Network Working Group A. Lindem (Editor)
Internet-Draft Ericsson
Intended status: Standards Track S. Mirtorabi
Expires: June 18, 2010 A. Roy
M. Barnes
Cisco Systems
R. Aggarwal
Juniper Networks
December 15, 2009
Support of address families in OSPFv3
draft-ietf-ospf-af-alt-10.txt
Abstract
This document describes a mechanism for supporting multiple address
families in OSPFv3 using multiple instances. It maps an address
family (AF) to an OSPFv3 instance using the Instance ID field in the
OSPFv3 packet header. This approach is fairly simple and minimizes
extensions to OSPFv3 for supporting multiple AFs.
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), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
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."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on June 18, 2010.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
Lindem (Editor), et al. Expires June 18, 2010 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft OSPFv3 AF December 2009
document authors. All rights reserved.
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 BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Design Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2. Requirements notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Protocol Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. Instance ID values for new AFs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2. OSPFv3 Options Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.3. Advertising Prefixes in AFs other than IPv6 . . . . . . . 5
2.4. Changes to the Hello processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.5. Next-Hop Calculation for IPv4 unicast and multicast AFs . 6
2.6. AS External LSA Forwarding Address for IPv4 Unicast
and IPv4 Multicast AFs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.7. Database Description Maximum Transmission Unit (MTU)
Specification for Non-IPv6 AFs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.8. Operation over Virtual Links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3. Backward Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Lindem (Editor), et al. Expires June 18, 2010 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft OSPFv3 AF December 2009
1. Introduction
OSPFv3 [OSPFV3] has been defined to support the base IPv6 unicast
Address Family (AF). There are requirements to advertise other AFs
in OSPFv3 including multicast IPv6, unicast IPv4, and multicast IPv4.
This document supports these other AFs in OSPFv3 by mapping each AF
to a separate Instance ID and OSPFv3 instance.
1.1. Design Considerations
This section describes the rationale for using the multiple instance
ID approach to support multiple address families in OSPFv3. As
described earlier, OSPFv3 is designed to support multiple instances.
Hence mapping an instance to an address family doesn't introduce any
new mechanisms to the protocol. It minimizes the protocol extensions
required and it simplifies the implementation. The presence of a
separate link state database per address family is also easier to
debug and operate. Additionally, it doesn't change the existing
instance, area, and interface based configuration model in most
OSPFv3 implementations.
1.2. Requirements notation
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-KEYWORDS].
Lindem (Editor), et al. Expires June 18, 2010 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft OSPFv3 AF December 2009
2. Protocol Details
Currently the entire Instance ID number space is used for IPv6
unicast. This specification assigns different Instance ID ranges to
different AFs in order to support other AFs in OSPFv3. Each Instance
ID implies a separate OSPFv3 instance with its own neighbor
adjacencies, link state database, protocol data structures, and
shortest path first (SPF) computation.
Additionally, the current Link State Advertisements (LSAs) defined to
advertise IPv6 unicast prefixes can be used to advertise prefixes
from other AFs without modification.
It should be noted that OSPFv3 runs on top of IPv6 and uses IPv6 link
local addresses for OSPFv3 control packets. Therefore, it is
required that IPv6 be enabled on an OSPFv3 link, although the link
may not be participating in any IPv6 AFs.
2.1. Instance ID values for new AFs
Instance ID zero is already defined by default for the IPv6 unicast
AF. When this specification is used to support multiple AFs, we
define the following ranges for different AFs. The first value of
each range is the default value for the corresponding AF.
Instance ID # 0 - # 31 IPv6 unicast AF
Instance ID # 32 - # 63 IPv6 multicast AF
Instance ID # 64 - # 95 IPv4 unicast AF
Instance ID # 96 - # 127 IPv4 multicast AF
Instance ID # 128 - # 255 Unassigned
OSPFv3 Instance IDs
2.2. OSPFv3 Options Changes
A new AF-bit is added to the OSPFv3 options field. The V6-bit is
only applicable to the IPv6 unicast AF.
1 2
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+--+-+-+--+-+-+--+--+--+
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |AF|*|*|DC|R|N|x | E|V6|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+--+-+-+--+-+-+--+--+--+
The Options field
OSPFv3 Options
Lindem (Editor), et al. Expires June 18, 2010 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft OSPFv3 AF December 2009
V6-bit
The V6 bit is used in OSPFv3 to exclude a node from IPv6 unicast
route calculation but allow it in the SPF calculation for other
address families. Since Instance ID now denotes the AF
explicitly, this bit is ignored in AFs other than IPv6 unicast.
