OSPF Routing with Cross-Address Family Traffic Engineering Tunnels
draft-ietf-ospf-xaf-te-02

• Status
• IESG evaluation record
• IESG writeups
• Email expansions
• History

• Versions
• 00
• 01
• 02
• 03
• 04
• 05

LSR                                                           A. Smirnov
Internet-Draft                                       Cisco Systems, Inc.
Updates: 5786 (if approved)                                    A. Retana
Intended status: Standards Track                          Huawei R&D USA
Expires: October 20, 2018                                      M. Barnes
                                                     Cisco Systems, Inc.
                                                          April 18, 2018

   OSPF Routing with Cross-Address Family Traffic Engineering Tunnels
                       draft-ietf-ospf-xaf-te-02

Abstract

   When using Traffic Engineering (TE) in a dual-stack IPv4/IPv6 network
   the Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) TE Label Switched Paths
   (LSP) infrastructure may be duplicated, even if the destination IPv4
   and IPv6 addresses belong to the same remote router.  In order to
   achieve an integrated MPLS TE LSP infrastructure, OSPF routes must be
   computed over MPLS TE tunnels created using information propagated in
   another OSPF instance.  This is solved by advertising cross-address
   family (X-AF) OSPF TE information.

   This document describes an update to RFC5786 that allows for the easy
   identification of a router's local X-AF IP addresses.

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 October 20, 2018.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

Smirnov, et al.         Expires October 20, 2018                [Page 1]
Internet-Draft    OSPF Routing with Cross-AF TE tunnels       April 2018

   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.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  Backward Compatibility  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   7.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   8.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     8.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     8.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7

1.  Introduction

   TE Extensions to OSPFv2 [RFC3630] and to OSPFv3 [RFC5329] have been
   described to support intra-area TE in IPv4 and IPv6 networks,
   respectively.  In both cases the TE database provides a tight
   coupling between the routed protocol and TE signaling information in
   it.  In other words, any use of the TE link state database is limited
   to IPv4 for OSPFv2 [RFC2328] and IPv6 for OSPFv3 [RFC5340].

   In a dual stack network it may be desirable to set up common MPLS TE
   LSPs to carry traffic destined to addresses from different address
   families on a router.  The use of common LSPs eases potential
   scalability and management concerns by halving the number of LSPs in
   the network.  Besides, it allows operators to group traffic based on
   business characteristics and/or applications or class of service, not
   constrained by the network protocol which carries it.

   For example, an LSP created based on MPLS TE information propagated
   by OSPFv2 instance can be defined to carry both IPv4 and IPv6
   traffic, instead of having both OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 to provision a
   separate LSP for each address family.  Even if in some cases the
   address family-specific traffic is to be separated, the calculation
   from a common database may prove operationally beneficial.