Skip to main content

OSPF Extensions in Support of Inter-Autonomous System (AS) MPLS and GMPLS Traffic Engineering
draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-interas-te-extension-06

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2012-08-22
06 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for David Ward
2012-08-22
06 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Tim Polk
2008-12-01
06 (System) IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor
2008-11-03
06 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress
2008-11-03
06 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors
2008-10-31
06 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress
2008-10-30
06 Cindy Morgan State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Cindy Morgan
2008-10-30
06 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2008-10-30
06 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent
2008-10-30
06 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the document
2008-10-30
06 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2008-10-30
06 Ross Callon State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup by Ross Callon
2008-10-27
06 David Ward [Ballot Position Update] Position for David Ward has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by David Ward
2008-07-27
06 Tim Polk [Ballot Position Update] Position for Tim Polk has been changed to No Objection from Undefined by Tim Polk
2008-07-27
06 Tim Polk [Ballot Position Update] Position for Tim Polk has been changed to Undefined from Discuss by Tim Polk
2008-07-27
06 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed
2008-07-27
06 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-interas-te-extension-06.txt
2008-07-18
06 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed. Reviewer: Catherine Meadows.
2008-07-17
06 Cindy Morgan State Changes to IESG Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from IESG Evaluation by Cindy Morgan
2008-07-17
06 Lisa Dusseault [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Lisa Dusseault
2008-07-17
06 Mark Townsley [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Mark Townsley
2008-07-17
06 Tim Polk
[Ballot discuss]
The last sentence in the security considerations merits expansion:

  Note, further, that if BGP is used to
  exchange TE information as …
[Ballot discuss]
The last sentence in the security considerations merits expansion:

  Note, further, that if BGP is used to
  exchange TE information as described in Section 4.1, the inter-AS BGP
  session will need to be fully secured.

Fully secured is in my mind ambiguous.  Are we talking about authenticating
the origin of the information (which corresponds to the scope of 4.1) or is
confidentiality required as well?
2008-07-17
06 Tim Polk
[Ballot discuss]
The last sentence in the security considerations merits expansion:

  Note, further, that if BGP is used to
  exchange TE information as …
[Ballot discuss]
The last sentence in the security considerations merits expansion:

  Note, further, that if BGP is used to
  exchange TE information as described in Section 4.1, the inter-AS BGP
  session will need to be fully secured.

Fully secured is in my mind ambiguous.  Are we talking about authentication
the origin of the information (which corresponds to the scope of 4.1) or is
confidentiality required as well?
2008-07-17
06 Tim Polk
[Ballot discuss]
The last sentence in the security considerations merits expansion:

                            …
[Ballot discuss]
The last sentence in the security considerations merits expansion:

                                                                  Note, further, that if BGP is used to
  exchange TE information as described in Section 4.1, the inter-AS BGP
  session will need to be fully secured.

Fully secured is in my mind ambiguous.  Are we talking about authentication
the origin of the information (which corresponds to the scope of 4.1) or is
confidentiality required as well?
2008-07-17
06 Tim Polk [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Tim Polk
2008-07-17
06 Ron Bonica [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ron Bonica
2008-07-17
06 Lars Eggert [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Lars Eggert
2008-07-17
06 Jon Peterson [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Jon Peterson
2008-07-16
06 David Ward
[Ballot discuss]
Section 2.2 needs proper referencing of path msg, ero, etc

section 3: runon sentence:
Note that this document does not define mechanisms for …
[Ballot discuss]
Section 2.2 needs proper referencing of path msg, ero, etc

section 3: runon sentence:
Note that this document does not define mechanisms for distribution
  of TE information from one AS to another, does not distribute any
  form of TE reachability information for destinations outside the AS,
  does not change the PCE architecture or usage, does not suggest or
  recommend any form of TE aggregation, and does not feed private
  information between ASes.

3.x

It is infinitely easier to understand the bit placement and definition if the LSAs are actually diagrammed.

