Open Shortest Path First IGP P. Psenak, Ed.
Internet-Draft S. Previdi, Ed.
Intended status: Standards Track C. Filsfils
Expires: October 29, 2016 Cisco Systems, Inc.
H. Gredler
Individual
R. Shakir
Jive Communications, Inc.
W. Henderickx
Alcatel-Lucent
J. Tantsura
Individual
April 27, 2016
OSPF Extensions for Segment Routing
draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions-08
Abstract
Segment Routing (SR) allows a flexible definition of end-to-end paths
within IGP topologies by encoding paths as sequences of topological
sub-paths, called "segments". These segments are advertised by the
link-state routing protocols (IS-IS and OSPF).
This draft describes the OSPF extensions required for Segment
Routing.
Requirements Language
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 [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 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."
Psenak, et al. Expires October 29, 2016 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft OSPF Extensions for Segment Routing April 2016
This Internet-Draft will expire on October 29, 2016.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 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
(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. Segment Routing Identifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. SID/Label Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Segment Routing Capabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. SR-Algorithm TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. SID/Label Range TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. OSPF Extended Prefix Range TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. Prefix SID Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. SID/Label Binding Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6.1. ERO Metric Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6.2. ERO Sub-TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6.2.1. IPv4 ERO Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6.2.2. Unnumbered Interface ID ERO Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . 16
6.2.3. IPv4 Backup ERO Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
6.2.4. Unnumbered Interface ID Backup ERO Sub-TLV . . . . . 18
7. Adjacency Segment Identifier (Adj-SID) . . . . . . . . . . . 19
7.1. Adj-SID Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
7.2. LAN Adj-SID Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
8. Elements of Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
8.1. Intra-area Segment routing in OSPFv2 . . . . . . . . . . 23
8.2. Inter-area Segment routing in OSPFv2 . . . . . . . . . . 23
8.3. SID for External Prefixes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
8.4. Advertisement of Adj-SID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
8.4.1. Advertisement of Adj-SID on Point-to-Point Links . . 25
8.4.2. Adjacency SID on Broadcast or NBMA Interfaces . . . . 25
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
9.1. OSPF OSPF Router Information (RI) TLVs Registry . . . . . 26
9.2. OSPF Extended Prefix LSA TLV Registry . . . . . . . . . . 26
9.3. OSPF Extended Prefix LSA Sub-TLV Registry . . . . . . . . 26
Psenak, et al. Expires October 29, 2016 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft OSPF Extensions for Segment Routing April 2016
9.4. OSPF Extended Link LSA Sub-TLV Registry . . . . . . . . . 26
10. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
11. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
12. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
13. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
14. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
14.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
14.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
1. Introduction
Segment Routing (SR) allows a flexible definition of end-to-end paths
within IGP topologies by encoding paths as sequences of topological
sub-paths, called "segments". These segments are advertised by the
link-state routing protocols (IS-IS and OSPF). Prefix segments
represent an ECMP-aware shortest-path to a prefix (or a node), as per
the state of the IGP topology. Adjacency segments represent a hop
over a specific adjacency between two nodes in the IGP. A prefix
segment is typically a multi-hop path while an adjacency segment, in
most cases, is a one-hop path. SR's control-plane can be applied to
both IPv6 and MPLS data-planes, and does not require any additional
signalling (other than IGP extensions). The IPv6 data plane is out
of the scope of this specification - it is not applicable to OSPFv2
which only supports the IPv4 address-family. For example, when used
in MPLS networks, SR paths do not require any LDP or RSVP-TE
signalling. However, SR can interoperate in the presence of LSPs
established with RSVP or LDP.
This draft describes the OSPF extensions required for Segment
Routing.
Segment Routing architecture is described in
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing].
Segment Routing use cases are described in
[I-D.filsfils-spring-segment-routing-use-cases].
2. Segment Routing Identifiers
Segment Routing defines various types of Segment Identifiers (SIDs):
Prefix-SID, Adjacency-SID, LAN Adjacency SID and Binding SID.
For the purpose of the advertisements of various SID values, new
Opaque LSAs [RFC5250] are defined in [RFC7684]. These LSAs are
generic containers that can be used to advertise any additional
attributes associated with a prefix or link. These Opaque LSAs are
Psenak, et al. Expires October 29, 2016 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft OSPF Extensions for Segment Routing April 2016
complementary to the existing LSAs and are not aimed to replace any
of the existing LSAs.
2.1. SID/Label Sub-TLV
The SID/Label Sub-TLV appears in multiple TLVs or Sub-TLVs defined
later in this document. It is used to advertise the SID or label
associated with a prefix or adjacency. The SID/Label TLV has
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| SID/Label (variable) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
where:
Type: TBD, suggested value 1
Length: variable, 3 or 4 octet
SID/Label: If length is set to 3, then the 20 rightmost bits
represent a label. If length is set to 4, then the value
represents a 32-bit SID.
The receiving router MUST ignore SID/Label Sub-TLV if the length
is other then 3 or 4.
3. Segment Routing Capabilities
Segment Routing requires some additional router capabilities to be
advertised to other routers in the area.
These SR capabilities are advertised in the Router Information Opaque
LSA (defined in [RFC7770]).
3.1. SR-Algorithm TLV
The SR-Algorithm TLV is a top-level TLV of the Router Information
Opaque LSA (defined in [RFC7770]).
The SR-Algorithm Sub-TLV is optional. It MAY only be advertised once
in the Router Information Opaque LSA. If the SID/Label Range TLV, as
defined in Section 3.2, is advertised, then the SR-Algorithm TLV MUST
also be advertised.
