Prefix Flag Extension for OSPFv2 and OSPFv3
draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-prefix-extended-flags-02
| Document | Type | Active Internet-Draft (lsr WG) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Ran Chen , Detao Zhao , Peter Psenak , Ketan Talaulikar , Liyan Gong | ||
| Last updated | 2024-01-25 | ||
| Replaces | draft-chen-lsr-prefix-extended-flags | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Additional resources | Mailing list discussion | ||
| Stream | WG state | WG Document | |
| Document shepherd | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-prefix-extended-flags-02
LSR R. Chen
Internet-Draft D. Zhao
Intended status: Standards Track ZTE Corporation
Expires: 29 July 2024 P. Psenak
K. Talaulikar
Cisco Systems
L. Gong
China mobile
26 January 2024
Prefix Flag Extension for OSPFv2 and OSPFv3
draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-prefix-extended-flags-02
Abstract
Within OSPF, each prefix is advertised along with an 8-bit field of
capabilities, by using the Prefix Options (OSPFv3) and the flag
flield in the OSPFv2 Extended Prefix TLV (OSPFv2). However, for
OSPFv3, all the bits of the Prefix Options have already been
assigned, and for OSPFv2, there are not many undefined bits left in
the OSPFv2 Extended Prefix TLV.
This document solves the problem of insufficient existing flags, and
defines the variable length Prefix Attribute Flags Sub-TLVs for
OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 respectively for the extended flag fields.
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 29 July 2024.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2024 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Chen, et al. Expires 29 July 2024 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Prefix Flag Extension for OSPF January 2024
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
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Variable length Prefix Attribute Flags Sub-TLVs . . . . . . . 4
2.1. OSPFv2 Prefix Attribute Flags Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2. OSPFv3 Prefix Attribute Flags Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Backward Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6.1. OSPFv2 Prefix Attribute Flags Sub-TLV Registry . . . . . 7
6.1.1. OSPFv2 Prefix Extended Flags Field Registry . . . . . 7
6.2. OSPFv3 Prefix Attribute Flags Sub-TLV Registry . . . . . 7
6.2.1. OSPFv3 Prefix Extended Flags Field Registry . . . . . 7
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1. Introduction
Within OSPF, each prefix is advertised along with an 8-bit field of
capabilities,by using the Prefix Options[RFC5340] and the flag flield
in the OSPFv2 Extended Prefix TLV [RFC7684]. However, for OSPFv3,
all the bits of the Prefix Options have already been assigned, and
for OSPFv2, there are not many undefined bits left in the OSPFv2
Extended Prefix TLV.
For OSPFv2, as defined in [RFC7684], the length of the Flag field is
8 bits, and there are not many undefined bits left in the OSPFv2
Extended Prefix TLV that are undefined as shown in Table 1.
Chen, et al. Expires 29 July 2024 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Prefix Flag Extension for OSPF January 2024
+=======+=============+===========================================+
| Value | Description | Reference |
+=======+=============+===========================================+
| 0x80 | A | [RFC7684] |
+-------+-------------+-------------------------------------------+
| 0x40 | N | [RFC7684] |
+-------+-------------+-------------------------------------------+
| 0x20 | E-Flag(ELC | [RFC9089] |
| | Flag) | |
+-------+-------------+-------------------------------------------+
| TBD | U | [I-D.ietf-lsr-igp-ureach-prefix-announce] |
+-------+-------------+-------------------------------------------+
| TBD | UP | [I-D.ietf-lsr-igp-ureach-prefix-announce] |
+-------+-------------+-------------------------------------------+
Table 1: OSPFv2 Extended Prefix TLV Flags (8 bits)
For OSPFv3, as defined in [RFC5340], the length of the Flag field is
8 bits, and all of the bits have already been defined as shown in
Table 2.
+=======+===================+===========+
| Value | Description | Reference |
+=======+===================+===========+
| 0x01 | NU-bit | [RFC5340] |
+-------+-------------------+-----------+
| 0x02 | LA-bit | [RFC5340] |
+-------+-------------------+-----------+
| 0x04 | Deprecated | [RFC5340] |
+-------+-------------------+-----------+
| 0x08 | P-bit | [RFC5340] |
+-------+-------------------+-----------+
| 0x10 | DN-bit | [RFC5340] |
+-------+-------------------+-----------+
| 0x20 | N-bit | [RFC8362] |
+-------+-------------------+-----------+
| 0x40 | E-Flag (ELC Flag) | [RFC9089] |
+-------+-------------------+-----------+
| 0x80 | AC-bit | [RFC9513] |
+-------+-------------------+-----------+
Table 2: OSPFv3 Prefix Options (8 bits)
This document solves the problem of insufficient existing flags, and
defines the variable length Prefix Attribute Flags Sub-TLVs for
OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 respectively for the extended flag fields.
