LSR Working Group A. Wang Internet-Draft China Telecom Intended status: Standards Track A. Lindem Expires: April 23, 2021 Cisco Systems J. Dong Huawei Technologies P. Psenak K. Talaulikar Cisco Systems October 20, 2020 OSPF Prefix Originator Extensions draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-prefix-originator-07 Abstract This document defines OSPF extensions to include information associated with the node originating a prefix along with the prefix advertisement. 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 April 23, 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 Wang, et al. Expires April 23, 2021 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft OSPF Prefix Originator Extensions October 2020 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 1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Protocol Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.1. Prefix Source Router-ID Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.2. Prefix Originator Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. Elements of Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6. Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 1. Introduction Prefix attributes are advertised in OSPFv2 [RFC2328] using the Extended Prefix Opaque Link State Advertisement (LSA) [RFC7684] and in OSPFv3 [RFC5340] using the various Extended Prefix LSA types [RFC8362]. The identification of the originating router for a prefix in OSPF varies by the type of the prefix and is currently not always possible. For intra-area prefixes, the originating router is identified by the advertising Router ID field of the area-scoped LSA used for those prefix advertisements. However, for the inter-area prefixes advertised by the Area Border Router (ABR), the advertising Router ID field of their area-scoped LSAs is set to the ABR itself and the information about the router originating the prefix advertisement is lost in this process of prefix propagation across areas. For Autonomous System (AS) external prefixes, the originating router may be considered as the Autonomous System Border Router (ASBR) and is identified by the advertising Router ID field of the AS-scoped LSA used. However, the actual originating router for the prefix may be a remote router outside the OSPF domain. Similarly, when an ABR performs translation of Not-So-Stubby Area (NSSA) [RFC3101] LSAs to AS-external LSAs, the information associated with the NSSA ASBR (or the router outside the OSPF domain) is not conveyed across the OSPF domain. Wang, et al. Expires April 23, 2021 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft OSPF Prefix Originator Extensions October 2020 While typically the originator of information in OSPF is identified by its OSPF Router ID, it does not necessarily represent a reachable address for the router. The IPv4/IPv6 Router Address as defined in [RFC3630] and [RFC5329] for OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 respectively provide an address to reach that router. The primary use case for the extensions proposed in this document is to be able to identify the originator of the prefix in the network. In cases where multiple prefixes are advertised by a given router, it is also useful to be able to associate all these prefixes with a single router even when prefixes are advertised outside of the area in which they originated. It also helps to determine when the same prefix is being originated by multiple routers across areas. This document proposes extensions to the OSPF protocol for inclusion of information associated with the router originating the prefix along with the prefix advertisement. These extensions do not change the core OSPF route computation functionality. They provide useful information for topology analysis and traffic engineering, especially on a controller when this information is advertised as an attribute of the prefixes via mechanisms such as Border Gateway Protocol Link- State (BGP-LS) [RFC7752]. 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. Protocol Extensions This document defines the Prefix Source Router-ID and the Prefix Originator Sub-TLVs for inclusion of the Router ID and a reachable address information for the router originating the prefix as a prefix attribute. 