3.2.1 Is this expected to be a common practice:
"Note that it is possible to include the IPv6-
  Remote-ASBR-ID sub-TLV in the Link TLV of the Inter-AS-TE-v2 LSA, and
  to include the IPv4-Remote-ASBR-ID sub-TLV in the Link TLV of the
  Inter-AS-TE-v3 LSA because the sub-TLVs refer to ASBRs that are in a
  different addressing scope (that is, a different AS) from that where
  the OSPF LSA is used." Seems like a great way to fubar yourself. You have one AS using IPv4 and passing the V6 addr of the peer. Is that really useful? Shouldn't you check to see if both sides speak the same AF?

3.3.1 What happens during a transition from 2 byte to 4 byte AS? can this be done seemlessly by refloding the LSAs? What about a transition of ASN?

Section 5:

Should there be a MUST check if this is the case: "It is worth noting that in the scenario we are considering a Border
  Gateway Protocol (BGP) peering may exist between the two ASBRs and
  this could be used to detect inconsistencies in configuration. For
  example, if a different remote AS number is received in a BGP OPEN
  [BGP] from that locally configured into OSPF-TE, as we describe here,
  then something is amiss. Note, further, that if BGP is used to
  exchange TE information as described in Section 4.1, the inter-AS BGP
  session will need to be fully secured." vs "something is amiss?"

General question:

-- If the link to another AS is on a bcast media shared w/ connectivity to other AS', what should TE values should be flooded?



What happens if a peering link is flapping? Should different config knobs or variables be used to prevent flooding issues inside the AS?
2008-07-16
06 David Ward [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by David Ward
2008-07-16
06 Cullen Jennings [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Cullen Jennings
2008-07-16
06 Russ Housley
[Ballot comment]
Based on the Gen-ART Review by Joel Halpern:

  The last sentence of the Abstract is not clear.

  Please add a note …
[Ballot comment]
Based on the Gen-ART Review by Joel Halpern:

  The last sentence of the Abstract is not clear.

  Please add a note to the introductory material in section 3 that
  provides the rationale for this extension, which is presumably so
  this mechanism carries all the information needed for the required
  TE operations.
2008-07-16
06 Russ Housley [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Russ Housley
2008-07-16
06 Amy Vezza State Changes to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead by Amy Vezza
2008-07-16
06 Magnus Westerlund [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Magnus Westerlund
2008-07-15
06 Dan Romascanu [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Dan Romascanu
2008-07-14
06 (System) State has been changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call by system
2008-07-14
06 Ross Callon [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Ross Callon
2008-07-14
06 Ross Callon Ballot has been issued by Ross Callon
2008-07-14
06 Ross Callon Created "Approve" ballot
2008-07-11
06 Ross Callon Telechat date was changed to 2008-07-17 from  by Ross Callon
2008-07-11
06 Ross Callon Placed on agenda for telechat - 2008-07-17 by Ross Callon
2008-07-07
06 Amanda Baber
IANA Last Call comments:

Action 1:

Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make the following
assignment in the "Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) …
IANA Last Call comments:

Action 1:

Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make the following
assignment in the "Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) Opaque Link-
State Advertisements (LSA) Option Types" registry at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/ospf-opaque-types


Value Opaque Type            Reference
------- -------------------- ---------
TBD(6) Inter-AS-TE-v2 LSA    [RFC-ccamp-ospf-interas-te-extension-05]


Action 2:

[ Note to Author: Function Code 11 is already assigned to GRACE-
LSA in RFC5187. ]

Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make the following
assignment in the "Open Shortest Path First v3 (OSPFv3) Parameters"
registry at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/ospfv3-parameters
sub-registry "OSPFv3 LSA Function Codes"

LSA Function Code LS Type Description  Reference
----------------- -------------------- ---------
TBD Inter-AS-TE-v3 LSA                [RFC-ccamp-ospf-interas-te-extension-05]