Chen, et al. Expires 29 July 2024 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Prefix Flag Extension for OSPF January 2024
1.1. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "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. Variable length Prefix Attribute Flags Sub-TLVs
This document creates the variable length Prefix Attribute Flags Sub-
TLVs for OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 respectively. These Sub-TLVs specifie the
variable flag fields to advertise additional attributes associated
with the prefix.
2.1. OSPFv2 Prefix Attribute Flags Sub-TLV
The format of OSPFv2 Prefix Attribute Flags Sub-TLV is:
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
// Prefix Attribute Flags(Variable) //
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
where:
Type: TBD1.
Length: Variable, dependent on the included Prefix Attribute Flags.
It MUST be a multiple of 4 octets.
Prefix Attribute Flags: Variable. The extended flag fields. This
contains an array of units of 32-bit flags numbered from the most
significant as bit zero. Currently, no bits are defined in this
document.
Unassigned bits MUST be set to zero on transmission and MUST be
ignored on receipt.
Bits that are NOT transmitted MUST be treated as if they are set to 0
on receipt.
Chen, et al. Expires 29 July 2024 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Prefix Flag Extension for OSPF January 2024
OSPFv2 Prefix Attribute Flags Sub-TLV is a sub-TLV of the OSPFv2
Extended Prefix TLV as defined in [RFC7684].
2.2. OSPFv3 Prefix Attribute Flags Sub-TLV
The format of OSPFv3 Prefix Attribute Flags Sub-TLV is:
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
// Prefix Attribute Flags(Variable) //
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
where:
Type: TBD2.
Length: Variable, dependent on the included Prefix Attribute Flags.
It MUST be a multiple of 4 octets.
Prefix Attribute Flags: Variable. The extended flag fields. This
contains an array of units of 32-bit flags numbered from the most
significant as bit zero. Currently, no bits are defined in this
document.
Unassigned bits MUST be set to zero on transmission and MUST be
ignored on receipt.
Bits that are NOT transmitted MUST be treated as if they are set to 0
on receipt.
OSPFv3 Prefix Attribute Flags Sub-TLV is a sub-TLV of the following
OSPFv3 TLVs as defined in [RFC8362]:
* Intra-Area-Prefix TLV
* Inter-Area-Prefix TLV
* External-Prefix TLV
Chen, et al. Expires 29 July 2024 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Prefix Flag Extension for OSPF January 2024
3. Processing
The Extended Flags field is an array of units of 32 flags that are
allocated starting from the most significant bit. The bits of the
Extended Flags field will be assigned by future documents. This
document does not define any flags. Flags that an implementation is
not supporting MUST be set to zero on transmission. Implementations
that do not understand any particular flag MUST ignore the flag.
Note that devices MUST handle varying lengths of the Prefix Attribute
Flags Sub-TLV.
If a device receives the Prefix Attribute Flags Sub-TLV of a length
more than it currently supports or understands, it MUST ignore the
bits beyond that length.
If a device receives the Prefix Attribute Flags Sub-TLV of a length
less than the one supported by the implementation, it MUST act as if
the bits beyond the length were not set.
An OSPFv2 router receiving multiple OSPFv2 Prefix Attribute Flags
Sub-TLVs in the same OSPFv2 Extended Prefix TLV MUST select the first
advertisement of this sub-TLV and MUST ignore all remaining
occurrences of this sub-TLV in the OSPFv2 Extended Prefix TLV.
An OSPFv3 router receiving multiple OSPFv3 Prefix Attribute Flags
Sub-TLVs in the the same parent TLV MUST select the first
advertisement of this sub-TLV and MUST ignore all remaining
occurrences of this sub-TLV in the parent TLV.
4. Backward Compatibility
The Prefix Attribute Flags Sub-TLV defined in this document does not
introduce any backward compatibility issues. An implementation that
does not understand or support the Prefix Attribute Flags Sub-TLV
MUST ignore the TLV.
Further, any additional bits in the OSPFv2/OSPFv3 Prefix Attribute
Flags Sub-TLV that are not understood by an implementation MUST be
ignored.
5. Acknowledgements
The authors thank Shraddha Hegde and Changwang Lin and many others
for their suggestions and comments.
