Open Shortest Path First IGP                                    S. Hegde
Internet-Draft                                    Juniper Networks, Inc.
Intended status: Standards Track                            H. Raghuveer
Expires: September 10, 2015
                                                              H. Gredler
                                                  Juniper Networks, Inc.
                                                               R. Shakir
                                                         British Telecom
                                                              A. Smirnov
                                                     Cisco Systems, Inc.
                                                                   Z. Li
                                                     Huawei Technologies
                                                             B. Decraene
                                                           March 9, 2015

            Advertising per-node administrative tags in OSPF


   This document describes a mechanism to advertise per-node
   administrative tags in This document describes an extension to OSPF
   protocol [RFC2328] to add an optional operational capability, that
   allows tagging and grouping of the nodes in an OSPF domain.  This
   allows simplification, ease of management and control over route and
   path selection based on configured policies.

   This document describes the protocol extensions to disseminate per-
   node administrative-tags to the OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 protocol.

Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

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

Hegde, et al.          Expires September 10, 2015               [Page 1]

Internet-Draft           OSPF router admin tags               March 2015

   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 September 10, 2015.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2015 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
   ( 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.

Hegde, et al.          Expires September 10, 2015               [Page 2]

Internet-Draft           OSPF router admin tags               March 2015

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   2.  Administrative Tag TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   3.  OSPF per-node administrative tag TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     3.1.  TLV format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     3.2.  Elements of procedure  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   4.  Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   5.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   6.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   7.  Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   8.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     8.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     8.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Hegde, et al.          Expires September 10, 2015               [Page 3]

Internet-Draft           OSPF router admin tags               March 2015

1.  Introduction

   It is useful to assign a per-node administrative tag to a router in
   the OSPF domain and use it as an attribute associated with the node.
   The per-node administrative tag can be used in traffic-engineering
   applications to provide different path-selection criteria.  It can
   also be used to prefer or prune certain paths in Loop Free Alternate
   (LFA) backup selection via local policies.

   This document provides mechanisms to advertise per-node
   administrative tags in the OSPF.  Path selection is a functional set
   which applies both to TE and non-TE applications.  A new TLV is
   defined for carrying per-node administrative tags and is included in
   Router Information LSA [RFC4970] .

2.  Administrative Tag TLV

   An administrative Tag is a 32-bit integer value that can be used to
   identify a group of nodes in the OSPF domain.

   The new TLV defined will be carried within an RI LSA for OSPFV2 and
   OSPFV3.  Router information LSA [RFC4970] can have link, area or AS
   level flooding scope.  Choosing the flooding scope to flood the group
   tags are defined by the policies and is a local matter.

   The TLV specifies one or more administrative tag values.  An OSPF
   node advertises the set of groups it is part of in the OSPF domain.
   (for example, all PE-nodes are configured with certain tag value, all
   P-nodes are configured with a different tag value in a domain).
   Multiple TLVs MAY be added in same RI-LSA or in different instance of
   the RI LSA as defined in [I-D.acee-ospf-rfc4970bis].

3.  OSPF per-node administrative tag TLV

3.1.  TLV format

   As per [RFC4970], the format of the TLVs within the body of an RI LSA
   is the same as the format used by the Traffic Engineering Extensions
   to OSPF [RFC3630].

   The LSA payload consists of one or more nested Type/Length/Value
   (TLV) triplets.  The format of each TLV is:

Hegde, et al.          Expires September 10, 2015               [Page 4]

Internet-Draft           OSPF router admin tags               March 2015

   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                          |
   |                   Administrative Tag #1                       |
   |                   Administrative Tag #2                       |
   //                                                             //
   |                  Administrative Tag #N                        |

              Figure 1: OSPF per-node Administrative Tag TLV

   Type : TBA

   Length: A 16-bit field that indicates the length of the value portion
   in octets and will be a multiple of 4 octets dependent on the number
   of tags advertised.

   Value: A sequence of multiple 4 octets defining the administrative
   tags.  Atleast one tag MUST be carried if this TLV is included in the

3.2.  Elements of procedure

   Meaning of the Node administrative tags is generally opaque to OSPF.
   Router advertising the per-node administrative tag (or tags) may be
   configured to do so without knowing (or even explicitly supporting)
   functionality implied by the tag.

   Interpretation of tag values is specific to the administrative domain
   of a particular network operator.  The meaning of a per-node
   administrative tag is defined by the network local policy and is
   controlled via the configuration.  If a receiving node does not
   understand the tag value, it ignores the specific tag and floods the
   RI LSA without any change as defined in [RFC4970].