2.1. Prefix Source Router-ID Sub-TLV For OSPFv2, the Prefix Source Router-ID Sub-TLV is an optional Sub- TLV of the OSPFv2 Extended Prefix TLV [RFC7684]. For OSPFv3, the Prefix Source Router-ID Sub-TLV is an optional Sub-TLV of the Intra- Area-Prefix TLV, Inter-Area-Prefix TLV, and External-Prefix TLV [RFC8362] when originating either an IPv4 [RFC5838] or an IPv6 prefix advertisement. The Prefix Source Router-ID Sub-TLV has the following format: Wang, et al. Expires April 23, 2021 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft OSPF Prefix Originator Extensions October 2020 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 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | OSPF Router ID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 1: Prefix Source Router-ID Sub-TLV Format Where: o Type: 4 for OSPFv2 and 27 for OSPFv3 o Length: 4 o OSPF Router ID : the OSPF Router ID of the OSPF router that originated the prefix advertisement in the OSPF domain. A prefix advertisement MAY include more than one Prefix Source Router-ID sub-TLV, one corresponding to each of the Equal-Cost Multi- Path (ECMP) nodes that originated the given prefix. A received Prefix Source Router-ID Sub-TLV with OSPF Router ID set to 0 MUST be considered invalid and ignored. Additionally, reception of such Sub-TLV SHOULD be logged as an error (subject to rate-limiting). 2.2. Prefix Originator Sub-TLV For OSPFv2, the Prefix Originator Sub-TLV is an optional Sub-TLV of the OSPFv2 Extended Prefix TLV [RFC7684]. For OSPFv3, the Prefix Originator Sub-TLV is an optional Sub-TLV of the Intra-Area-Prefix TLV, Inter-Area-Prefix TLV, and External-Prefix TLV [RFC8362] when originating either an IPv4 [RFC5838] or an IPv6 prefix advertisement. The Prefix Originator Sub-TLV has the following format: 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 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Router Address (4 or 16 octets) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 2: Prefix Originator Sub-TLV Format Where: Wang, et al. Expires April 23, 2021 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft OSPF Prefix Originator Extensions October 2020 o Type: TBD1 for OSPFv2 and TBD2 for OSPFv3 o Length: 4 or 16 o Router Address: A reachable IPv4 or IPv6 router address for the router that originated the IPv4 or IPv6 prefix advertisement. Such an address would be semantically equivalent to what may be advertised in the OSPFv2 Router Address TLV [RFC3630] or in the OSPFv3 Router IPv6 Address TLV [RFC5329]. A prefix advertisement MAY include more than one Prefix Originator sub-TLV, one corresponding to each of the Equal-Cost Multi-Path (ECMP) nodes that originated the given prefix. A received Prefix Originator Sub-TLV that has an invalid length (not 4 or 16) or a Router Address containing an invalid IPv4 or IPv6 address (dependent on address family of the associated prefix) MUST be considered invalid and ignored. Additionally, reception of such Sub-TLV SHOULD be logged as an error (subject to rate-limiting). [RFC7794] provides similar functionality for the Intermediate System to Intermediate System (IS-IS) protocol. 3. Elements of Procedure This section describes the procedure for advertisement of the Prefix Source Router-ID and Prefix Originator Sub-TLVs along with the prefix advertisement. The OSPF Router ID of the Prefix Source Router-ID is set to the OSPF Router ID of the node originating the prefix in the OSPF domain. If the originating node is advertising an OSPFv2 Router Address TLV [RFC3630] or an OSPFv3 Router IPv6 Address TLV [RFC5329], then that value is set in the Router Address field of the Prefix Originator Sub-TLV. When the originating node is not advertising such an address, implementations MAY support mechanisms to determine a reachable address (e.g., advertised with the N-flag set [RFC7684] or N-bit set [RFC8362] and either matching the OSPF Router ID or the highest IP address) belonging to the originating node to set in the Router Address field. Implementations MAY support the selection of specific prefixes for which the originating node information needs to be included with their prefix advertisements. When an ABR generates inter-area prefix advertisements into its non- backbone areas corresponding to an inter-area prefix advertisement Wang, et al. Expires April 23, 2021 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft OSPF Prefix Originator Extensions October 2020 from the backbone area, the only way to determine the originating node information is based on the Prefix Source Router-ID and Prefix Originator Sub-TLVs present in the inter-area prefix advertisement originated into the backbone area by an ABR for another non-backbone area. The ABR performs its prefix calculation to determine the set of nodes that contribute to the best prefix reachability. It MUST use the prefix originator information only from this set of nodes. The ABR MUST NOT include the Prefix Source Router-ID or the Prefix Originator Sub-TLVs when it is unable to determine the information of the best originating node. Implementations MAY provide control on ABRs to selectively disable the propagation of the originating node information across area boundaries. Implementations MAY support the propagation of the originating node information along with a redistributed prefix into the OSPF domain from another routing domain. The details of such mechanisms are outside the scope of this document. Such implementations MAY also provide control on whether the Router Address in the Prefix Originator Sub-TLV is set as the ABSR node address or as the address of the actual node outside the OSPF domain that owns the prefix. When translating the NSSA prefix advertisements [RFC3101] to the AS external prefix advertisements, the NSSA ABR, follows the same procedures as an ABR generating inter-area prefix advertisements for the propagation of the originating node information. 