Psenak, et al. Expires October 29, 2016 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft OSPF Extensions for Segment Routing April 2016
An SR Router may use various algorithms when calculating reachability
to OSPF routers or prefixes in an OSPF area. Examples of these
algorithms are metric based Shortest Path First (SPF), various
flavors of Constrained SPF, etc. The SR-Algorithm TLV allows a
router to advertise the algorithms currently used by the router to
other routers in an OSPF area. The SR-Algorithm TLV has 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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Algorithm 1 | Algorithm... | Algorithm n | |
+- -+
| |
+ +
where:
Type: TBD, suggested value 8
Length: variable
Algorithm: Single octet identifying the algorithm. The following
values are defined by this document:
0: Shortest Path First (SPF) algorithm based on link metric.
This is the standard shortest path algorithm as computed by the
OSPF protocol. Consistent with the deployed practice for link-
state protocols, Algorithm 0 permits any node to overwrite the
SPF path with a different path based on its local policy. If
the SR-Algorithm Sub-TLV is advertised, Algorithm 0 MUST be
included.
1: Strict Shortest Path First (SPF) algorithm based on link
metric. The algorithm is identical to Algorithm 0 but
Algorithm 1 requires that all nodes along the path will honor
the SPF routing decision. Local policy at the node claiming
support for Algorithm 1 MUST NOT alter the SPF paths computed
by Algorithm 1.
The RI LSA can be advertised at any of the defined opaque flooding
scopes (link, area, or Autonomous System (AS)). For the purpose of
SR-Algorithm TLV advertisement, area scope flooding is required.
Psenak, et al. Expires October 29, 2016 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft OSPF Extensions for Segment Routing April 2016
3.2. SID/Label Range TLV
The SID/Label Range TLV is a top-level TLV of the Router Information
Opaque LSA (defined in [RFC7770]).
The SID/Label Range TLV MAY appear multiple times and 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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Range Size | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Sub-TLVs (variable) |
+- -+
| |
+ +
where:
Type: TBD, suggested value 9
Length: variable
Range Size: 3 octets of the SID/label range
Initially, the only supported Sub-TLV is the SID/Label TLV as defined
in Section 2.1. The SID/Label advertised in the SID/Label TLV
represents the first SID/Label in the advertised range.
Multiple occurrences of the SID/Label Range TLV MAY be advertised, in
order to advertise multiple ranges. In such case:
o The originating router MUST encode each range into a different
SID/Label Range TLV.
o The originating router decides the order in which the set of SID/
Label Range TLVs are advertised inside the Router Information
Opaque LSA. The originating router MUST ensure the order is the
same after a graceful restart (using checkpointing, non-volatile
storage or any other mechanism) in order to assure the SID/label
range and SID index correspondence is preserved across graceful
restarts.
o The receiving router must adhere to the order in which the ranges
are advertised when calculating a SID/label from a SID index.
Psenak, et al. Expires October 29, 2016 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft OSPF Extensions for Segment Routing April 2016
The following example illustrates the advertisement of multiple
ranges:
The originating router advertises following ranges:
Range 1: [100, 199]
Range 2: [1000, 1099]
Range 3: [500, 599]
The receiving routers concatenate the ranges and build the Segment
Routing Global Block (SRGB) as follows:
SRGB = [100, 199]
[1000, 1099]
[500, 599]
The indexes span multiple ranges:
index=0 means label 100
...
index 99 means label 199
index 100 means label 1000
index 199 means label 1099
...
index 200 means label 500
...
The RI LSA can be advertised at any of the defined flooding scopes
(link, area, or autonomous system (AS)). For the purpose of SID/
Label Range TLV advertisement, area scope flooding is required.
4. OSPF Extended Prefix Range TLV
In some cases it is useful to advertise attributes for a range of
prefixes. The Segment Routing Mapping Server, which is described in
[I-D.filsfils-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop], is an example
where we need a single advertisement to advertise SIDs for multiple
prefixes from a contiguous address range.
The OSPF Extended Prefix Range TLV, which is a new top level TLV of
the Extended Prefix LSA described in [RFC7684] is defined for this
purpose.
Multiple OSPF Extended Prefix Range TLVs MAY be advertised in each
OSPF Extended Prefix Opaque LSA, but all prefix ranges included in a
single OSPF Extended Prefix Opaque LSA MUST have the same flooding
scope. The OSPF Extended Prefix Range TLV has the following format:
Psenak, et al. Expires October 29, 2016 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft OSPF Extensions for Segment Routing April 2016
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Prefix Length | AF | Range Size |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Flags | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Address Prefix (variable) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Sub-TLVs (variable) |
+- -+
| |
where:
Type: TBD, suggested value 2.
Length: Variable
Prefix length: Length of the prefix
AF: 0 - IPv4 unicast
Range size: Represents the number of prefixes that are covered by
the advertisement. The Range Size MUST NOT exceed the number of
prefixes that could be satisfied by the prefix length without
including the IPv4 multicast address range (224.0.0.0/3).
Flags: Single octet field. The following flags are defined:
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
|IA| | | | | | | |
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
where:
IA-Flag: Inter-Area flag. If set, advertisement is of inter-
area type. The ABR that is advertising the OSPF Extended
Prefix Range TLV between areas MUST set this bit.
This bit is used to prevent redundant flooding of Prefix Range
TLVs between areas as follows:
Psenak, et al. Expires October 29, 2016 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft OSPF Extensions for Segment Routing April 2016
An ABR always prefers intra-area Prefix Range advertisements
over inter-area advertisements.
An ABR does not consider inter-area Prefix Range
advertisements coming from non-backbone areas.
An ABR only propagates an inter-area Prefix Range
advertisement from the backbone area to connected non-
backbone areas if the advertisement is considered to be the
best one.
Address Prefix: The prefix, encoded as an even multiple of 32-bit
words, padded with zero bits as necessary. This encoding consumes
((PrefixLength + 31) / 32) 32-bit words. The Address Prefix
represents the first prefix in the prefix range.
