Skip to main content

OSPFv3 Extensions for BIER
draft-ietf-bier-ospfv3-extensions-07

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (bier WG)
Authors Peter Psenak , Nagendra Kumar Nainar , IJsbrand Wijnands
Last updated 2024-02-03 (Latest revision 2022-12-01)
Replaces draft-psenak-bier-ospfv3-extensions
RFC stream Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
Intended RFC status Proposed Standard
Formats
Reviews
Additional resources Mailing list discussion
Stream WG state Submitted to IESG for Publication
Doc Shepherd Follow-up Underway
Document shepherd Huaimo Chen
Shepherd write-up Show Last changed 2023-04-14
IESG IESG state Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::AD Followup
Action Holder
Consensus boilerplate Yes
Telechat date (None)
Responsible AD Andrew Alston
Send notices to (None)
IANA IANA review state IANA OK - Actions Needed
draft-ietf-bier-ospfv3-extensions-07
Network Work group                                        P. Psenak, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                            N. Nainar, Ed.
Intended status: Standards Track                     Cisco Systems, Inc.
Expires: 4 June 2023                                        IJ. Wijnands
                                                  Individual Contributor
                                                         1 December 2022

                       OSPFv3 Extensions for BIER
                  draft-ietf-bier-ospfv3-extensions-07

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.  BIER architecture uses MPLS or other encapsulation to steer
   the multicast traffic towards the receivers.

   This document describes the OSPFv3 protocol extensions required for
   BIER with MPLS encapsulation.  Support for other encapsulation types
   is outside the scope 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/.

   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 4 June 2023.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2022 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

Psenak, et al.             Expires 4 June 2023                  [Page 1]
Internet-Draft         OSPFv3 Extensions for BIER          December 2022

   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 Revised BSD License text as
   described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
   provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Flooding of the BIER Information in OSPFv3  . . . . . . . . .   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.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   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
   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.  [RFC8444] proposes the OSPFv2 protocol extensions to
   distribute BIER specific information.  This document describes
   extensions to OSPFv3 necessary to advertise BIER specific information
   in the case where BIER uses MPLS encapsulation as described in
   [RFC8296].

Psenak, et al.             Expires 4 June 2023                  [Page 2]
Internet-Draft         OSPFv3 Extensions for BIER          December 2022

   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 BCP 14 [RFC2119]
   [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown
   here.

2.  Flooding of the BIER Information in OSPFv3

   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 IPv4 or
   IPv6 address that is assigned to each BFR as described in more detail
   in [RFC8279].

   [RFC8362] defines the encoding of OSPFv3 LSA in TLV format that
   allows to carry additional informations.  This section defines the
   required Sub-TLVs to carry BIER information that is associated with
   the BFR-Prefix.  The Sub-TLV defined in this section MAY be carried
   in the below OSPFv3 Extended LSA TLVs [RFC8362]:

      Intra-Area-Prefix TLV

      Inter-Area-Prefix TLV

2.1.  BIER Sub-TLV

   A Sub-TLV of the above mentioned Prefix TLVs is defined for
   distributing BIER information.  The Sub-TLV is called the BIER Sub-
   TLV.  Multiple BIER Sub-TLVs may be included in any of the above
   mentioned 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 4 June 2023                  [Page 3]
Internet-Draft         OSPFv3 Extensions for BIER          December 2022

      Type: TBD1

      Length: Variable, dependent on sub-TLVs.

      Sub-domain-ID: Unique value identifying the BIER sub-domain within
      the BIER domain, as described in [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 [RFC8401].

      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 4 June 2023                  [Page 4]
Internet-Draft         OSPFv3 Extensions for BIER          December 2022

   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
   defined in Section 2.1.  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: Set to TBD2.

      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

Psenak, et al.             Expires 4 June 2023                  [Page 5]
Internet-Draft         OSPFv3 Extensions for BIER          December 2022

      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].

