Internet Engineering Task Force H. Chen
Internet-Draft R. Li
Intended status: Standards Track Huawei Technologies
Expires: November 5, 2013 G. Cauchie
N. So
Tata Communications
L. Liu
UC Davis
A. Retana
Cisco Systems, Inc.
May 4, 2013
OSPF Topology-Transparent Zone
draft-chen-ospf-ttz-05.txt
Abstract
This document presents a topology-transparent zone in a domain. A
topology-transparent zone comprises a group of routers and a number
of links connecting these routers. Any router outside of the zone is
not aware of the zone. The information about the links and routers
inside the zone is not distributed to any router outside of the zone.
Any link state change such as a link down inside the zone is not seen
by any router outside of the zone.
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF 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 http://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 November 5, 2013.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Chen, et al. Expires November 5, 2013 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Topology-Transparent Zone May 2013
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Topology-Transparent Zone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1. Overview of Topology-Transparent Zone . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2. An Example of TTZ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2.1. Creation of a TTZ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Changes to OSPF Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.1. One Bit to Indicate an Internal TTZ Link . . . . . . . . . 8
5.2. A TTZ TLV in Router Information LSA . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. Constructing Router LSA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7. Establishing Adjacencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8. Distribution of LSAs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8.1. Distribution of LSAs within TTZ . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8.2. Distribution of LSAs through TTZ . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8.3. Distribution of LSAs only to Edges of TTZ . . . . . . . . 12
9. Computation of Routing Table . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
10. Smooth Migration to TTZ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
11. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
12. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
13. Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
14. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
14.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
14.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Chen, et al. Expires November 5, 2013 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Topology-Transparent Zone May 2013
1. Introduction
The number of routers in an Autonomous System (AS) becomes larger and
larger as the Internet traffic keeps growing. Thus the Open Shortest
Path First (OSPF) Link State Database (LSDB) and OSPF routing table
are bigger and bigger. Any link state change in an AS leads to a
number of link state distributions to every router in the AS. This
triggers every router in the AS to re-calculate its OSPF routes,
update its Routing Information Base (RIB) and Forwarding Information
Base (FIB). All these will consume network resource including
network bandwidth and Central Process Unit (CPU) time. This blocks
further expansions of a network.
RFC 2328 "OSPF Version 2" describes OSPF areas in an AS. Each area
has a number of area border routers connected to the backbone area.
Each area border router summarizes the topology of its attached non
backbone areas for transmission on the backbone, and hence to all
other area border routers.
Through splitting a network into multiple areas, we can extend the
network further. However, there are a number of issues when a
network is split further into more areas.
At first, dividing an AS or an area into multiple areas is a very
challenging task since it is involved in significant network
architecture changes.
Secondly, it is complex for a Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS)
Traffic Engineering (TE) Label Switching Path (LSP) crossing multiple
areas to be setup. In general, a TE path crossing multiple areas is
computed by using collaborating Path Computation Elements (PCEs)
[RFC5441] through the PCE Communication Protocol (PCEP)[RFC5440],
which is not easy to configure by operators since the manual
configuration of the sequence of domains is required. Although this
issue can be addressed by using the Hierarchical PCE, this solution
may further increase the complexity of network design. Especially,
the current PCE standard method may not guarantee that the path found
is optimal.
Thirdly, some policies need to be configured on area border routers
for reducing the number of link states such as summary Link-State
Advertisements (LSAs) to be distributed to other routers in other
areas.
Furthermore, route convergence may be slower. A router in an OSPF
area can see all other routers in the same area. A link-state change
anywhere in an OSPF area will be populated everywhere in the same
area, and may even be distributed to other areas in the same AS
Chen, et al. Expires November 5, 2013 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Topology-Transparent Zone May 2013
indirectly. For example, all the routers and links in a Point-Of-
Presence (POP) in an OSPF area will be seen by all the other routers
in the same area. Any link state change in the POP will be
distributed to all the other routers in the same area and may be
distributed to routers in other areas indirectly.
A link state change in an area will lead to every router in the same
area to re-calculate its OSPF routes, update its RIB and FIB. It may
also lead to a number of link state distributions to other areas.
This will trigger routers in other areas to re-calculate their OSPF
routes, update their RIBs and FIBs. Thus the route convergence is
slower.
This document presents a topology-transparent zone in a domain or an
area and describes extensions to OSPF for supporting the topology-
transparent zone, which may resolve the issues above.