5. Prefix SID Sub-TLV
The Prefix SID Sub-TLV is a Sub-TLV of the OSPF Extended Prefix TLV
described in [RFC7684] and the OSPF Extended Prefix Range TLV
described in Section 4. It MAY appear more than once in the parent
TLV and 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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Flags | Reserved | MT-ID | Algorithm |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| SID/Index/Label (variable) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
where:
Type: TBD, suggested value 2.
Length: Variable
Flags: Single octet field. The following flags are defined:
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| |NP|M |E |V |L | | |
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
where:
Psenak, et al. Expires October 29, 2016 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft OSPF Extensions for Segment Routing April 2016
NP-Flag: No-PHP flag. If set, then the penultimate hop MUST
NOT pop the Prefix-SID before delivering packets to the node
that advertised the Prefix-SID.
M-Flag: Mapping Server Flag. If set, the SID was advertised by
a Segment Routing Mapping Server as described in
[I-D.filsfils-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop].
E-Flag: Explicit-Null Flag. If set, any upstream neighbor of
the Prefix-SID originator MUST replace the Prefix-SID with the
Explicit-NULL label (0 for IPv4) before forwarding the packet.
V-Flag: Value/Index Flag. If set, then the Prefix-SID carries
an absolute value. If not set, then the Prefix-SID carries an
index.
L-Flag: Local/Global Flag. If set, then the value/index
carried by the Prefix-SID has local significance. If not set,
then the value/index carried by this Sub-TLV has global
significance.
Other bits: Reserved. These MUST be zero when sent and are
ignored when received.
MT-ID: Multi-Topology ID (as defined in [RFC4915]).
Algorithm: Single octet identifying the algorithm the Prefix-SID
is associated with as defined in Section 3.1.
SID/Index/Label: According to the V and L flags, it contains
either:
A 32-bit index defining the offset in the SID/Label space
advertised by this router.
A 24-bit label where the 20 rightmost bits are used for
encoding the label value.
If multiple Prefix-SIDs are advertised for the same prefix, the
receiving router MUST use the first encoded SID and MAY use the
subsequent SIDs.
When propagating Prefix-SIDs between areas, if multiple prefix-SIDs
are advertised for a prefix, an implementation SHOULD preserve the
original order when advertising prefix-SIDs to other areas. This
allows implementations that only support a single Prefix-SID to have
a consistent view across areas.
Psenak, et al. Expires October 29, 2016 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft OSPF Extensions for Segment Routing April 2016
When calculating the outgoing label for the prefix, the router MUST
take into account the E and P flags advertised by the next-hop router
if that router advertised the SID for the prefix. This MUST be done
regardless of whether the next-hop router contributes to the best
path to the prefix.
The NP-Flag (No-PHP) MUST be set for Prefix-SIDs allocated to inter-
area prefixes that are originated by the ABR based on intra-area or
inter-area reachability between areas. When the inter-area prefix is
generated based on a prefix which is directly attached to the ABR,
the NP-Flag SHOULD NOT be set.
The NP-Flag (No-PHP) MUST be be set for the Prefix-SIDs allocated to
redistributed prefixes, unless the redistributed prefix is directly
attached to the ASBR, in which case the NP-flag SHOULD NOT be set.
If the NP-Flag is not set, then any upstream neighbor of the Prefix-
SID originator MUST pop the Prefix-SID. This is equivalent to the
penultimate hop popping mechanism used in the MPLS dataplane. In
such case, MPLS EXP bits of the Prefix-SID are not preserved for the
final destination (the Prefix-SID being removed). If the NP-flag is
not set then the received E-flag is ignored.
If the NP-flag is set then:
If the E-flag is not set, then any upstream neighbor of the
Prefix-SID originator MUST keep the Prefix-SID on top of the
stack. This is useful when the originator of the Prefix-SID must
stitch the incoming packet into a continuing MPLS LSP to the final
destination. This could occur at an Area Border Router (prefix
propagation from one area to another) or at an AS Boundary Router
(prefix propagation from one domain to another).
If the E-flag is set, then any upstream neighbor of the Prefix-SID
originator MUST replace the Prefix-SID with an Explicit-NULL
label. This is useful, e.g., when the originator of the Prefix-
SID is the final destination for the related prefix and the
originator wishes to receive the packet with the original EXP
bits.
When the M-Flag is set, the NP-flag and the E-flag MUST be ignored at
reception.
As the Mapping Server does not specify the originator of a prefix
advertisement, it is not possible to determine PHP behavior solely
based on the Mapping Server advertisement. However, PHP behavior may
safely be done in following cases:
Psenak, et al. Expires October 29, 2016 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft OSPF Extensions for Segment Routing April 2016
The Prefix is intra-area type and the downstream neighbor is the
originator of the prefix.
The Prefix is inter-area type and downstream neighbor is an ABR,
which is advertising the prefix reachability and is also
generating the Extended Prefix TLV with the A-flag set for this
prefix as described in section 2.1 of [RFC7684].
The Prefix is external type and downstream neighbor is an ASBR,
which is advertising the prefix reachability and is also
generating the Extended Prefix TLV with the A-flag set for this
prefix as described in section 2.1 of [RFC7684].
When a Prefix-SID is advertised in an Extended Prefix Range TLV, then
the value advertised in Prefix SID Sub-TLV is interpreted as a
starting SID value.
Example 1: If the following router addresses (loopback addresses)
need to be mapped into the corresponding Prefix SID indexes:
Router-A: 192.0.2.1/32, Prefix-SID: Index 1
Router-B: 192.0.2.2/32, Prefix-SID: Index 2
Router-C: 192.0.2.3/32, Prefix-SID: Index 3
Router-D: 192.0.2.4/32, Prefix-SID: Index 4
then the Prefix field in the Extended Prefix Range TLV would be set
to 192.0.2.1, Prefix Length would be set to 32, Range Size would be
set to 4, and the Index value in the Prefix-SID Sub-TLV would be set
to 1.
