OSPFv2 Extensions for Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER)
draft-ietf-bier-ospf-bier-extensions-18
The information below is for an old version of the document that is already published as an RFC.
Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft that was ultimately published as RFC 8444.
|
|
---|---|---|---|
Authors | Peter Psenak , Nagendra Kumar Nainar , IJsbrand Wijnands , Andrew Dolganow , Tony Przygienda , Zhaohui (Jeffrey) Zhang , Sam Aldrin | ||
Last updated | 2018-12-19 (Latest revision 2018-06-01) | ||
Replaces | draft-psenak-ospf-bier-extensions | ||
RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
Intended RFC status | Proposed Standard | ||
Formats | |||
Reviews |
GENART Telechat review
(of
-12)
by Robert Sparks
Almost ready
|
||
Additional resources | Mailing list discussion | ||
Stream | WG state | Submitted to IESG for Publication | |
Document shepherd | Reshad Rahman | ||
Shepherd write-up | Show Last changed 2018-02-01 | ||
IESG | IESG state | Became RFC 8444 (Proposed Standard) | |
Action Holders |
(None)
|
||
Consensus boilerplate | Yes | ||
Telechat date | (None) | ||
Responsible AD | Alvaro Retana | ||
Send notices to | Reshad Rahman <rrahman@cisco.com>, aretana.ietf@gmail.com | ||
IANA | IANA review state | Version Changed - Review Needed | |
IANA action state | RFC-Ed-Ack |
draft-ietf-bier-ospf-bier-extensions-18
OSPF P. Psenak, Ed. Internet-Draft N. Kumar Intended status: Standards Track IJ. Wijnands Expires: December 3, 2018 Cisco A. Dolganow Nokia T. Przygienda J. Zhang Juniper Networks, Inc. S. Aldrin Google, Inc. June 1, 2018 OSPFv2 Extensions for BIER draft-ietf-bier-ospf-bier-extensions-18.txt Abstract Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER) is an architecture that provides multicast forwarding through a "BIER domain" without requiring intermediate routers to maintain multicast related per-flow state. Neither does BIER require an explicit tree-building protocol for its operation. A multicast data packet enters a BIER domain at a "Bit-Forwarding Ingress Router" (BFIR), and leaves the BIER domain at one or more "Bit-Forwarding Egress Routers" (BFERs). The BFIR router adds a BIER header to the packet. Such header contains a bit-string in which each bit represents exactly one BFER to forward the packet to. The set of BFERs to which the multicast packet needs to be forwarded is expressed by the according set of bits set in BIER packet header. This document describes the OSPF [RFC2328] protocol extension required for BIER with MPLS encapsulation [RFC8296]. Support for other encapsulation types is outside thescope of this document. The use of multiple encapsulation types is outside the scope of this document. 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 https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Psenak, et al. Expires December 3, 2018 [Page 1] Internet-Draft OSPFv2 Extensions for BIER June 2018 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 December 3, 2018. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2018 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 (https://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. Flooding of the BIER Information in OSPF . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.1. BIER Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.2. BIER MPLS Encapsulation Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.3. Flooding scope of BIER Information . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 1. Introduction Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER) is an architecture that provides optimal multicast forwarding through a "BIER domain" without requiring intermediate routers to maintain any multicast related per- flow state. Neither does BIER explicitly require a tree-building protocol for its operation. A multicast data packet enters a BIER domain at a "Bit-Forwarding Ingress Router" (BFIR), and leaves the BIER domain at one or more "Bit-Forwarding Egress Routers" (BFERs). The BFIR router adds a BIER header to the packet. The BIER header contains a bit-string in which each bit represents exactly one BFER to forward the packet to. The set of BFERs to which the multicast Psenak, et al. Expires December 3, 2018 [Page 2] Internet-Draft OSPFv2 Extensions for BIER June 2018 packet needs to be forwarded is expressed by setting the bits that correspond to those routers in the BIER header. BIER architecture requires routers participating in BIER to exchange BIER related information within a given domain. BIER architecture permits link-state routing protocols to perform distribution of such information. This document describes extensions to OSPF necessary to advertise BIER specific information in the case where BIER uses MPLS encapsulation as described in [RFC8296]. 