A topology-transparent zone comprises a group of routers and a number
of links connecting these routers. Any router outside of the zone is
not aware of the zone. The information about the links and routers
inside the zone is not distributed to any router outside of the zone.
Any link state change such as a link down inside the zone is not seen
by any router outside of the zone.
2. Conventions Used in This Document
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 RFC 2119.
3. Requirements
Topology-Transparent Zone (TTZ) may be deployed for resolving some
ctricial issues such as scalability in existing networks and future
networks. The requirements for TTZ are listed as follows:
o TTZ MUST be backward compitable. When a TTZ is deployed on a set
of routers in a network, the routers outside of the TTZ in the
network do not need to know or support TTZ.
o TTZ MUST support at least one more levels of network hierarchies,
in addition to the hierarchies supported by existing routing
protocols.
o Users SHOULD be able to easily set up an end to end service
crossing TTZs.
Chen, et al. Expires November 5, 2013 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Topology-Transparent Zone May 2013
o The configuration for a TTZ in a network SHOULD be minimum.
o The changes on the existing protocols for supporting TTZ SHOULD be
minimum.
4. Topology-Transparent Zone
4.1. Overview of Topology-Transparent Zone
A Topology-Transparent Zone (TTZ) is identified by an Identifier
(ID), and it includes a group of routers and a number of links
connecting the routers. A Topology-Transparent Zone is in an OSPF
domain.
The ID of a Topology-Transparent Zone (TTZ) or TTZ ID is a number
that is unique for identifying an entity such as a node in an OSPF
domain. It is not zero in general.
In addition to having the functions of an OSPF area, an OSPF TTZ
makes some improvements on an OSPF area, which include:
o An OSPF TTZ is virtualized as a group of TTZ edge routers
connected.
o An OSPF TTZ receives the link state information about the topology
outside of the TTZ, stores the information in the TTZ and floods
the information through the TTZ to the routers outside of TTZ.
o No Policy configuration is needed on any edge router of a TTZ.
4.2. An Example of TTZ
4.2.1. Creation of a TTZ
The figure below illustrates an example of a routing domain
containing a topology-transparent zone: TTZ 600.
Chen, et al. Expires November 5, 2013 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Topology-Transparent Zone May 2013
TTZ 600
/
/
^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^
( )
===[R15]========(==[R61]-----------------[R63]==)========[R29]===
|| ( | \ / | ) ||
|| ( | \ / | ) ||
|| ( | \ / | ) ||
|| ( | \ / | ) ||
|| ( | \ / | ) ||
|| ( | \ / | ) ||
|| ( | \ / | ) ||
|| ( | _____[R71] | ) ||
|| ( | / / \ | ) ||
|| ( | [R73] / \ | ) ||
|| ( | / \ | ) ||
|| ( | / \ | ) ||
|| ( | / \ | ) ||
|| ( | / \ | ) ||
|| ( | / \ | ) ||
===[R17]========(==[R65]-----------------[R67]==)========[R31]===
\\ (// \\ ) //
|| //v~v~v~v~v~v~v~v~v~v~v~v~v~\\ ||
|| // \\ ||
|| // \\ ||
|| // \\ ||
|| // \\ ||
|| // \\ ||
\\ // \\ //
=====[R23]======================================[R25]=====
// \\
// \\
// \\
Figure 1: An Example of TTZ
The routing domain comprises routers R15, R17, R23, R25, R29 and R31.
It also contains a topology-transparent zone TTZ 600. The TTZ 600
comprises routers R61, R63, R65, R67, R71 and R73, and the links
connecting them.
There are two types of routers in a Topology-Transparent Zone (TTZ):
TTZ internal routers and TTZ edge routers. A TTZ internal router is
a router inside the TTZ and every adjacent router of the TTZ internal
router is a router inside the TTZ. A TTZ edge router is a router
Chen, et al. Expires November 5, 2013 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Topology-Transparent Zone May 2013
inside the TTZ and has at least one adjacent router that is outside
of the TTZ.
The TTZ in the figure above comprises four TTZ edge routers R61, R63,
R65 and R67. Each TTZ edge router is connected to at least one
router outside of the TTZ. For instance, router R61 is a TTZ edge
router since it is connected to router R15, which is outside of the
TTZ.
In addition, the TTZ comprises two TTZ internal routers R71 and R73.