   The semantics of the tag order has no meaning.  That is, there is no
   implied meaning to the ordering of the tags that indicates a certain
   operation or set of operations that need to be performed based on the

   Each tag SHOULD be treated as an independent identifier that MAY be

Hegde, et al.          Expires September 10, 2015               [Page 5]

Internet-Draft           OSPF router admin tags               March 2015

   used in policy to perform a policy action.  Tags carried by the
   administrative tag TLV SHOULD be used to indicate independent
   characteristics of a node.  The TLV SHOULD be considered an unordered
   list.  Whilst policies may be implemented based on the presence of
   multiple tags (e.g., if tag A AND tag B are present), they MUST NOT
   be reliant upon the order of the tags (i.e., all policies should be
   considered commutative operations, such that tag A preceding or
   following tag B does not change their outcome).

   To avoid incomplete or inconsistent interpretations of the per-node
   administrative tags the same tag value MUST NOT be advertised by a
   router in RI LSAs of different scopes.  The same tag MAY be
   advertised in multiple RI LSAs of the same scope, for example, OSPF
   Area Border Router (ABR) may advertise the same tag in area-scope RI
   LSAs in multiple areas connected to the ABR.

   The per-node administrative tags are not meant to be extended by the
   future OSPF standards.  The new OSPF extensions MUST NOT require use
   of per-node administrative tags or define well-known tag values.
   Node administrative tags are for generic use and do not require IANA
   registry.  The future OSPF extensions requiring well known values MAY
   define their own data signaling tailored to the needs of the feature
   or MAY use capability TLV as defined in [RFC4970].

   Being part of the RI LSA, the per-node administrative tag TLV must be
   reasonably small and stable.  In particular, but not limited to,
   implementations supporting the per-node administrative tags MUST NOT
   tie advertised tags to changes in the network topology (both within
   and outside the OSPF domain) or reachability of routes.

4.  Applications

   This section lists several examples of how implementations might use
   the Node administrative tags.  These examples are given only to
   demonstrate generic usefulness of the router tagging mechanism.
   Implementation supporting this specification is not required to
   implement any of the use cases.  It is also worth noting that in some
   described use cases routers configured to advertise tags help other
   routers in their calculations but do not themselves implement the
   same functionality.

   1.  Service auto-discovery

       Router tagging may be used to automatically discover group of
       routers sharing a particular service.

       For example, service provider might desire to establish full mesh

Hegde, et al.          Expires September 10, 2015               [Page 6]

Internet-Draft           OSPF router admin tags               March 2015

       of MPLS TE tunnels between all PE routers in the area of MPLS VPN
       network.  Marking all PE routers with a tag and configuring
       devices with a policy to create MPLS TE tunnels to all other
       devices advertising this tag will automate maintenance of the
       full mesh.  When new PE router is added to the area, all other PE
       devices will open TE tunnels to it without the need of
       reconfiguring them.

   2.  Fast-Rerouting policy

       Increased deployment of Loop Free Alternates (LFA) as defined in
       [RFC5286] poses operation and management challenges.
       [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-lfa-manageability] proposes policies which, when
       implemented, will ease LFA operation concerns.

       One of the proposed refinements is to be able to group the nodes
       in IGP domain with administrative tags and engineer the LFA based
       on configured policies.

       (a)  Administrative limitation of LFA scope

            Service provider access infrastructure is frequently
            designed in layered approach with each layer of devices
            serving different purposes and thus having different
            hardware capabilities and configured software features.
            When LFA repair paths are being computed, it may be
            desirable to exclude devices from being considered as LFA
            candidates based on their layer.

            For example, if the access infrastructure is divided into
            the Access, Distribution and Core layers it may be desirable
            for a Distribution device to compute LFA only via
            Distribution or Core devices but not via Access devices.
            This may be due to features enabled on Access routers; due
            to capacity limitations or due to the security requirements.
            Managing such a policy via configuration of the router
            computing LFA is cumbersome and error prone.

            With the Node administrative tags it is possible to assign a
            tag to each layer and implement LFA policy of computing LFA
            repair paths only via neighbors which advertise the Core or
            Distribution tag.  This requires minimal per-node
            configuration and network automatically adapts when new
            links or routers are added.