Action 3:

Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make the following
assignments in the "Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) Traffic
Engineering TLVs" registry at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/ospf-traffic-eng-tlvs
sub-registry "Types for sub-TLVs of TE Link TLV (Value 2)"

Value        Sub-TLV                Reference
----------- ------------------------ ---------
TBD(21) Remote AS Number sub-TLV
[RFC-ccamp-ospf-interas-te-extension-05]
TBD(22) IPv4 Remote ASBR ID sub-TLV
[RFC-ccamp-ospf-interas-te-extension-05]
TBD(23) IPv6 Remote ASBR ID sub-TLV
[RFC-ccamp-ospf-interas-te-extension-05]

We understand the above to be the only IANA Actions for this
document.
2008-07-01
06 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Catherine Meadows
2008-07-01
06 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Catherine Meadows
2008-06-30
06 Cindy Morgan Last call sent
2008-06-30
06 Cindy Morgan State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Cindy Morgan
2008-06-30
06 Ross Callon State Changes to Last Call Requested from Publication Requested by Ross Callon
2008-06-30
06 Ross Callon Last Call was requested by Ross Callon
2008-06-30
06 (System) Ballot writeup text was added
2008-06-30
06 (System) Last call text was added
2008-06-30
06 (System) Ballot approval text was added
2008-04-14
06 Cindy Morgan
Proto-write-up for draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-interas-te-extension-05.txt

Intended status : Standards Track

This draft may be considered in parallel with draft-ietf-ccamp-isis-
interas-te-extension-02.txt, but it is *not* required to process …
Proto-write-up for draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-interas-te-extension-05.txt

Intended status : Standards Track

This draft may be considered in parallel with draft-ietf-ccamp-isis-
interas-te-extension-02.txt, but it is *not* required to process the
I-Ds in parallel.

> (1.a)  Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?  Has the
>        Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
>        document and, in particular, does he or she believe this
>        version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?

Adrian Farrel is the document shepherd.
He has personally reviewed the I-D and believes it is ready for
forwarding to the IESG for publication.

> (1.b)  Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
>        and from key non-WG members?  Does the Document Shepherd have
>        any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
>        have been performed?

I-D has had a good level of discussions and review in CCAMP and in the
OSPF working group. In particular, it received considerable input from
OSPF experts in its early stages.

Document Shepherd believes reviews to have been adequate.

> (1.c)  Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
>        needs more review from a particular or broader perspective,
>        e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with
>        AAA, internationalization or XML?

No concerns.

> (1.d)  Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
>        issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director
>        and/or the IESG should be aware of?  For example, perhaps he
>        or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or
>        has concerns whether there really is a need for it.  In any
>        event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated
>        that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
>        concerns here.  Has an IPR disclosure related to this document
>        been filed?  If so, please include a reference to the
>        disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on
>        this issue.

The document is sound.

> (1.e)  How solid is the WG consensus behind this document?  Does it
>        represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with
>        others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and
>        agree with it?

Consensus is good.

> (1.f)  Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
>        discontent?  If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in
>        separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director.  (It
>        should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is
>        entered into the ID Tracker.)

No threats. No discontent.

> (1.g)  Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
>        document satisfies all ID nits?  (See
>        http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and
>        http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/).  Boilerplate checks are
>        not enough; this check needs to be thorough.  Has the document
>        met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB
>        Doctor, media type and URI type reviews?

All checks made.

> (1.h)  Has the document split its references into normative and
>        informative?  Are there normative references to documents that
>        are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear
>        state?  If such normative references exist, what is the
>        strategy for their completion?  Are there normative references
>        that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]?  If
>        so, list these downward references to support the Area
>        Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].

References split.
No downrefs.

> (1.i)  Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
>        consideration section exists and is consistent with the body
>        of the document?  If the document specifies protocol
>        extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA
>        registries?  Are the IANA registries clearly identified?  If
>        the document creates a new registry, does it define the
>        proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation
>        procedure for future registrations?  Does it suggest a
>        reasonable name for the new registry?  See [RFC2434].  If the
>        document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd
>        conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG
>        can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation?