A TTZ internal router is not connected to any router outside of the
TTZ. For instance, router R71 is a TTZ internal router since it is
not connected to any router outside of the TTZ. It is just connected
to routers R61, R63, R65, R67 and R73 inside the TTZ.
A TTZ MUST hide the information inside the TTZ from the outside. It
MUST NOT directly distribute any internal information about the TTZ
to a router outside of the TTZ.
For instance, the TTZ in the figure above MUST NOT send the
information about TTZ internal router R71 to any router outside of
the TTZ in the routing domain; it MUST NOT send the information about
the link between TTZ router R61 and R65 to any router outside of the
TTZ.
In order to create a Topology-Transparent Zone (TTZ), we MUST
configure the same TTZ ID on the edge routers and identify the TTZ
internal links on them. In addition, we SHOULD confiure the TTZ ID
on every TTZ internal router which indicates that every link of the
router is a TTZ internal link.
From a router outside of the TTZ, a TTZ is seen as a group of routers
fully connected. For instance, router R15 in the figure above, which
is outside of TTZ 600, sees TTZ 600 as a group of TTZ edge routers:
R61, R63, R65 and R67. These four TTZ edge routers are fully
connected.
In addition, a router outside of the TTZ sees TTZ edge routers having
normal connections to the routers outside of the TTZ. For example,
router R15 sees four TTZ edge routers R61, R63, R65 and R67, which
have the normal connections to R15, R29, R17 and R23, R25 and R31
respectively.
5. Changes to OSPF Protocols
There are a number of ways to extend the existing OSPF protocol to
support TTZ. This section describes a couple of them.
Chen, et al. Expires November 5, 2013 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Topology-Transparent Zone May 2013
o One way is to use one bit to indicate that a link is a TTZ link in
a router LSA.
o Another option is to have a TLV in a Router Information LSA
containing TTZ ID and flags to indicate that the router is a TTZ
edge router or a TTZ internal router.
5.1. One Bit to Indicate an Internal TTZ Link
A router LSA contains the description of a number of router links.
The existing format of a router LSA is illustrated as follows:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LS age | Options | 1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Link State ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Advertising Router |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LS sequence number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LS checksum | length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 0 |V|E|B| 0 | # links |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Link ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Link Data |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | # TOS | metric |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| TOS | 0 | TOS metric |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Link ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Link Data |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ... |
Figure 2: Format of Router LSA
For a router link, the value of an eight bit Type field indicates the
kind of the link. The value of the Type field may be 1, 2, 3 or 4,
Chen, et al. Expires November 5, 2013 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Topology-Transparent Zone May 2013
which indicates that the kind of the link is a point-to-point
connection to another router, a connection to a transit network, a
connection to a stub network, or a virtual link respectively.
The existing eight bit Type field for a router link may be split into
two fields as follows:
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| I | Type-1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
I bit flag:
1: This indicates that the router link is an internal link
to a router inside the TTZ.
0: This indicates that the router link is an external link.
Type-1:
The kind of the link.
Figure 3: Bit to Indicate Internal TTZ Link
For a link inside a TTZ, the value of I bit flag is set to one,
indicating that this link is an internal TTZ link. For a link
connecting to a router outside of a TTZ from a TTZ edge router, the
value of I bit flag is set to zero, indicating that this link is an
external TTZ link.
The value of Type-1 field may have value 1, 2, 3, or 4, which
indicates that the kind of a link being described is a point-to-point
connection to another router, a connection to a transit network, a
connection to a stub network, or a virtual link respectively.
5.2. A TTZ TLV in Router Information LSA
A new TLV is proposed in Router Information LSA for TTZ in the figure
below to indicate a router's TTZ capability and the TTZ to which the
router belongs.
Chen, et al. Expires November 5, 2013 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Topology-Transparent Zone May 2013
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|E| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| TTZ ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type A 16-bit field set to a number to be determined by IANA.
Length A 16-bit field indicating the length of the value, which
is 8.
Value E bit set to 1 indicating a TTZ edge router
0 indicating a TTZ internal router
TTZ ID gives the TTZ to which the router belongs
Figure 4: TTZ TLV in Router Information LSA
The TTZ TLV follows the Router Informational Capabilities TLV in a
Router Information LSA. Every edge router of a TTZ generates a
Router Information LSA containing a TTZ TLV with E bit set to 1 and
the ID of the TTZ. Each internal router of the TTZ originates a
Router Information LSA containing a TTZ TLV with E bit set to 0 and
the ID of the TTZ.