AF-bit
When an OSPFv3 router is supporting AFs as described in this
specification, it MUST set the AF-bit in the OSPFv3 Options field
of Hello Packets, Database Description packets, and LSAs.
2.3. Advertising Prefixes in AFs other than IPv6
Each Prefix defined in OSPFv3 has a prefix length field. This
facilitates advertising prefixes of different lengths in different
AFs. The existing LSAs defined in OSPFv3 are used for this purpose
and there is no need to define new LSAs.
Prefixes which don't conform to OSPFv3 instance AF MUST be not be
used in the route computation for the instance.
2.4. Changes to the Hello processing
When an OSPFv3 router does not support this specification and it is
configured with the corresponding Instance ID, packets could be black
holed. This could happen due to misconfiguration or a router
software downgrade. Black holing is possible because the router
which doesn't support the AF can still be included in the SPF
calculated path as long as it establishes adjacencies using the
Instance ID corresponding to the AF. Note that Router-LSAs and
Network-LSAs are AF independent.
In order to avoid the above situation, hello processing is changed in
order to only establish adjacencies with routers that have the AF-bit
set in their Options field.
Receiving Hello Packets is specified in section 3.2.2.1 of [OSPFV3].
The following check is added to Hello reception:
o When an OSPFv3 router participates in an AF (sets the AF-bit in
Options field), it MUST discard Hello packets having the AF-bit
clear in the Options field. The only exception is the Base IPv6
unicast AF, where this check MUST NOT be done (for backward
compatibility).
Lindem (Editor), et al. Expires June 18, 2010 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft OSPFv3 AF December 2009
2.5. Next-Hop Calculation for IPv4 unicast and multicast AFs
OSPFv3 runs on top of IPv6 and uses IPv6 link local addresses for
OSPFv3 control packets and next-hop calculations. Although IPV6 link
local addresses could be used as next-hops for IPv4 address families,
it is desirable to have IPv4 next-hop addresses. For example, in the
IPv4 multicast AF, the Protocol Independent Multicast (PIM) [PIM]
neighbor address and the next-hop address should both be IPv4
addresses in order for the Reverse Path Forwarding (RPF) lookup to
work correctly. Troubleshooting is also easier when the prefix
address and next-hop address are in the same AF.
In order to achieve this, the link's IPv4 address will be advertised
in the "link local address" field of the IPv4 instance's Link-LSA.
This address is placed in the first 32 bit of "link local address"
field and is used for IPv4 next-hop calculations. The remaining bits
MUST be set to zero.
We call the direct interface address (DIA) the address that is
reachable directly via the link provided that a layer 3 to layer 2
mapping is available. Note that there is no explicit need for the
IPv4 link addresses to be on the same subnet. An implementation
SHOULD resolve layer 3 to layer 2 mappings via Address Resolution
Protocol (ARP) [ARP] or Neighbor Discovery (ND) [ND] for a DIA even
if the IPv4 address is not on the same subnet as the router's
interface IP address.
2.6. AS External LSA Forwarding Address for IPv4 Unicast and IPv4
Multicast AFs
For OSPFv3, this address is an IPv6 host address (128 bits). If
included, data traffic for the advertised destination will be
forwarded to this address. For IPv4 unicast and IPv4 multicast AFs,
the Forwarding Address in AS-external-LSAs MUST encode an IPv4
address. To achieve this, the IPv4 Forwarding Address is advertised
by placing it in the first 32 bits of the Forwarding Address field in
the AS-external-LSAs. The remaining bits MUST be set to zero.
2.7. Database Description Maximum Transmission Unit (MTU)
Specification for Non-IPv6 AFs
For address families other than IPv6, both the MTU for the instance
address family and IPv6 MTU used for OSPFv3 maximum packet
determination MUST be considered. The MTU in the Database
Description packet MUST always contain the MTU corresponding to the
advertised address family. For example, if the instance corresponds
to an IPv4 address family, the IPv4 MTU for the interface MUST be
specified in the interface MTU field. As specified section 10.6 of
Lindem (Editor), et al. Expires June 18, 2010 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft OSPFv3 AF December 2009
[OSPFV2], the Database Description packet will be rejected if the MTU
is greater than the receiving interface's MTU for the address family
corresponding to the instance. This behavior will assure an
adjacency is not formed and address family specific routes are not
installed over a path with conflicting MTUs.
The value used for OSPFv3 maximum packet size determination MUST also
be compatible for an adjacency to be established. Since only a
single MTU field is specified, the M6-bit is defined by this
specification. If the M6-bit is clear, the specified MTU SHOULD also
be checked against the IPv6 MTU and the Database Description packet
SHOULD be rejected if the MTU is larger than the receiving
interface's IPv6 MTU. An OSPFv3 router SHOULD NOT set the M6-bit if
its IPv6 MTU and address family specific MTU are the same.