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]. 2. Flooding of the BIER Information in OSPF All BIER specific information that a Bit-Forwarding Router (BFR) needs to advertise to other BFRs is associated with a BFR-Prefix. A BFR prefix is a unique (within a given BIER domain) routable IP address that is assigned to each BFR as described in more detail in section 2 of [RFC8279]. Given that BIER information must be associated with a BFR prefix, the OSPF Extended Prefix Opaque LSA [RFC7684] has been chosen for advertisement. 2.1. BIER Sub-TLV A Sub-TLV of the Extended Prefix TLV (defined in [RFC7684]) is defined for distributing BIER information. The Sub-TLV is called the BIER Sub-TLV. Multiple BIER Sub-TLVs may be included in the Extended Prefix TLV. The BIER Sub-TLV has the following format: 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 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Sub-domain-ID | MT-ID | BFR-id | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | BAR | IPA | Reserved | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Sub-TLVs (variable) | +- -+ | | Psenak, et al. Expires December 3, 2018 [Page 3] Internet-Draft OSPFv2 Extensions for BIER June 2018 Type: 9 Length: Variable, dependent on sub-TLVs. Sub-domain-ID: Unique value identifying the BIER sub-domain within the BIER domain, as described in section 1 of [RFC8279]. MT-ID: Multi-Topology ID (as defined in [RFC4915]) that identifies the topology that is associated with the BIER sub-domain. BFR-id: A 2 octet field encoding the BFR-id, as documented in section 2 of [RFC8279]. If the BFR is not locally configured with a valid BFR-id, the value of this field is set to 0, which is defined as illegal in [RFC8279]. BAR: Single octet BIER specific algorithm used to calculate underlay paths to reach other BFRs. Values are allocated from the "BIER Algorithm Registry" which is defined in [I-D.ietf-bier-isis-extensions]. IPA: Single octet IGP algorithm to either modify, enhance or replace the calculation of underlay paths to reach other BFRs as defined by the BAR value. Values are defined in the "IGP Algorithm Types" registry. Each BFR sub-domain MUST be associated with one and only one OSPF topology that is identified by the MT-ID. If the association between BIER sub-domain and OSPF topology advertised in the BIER sub-TLV by other BFRs is in conflict with the association locally configured on the receiving router, the BIER Sub-TLV MUST be ignored. If the MT-ID value is outside of the values specified in [RFC4915], the BIER Sub-TLV MUST be ignored. If a BFR advertises the same Sub-domain-ID in multiple BIER sub-TLVs, the BFR MUST be treated as if it did not advertise a BIER sub-TLV for such sub-domain. All BFRs MUST detect advertisement of duplicate valid BFR-IDs for a given MT-ID and Sub-domain-ID. When such duplication is detected by the BFR, it MUST behave as described in section 5 of [RFC8279]. The supported BAR and IPA algorithms MUST be consistent for all routers supporting a given BFR sub-domain. A router receiving BIER Sub-TLV advertisement with a value in BAR or IPA fields which does not match the locally configured value for a given BFR sub-domain, MUST report a misconfiguration for such BIER sub-domain and MUST ignore such BIER sub-TLV. Psenak, et al. Expires December 3, 2018 [Page 4] Internet-Draft OSPFv2 Extensions for BIER June 2018 The use of non-zero values in either the BAR field or the IPA field is outside the scope of this document. 2.2. BIER MPLS Encapsulation Sub-TLV The BIER MPLS Encapsulation Sub-TLV is a Sub-TLV of the BIER Sub-TLV. The BIER MPLS Encapsulation Sub-TLV is used in order to advertise MPLS specific information used for BIER. It MAY appear multiple times in the BIER Sub-TLV. The BIER MPLS Encapsulation Sub-TLV has the following format: 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 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Max SI | Label | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |BS Len | Reserved | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Type: 10 Length: 8 octets Max SI : A 1 octet field encoding the maximum Set Identifier (section 1 of [RFC8279]), used in the encapsulation for this BIER sub-domain for this bitstring length. Label: A 3 octet field, where the 20 rightmost bits represent the first label in the label range. The 4 leftmost bits MUST be ignored. Bit String Length: A 4 bits field encoding the supported BitString length associated with this BFR-prefix. The