Hegde, et al.          Expires September 10, 2015               [Page 7]

Internet-Draft           OSPF router admin tags               March 2015

       (b)  LFA calculation optimization

            Calculation of LFA paths may require significant resources
            of the router.  One execution of Dijkstra algorithm is
            required for each neighbor eligible to become next hop of
            repair paths.  Thus a router with a few hundreds of
            neighbors may need to execute the algorithm hundreds of
            times before the best (or even valid) repair path is found.
            Manually excluding from the calculation neighbors which are
            known to provide no valid LFA (such as single-connected
            routers) may significantly reduce number of Dijkstra
            algorithm runs.

            LFA calculation policy may be configured so that routers
            advertising certain tag value are excluded from LFA
            calculation even if they are otherwise suitable.

   3.  Controlling Remote LFA tunnel termination

       [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-remote-lfa] proposed method of tunneling traffic
       after connected link failure to extend the basic LFA coverage and
       algorithm to find tunnel tail-end routers fitting LFA
       requirement.  In most cases proposed algorithm finds more than
       one candidate tail-end router.  In real life network it may be
       desirable to exclude some nodes from the list of candidates based
       on the local policy.  This may be either due to known limitations
       of the node (the router does not accept targeted LDP sessions
       required to implement Remote LFA tunneling) or due to
       administrative requirements (for example, it may be desirable to
       choose tail-end router among co-located devices).

       The Node administrative tag delivers simple and scalable
       solution.  Remote LFA can be configured with a policy to accept
       during the tail-end router calculation as candidates only routers
       advertising certain tag.  Tagging routers allows to both exclude
       nodes not capable of serving as Remote LFA tunnel tail-ends and
       to define a region from which tail-end router must be selected.

   4.  Mobile backhaul network service deployment

       The topology of mobile backhaul network usually adopts ring
       topology to save fiber resource and it is divided into the
       aggregate network and the access network.  Cell Site
       Gateways(CSGs) connects the eNodeBs and RNC(Radio Network
       Controller) Site Gateways(RSGs) connects the RNCs.  The mobile
       traffic is transported from CSGs to RSGs.  The network takes a
       typical aggregate traffic model that more than one access rings
       will attach to one pair of aggregate site gateways(ASGs) and more

Hegde, et al.          Expires September 10, 2015               [Page 8]

Internet-Draft           OSPF router admin tags               March 2015

       than one aggregate rings will attach to one pair of RSGs.

                                      /                \
                                     /                  \
                                    /                    \
           +------+   +----+    Access     +----+
           |eNodeB|---|CSG1|    Ring 1     |ASG1|-------------
           +------+   +----+               +----+             \
                                    \                    /                 \
                                     \                  /                   +----+    +---+
                                      \             +----+                  |RSG1|----|RNC|
                                           -------------|    |    Aggregate     +----+    +---+
                                                                    |ASG2|      Ring          |
                                           -------------|    |                  +----+    +---+
                                      /             +----+                  |RSG2|----|RNC|
                                     /                  \                   +----+    +---+
                                    /                    \                 /
           +------+   +----+     Access     +----+            /
           |eNodeB|---|CSG2|     Ring 2     |ASG3|------------
           +------+   +----+                +----+
                                   \                     /
                                    \                   /
                                     \                 /

                       Figure 2: Mobile Backhaul Network

       A typical mobile backhaul network with access rings and aggregate
       links is shown in figure above.  The mobile backhaul networks
       deploy traffic engineering due to the strict Service Level
       Agreements(SLA).  The TE paths may have additional constraints to
       avoid passing via different access rings or to get completely
       disjoint backup TE paths.  The mobile backhaul networks towards
       the access side change frequently due to the growing mobile
       traffic and addition of new eNodeBs.  It's complex to satisfy the
       requirements using cost, link color or explicit path
       configurations.  The node administrative tag defined in this
       document can be effectively used to solve the problem for mobile
       backhaul networks.  The nodes in different rings can be assigned
       with specific tags.  TE path computation can be enhanced to
       consider additional constraints based on node administrative

Hegde, et al.          Expires September 10, 2015               [Page 9]

Internet-Draft           OSPF router admin tags               March 2015

   5.  Explicit routing policy

       Partially meshed network provides multiple paths between any two
       nodes in the network.  In a data center environment, the topology
       is usually highly symmetric with many/all paths having equal
       cost.  In a long distance network, this is usually less the case
       for a variety of reasons (e.g. historic, fiber availability
       constraints, different distances between transit nodes, different
       roles ...).  Hence between a given source and destination, a path
       is typically preferred over the others, while between the same
       source and another destination, a different path may be