If the IPv6 and IPv4 MTUs differ, the M6-bit MUST be set for non-IPv6
address families. If the M6-bit is set, the IPv6 MTU is decided by
the presence or absence of an IPv6 MTU TLV in the LLS [LLS] block.
If this TLV is present, it carries the IPv6 MTU that SHOULD be
compared with local IPv6 MTU. If this TLV is absent, the minimum
IPv6 MTU of 1280 octets SHOULD be used for the comparison (refer to
[IPV6]).
If the M6-bit is set in a received Database Description packet for a
non-IPv6 address family, the receiving router MUST NOT check the
Interface MTU in the Database Description packet against the
receiving interface's IPv6 MTU.
The figure below graphically depicts the changed fields in the octets
20-23 of the OSPFv3 Database Description Packet:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+--+-+-+-+--+
| Interface MTU | 0 |0|0|0|M6|0|I|M|MS|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+--+-+-+-+--+
OSPFv3 Database Description Packet Changes
The changed fields in the Database Description packet are described
below. The remaining fields are unchanged from [OSPFV3].
Interface MTU
The size in octets of the largest AF specific datagram that can be
sent on the associated interface without fragmentation. The MTUs
of common Internet link types can be found in Table 7-1 of
[MTUDISC]. Interface MTU SHOULD be set to 0 in Database
Lindem (Editor), et al. Expires June 18, 2010 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft OSPFv3 AF December 2009
Description packets sent over virtual links.
M6-bit
The IPv6 MTU bit - this bit indicates the sender is using a
different IPv6 MTU than the MTU for the AF.
An IPv6 MTU TLV can be optionally carried in LLS block as described
above. This TLV carries the IPv6 MTU for the interface. The length
field of the TLV is set to 4 bytes.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 6 (TBD) | 4 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv6 MTU |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Format of IPv6 MTU TLV
Only one instance of the IPv6 MTU TLV MAY appear in the LLS block.
Instances subsequent to the first are not processed and the LLS
inconsistency SHOULD be logged.
2.8. Operation over Virtual Links
OSPFv3 control packets sent over a virtual link are IPv6 packets and
may traverse multiples hops. Therefore, there MUST be a global IPv6
address associated with the virtual link so that OSPFv3 control
packets are forwarded correctly by the intermediate hops between
virtual link endpoints. Although this requirement can be satisfied
in IPv6 unicast AFs, it will not function in other AFs as there will
not be a routable global IPv6 address or forwarding path. Therefore,
virtual links are not supported in AFs other than IPv6 Unicast.
Lindem (Editor), et al. Expires June 18, 2010 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft OSPFv3 AF December 2009
3. Backward Compatibility
All modifications to OSPFv3 apply exclusively to the support address
families other than IPv6 unicast using multiple OSPFv3 instances as
described in this specification. They are not applicable to IPv6
unicast topologies and do not preclude future single instance
mechanisms for supporting multiple address families.
In this section, we will define a non-capable OSPFv3 router as one
not supporting this specification. When multiple AFs are supported
as defined herein, each new AF will have a corresponding Instance ID
and can interoperate with the existing non-capable OSPFv3 routers in
an IPv6 unicast topology. Furthermore, when a non-capable OSPFv3
router uses an Instance ID that is reserved for a given AF, no
adjacency will be formed with this router since the AF-bit in the
Options field will be clear in its OSPFv3 Hello packets. Therefore,
there are no backward compatibility issues. AFs can be gradually
deployed without disturbing OSPFv3 routing domains with non-capable
OSPFv3 routers.
Lindem (Editor), et al. Expires June 18, 2010 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft OSPFv3 AF December 2009
4. Security Considerations
IPsec [IPsec] can be used for OSPFv3 authentication and
confidentiality as described in [OSPFV3-AUTH]. When multiple OSPFv3
instances use the same interface, they all MUST use the same Security
Association (SA), since the SA selectors do not provide selection
based on OSPFv3 header fields, such as the Instance ID. This
restriction is documented in section 8 of [OSPFV3-AUTH].
Security considerations for the OSPFv3 are covered in [OSPFV3].
Lindem (Editor), et al. Expires June 18, 2010 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft OSPFv3 AF December 2009
5. IANA Considerations
The following IANA assignments are to be made from existing
registries:
The AF-bit is assigned from OSPFv3 Options field as defined in
Section 2.2.