values allowed in this field are specified in section 2 of [RFC8296]. Reserved: SHOULD be set to 0 on transmission and MUST be ignored on reception. The "label range" is the set of labels beginning with the Label and ending with (Label + (Max SI)). A unique label range is allocated for each BitString length and Sub-domain-ID. These labels are used for BIER forwarding as described in [RFC8279] and [RFC8296]. Psenak, et al. Expires December 3, 2018 [Page 5] Internet-Draft OSPFv2 Extensions for BIER June 2018 The size of the label range is determined by the number of Set Identifiers (SI) (section 1 of [RFC8279]) that are used in the network. Each SI maps to a single label in the label range. The first label is for SI=0, the second label is for SI=1, etc. If the label associated with the Maximum Set Identifier exceeds the 20 bit range, the BIER MPLS Encapsulation Sub-TLV MUST be ignored. If the BS length is set to a value that does not match any of the allowed values specified in [RFC8296], the BIER MPLS Encapsulation Sub-TLV MUST be ignored. If same BS length is repeated in multiple BIER MPLS Encapsulation Sub-TLV inside the same BIER Sub-TLV, the BIER sub-TLV MUST be ignored. Label ranges within all BIER MPLS Encapsulation Sub-TLVs advertised by the same BFR MUST NOT overlap. If the overlap is detected, the advertising router MUST be treated as if it did not advertise any BIER sub-TLVs. 2.3. Flooding scope of BIER Information The flooding scope of the OSPF Extended Prefix Opaque LSA [RFC7684] that is used for advertising the BIER Sub-TLV is set to area-local. To allow BIER deployment in a multi-area environment, OSPF must propagate BIER information between areas. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) R1 Area 1 R2 Area 0 R3 Area 2 R4 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Figure 1: BIER propagation between areas The following procedure is used in order to propagate BIER related information between areas: When an OSPF Area Border Router (ABR) advertises a Type-3 Summary LSA from an intra-area or inter-area prefix to all its attached areas, it will also originate an Extended Prefix Opaque LSA, as described in [RFC7684]. The flooding scope of the Extended Prefix Opaque LSA type will be set to area-local. The route-type in the OSPF Extended Prefix TLV is set to inter-area. When determining Psenak, et al. Expires December 3, 2018 [Page 6] Internet-Draft OSPFv2 Extensions for BIER June 2018 whether a BIER Sub-TLV should be included in this LSA, an OSPF ABR will: - Examine its best path to the prefix in the source area and find the advertising router associated with the best path to that prefix. - Determine if such advertising router advertised a BIER Sub- TLV for the prefix. If yes, the ABR will copy the information from such BIER Sub-TLV when advertising BIER Sub-TLV to each attached area. In the Figure 1, R1 advertises a prefix 192.0.2.1/32 in Area 1. It also advertises Extended Prefix Opaque LSA for prefix 192.0.2.1/32 and includes BIER Sub-TLV in it. Area Border Router (ABR) R2 calculates the reachability for prefix 192.0.2.1/32 inside Area 1 and propagates it to Area 0. When doing so, it copies the entire BIER Sub-TLV (including all its Sub-TLVs) it received from R1 in Area 1 and includes it in the Extended Prefix Opaque LSA it generates for 192.0.2.1/32 in Area 0. ABR R3 calculates the reachability for prefix 192.0.2.1/32 inside Area 0 and propagates it to Area 2. When doing so, it copies the entire BIER Sub-TLV (including all its Sub-TLVs) it received from R2 in Area 0 and includes it in the Extended Prefix Opaque LSA it generates for 192.0.2.1/32 in Area 2. 3. Security Considerations This document introduces new sub-TLVs for existing OSPF Extended Prefix TLV. It does not introduce any new security risks to OSPF. Existing security extensions as described in [RFC2328] and [RFC7684] apply. It is assumed that both BIER and OSPF layer is under a single administrative domain. There can be deployments where potential attackers have access to one or more networks in the OSPF routing domain. In these deployments, stronger authentication mechanisms such as those specified in [RFC7474] SHOULD be used. The Security Considerations section of [RFC8279] discusses the possibility of performing a Denial of Service (DoS) attack by setting too many bits in the BitString of a BIER-encapsulated packet. However, this sort of DoS attack cannot be initiated by modifying the OSPF BIER advertisements specified in this document. A BFIR decides which systems are to receive a BIER-encapsulated packet. In making this decision, it is not influenced by the OSPF control