-param-sync-00

Abstract

   This document describes a mechanism for a link state routing protocol
   to coordinate the value of a network-wide parameter.  The document
   also defines the solution to one specific case: the agreement of a
   common convergence timer value for use in network convergence.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   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."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on April 15, 2017.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of

Bryant, et al.           Expires April 15, 2017                 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft               Parameter Sync                 October 2016

   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Mechanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   4.  Protocol Details  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     4.1.  ISIS  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     4.2.  OSPF  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   5.  Convergence Time  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     5.1.  Required Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     5.2.  Definition of the Convergence Timer . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   6.  IANA considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     6.1.  ISIS  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     6.2.  OSPF  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     6.3.  Network Wide Parameter  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   7.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   8.  Contributing Authors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   9.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     9.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     9.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8

1.  Introduction

   There exist use cases where it desirable for a network to use a
   common value for a parameter across all nodes.  In the past, these
   use cases have been addressed by setting the parameter to a constant
   value in the protocol definition itself, or by requiring that the
   same value of the parameter be configured at every node.

   Setting the parameter to a constant value in the protocol definition
   makes it very difficult to change the parameter, since a change would
   require formal modification to the protocol.  In practice, such a
   change is impractical, so the constant value needs to be chosen
   conservatively.  This may impose a fundamental restriction on the
   eventual use of the protocol.

   Manual or "static" configuration of the parameter is fraught for two
   reasons.  First, it is always difficult to ensure that the correct
   value is installed in all of the routers.  Second, if any change is
   introduced into the network that results in a need to change the
   value (for example due to a change in hardware or software version)
   then all of the routers need to be reconfigured to use the new
   parameter value.

Bryant, et al.           Expires April 15, 2017                 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft               Parameter Sync                 October 2016

   This document describes a protocol extension that propagates a
   parameter throughout the flooding domain.  The method of choosing
   between one or more different advertised values, the flooding scope,
   and the action to be taken when the parameter changes MUST be
   provided in the definition of the parameter type.

   This document also creates one parameter type: Convergence Timer
   intended for use in IP Fast-reroute applications [RFC5714] [RFC5715].

2.  Requirements Language

   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 [RFC2119].

3.  Mechanism

   The following mechanism is specified.

   A new information element is introduced into the routing protocol
   that specifies the parameter.  Each router is expected to advertise a
   specific value of the parameter, which that router determines based
   mainly on considerations local to that router.  In general, different
   routers in the flooding domain will advertise different values of the
   parameter.

   A router receiving the parameter values advertised by all routers in
   the flooding domain will use a well-defined method to select the
   operational value of the parameter that it uses in the running of the
   protocol.  All routers MUST use the same method applied to the same
   set of advertised parameter values.  All routers SHALL therefore
   choose the same operational value for the parameter.

   Note the operational value for the parameter selected SHOULD NOT
   directly affect the value for the parameter advertised a router.

   The method of selecting from a range of advertised parameter values
   MUST be provided in the parameter definition.

   The definition of the parameter MUST specify the action to be taken
   when a new parameter value is advertised that would cause a change in
   the selected value.

   The definition of the parameter MUST specify the action to be taken
   in the legacy/migration case, where not all routers advertise the
   parameter.

Bryant, et al.           Expires April 15, 2017                 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft               Parameter Sync                 October 2016

4.  Protocol Details

   This section describes the protocol extensions needed to implement
   this functionality.

4.1.  ISIS

   A new Network Wide Parameter (NWP) sub-TLV is introduced into the IS-
   IS Router CAPABILITY TLV (TLV #242 defined in [RFC4971]).  The
   setting of the S-bit in TLV #242 (indicating whether the parameter
   should be leaked between levels) MUST be included in the specific NWP
   definition.

       Network Wide Parameter Sub-TLV
       TYPE: <TBD>
       Length: As defined by parameter definition.

           Sub-sub-TLV
           NWP Type: (16 bits) as defined in NWP Registry
           NWP Value: As defined by parameter definition

4.2.  OSPF

   THIS NEEDS CHECKING OVER BY AN OSPF EXPERT

   A new OSPF Router Information LSA TLV is defined.  This may be
   carried in a type 10 or type 11 OSPF Opaque LSA depending on the
   required flooding scope.

       Network Wide Parameter TLV
       TYPE: <TBD>
       Length: As defined by parameter definition.

           Sub-TLV
           NWP Type: (16 bits) as defined in NWP Registry
           NWP Value: As defined by parameter definition

5.  Convergence Time

   Routers running a fast-reroute mechanism such as Maximally Redundant
   Tree (MRT) [RFC7812] fast re-route require a network wide convergence
   time value so that know how long they need continue using the repair
   path before it is safe to use the base path.  This time is set to be
   the worst case time that any router will take to calculate the new
   topology, and to make the necessary changes to the FIB.

   The time taken by a router to complete each phase of the transition
   will be dependent on the size of the network and the design and

Bryant, et al.           Expires April 15, 2017                 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft               Parameter Sync                 October 2016

   implementation of the router.  It can therefore be expected that the
   optimum delay will need to be tuned from time to time as the network
   evolves.