Example 2: If the following prefixes need to be mapped into the
corresponding Prefix-SID indexes:
10.1.1/24, Prefix-SID: Index 51
10.1.2/24, Prefix-SID: Index 52
10.1.3/24, Prefix-SID: Index 53
10.1.4/24, Prefix-SID: Index 54
10.1.5/24, Prefix-SID: Index 55
10.1.6/24, Prefix-SID: Index 56
10.1.7/24, Prefix-SID: Index 57
then the Prefix field in the Extended Prefix Range TLV would be set
to 10.1.1.0, Prefix Length would be set to 24, Range Size would be 7,
and the Index value in the Prefix-SID Sub-TLV would be set to 51.
Psenak, et al. Expires October 29, 2016 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft OSPF Extensions for Segment Routing April 2016
6. SID/Label Binding Sub-TLV
The SID/Label Binding Sub-TLV is used to advertise a SID/Label
mapping for a path to the prefix.
The SID/Label Binding Sub-TLV MAY be originated by any router in an
OSPF domain. The router may advertise a SID/Label binding to a FEC
along with at least a single 'nexthop style' anchor. The protocol
supports more than one 'nexthop style' anchor to be attached to a
SID/Label binding, which results in a simple path description
language. In analogy to RSVP, the terminology for this is called an
'Explicit Route Object' (ERO). Since ERO style path notation allows
anchoring SID/label bindings to both link and node IP addresses, any
Label Switched Path (LSP) can be described. Additionally, SID/Label
Bindings from external protocols can be easily re-advertised.
The SID/Label Binding Sub-TLV may be used for advertising SID/Label
Bindings and their associated Primary and Backup paths. In a single
TLV, a primary ERO Path, backup ERO Path, or both can be advertised.
If a router wants to advertise multiple parallel paths, then it can
generate several TLVs for the same Prefix/FEC. Each occurrence of a
Binding TLV for a given FEC Prefix will add a new path.
The SID/Label Binding Sub-TLV is a Sub-TLV of the OSPF Extended
Prefix TLV described in [RFC7684] and the OSPF Extended Prefix Range
TLV described in Section 4. Multiple SID/Label Binding TLVs can be
present in their parent TLV. The SID/Label Binding Sub-TLV has
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Flags | Reserved | MT-ID | Weight |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Sub-TLVs (variable) |
+- -+
| |
where:
Type: TBD, suggested value 3
Length: Variable
Flags: Single octet field containing the following flags:
Psenak, et al. Expires October 29, 2016 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft OSPF Extensions for Segment Routing April 2016
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|M| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
where:
M-bit - When the bit is set, the binding represents a mirroring
context as defined in
[I-D.minto-rsvp-lsp-egress-fast-protection].
MT-ID: Multi-Topology ID (as defined in [RFC4915]).
Weight: Weight used for load-balancing purposes. The use of the
weight is defined in [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing].
The SID/Label Binding Sub-TLV supports the following Sub-TLVs:
SID/Label Sub-TLV as described in Section 2.1. This Sub-TLV MUST
appear in the SID/Label Binding Sub-TLV and it SHOULD only appear
once. If the SID/Label Sub-TLV is not included in the SID/Label
Binding Sub-TLV, the SID/Label Binding Sub-TLV MUST be ignored.
If the SID/Label Sub-TLV appears in the SID/Label Binding Sub-TLV
more than once, instances other than the first will be ignored and
the condition SHOULD be logged for possible action by the network
operator.
ERO Metric Sub-TLV as defined in Section 6.1.
ERO Sub-TLVs as defined in Section 6.2.
6.1. ERO Metric Sub-TLV
The ERO Metric Sub-TLV is a Sub-TLV of the SID/Label Binding TLV.
The ERO Metric Sub-TLV advertises the cost of an ERO path. It is
used to compare the cost of a given source/destination path. A
router SHOULD advertise the ERO Metric Sub-TLV in an advertised ERO
TLV. The cost of the ERO Metric Sub-TLV SHOULD be set to the
cumulative IGP or TE path cost of the advertised ERO. Since
manipulation of the Metric field may attract or repel traffic to and
from the advertised segment, it MAY be manually overridden.
Psenak, et al. Expires October 29, 2016 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft OSPF Extensions for Segment Routing April 2016
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Metric (4 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
ERO Metric Sub-TLV format
where:
Type: TBD, suggested value 8
Length: Always 4
Metric: A 4-octet metric representing the aggregate IGP or TE path
cost.
6.2. ERO Sub-TLVs
All ERO information represents an ordered set which describes the
segments of a path. The first ERO Sub-TLV describes the first
segment of a path. Similiarly, the last ERO Sub-TLV describes the
segment closest to the egress point. If a router extends or stitches
a path, it MUST prepend the new segment's path information to the ERO
list. This applies equally to advertised backup EROs.
All ERO Sub-TLVs must immediately follow the SID/Label Sub-TLV.
All Backup ERO Sub-TLVs must immediately follow the last ERO Sub-TLV.
6.2.1. IPv4 ERO Sub-TLV
The IPv4 ERO Sub-TLV is a Sub-TLV of the SID/Label Binding Sub-TLV.
The IPv4 ERO Sub-TLV describes a path segment using IPv4 Address
style encoding. Its semantics have been borrowed from [RFC3209].
Psenak, et al. Expires October 29, 2016 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft OSPF Extensions for Segment Routing April 2016
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Flags | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv4 Address (4 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
IPv4 ERO Sub-TLV format
where:
Type: TBD, suggested value 4
Length: 8 octets
Flags: Single octet field containing the following flags:
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|L| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
where:
L-bit - If the L-bit is set, then the segment path is
designated as 'loose'. Otherwise, the segment path is
designated as 'strict'. The terms 'loose' and 'strict' are
defined for RSVP subobjects in [RFC3209].
IPv4 Address - The address of the explicit route hop.