A TTZ is defined by all the routers with the same TTZ ID and all the
TTZ links. For a TTZ edge router, its links connected to other TTZ
routers belong to the TTZ. For a TTZ internal router, all its links
belong to the TTZ.
6. Constructing Router LSA
Two types of router LSAs are generated by an edge router of a TTZ.
The first type describes the links connecting to it; in fact, this
LSA is the "normal" LSA that would be constructed if the TTZ feature
is not used. This LSA is also generated by a router inside the TTZ.
The second is generated to virtualize the TTZ as a group of edge
routers connected.
The first type of LSA comprises both the router links connecting the
Chen, et al. Expires November 5, 2013 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Topology-Transparent Zone May 2013
routers inside the TTZ and the router links connecting to the routers
outside of the TTZ. For each of the router links in the LSA, it can
be represented in one of the ways described in the previous section.
The second router LSA generated by an edge router of the TTZ
comprises two groups of links in general.
The first group of links are the router links connecting the routers
outside of the TTZ from this TTZ edge router. These router links are
normal router links. There is a router link for every adjacency
between this TTZ edge router and a router outside of the TTZ.
The second group of links are the "virtual" router links. For each
of the other TTZ edge routers, there is a "virtual" router link to it
from this TTZ edge router. The cost of the router link from this TTZ
router to one of the other TTZ edge routers may be the cost of the
shortest path from this TTZ edge router to it.
In addition, the LSA may contain a third group of links, which are
stub links for other destinations inside the TTZ.
7. Establishing Adjacencies
A router in a TTZ forms an adjacency with another router in the TTZ
in the same way as a normal router when these two routers have a
connection.
For an edge router in a TTZ, it also forms an adjacency with any
router outside of the TTZ that has a connection with the edge router.
When the edge router synchronizes its link state database with the
router outside of the TTZ, it sends the router outside of the TTZ the
information about all the LSAs except for the LSAs belonging to the
TTZ that are hidden from any router outside of the TTZ.
At the end of the link state database synchronization, the edge
router originates its own router LSA for virtualizing the TTZ and
sends this LSA to the router outside of the TTZ.
From the point of view of the router outside of the TTZ, it sees the
other end as a normal router and forms the adjacency in the same way
as a normal router. It is not aware of anything about its
neighboring TTZ. From the LSAs related to the TTZ edge router in the
other end, it knows that the TTZ edge router is connected to each of
the other TTZ edge routers and some routers outside of the TTZ.
Chen, et al. Expires November 5, 2013 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Topology-Transparent Zone May 2013
8. Distribution of LSAs
LSAs can be divided into three classes according to their
distributions. The first class of LSAs is distributed within a TTZ.
The second is distributed through a TTZ. The third is distributed
only to the edge routers of the TTZ.
8.1. Distribution of LSAs within TTZ
Any LSA about a link state in a TTZ is distributed within the TTZ.
It will not be distributed to any router outside of the TTZ.
For example, any router LSA generated for a router in a TTZ is
distributed within the TTZ. It will not be distributed to any router
outside of the TTZ.
Any network LSA generated for a broadcast or NBMA network inside a
TTZ is distributed within the TTZ. It will not be distributed to any
router outside of the TTZ.
Any opaque LSA generated for a TTZ internal TE link is distributed
within the TTZ. It will not be distributed to any router outside of
the TTZ.
8.2. Distribution of LSAs through TTZ
Any LSA about a link state outside of a TTZ received by an edge
router of the TTZ is distributed through the TTZ.
For example, when an edge router of a TTZ receives an LSA for a link
state outside of the TTZ from a router outside of the TTZ, it floods
it to its neighboring routers both inside the TTZ and outside of the
TTZ. This LSA may be any LSA such as a router LSA and an opaque LSA
that is distributed in a domain.
The routers in the TTZ continue to flood the LSA. When another edge
router of the TTZ receives the LSA, it floods the LSA to its
neighboring routers both outside of the TTZ and inside the TTZ.
8.3. Distribution of LSAs only to Edges of TTZ
In the case that a TTZ is virtualized as a group of edge routers of
the TTZ connected, every edge router of the TTZ generates a router
LSA for the TTZ. This LSA is distributed to the routers outside of
the TTZ but not to the TTZ internal routers.
