Advertising TE protocols in OSPF
draft-hegde-ospf-advertising-te-protocols-00

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Last updated 2016-10-31
Stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text xml pdf html bibtex
Stream Stream state (No stream defined)
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
RFC Editor Note (None)
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
OSPF WG                                                         S. Hegde
Internet-Draft                                                 C. Bowers
Intended status: Standards Track                        Juniper Networks
Expires: May 4, 2017                                    October 31, 2016

                    Advertising TE protocols in OSPF
              draft-hegde-ospf-advertising-te-protocols-00

Abstract

   This document defines a mechanism to indicate which traffic
   engineering protocols are enabled on a link in OSPF.  It does so by
   introducing a new Traffic-Engineering Protocol sub-TLV for the Link
   TLV in the OSPFv2 TE Opaque LSA.  This document also describes
   mechanisms to address backward compatibility issues for routers that
   have not yet been upgraded to software that understands this new sub-
   TLV.

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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

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 May 4, 2017.

Copyright Notice

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

Hegde & Bowers             Expires May 4, 2017                  [Page 1]
Internet-Draft      Advertising TE protocols in OSPF        October 2016

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

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Motivation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.1.  Explicit and unambiguous indication of TE protocol  . . .   3
     2.2.  Limit increases in link state advertisements  . . . . . .   4
   3.  Solution  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.1.  Traffic-engineering protocol sub-TLV  . . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  Backward compatibility  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     4.1.  Scenario with upgraded RSVP-TE transit  router but RSVP-
           TE ingress router not upgraded  . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     4.2.  Scenario with upgraded RSVP-TE ingress  router but RSVP-
           TE transit router not upgraded  . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     4.3.  Need for a long term solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     4.4.  Interaction with the Extended Link Opaque LSA . . . . . .   8
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   7.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     7.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     7.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9

1.  Introduction

   OSPF extensions for traffic engineering are specified in [RFC3630].
   [RFC3630] defines several link attributes such as administrative
   group, maximum link bandwidth, and shared risk link groups (SRLGs)
   which can be used by traffic engineering applications.  Additional
   link attributes for traffic engineering have subsequently been
   defined in other documents as well.  Most recently [RFC7471] defined
   link attributes for delay, loss, and measured bandwidth utilization.
   All of the TE link attributes specified in [RFC3630] and [RFC7471]
   are carried in sub-TLVs in the Link TLV of the TE Opaque LSA.

   The primary consumers of these traffic engineering link attributes
Show full document text