6.2.2. Unnumbered Interface ID ERO Sub-TLV
The Unnumbered Interface ID ERO Sub-TLV is a Sub-TLV of the SID/Label
Binding Sub-TLV.
The appearance and semantics of the 'Unnumbered Interface ID' have
been borrowed from [RFC3477].
The Unnumbered Interface-ID ERO Sub-TLV describes a path segment that
includes an unnumbered interface. Unnumbered interfaces are
referenced using the interface index. Interface indices are assigned
local to the router and therefore are not unique within a domain.
All elements in an ERO path need to be unique within a domain and
hence need to be disambiguated using a domain unique Router-ID.
Psenak, et al. Expires October 29, 2016 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft OSPF Extensions for Segment Routing April 2016
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Flags | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Router ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Interface ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
where:
Unnumbered Interface ID ERO Sub-TLV format
Type: TBD, suggested value 5
Length: 12 octets
Flags: Single octet field containing the following flags:
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|L| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
where:
L-bit - If the L-bit is set, then the segment path is
designated as 'loose'. Otherwise, the segment path is
designated as 'strict'. The terms 'loose' and 'strict' are
defined for RSVP subobjects in [RFC3209]
Router-ID: Router-ID of the next-hop.
Interface ID: The identifier assigned to the link by the router
specified by the Router-ID.
6.2.3. IPv4 Backup ERO Sub-TLV
IPv4 Prefix Backup ERO Sub-TLV is a Sub-TLV of the SID/Label Binding
Sub-TLV.
The IPv4 Backup ERO Sub-TLV describes a path segment using IPv4
Address style of encoding. Its semantics have been borrowed from
[RFC3209].
Psenak, et al. Expires October 29, 2016 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft OSPF Extensions for Segment Routing April 2016
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Flags | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv4 Address (4 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
IPv4 Backup ERO Sub-TLV format
where:
Type: TBD, suggested value 6
Length: 8 octets
Flags: Single octet field containing the following flags:
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|L| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
where:
L-bit - If the L-bit is set, then the segment path is
designated as 'loose'. Otherwise, the segment path is
designated as 'strict'. The terms 'loose' and 'strict' are
defined for RSVP subobjects in [RFC3209]
IPv4 Address - The address of the explicit route hop.
6.2.4. Unnumbered Interface ID Backup ERO Sub-TLV
The Unnumbered Interface ID Backup ERO Sub-TLV is a Sub-TLV of the
SID/Label Binding Sub-TLV.
The appearance and semantics of the 'Unnumbered Interface ID' have
been borrowed from [RFC3477].
The Unnumbered Interface-ID Backup ERO Sub-TLV describes a path
segment that includes an unnumbered interface. Unnumbered interfaces
are referenced using the interface index. Interface indices are
assigned local to the router and are therefore not unique within a
domain. All elements in an ERO path need to be unique within a
Psenak, et al. Expires October 29, 2016 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft OSPF Extensions for Segment Routing April 2016
domain and hence need to be disambiguated with specification of the
domain unique Router-ID.
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Flags | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Router ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Interface ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Unnumbered Interface ID Backup ERO Sub-TLV format
where:
Type: TBD, suggested value 7
Length: 12 octets
Flags: Single octet field containing the following flags:
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|L| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
where:
L-bit - If the L-bit is set, then the segment path is
designated as 'loose'. Otherwise, the segment path is
designated as 'strict'.
Router-ID: Router-ID of the next-hop.
Interface ID: The identifier assigned to the link by the router
specified by the Router-ID.
7. Adjacency Segment Identifier (Adj-SID)
An Adjacency Segment Identifier (Adj-SID) represents a router
adjacency in Segment Routing.
Psenak, et al. Expires October 29, 2016 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft OSPF Extensions for Segment Routing April 2016
7.1. Adj-SID Sub-TLV
Adj-SID is an optional Sub-TLV of the Extended Link TLV defined in
[RFC7684]. It MAY appear multiple times in the Extended Link TLV.
Examples where more than one Adj-SID may be used per neighbor are
described in section 4 of
[I-D.filsfils-spring-segment-routing-use-cases]. The Adj-SID 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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Flags | Reserved | MT-ID | Weight |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| SID/Label/Index (variable) |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
where:
Type: TBD, suggested value 2.
Length: Variable.
Flags: Single octet field containing the following flags:
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|B|V|L|G| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
where:
B-Flag: Backup Flag. If set, the Adj-SID refers to an
adjacency that is eligible for protection (e.g.: using IPFRR or
MPLS-FRR) as described in section 3.5 of
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing].
The V-Flag: Value/Index Flag. If set, then the Adj-SID carries
an absolute value. If not set, then the Adj-SID carries an
index.
The L-Flag: Local/Global Flag. If set, then the value/index
carried by the Adj-SID has local significance. If not set,
then the value/index carried by this Sub-TLV has global
significance.
Psenak, et al. Expires October 29, 2016 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft OSPF Extensions for Segment Routing April 2016
The G-Flag: Group Flag. When set, the G-Flag indicates that
the Adj-SID refers to a group of adjacencies (and therefore MAY
be assigned to other adjacencies as well).
Other bits: Reserved. These MUST be zero when sent and are
ignored when received.
MT-ID: Multi-Topology ID (as defined in [RFC4915].
Weight: Weight used for load-balancing purposes. The use of the
weight is defined in [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing].
SID/Index/Label: According to the V and L flags, it contains
either:
A 32-bit index defining the offset in the SID/Label space
advertised by this router.
A 24-bit label where the 20 rightmost bits are used for
encoding the label value.
An SR capable router MAY allocate an Adj-SID for each of its
adjacencies and set the B-Flag when the adjacency is eligible for
protection by an FRR mechanism (IP or MPLS) as described in section
3.5 of [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing].
7.2. LAN Adj-SID Sub-TLV
LAN Adj-SID is an optional Sub-TLV of the Extended Link TLV defined
in [RFC7684]. It MAY appear multiple times in the Extended-Link TLV.