5.1.  Required Properties

   The Convergence Time mechanism MUST have the following properties:

   o The operational convergence delay time MUST be consistent among
     all routers that are converging on the new topology.

   o The operational convergence delay time MUST be the highest delay
     time advertised  by any router in the new topology.

   o The mechanism MUST increase the delay when a new router in
     introduced to the network that requires a higher delay than
     is currently in use.

   o When the router that had the longest delay requirements is
     removed from the topology, the convergence delay timer
     value MUST, within some reasonable time, be reduced to
     the longest delay required by the remaining routers.

   o It MUST be possible for a router to change the
     convergence delay timer value that it requires.

   o A router which is in multiple routing areas, or is running
     multiple routing protocols MAY signal a different loop-free
     convergence delay for each area.

   How a router determines the time that it needs to execute each
   convergence phase is an implementation issue, and outside the scope
   of this specification.  However a router that dynamically determines
   its proposed delay value must do so in such a way that it does not
   cause the synchronized value to continually fluctuate.

5.2.  Definition of the Convergence Timer

   The NWP value is 16 bits and is specified in milliseconds; this gives
   a maximum value of about 65s.

   The NWP value selected is the largest value advertised.

   If a routing protocol message is issued that changes the Convergence
   Timer value, but does not change the topology, the new timer value
   MUST be taken into consideration during the next network transition,
   but MUST NOT instigate a new transition.

Bryant, et al.           Expires April 15, 2017                 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft               Parameter Sync                 October 2016

   If a routing protocol message is issued that changes both the
   Convergence Timer value and the topology, a transition is instigated
   and the new timer value MUST be taken into consideration.

   The convergence mechanism MUST specify the action to be taken if a
   timer change (only) message and a topology change message are
   independently generated during the hold-off time.

   All routers that support controlled convergence MUST advertise an NWP
   specifying their required Convergence Time.

   If the parameter is carried in ISIS the S-bit is set to zero
   indicating that the Convergence Timer NWP MUST NOT be leaked between
   levels.

   If the parameter is carried in OSPF it is only carried in a type 10
   Opaque LSA which prevents propagation outside the OSPF area.

6.  IANA considerations

6.1.  ISIS

   IANA is requested to allocate a new Sub-TLVs for TLV 242 from the IS-
   IS TLV Codepoints name space.

   Value    Description                 Reference
   ----------------------------------------------
   TBD      Network Wide Parameter      This Document

6.2.  OSPF

   IANA is requested to allocate a new OSPF Router Information (RI) TLV
   from the Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) Parameters name space

   Value      TLV Name                  Reference
   --------------------------------------------------
   TBD        Network Wide Parameter    This document

   A value in the range 12 to 32767 is requested.

6.3.  Network Wide Parameter

   IANA is requested to create a new Network Wide Parameter Registry
   within its own name space, and to allocate one value from it.

Bryant, et al.           Expires April 15, 2017                 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft               Parameter Sync                 October 2016

   Value        Name                      Reference
   ------------------------------------------------
   0            Reserved                  This document
   1            Convergence Timer         This document
   2..65535     Reserved                  This document

   Allocations within this registry require documentation of the use of
   the allocated value and approval by the Designated Expert assigned by
   the IESG.

7.  Security Considerations

   The introduction of this parameter advertizing mechanism does not
   introduce a significant vulnerability into the base routing protocol
   and is secured in exactly the same way as the other TLVs that are
   carried.

   A rouge router deliberately introducing an anomalous parameter value
   is just as capable of introducing many other anomalies into the
   routing domain.

   As far as possible, care should be taken to validate that the
   parameter is reasonable.

   In the specific case of the Convergence Time NWP, the following
   considerations apply.

   If an abnormally large timer value is proposed by a router, the there
   is a danger that the convergence process will take an excessive time.
   If during that time the routing protocol signals the need for another
   transition, the transition will be abandoned and the default best
   case (traditional) convergence mechanism used.

   The maximum value that can be specified in the LSP/LSA is limited
   through the use of a 16 bit field to about 65 seconds.

8.  Contributing Authors

   Mike Shand
   Independent
   mike@mshand.org.uk

9.  References

Bryant, et al.           Expires April 15, 2017                 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft               Parameter Sync                 October 2016

9.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC4971]  Vasseur, JP., Ed., Shen, N., Ed., and R. Aggarwal, Ed.,
              "Intermediate System to Intermediate System (IS-IS)
              Extensions for Advertising Router Information", RFC 4971,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4971, July 2007,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4971>.

9.2.  Informative References

   [RFC5714]  Shand, M. and S. Bryant, "IP Fast Reroute Framework",
              RFC 5714, DOI 10.17487/RFC5714, January 2010,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5714>.

   [RFC5715]  Shand, M. and S. Bryant, "A Framework for Loop-Free
              Convergence", RFC 5715, DOI 10.17487/RFC5715, January
              2010, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5715>.

   [RFC7812]  Atlas, A., Bowers, C., and G. Enyedi, "An Architecture for
              IP/LDP Fast Reroute Using Maximally Redundant Trees (MRT-
              FRR)", RFC 7812, DOI 10.17487/RFC7812, June 2016,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7812>.

Authors' Addresses

   Stewart Bryant
   Huawei Technologies

   Email: stewart.bryant@gmail.com

   Alia Atlas
   Juniper Networks

   Email: akatlas@gmail.com

   Chris Bowers
   Juniper Networks

   Email: cbowers@juniper.net

Bryant, et al.           Expires April 15, 2017                 [Page 8]