      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 Extended LSAs [RFC8362] that is used for
   advertising the BIER Sub-TLV is area-local.  To allow BIER deployment
   in a multi-area environment, OSPFv3 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:

Psenak, et al.             Expires 4 June 2023                  [Page 6]
Internet-Draft         OSPFv3 Extensions for BIER          December 2022

      When an OSPFv3 Area Border Router (ABR) advertises E-Inter-Area-
      Prefix-LSA from an intra-area or inter-area prefix to all its
      attached areas, it determines whether a BIER Sub-TLV should be
      included in this LSA.  When doing so, an OSPFv3 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 2001:db8:b1e6::1/128 in
      Area 1.  It also includes BIER Sub-TLV in E-Intra-Area-Prefix-LSA.
      ABR R2 calculates the reachability for prefix
      2001:bdb8:b1e6::1/128 inside Area 1 and propagates it to Area 0
      using E-Inter-Area-Prefix-LSA.  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 E-Inter-Area-Prefix-LSA it
      generates for the prefix in Area 0.  ABR R3 calculates the
      reachability for prefix 2001:bdb8:b1e6::1/128 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 E-Inter-Area-Prefix-LSA it generates for
      2001:bdb8:b1e6::1/128 in Area 2.

3.  Security Considerations

   This document introduces new sub-TLVs for OSPFv3 Extended-LSAs.  It
   does not introduce any new security risks to OSPFv3.  Existing
   security concerns documented in [RFC8362] is applicable for the Sub-
   TLVs defined in this document.

   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 OSPFv3 routing
   domain.  In these deployments, stronger authentication mechanisms
   such as those specified in [RFC4552] 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.

Psenak, et al.             Expires 4 June 2023                  [Page 7]
Internet-Draft         OSPFv3 Extensions for BIER          December 2022

   When creating the encapsulation, the BFIR sets one bit in the
   encapsulation for each destination system.  The information in the
   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 OSPFv3 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 OSPFv3 control plane.

4.  IANA Considerations

   The document requests two new allocations from the OSPFv3 Extended-
   LSA Sub-TLVs registry as defined in [RFC8362].

      BIER Sub-TLV: TBD1

      BIER MPLS Encapsulation Sub-TLV: TBD2

5.  Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to thank Mankamana Mishra, Tony Przygienda,
   Huaimo Chen and Greg Shepherd for their review comments.

6.  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,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

Psenak, et al.             Expires 4 June 2023                  [Page 8]
Internet-Draft         OSPFv3 Extensions for BIER          December 2022

   [RFC4552]  Gupta, M. and N. Melam, "Authentication/Confidentiality
              for OSPFv3", RFC 4552, DOI 10.17487/RFC4552, June 2006,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4552>.

   [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>.

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

   [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>.

   [RFC8362]  Lindem, A., Roy, A., Goethals, D., Reddy Vallem, V., and
              F. Baker, "OSPFv3 Link State Advertisement (LSA)
              Extensibility", RFC 8362, DOI 10.17487/RFC8362, April
              2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8362>.

   [RFC8401]  Ginsberg, L., Ed., Przygienda, T., Aldrin, S., and Z.
              Zhang, "Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER) Support via
              IS-IS", RFC 8401, DOI 10.17487/RFC8401, June 2018,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8401>.

   [RFC8444]  Psenak, P., Ed., Kumar, N., Wijnands, IJ., Dolganow, A.,
              Przygienda, T., Zhang, J., and S. Aldrin, "OSPFv2
              Extensions for Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER)",
              RFC 8444, DOI 10.17487/RFC8444, November 2018,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8444>.

Authors' Addresses

   Peter Psenak (editor)
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   Apollo Business Center
   821 09 Mlynske nivy 43
   Slovakia

Psenak, et al.             Expires 4 June 2023                  [Page 9]
Internet-Draft         OSPFv3 Extensions for BIER          December 2022

   Email: ppsenak@cisco.com

   Nagendra Kumar Nainar (editor)
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   7200 Kit Creek Road
   Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
   United States of America
   Email: naikumar@cisco.com

   IJsbrand Wijnands
   Individual Contributor
   1831 Diegem
   Belgium
   Email: ice@braindump.be

Psenak, et al.             Expires 4 June 2023                 [Page 10]