It is used to advertise a SID/Label for an adjacency to a non-DR
router on a broadcast, NBMA, or hybrid [RFC6845] network.
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Flags | Reserved | MT-ID | Weight |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Neighbor ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| SID/Label/Index (variable) |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
where:
Type: TBD, suggested value 3.
Psenak, et al. Expires October 29, 2016 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft OSPF Extensions for Segment Routing April 2016
Length: Variable.
Flags: Single octet field containing the following flags:
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|B|V|L|G| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
where:
B-Flag: Backup-flag. If set, the LAN-Adj-SID refers to an
adjacency that is eligible for protection (e.g.: using IPFRR or
MPLS-FRR) as described in section 3.5 of
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing].
The V-Flag: Value/Index Flag. If set, then the Prefix-SID
carries an absolute value. If not set, then the Prefix-SID
carries an index.
The L-Flag: Local/Global Flag. If set, then the value/index
carried by the Prefix-SID has local significance. If not set,
then the value/index carried by this Sub-TLV has global
significance.
The G-Flag: Group Flag. When set, the G-Flag indicates that
the LAN-Adj-SID refers to a group of adjacencies (and therefore
MAY be assigned to other adjacencies as well).
Other bits: Reserved. These MUST be zero when sent and are
ignored when received.
MT-ID: Multi-Topology ID (as defined in [RFC4915].
Weight: Weight used for load-balancing purposes. The use of the
weight is defined in [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing].
Neighbor ID: The Router ID of the neighbor for which the LAN-Adj-
SID is advertised.
SID/Index/Label: According to the V and L flags, it contains
either:
A 32-bit index defining the offset in the SID/Label space
advertised by this router.
A 24-bit label where the 20 rightmost bits are used for
encoding the label value.
Psenak, et al. Expires October 29, 2016 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft OSPF Extensions for Segment Routing April 2016
8. Elements of Procedure
8.1. Intra-area Segment routing in OSPFv2
An OSPFv2 router that supports segment routing MAY advertise Prefix-
SIDs for any prefix to which it is advertising reachability (e.g., a
loopback IP address as described in Section 5).
If multiple routers advertise a Prefix-SID for the same prefix, then
the Prefix-SID MUST be the same. This is required in order to allow
traffic load-balancing when multiple equal cost paths to the
destination exist in the OSPFv2 routing domain.
Prefix-SID can also be advertised by the SR Mapping Servers (as
described in [I-D.filsfils-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop]). The
Mapping Server advertises Prefix-SIDs for remote prefixes that exist
in the OSPFv2 routing domain. Multiple Mapping Servers can advertise
Prefix-SIDs for the same prefix, in which case the same Prefix-SID
MUST be advertised by all of them. The flooding scope of the OSPF
Extended Prefix Opaque LSA that is generated by the SR Mapping Server
could be either area scoped or AS scoped and is determined based on
the configuration of the SR Mapping Server.
The SR Mapping Server MUST use OSPF Extended Prefix Range TLV when
advertising SIDs for prefixes. Prefixes of different route-types can
be combined in a single OSPF Extended Prefix Range TLV advertised by
the SR Mapping Server.
Area-scoped OSPF Extended Prefix Range TLV are propagated between
areas. Similar to propagation of prefixes between areas, an ABR only
propagates the OSPF Extended Prefix Range TLV that it considers to be
the best from the set it received. The rules used to pick the best
OSPF Extended Prefix Range TLV are described in Section 4.
When propagating an OSPF Extended Prefix Range TLV between areas,
ABRs MUST set the IA-Flag, that is used to prevent redundant flooding
of the OSPF Extended Prefix Range TLV between areas as described in
Section 4.
If the Prefix-SID that is advertised in a Prefix SID Sub-TLV is also
covered by the OSPF Extended Prefix Range TLV, the Prefix-SID
advertised in Prefix SID Sub-TLV MUST be preferred.
8.2. Inter-area Segment routing in OSPFv2
In order to support SR in a multi-area environment, OSPFv2 must
propagate Prefix-SID information between areas. The following
procedure is used to propagate Prefix SIDs between areas.
Psenak, et al. Expires October 29, 2016 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft OSPF Extensions for Segment Routing April 2016
When an OSPF ABR advertises a Type-3 Summary LSA from an intra-area
prefix to all its connected areas, it will also originate an Extended
Prefix Opaque LSA, as described in [RFC7684]. The flooding scope of
the Extended Prefix Opaque LSA type will be set to area-scope. The
route-type in the OSPF Extended Prefix TLV is set to inter-area. The
Prefix-SID Sub-TLV will be included in this LSA and the Prefix-SID
value will be set as follows:
The ABR will look at its best path to the prefix in the source
area and find the advertising router associated with the best path
to that prefix.
The ABR will then determine if such router advertised a Prefix-SID
for the prefix and use it when advertising the Prefix-SID to other
connected areas.
If no Prefix-SID was advertised for the prefix in the source area
by the router that contributes to the best path to the prefix, the
originating ABR will use the Prefix-SID advertised by any other
router when propagating the Prefix-SID for the prefix to other
areas.
When an OSPF ABR advertises Type-3 Summary LSAs from an inter-area
route to all its connected areas, it will also originate an Extended
Prefix Opaque LSA, as described in [RFC7684]. The flooding scope of
the Extended Prefix Opaque LSA type will be set to area-scope. The
route-type in OSPF Extended Prefix TLV is set to inter-area. The
Prefix-SID Sub-TLV will be included in this LSA and the Prefix-SID
will be set as follows:
The ABR will look at its best path to the prefix in the backbone
area and find the advertising router associated with the best path
to that prefix.
The ABR will then determine if such router advertised a Prefix-SID
for the prefix and use it when advertising the Prefix-SID to other
connected areas.