Chen, et al. Expires 29 July 2024 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Prefix Flag Extension for OSPF January 2024
6. IANA Considerations
This document requests allocation for the following registry.
6.1. OSPFv2 Prefix Attribute Flags Sub-TLV Registry
This document requests the allocation of "OSPFv2 Prefix Attribute
Flags" in the "OSPFv2 Extended Prefix TLV Sub-TLVs" registry:
Value Description Reference
------ ---------------------------------- --------------
TBD1 OSPFv2 Prefix Attribute Flags This document
6.1.1. OSPFv2 Prefix Extended Flags Field Registry
This document requests an allocation of "OSPFv2 Prefix Extended Flag
Field" Registry under "Open Shortest Path First v2 (OSPFv2)
Parameters". The new registry defines the bits in the 32-bit Flags
field in the OSPFv2 Prefix Attribute Flags Sub-TLV. New bits can be
allocated via IETF Review or IESG Approval [RFC8126]. Each bit
should be tracked with the following qualities:
* Bit number (counting from bit 0 as the most significant bit)
* Description
* Reference
No values are currently defined. Bits 0-31 are initially marked as
"Unassigned". Bits with a higher ordinal than 31 will be added to
the registry in future documents if necessary.
6.2. OSPFv3 Prefix Attribute Flags Sub-TLV Registry
This document requests the allocation of "OSPFv3 Prefix Attribute
Flags" in the "OSPFv3 Extended-LSA Sub-TLVs" registry:
Value Description Reference
------ ---------------------------------- --------------
TBD2 OSPFv3 Prefix Attribute Flags This document
6.2.1. OSPFv3 Prefix Extended Flags Field Registry
This document requests an allocation of "OSPFv3 Prefix Extended Flag
Field" registry under "Open Shortest Path First v3 (OSPFv3)
Parameters". New bits can be allocated via IETF Review or IESG
Approval [RFC8126]. Each bit should be tracked with the following
qualities:
Chen, et al. Expires 29 July 2024 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Prefix Flag Extension for OSPF January 2024
* Bit number (counting from bit 0 as the most significant bit)
* Description
* Reference
Bits 0-31 are initially marked as "Unassigned". Bits with a higher
ordinal than 31 will be added to the registry in future documents if
necessary.
7. Security Considerations
Procedures and protocol extensions defined in this document do not
affect the OSPFv2 , OSPFv3 security model. See the "Security
Considerations"section of [RFC7684] for a discussion of OSPFv2
security, the "Security Considerations"section of [RFC8362] for a
discussion of OSPFv3 security.
8. References
8.1. 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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC5340] Coltun, R., Ferguson, D., Moy, J., and A. Lindem, "OSPF
for IPv6", RFC 5340, DOI 10.17487/RFC5340, July 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5340>.
[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>.
[RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
[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>.
[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>.
Chen, et al. Expires 29 July 2024 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Prefix Flag Extension for OSPF January 2024
8.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-lsr-igp-ureach-prefix-announce]
Psenak, P., Filsfils, C., Litkowski, S., Voyer, D.,
Dhamija, Hegde, S., Van de Velde, G., and G. S. Mishra,
"IGP Unreachable Prefix Announcement", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-lsr-igp-ureach-prefix-announce-
01, 22 October 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-lsr-igp-
ureach-prefix-announce-01>.
[RFC9089] Xu, X., Kini, S., Psenak, P., Filsfils, C., Litkowski, S.,
and M. Bocci, "Signaling Entropy Label Capability and
Entropy Readable Label Depth Using OSPF", RFC 9089,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9089, August 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9089>.
[RFC9513] Li, Z., Hu, Z., Talaulikar, K., Ed., and P. Psenak,
"OSPFv3 Extensions for Segment Routing over IPv6 (SRv6)",
RFC 9513, DOI 10.17487/RFC9513, December 2023,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9513>.
Authors' Addresses
Ran Chen
ZTE Corporation
Nanjing
China
Email: chen.ran@zte.com.cn
Detao Zhao
ZTE Corporation
Nanjing
China
Email: zhao.detao@zte.com.cn
Peter Psenak
Cisco Systems
Slovakia
Email: ppsenak@cisco.com
Ketan Talaulikar
Cisco Systems
India
Email: ketant.ietf@gmail.com
Chen, et al. Expires 29 July 2024 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Prefix Flag Extension for OSPF January 2024
Liyan Gong
China mobile
China
Email: gongliyan@chinamobile.com
Chen, et al. Expires 29 July 2024 [Page 10]