                                                           |                    |
                                                           |    +----------+    |
                                                           |    |          |    |
                                                           T-10-T          |    |
                                                      /|   /|          |    |
                                                     / |  / |          |    |
                                              --+  | |  |          |    |
                                             /  +--+-+ 100         |    |
                                            /  /   |    |          |    |
                                           /  /    R-18-R          |    |
                                      /  /    /\   /\          |    |
                                     /  |    /  \ /  \         |    |
                                    /   |   /    x    \        |    |
                                   A-25-A  10  10 \    \       |    |
                                              /    /   10   10     |    |
                                             /    /     \    \     |    |
                                            A-25-A       A-25-A    |    |
                                             \    \     /    /     |    |
                                             201  201  201 201     |    |
                                                   \    \ /    /       |    |
                                                    \    x    /        |    |
                                                     \  / \  /         |    |
                                                      \/   \/          |    |
                                                      I-24-I          100  100
                                                      |    |           |    |
                                                      |    +-----------+    |
                                                      |                     |

                      Figure 3: Explicit Routing topology

Hegde, et al.          Expires September 10, 2015              [Page 10]

Internet-Draft           OSPF router admin tags               March 2015

       In the above topology, operator may want to enforce the following
       high level explicitly routed policies: - Traffic from A nodes to
       A nodes must not go through I nodes - Traffic from A nodes to I
       nodes must not go through R and T nodes With node admin tag, tag
       A can be configured on all A nodes, (similarly I, R, T), and then
       configure this single CSPF policy on all A nodes to avoid I nodes
       for path calculation.

5.  Security Considerations

   This document does not introduce any further security issues other
   than those discussed in [RFC2328] and [RFC5340].

6.  IANA Considerations

   This specification updates one OSPF registry: OSPF Router Information
   (RI) TLVs Registry

   i) TBD - Node Admin tag TLV

7.  Acknowledgments

   Thanks to Bharath R, Pushpasis Sarakar and Dhruv Dhody for useful
   inputs.  Thanks to Chris Bowers for providing useful inputs to remove
   ambiguity related to tag-ordering.  Thanks to Les Ginsberg and Acee
   Lindem for the inputs.

8.  References

8.1.  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.

   [RFC3630]  Katz, D., Kompella, K., and D. Yeung, "Traffic Engineering
              (TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC 3630,
              September 2003.

   [RFC4970]  Lindem, A., Shen, N., Vasseur, JP., Aggarwal, R., and S.
              Shaffer, "Extensions to OSPF for Advertising Optional
              Router Capabilities", RFC 4970, July 2007.

Hegde, et al.          Expires September 10, 2015              [Page 11]

Internet-Draft           OSPF router admin tags               March 2015

   [RFC5340]  Coltun, R., Ferguson, D., Moy, J., and A. Lindem, "OSPF
              for IPv6", RFC 5340, July 2008.

8.2.  Informative References

              Lindem, A., Shen, N., Vasseur, J., Aggarwal, R., and S.
              Shaffer, "Extensions to OSPF for Advertising Optional
              Router Capabilities", draft-acee-ospf-rfc4970bis-00 (work
              in progress), July 2014.

              Litkowski, S., Decraene, B., Filsfils, C., Raza, K.,
              Horneffer, M., and p., "Operational
              management of Loop Free Alternates",
              draft-ietf-rtgwg-lfa-manageability-04 (work in progress),
              August 2014.

              Bryant, S., Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Shand, M., and S.
              Ning, "Remote LFA FRR", draft-ietf-rtgwg-remote-lfa-02
              (work in progress), May 2013.

   [RFC5286]  Atlas, A. and A. Zinin, "Basic Specification for IP Fast
              Reroute: Loop-Free Alternates", RFC 5286, September 2008.

Authors' Addresses

   Shraddha Hegde
   Juniper Networks, Inc.
   Embassy Business Park
   Bangalore, KA  560093


   Harish Raghuveer


Hegde, et al.          Expires September 10, 2015              [Page 12]

Internet-Draft           OSPF router admin tags               March 2015

   Hannes Gredler
   Juniper Networks, Inc.
   1194 N. Mathilda Ave.
   Sunnyvale, CA  94089


   Rob Shakir
   British Telecom


   Anton Smirnov
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   De Kleetlaan 6a
   Diegem,   1831


   Li zhenbin
   Huawei Technologies
   Huawei Bld. No.156 Beiqing Rd
   Beijing,   100095


   Bruno Decraene


Hegde, et al.          Expires September 10, 2015              [Page 13]