If no Prefix-SID was advertised for the prefix in the backbone
area by the ABR that contributes to the best path to the prefix,
the originating ABR will use the Prefix-SID advertised by any
other router when propagating the Prefix-SID for the prefix to
other areas.
Psenak, et al. Expires October 29, 2016 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft OSPF Extensions for Segment Routing April 2016
8.3. SID for External Prefixes
Type-5 LSAs are flooded domain wide. When an ASBR, which supports
SR, generates Type-5 LSAs, it should also originate Extended Prefix
Opaque LSAs, as described in [RFC7684]. The flooding scope of the
Extended Prefix Opaque LSA type is set to AS-scope. The route-type
in the OSPF Extended Prefix TLV is set to external. The Prefix-SID
Sub-TLV is included in this LSA and the Prefix-SID value will be set
to the SID that has been reserved for that prefix.
When an NSSA ABR translates Type-7 LSAs into Type-5 LSAs, it should
also advertise the Prefix-SID for the prefix. The NSSA ABR
determines its best path to the prefix advertised in the translated
Type-7 LSA and finds the advertising router associated with that
path. If the advertising router has advertised a Prefix-SID for the
prefix, then the NSSA ABR uses it when advertising the Prefix-SID for
the Type-5 prefix. Otherwise, the Prefix-SID advertised by any other
router will be used.
8.4. Advertisement of Adj-SID
The Adjacency Segment Routing Identifier (Adj-SID) is advertised
using the Adj-SID Sub-TLV as described in Section 7.
8.4.1. Advertisement of Adj-SID on Point-to-Point Links
An Adj-SID MAY be advertised for any adjacency on a P2P link that is
in neighbor state 2-Way or higher. If the adjacency on a P2P link
transitions from the FULL state, then the Adj-SID for that adjacency
MAY be removed from the area. If the adjacency transitions to a
state lower then 2-Way, then the Adj-SID advertisement MUST be
removed from the area.
8.4.2. Adjacency SID on Broadcast or NBMA Interfaces
Broadcast, NBMA or or hybrid [RFC6845] networks in OSPF are
represented by a star topology where the Designated Router (DR) is
the central point to which all other routers on the broadcast, NBMA,
or hybrid network connect. As a result, routers on the broadcast,
NBMA, or hybrid network advertise only their adjacency to the DR.
Routers that do not act as DR do not form or advertise adjacencies
with each other. They do, however, maintain 2-Way adjacency state
with each other and are directly reachable.
When Segment Routing is used, each router on the broadcast or NBMA
network MAY advertise the Adj-SID for its adjacency to the DR using
the Adj-SID Sub-TLV as described in Section 7.1.
Psenak, et al. Expires October 29, 2016 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft OSPF Extensions for Segment Routing April 2016
SR capable routers MAY also advertise an LAN-Adj-SID for other
neighbors (e.g., BDR, DR-OTHER) on the broadcast, NBMA or hybrid
network using the LAN-ADJ-SID Sub-TLV as described in Section 7.2.
9. IANA Considerations
This specification updates several existing OSPF registries.
9.1. OSPF OSPF Router Information (RI) TLVs Registry
o 8 (IANA Preallocated) - SR-Algorithm TLV
o 9 (IANA Preallocated) - SID/Label Range TLV
9.2. OSPF Extended Prefix LSA TLV Registry
Following values are allocated:
o 2 - OSPF Extended Prefix Range TLV
9.3. OSPF Extended Prefix LSA Sub-TLV Registry
Following values are allocated:
o 1 - SID/Label Sub-TLV
o 2 - Prefix SID Sub-TLV
o 3 - SID/Label Binding Sub-TLV
o 4 - IPv4 ERO Sub-TLV
o 5 - Unnumbered Interface ID ERO Sub-TLV
o 6 - IPv4 Backup ERO Sub-TLV
o 7 - Unnumbered Interface ID Backup ERO Sub-TLV
o 8 - ERO Metric Sub-TLV
9.4. OSPF Extended Link LSA Sub-TLV Registry
Following initial values are allocated:
o 1 - SID/Label Sub-TLV
o 2 - Adj-SID Sub-TLV
Psenak, et al. Expires October 29, 2016 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft OSPF Extensions for Segment Routing April 2016
o 3 - LAN Adj-SID/Label Sub-TLV
10. Implementation Status
An implementation survey with seven questions related to the
implementer's support of OSPFv2 Segment Routing was sent to the OSPF
WG list and several known implementers. This section contains
responses from two implementers who completed the survey. No
external means were used to verify the accuracy of the information
submitted by the respondents. The respondents are considered experts
on the products they reported on. Additionally, responses were
omitted from implementers who indicated that they have not
implemented the function yet.
Responses from Nokia (former Alcatel-Lucent):
Link to a web page describing the implementation:
https://infoproducts.alcatel-lucent.com/cgi-bin/dbaccessfilename.cgi/
3HE10799AAAATQZZA01_V1_7450%20ESS%207750%20SR%20and%207950%20XRS%20Un
icast%20Routing%20Protocols%20Guide%20R14.0.R1.pdf
The implementation's level of maturity: Production.
Coverage: We have implemented all sections and have support for the
latest draft.
Licensing: Part of the software package that needs to be purchased.
Implementation experience: Great spec. We also performed inter-
operability testing with Cisco's OSPF Segment Routing implementation.
Contact information: wim.henderickx@nokia.com
Responses from Cisco Systems:
Link to a web page describing the implementation:
www.segment-routing.net/home/tutorial
The implementation's level of maturity: Production.
Coverage: All sections, except the section 6 (SID/Label Binding Sub-
TLV) have been implemented according to the latest draft.
Licensing: Part of a commercial software package.
Implementation experience: Many aspects of the draft are result of
the actual implementation experience, as the draft evolved from its
Psenak, et al. Expires October 29, 2016 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft OSPF Extensions for Segment Routing April 2016
initial version to the current one. Interoperability testing with
Alcatel-Lucent was performed, which confirmed the draft's ability to
serve as a reference for the implementors.