IANA is requested to create a new registry, "OSPFv3 Instance ID
Address Family Values", for assignment of the mapping of OSPFv3
Instance ID to address families when this specification is used to
support multiple address families. Note that the Instance ID field
MAY be used for applications other than the support of multiple
address families. However, if it is being used for address families
as described in this specification, the assignments herein SHOULD be
honored.
+-------------+----------------------+--------------------+
| Value/Range | Designation | Assignment Policy |
+-------------+----------------------+--------------------+
| 0 | Base IPv6 Unicast AF | Already assigned |
| | | |
| 1-31 | IPv6 Unicast AFs | Already assigned |
| | dependent on local | |
| | policy | |
| | | |
| 32 | Base IPv6 Multicast | Already assigned |
| | | |
| 33-63 | IPv6 Multicast AFs | Already assigned |
| | dependent on local | |
| | policy | |
| | | |
| 64 | Base IPv4 Unicast AF | Already assigned |
| | | |
| 65-95 | IPv4 Unicast AFs | Already assigned |
| | dependent on local | |
| | policy | |
| | | |
| 96 | Base IPv4 Multicast | Already assigned |
| | | |
| 97-127 | IPv4 Multicast AFs | Already assigned |
| | dependent on local | |
| | policy | |
| | | |
| 128-255 | Unassigned | Standards Action |
+-------------+----------------------+--------------------+
OSPFv3 Address Family Use of Instance IDs
Lindem (Editor), et al. Expires June 18, 2010 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft OSPFv3 AF December 2009
o Instance IDs 0-127 are assigned by this specification.
o Instance IDs in the range 128-255 are not assigned at this time.
Before any assignments can be made in this range, there MUST be a
Standards Track RFC including IANA Considerations explicitly
specifying the AF Instance IDs being assigned.
M6-Bit is assigned as defined in Section 2.7.
A TLV type for IPv6 MTU TLV is assigned from OSPF LLS TLVs registry.
Lindem (Editor), et al. Expires June 18, 2010 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft OSPFv3 AF December 2009
6. References
6.1. Normative References
[IPV6] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998.
[IPsec] Kent, S. and K. Seo, "Security Architecture for the
Internet Protocol", RFC 4301, December 2005.
[OSPFV2] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", RFC 2328, April 1998.
[OSPFV3] Coltun, R., Ferguson, D., Moy, J., and A. Lindem, "OSPF
for IPv6", RFC 5340, July 2008.
[OSPFV3-AUTH]
Gupta, M. and S. Melam, "Authentication/Confidentiality
for OSPFv3", RFC 4552, June 2006.
[RFC-KEYWORDS]
Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFC's to Indicate
Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, March 1997.
6.2. Informative References
[ARP] Plummer, D., "An Ethernet Address Resolution Protocol",
RFC 826, November 1982.
[LLS] Zinin, A., Roy, A., Nguyen, L., Friedman, B., and D.
Young, "OSPF Link-local Signaling", RFC 5613, August 2009.
[MTUDISC] Mogul, J. and S. Deering, "Path MTU Discovery", RFC 1191,
November 1990.
[ND] Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman,
"Neighbor Discovery for IP Version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861,
September 2007.
[PIM] Fenner, B., Handley, M., Holbrook, H., and I. Kouvelas,
"Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM):
Protocol Specification (Revised)", RFC 4601, August 2006.
Lindem (Editor), et al. Expires June 18, 2010 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft OSPFv3 AF December 2009
Appendix A. Acknowledgments
The RFC text was produced using Marshall Rose's xml2rfc tool.
Thanks to Tom Henderson and the folks at Boeing for implementing in
the Quagga routing suite, http:www.quagga.net.
Thanks to Nischal Sheth for review and comments.
Thanks to Christian Vogt for comments during the Gen-ART review.
Thanks to Adrian Farrel for comments during the IESG review.
Lindem (Editor), et al. Expires June 18, 2010 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft OSPFv3 AF December 2009
Authors' Addresses
Acee Lindem
Ericsson
102 Carric Bend Court
Cary, NC 27519
USA
Email: acee.lindem@ericsson.com
Sina Mirtorabi
Cisco Systems
3 West Plumeria Drive
San Jose, CA 95134
USA
Email: smirtora@cisco.com
Abhay Roy
Cisco Systems
225 West Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA 95134
USA
Email: akr@cisco.com
Michael Barnes
Cisco Systems
225 West Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA 95134
USA
Email: mjbarnes@cisco.com
Rahul Aggarwal
Juniper Networks
1194 N. Mathilda Ave.
Sunnyvale, CA 94089
USA
Email: rahul@juniper.net
Lindem (Editor), et al. Expires June 18, 2010 [Page 15]