When an edge router of the TTZ receives a router LSA originated by
another edge router of the TTZ for virtualizing the TTZ, it floods
Chen, et al. Expires November 5, 2013 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Topology-Transparent Zone May 2013
the LSA to its neighboring routers outside of the TTZ but not to the
TTZ internal routers.
9. Computation of Routing Table
The computation of the routing table on a router is the same as that
described in RFC 2328, with one exception. An edge router of a TTZ
MUST ignore the router LSAs generated by the edge routers of the TTZ
for virtualizing the TTZ.
10. Smooth Migration to TTZ
This section describes the mechanisms which allow users to make a
smooth migration to the TTZ with minimum interruption to the network.
For a group of routers and a number of links connecting the routers
in an area, making them to work as a TTZ eventually with minimum
interruption to the network may take a few of steps or stages.
At first, users configure the TTZ feature on every router in the TTZ.
In this stage, the router has dual roles. One role is to function as
a normal router. The other is to generate and distribute some TTZ
information among the routers in the TTZ.
Secondly, users may allow every router in the TTZ to work as a TTZ
router after they determine that every router in the TTZ is ready for
transferring to work as a TTZ router eventually. For a router in the
TTZ, users may allow it to work as a TTZ router after it has received
all the necessary information from all the routers in the TTZ. This
information may be displayed on a router through a CLI command.
And then users may activate the TTZ. There are a few of ways to
activate the TTZ. One way is to activate it on a TTZ router through
a CLI command such as activate TTZ directly. Another is through a
TTZ activate timer, which activates the TTZ once the timer expires.
After a TTZ router is requested to activate the TTZ, it transfers to
work as a TTZ router. When a TTZ router receives a LSA for
virtualizing the TTZ and it is allowed to work as a TTZ router, it
also transfers to work as a TTZ router. Thus, after every router in
a TTZ is allowed to work as a TTZ router, activating the TTZ on one
TTZ router will make every router in the TTZ transfer to work as a
TTZ router.
For an edge router of the TTZ, transferring to work as a TTZ router
comprises flushing its LSA originated for its link state as a normal
Chen, et al. Expires November 5, 2013 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Topology-Transparent Zone May 2013
router as needed, generating a router LSA to virtualize the TTZ and
flooding this LSA to all its neighboring routers except for the TTZ
internal routers.
11. Security Considerations
The mechanism described in this document does not raise any new
security issues for the OSPF protocols.
12. IANA Considerations
IANA is asked to assign a TLV in the OSPF Router Informational LSA,
as described in Section 5.
13. Acknowledgement
The author would like to thank Acee Lindem, Dean Cheng, Lin Han and
Yang Yu for their valuable comments on this draft.
14. References
14.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2328] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328, April 1998.
[RFC4970] Lindem, A., Shen, N., Vasseur, JP., Aggarwal, R., and S.
Shaffer, "Extensions to OSPF for Advertising Optional
Router Capabilities", RFC 4970, July 2007.
[RFC2740] Coltun, R., Ferguson, D., and J. Moy, "OSPF for IPv6",
RFC 2740, December 1999.
14.2. Informative References
[RFC5441] Vasseur, JP., Zhang, R., Bitar, N., and JL. Le Roux, "A
Backward-Recursive PCE-Based Computation (BRPC) Procedure
to Compute Shortest Constrained Inter-Domain Traffic
Engineering Label Switched Paths", RFC 5441, April 2009.
[RFC5440] Vasseur, JP. and JL. Le Roux, "Path Computation Element
(PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440,
Chen, et al. Expires November 5, 2013 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Topology-Transparent Zone May 2013
March 2009.
Authors' Addresses
Huaimo Chen
Huawei Technologies
Boston, MA
USA
Email: huaimo.chen@huawei.com
Renwei Li
Huawei Technologies
2330 Central expressway
Santa Clara, CA
USA
Email: renwei.li@huawei.com
Gregory Cauchie
FRANCE
Email: greg.cauchie@gmail.com
Ning So
Tata Communications
2613 Fairbourne Cir.
Plano, TX 75082
USA
Email: ning.so@tatacommunications.com
Lei Liu
UC Davis
CA
USA
Email: liulei.kddi@gmail.com
Chen, et al. Expires November 5, 2013 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Topology-Transparent Zone May 2013
Alvaro Retana
Cisco Systems, Inc.
7025 Kit Creek Rd.
Raleigh, NC 27709
USA
Email: aretana@cisco.com
Chen, et al. Expires November 5, 2013 [Page 16]