IANA section checked.

> (1.j)  Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
>        document that are written in a formal language, such as XML
>        code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in
>        an automated checker?

No such formal language is used.

> (1.k)  The IESG approval announcement includes a Document
>        Announcement Write-Up.  Please provide such a Document
>        Announcement Write-Up.  Recent examples can be found in the
>        "Action" announcements for approved documents.  The approval
>        announcement contains the following sections:
>
>        Technical Summary
>          Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract
>          and/or introduction of the document.  If not, this may be
>          an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract
>          or introduction.
                   
Traffic engineering extensions to OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 have been defined
and are used in support of MPLS-TE and GMPLS. The extensions provide a
way of encoding the TE information for TE-enabled links within the
network and flooding this information within an OSPF area.

When establishing inter-AS MPLS-TE or GMPLS Label Switched Paths (LSPs)
a path is computed one AS at a time. This path may be computed using
conventional techniques at the first ASBR of each AS, or by using
Path Computation Elements (PCEs) as specified by the PCE working group.
In either case, if two ASes are connected by more than one inter-AS TE
link, it is helpful for the computation point to know the capabilities
of the available TE links in order to select a suitable path.

This document describes extensions to OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 to flood TE
information about inter-AS links. New LSAs are defined for this purpose
in order to support transparent backward compatibility and to support
the potential use of separate OSPF flooding instances.

This document does not propose or define any mechanisms to advertise
any other extra-AS TE information. This means that there is no proposal
to distribute TE information from one AS within another AS. Nor is there
any mechanism proposed to define or distribute "TE reachability"
information.

>        Working Group Summary
>          Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting?  For
>          example, was there controversy about particular points or
>          were there decisions where the consensus was particularly
>          rough?

WG has good consensus.

Three points arose during working group discussions that are worth
noting. All points were resolved satisfactorily.

1. OSPFv3 Support
The OSPF working group requested that this I-D consider OSPFv3 as well
as the OSPFv2 extensions that it was originally limited to. In return,
the OSPF working group is last calling the OSPFv3-TE extensions that
are a pre-requisite.

2. OSPFv2 Separate Opaque LSA
The original proposal in this I-D used extensions to the OSPFv2 opaque
LSA used from flooding information about intra-domain TE links. This
has been changed after requests from the OSPF working group to use a
different opaque LSA enabling easier backward compatibility and more
flexible transition to multi-instance OSPF in the future.

3. No Change to Scaling/Flooding Paradigm
Many people within CCAMP expressed a concern that the I-D might indicate
the intention to distribute TE information from one AS into another AS.
This would obviously break the as-based scaling and confidentiality
paradigms of IGP routing. The authors were very clear that this was not
the intention and have added a specific section to cover non-objectives.

>        Document Quality
>          Are there existing implementations of the protocol?  Have a
>          significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
>          implement the specification?  Are there any reviewers that
>          merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
>          e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
>          conclusion that the document had no substantive issues?  If
>          there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review,
>          what was its course (briefly)?  In the case of a Media Type
>          review, on what date was the request posted?

There is a known implementation of the OSPFv2 extensions. There was also
good support for the work from other vendors with the same objectives.

There is no known implementation of the OSPFv3 extensions.

Document review by Acee Lindem deserves special mention for its care
and thoroughness.
2008-04-14
06 Cindy Morgan Draft Added by Cindy Morgan in state Publication Requested
2008-04-14
05 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-interas-te-extension-05.txt
2008-04-11
04 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-interas-te-extension-04.txt
2008-04-10
03 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-interas-te-extension-03.txt
2007-11-19
02 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-interas-te-extension-02.txt
2007-09-06
01 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-interas-te-extension-01.txt
2007-06-06
00 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-interas-te-extension-00.txt