messages. When creating the encapsulation, the BFIR sets one bit in the encapsulation for each destination system. The information in the Psenak, et al. Expires December 3, 2018 [Page 7] Internet-Draft OSPFv2 Extensions for BIER June 2018 OSPF BIER advertisements is used to construct the forwarding tables that map each bit in the encapsulation into a set of next hops for the host that is identified by that bit, but is not used by the BFIR to decide which bits to set. Hence an attack on the OSPF control plane cannot be used to cause this sort of DoS attack. While a BIER-encapsulated packet is traversing the network, a BFR that receives a BIER-encapsulated packet with n bits set in its BitString may have to replicate the packet and forward multiple copies. However, a given bit will only be set in one copy of the packet. That means that each transmitted replica of a received packet has fewer bits set (i.e., is targeted to fewer destinations) than the received packet. This is an essential property of the BIER forwarding process as defined in [RFC8279]. While a failure of this process might cause a DoS attack (as discussed in the Security Considerations of [RFC8279]), such a failure cannot be caused by an attack on the OSPF control plane. Implementations MUST assure that malformed TLV and Sub-TLV defined in this document are detected and do not provide a vulnerability for attackers to crash the OSPF router or routing process. Reception of malformed TLV or Sub-TLV SHOULD be counted and/or logged for further analysis. Logging of malformed TLVs and Sub-TLVs SHOULD be rate- limited to prevent a Denial of Service (DoS) attack (distributed or otherwise) from overloading the OSPF control plane. 4. IANA Considerations The document requests two new allocations from the OSPF Extended Prefix sub-TLV registry as defined in [RFC7684]. BIER Sub-TLV: 9 BIER MPLS Encapsulation Sub-TLV: 10 5. Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank Rajiv Asati, Christian Martin, Greg Shepherd and Eric Rosen for their contribution. 6. Normative References [I-D.ietf-bier-isis-extensions] Ginsberg, L., Przygienda, T., Aldrin, S., and Z. Zhang, "BIER support via ISIS", draft-ietf-bier-isis- extensions-11 (work in progress), March 2018. Psenak, et al. Expires December 3, 2018 [Page 8] Internet-Draft OSPFv2 Extensions for BIER June 2018 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. [RFC2328] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328, DOI 10.17487/RFC2328, April 1998, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2328>. [RFC4915] Psenak, P., Mirtorabi, S., Roy, A., Nguyen, L., and P. Pillay-Esnault, "Multi-Topology (MT) Routing in OSPF", RFC 4915, DOI 10.17487/RFC4915, June 2007, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4915>. [RFC7684] Psenak, P., Gredler, H., Shakir, R., Henderickx, W., Tantsura, J., and A. Lindem, "OSPFv2 Prefix/Link Attribute Advertisement", RFC 7684, DOI 10.17487/RFC7684, November 2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7684>. [RFC8279] Wijnands, IJ., Ed., Rosen, E., Ed., Dolganow, A., Przygienda, T., and S. Aldrin, "Multicast Using Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER)", RFC 8279, DOI 10.17487/RFC8279, November 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8279>. [RFC8296] Wijnands, IJ., Ed., Rosen, E., Ed., Dolganow, A., Tantsura, J., Aldrin, S., and I. Meilik, "Encapsulation for Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER) in MPLS and Non- MPLS Networks", RFC 8296, DOI 10.17487/RFC8296, January 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8296>. Authors' Addresses Peter Psenak (editor) Cisco Apollo Business Center Mlynske nivy 43 Bratislava 821 09 Slovakia Email: ppsenak@cisco.com Psenak, et al. Expires December 3, 2018 [Page 9] Internet-Draft OSPFv2 Extensions for BIER June 2018 Nagendra Kumar Cisco 7200 Kit Creek Road Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 US Email: naikumar@cisco.com IJsbrand Wijnands Cisco De Kleetlaan 6a Diegem 1831 Belgium Email: ice@cisco.com Andrew Dolganow Nokia 750 Chai Chee Rd 06-06 Viva Business Park Singapore 469004 Email: andrew.dolganow@nokia.com Tony Przygienda Juniper Networks, Inc. 10 Technology Park Drive Westford, MA 01886 USA Email: prz@juniper.net Jeffrey Zhang Juniper Networks, Inc. 10 Technology Park Drive Westford, MA 01886 USA Email: zzhang@juniper.net Psenak, et al. Expires December 3, 2018 [Page 10] Internet-Draft OSPFv2 Extensions for BIER June 2018 Sam Aldrin Google, Inc. 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway Mountain View, CA USA Email: aldrin.ietf@gmail.com Psenak, et al. Expires December 3, 2018 [Page 11]