Contact information: ppsenak@cisco.com
Responses from Juniper:
The implementation's name and/or a link to a web page describing the
implementation:
Feature name is OSPF SPRING
The implementation's level of maturity: To be released in 16.2
(second half of 2016)
Coverage: All sections implemented except Sections 4, and 6.
Licensing: JUNOS Licensing needed.
Implementation experience: NA
Contact information: shraddha@juniper.net
11. Security Considerations
Implementations must assure that malformed TLV and Sub-TLV
permutations do not result in errors which cause hard OSPF failures.
12. Contributors
The following people gave a substantial contribution to the content
of this document: Acee Lindem, Ahmed Bashandy, Martin Horneffer,
Bruno Decraene, Stephane Litkowski, Igor Milojevic, Rob Shakir and
Saku Ytti.
13. Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Anton Smirnov for his contribution.
Many thanks to Yakov Rekhter, John Drake and Shraddha Hedge for their
contribution on earlier incarnations of the "Binding / MPLS Label
TLV" in [I-D.gredler-ospf-label-advertisement].
Thanks to Acee Lindem for the detail review of the draft,
corrections, as well as discussion about details of the encoding.
Psenak, et al. Expires October 29, 2016 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft OSPF Extensions for Segment Routing April 2016
14. References
14.1. 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,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC2328] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2328, April 1998,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2328>.
[RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.,
and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
Tunnels", RFC 3209, DOI 10.17487/RFC3209, December 2001,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3209>.
[RFC3477] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Signalling Unnumbered Links
in Resource ReSerVation Protocol - Traffic Engineering
(RSVP-TE)", RFC 3477, DOI 10.17487/RFC3477, January 2003,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3477>.
[RFC3630] Katz, D., Kompella, K., and D. Yeung, "Traffic Engineering
(TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC 3630,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3630, September 2003,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3630>.
[RFC4915] Psenak, P., Mirtorabi, S., Roy, A., Nguyen, L., and P.
Pillay-Esnault, "Multi-Topology (MT) Routing in OSPF",
RFC 4915, DOI 10.17487/RFC4915, June 2007,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4915>.
[RFC5250] Berger, L., Bryskin, I., Zinin, A., and R. Coltun, "The
OSPF Opaque LSA Option", RFC 5250, DOI 10.17487/RFC5250,
July 2008, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5250>.
[RFC6845] Sheth, N., Wang, L., and J. Zhang, "OSPF Hybrid Broadcast
and Point-to-Multipoint Interface Type", RFC 6845,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6845, January 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6845>.
[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, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7684>.
Psenak, et al. Expires October 29, 2016 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft OSPF Extensions for Segment Routing April 2016
[RFC7770] Lindem, A., Ed., Shen, N., Vasseur, JP., Aggarwal, R., and
S. Shaffer, "Extensions to OSPF for Advertising Optional
Router Capabilities", RFC 7770, DOI 10.17487/RFC7770,
February 2016, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7770>.
14.2. Informative References
[I-D.filsfils-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop]
Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Bashandy, A., Decraene, B.,
Litkowski, S., Horneffer, M., Milojevic, I., Shakir, R.,
Ytti, S., Henderickx, W., Tantsura, J., and E. Crabbe,
"Segment Routing interoperability with LDP", draft-
filsfils-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop-02 (work in
progress), September 2014.
[I-D.filsfils-spring-segment-routing-use-cases]
Filsfils, C., Francois, P., Previdi, S., Decraene, B.,
Litkowski, S., Horneffer, M., Milojevic, I., Shakir, R.,
Ytti, S., Henderickx, W., Tantsura, J., Kini, S., and E.
Crabbe, "Segment Routing Use Cases", draft-filsfils-
spring-segment-routing-use-cases-01 (work in progress),
October 2014.
[I-D.gredler-ospf-label-advertisement]
Gredler, H., Amante, S., Scholl, T., and L. Jalil,
"Advertising MPLS labels in OSPF", draft-gredler-ospf-
label-advertisement-03 (work in progress), May 2013.
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing]
Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Bashandy, A., Decraene, B.,
Litkowski, S., Horneffer, M., Shakir, R., Tantsura, J.,
and E. Crabbe, "Segment Routing Architecture", draft-ietf-
spring-segment-routing-00 (work in progress), December
2014.
[I-D.minto-rsvp-lsp-egress-fast-protection]
Jeganathan, J., Gredler, H., and Y. Shen, "RSVP-TE LSP
egress fast-protection", draft-minto-rsvp-lsp-egress-fast-
protection-03 (work in progress), November 2013.
Authors' Addresses
Psenak, et al. Expires October 29, 2016 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft OSPF Extensions for Segment Routing April 2016
Peter Psenak (editor)
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Apollo Business Center
Mlynske nivy 43
Bratislava 821 09
Slovakia
Email: ppsenak@cisco.com
Stefano Previdi (editor)
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Via Del Serafico, 200
Rome 00142
Italy
Email: sprevidi@cisco.com
Clarence Filsfils
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Brussels
Belgium
Email: cfilsfil@cisco.com
Hannes Gredler
Individual
Austria
Email: hannes@gredler.at
Rob Shakir
Jive Communications, Inc.
1275 West 1600 North, Suite 100
Orem, UT 84057
US
Email: rrjs@rob.sh
Psenak, et al. Expires October 29, 2016 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft OSPF Extensions for Segment Routing April 2016
Wim Henderickx
Alcatel-Lucent
Copernicuslaan 50
Antwerp 2018
BE
Email: wim.henderickx@alcatel-lucent.com
Jeff Tantsura
Individual
US
Email: Jeff.Tantsura@ericsson.com
Psenak, et al. Expires October 29, 2016 [Page 32]
