Passive Interface Attribute
draft-wang-lsr-passive-interface-attribute-06

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Authors Aijun Wang  , Zhibo Hu , Gyan Mishra 
Last updated 2020-11-14
Stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text xml pdf htmlized (tools) htmlized bibtex
Stream Stream state (No stream defined)
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
RFC Editor Note (None)
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
LSR Working Group                                                A. Wang
Internet-Draft                                             China Telecom
Intended status: Standards Track                                   Z. Hu
Expires: May 19, 2021                                Huawei Technologies
                                                               G. Mishra
                                                            Verizon Inc.
                                                       November 15, 2020

                      Passive Interface Attribute
             draft-wang-lsr-passive-interface-attribute-06

Abstract

   This document describes the mechanism that can be used to
   differentiate the passive interfaces from the normal interfaces
   within ISIS or OSPF domain.

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 May 19, 2021.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2020 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

Wang, et al.              Expires May 19, 2021                  [Page 1]
Internet-Draft                     PIA                     November 2020

   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Consideration for flagging passive interface  . . . . . . . .   3
   4.  Passive Interface Attribute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     4.1.  OSPFv2 Extended Stub-Link TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     4.2.  OSPFv3 Router-Stub-Link TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     4.3.  ISIS Stub-link TLV  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     4.4.  Stub-Link Prefix Sub-TLV  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   7.  Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   8.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     8.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     8.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10

1.  Introduction

   Passive interfaces are used commonly within an operators enterprise
   or service provider networks.  One of the most common use cases for
   passive interface is in a data center Layer 2 and Layer 3 Top of
   Rack(TOR) switch where the inter connected links between the TOR
   switches and uplinks to the Core switch are only a few links and a
   majority of the links are Layer 3 VLAN switched virtual interface
   trunked between the TOR switches serving Layer 2 broadcast domains.
   In this scenario all the VLANs are made passive as it is recommended
   to limit the number of network LSAs between routers and switches to
   avoid unnecessary hello processing overhead.

   Another common use case is an inter-as routing scenario where the
   same routing protocol but different IGP instance is running between
   the adjacent BGP domains.  Using passive interface on the inter-as
   connections can ensure that prefixes contained within a domain are
   only reachable within the domain itself and not allow the link state
   database to be merged between domain which could result in
   undesirable consequences.

   For operator which runs different IGP domains that interconnect with
   each other via the passive interfaces, there is desire to obtain the
   inter-as topology information as described in
   [I-D.ietf-idr-bgpls-inter-as-topology-ext].  If the router that runs
   BGP-LS within one IGP domain can distinguish passive interfaces from

Wang, et al.              Expires May 19, 2021                  [Page 2]
Show full document text