4. Security Considerations Since this document extends the OSPFv2 Extended Prefix LSA, the security considerations for [RFC7684] are applicable. Similarly, since this document extends the OSPFv3 E-Intra-Area-Prefix-LSA, E- Inter-Area-Prefix-LSA, E-AS-External LSA and E-NSSA-LSA, the security considerations for [RFC8362] are applicable. 5. IANA Considerations This document requests IANA for the allocation of the codepoint from the "OSPFv2 Extended Prefix TLV Sub-TLVs" registry under the "Open Shortest Path First v2 (OSPFv2) Parameters" registry. Wang, et al. Expires April 23, 2021 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft OSPF Prefix Originator Extensions October 2020 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Code | Description | IANA Allocation | | Point | | Status | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | 4 | Prefix Source Router-ID Sub-TLV | early allocation done | | TBD1 | Prefix Originator Sub-TLV | pending | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 3: Code Points in OSPFv2 Extended Prefix TLV Sub-TLVs This document requests IANA for the allocation of the codepoint from the "OSPFv3 Extended Prefix TLV Sub-TLVs" registry under the "Open Shortest Path First v3 (OSPFv3) Parameters" registry. +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Code | Description | IANA Allocation | | Point | | Status | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | 27 | Prefix Source Router-ID Sub-TLV | early allocation done | | TBD2 | Prefix Originator Sub-TLV | pending | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 4: Code Points in OSPFv3 Extended-LSA Sub-TLVs 6. Acknowledgement Many thanks to Les Ginsberg for his suggestions on this draft. Also thanks to Jeff Tantsura, Rob Shakir, Gunter Van De Velde, Goethals Dirk, Smita Selot, Shaofu Peng, John E Drake and Baalajee S for their review and valuable comments. 7. References 7.1. 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>. [RFC2328] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328, DOI 10.17487/RFC2328, April 1998, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2328>. Wang, et al. Expires April 23, 2021 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft OSPF Prefix Originator Extensions October 2020 [RFC3101] Murphy, P., "The OSPF Not-So-Stubby Area (NSSA) Option", RFC 3101, DOI 10.17487/RFC3101, January 2003, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3101>. [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>. [RFC7794] Ginsberg, L., Ed., Decraene, B., Previdi, S., Xu, X., and U. Chunduri, "IS-IS Prefix Attributes for Extended IPv4 and IPv6 Reachability", RFC 7794, DOI 10.17487/RFC7794, March 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7794>. [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>. 7.2. Informative References [RFC3630] Katz, D., Kompella, K., and D. Yeung, "Traffic Engineering (TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC 3630, DOI 10.17487/RFC3630, September 2003, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3630>. [RFC5329] Ishiguro, K., Manral, V., Davey, A., and A. Lindem, Ed., "Traffic Engineering Extensions to OSPF Version 3", RFC 5329, DOI 10.17487/RFC5329, September 2008, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5329>. [RFC5838] Lindem, A., Ed., Mirtorabi, S., Roy, A., Barnes, M., and R. Aggarwal, "Support of Address Families in OSPFv3", RFC 5838, DOI 10.17487/RFC5838, April 2010, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5838>. Wang, et al. Expires April 23, 2021 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft OSPF Prefix Originator Extensions October 2020 [RFC7752] Gredler, H., Ed., Medved, J., Previdi, S., Farrel, A., and S. Ray, "North-Bound Distribution of Link-State and Traffic Engineering (TE) Information Using BGP", RFC 7752, DOI 10.17487/RFC7752, March 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7752>. Authors' Addresses Aijun Wang China Telecom Beiqijia Town, Changping District Beijing 102209 China Email: wangaj3@chinatelecom.cn Acee Lindem Cisco Systems 301 Midenhall Way Cary, NC 27513 USA Email: acee@cisco.com Jie Dong Huawei Technologies Beijing China Email: jie.dong@huawei.com Peter Psenak Cisco Systems Pribinova Street 10 Bratislava, Eurovea Centre, Central 3 81109 Slovakia Email: ppsenak@cisco.com Ketan Talaulikar Cisco Systems India Email: ketant@cisco.com Wang, et al. Expires April 23, 2021 [Page 9]