OSPF Working Group J. Tantsura
Internet-Draft Nuage Networks
Intended status: Standards Track U. Chunduri
Expires: January 25, 2019 Huawei Technologies
S. Aldrin
Google, Inc
P. Psenak
Cisco Systems
July 24, 2018
Signaling MSD (Maximum SID Depth) using OSPF
draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-msd-15
Abstract
This document defines a way for an OSPF Router to advertise multiple
types of supported Maximum SID Depths (MSDs) at node and/or link
granularity. Such advertisements allow entities (e.g., centralized
controllers) to determine whether a particular SID stack can be
supported in a given network. This document defines only one type of
MSD, but defines an encoding that can support other MSD types. Here
the term OSPF means both OSPFv2 and OSPFv3.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on January 25, 2019.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 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
Tantsura, et al. Expires January 25, 2019 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft July 2018
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Node MSD Advertisement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Link MSD sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Using Node and Link MSD Advertisements . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Base MPLS Imposition MSD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1. Introduction
When Segment Routing(SR) paths are computed by a centralized
controller, it is critical that the controller learns the Maximum SID
Depth(MSD) that can be imposed at each node/link on a given SR path
to insure that the SID stack depth of a computed path doesn't exceed
the number of SIDs the node is capable of imposing.
The PCEP SR extensions draft [I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing] signals
MSD in SR PCE Capability TLV and METRIC Object. However, if PCEP is
not supported/configured on the head-end of an SR tunnel or a
Binding-SID anchor node and controller do not participate in IGP
routing, it has no way to learn the MSD of nodes and links. BGP-LS
[RFC7752] defines a way to expose topology and associated attributes
and capabilities of the nodes in that topology to a centralized
controller. MSD signaling by BGP-LS has been defined in
[I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd]. Typically, BGP-LS is
configured on a small number of nodes that do not necessarily act as
head-ends. In order for BGP-LS to signal MSD for all the nodes and
links in the network MSD is relevant, MSD capabilites should be
advertised by every OSPF router in the network.
Tantsura, et al. Expires January 25, 2019 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft July 2018
Other types of MSD are known to be useful. For example,
[I-D.ietf-ospf-mpls-elc] defines Readable Label Depth Capability
(RLDC) that is used by a head-end to insert an Entropy Label (EL) at
a depth that can be read by transit nodes.
This document defines an extension to OSPF used to advertise one or
more types of MSD at node and/or link granularity. It also defines
the Base MPLS Imposition MSD type. In the future it is expected,
that new MSD types will be defined to signal additional capabilities
e.g., entropy labels, SIDs that can be imposed through recirculation,
or SIDs associated with another dataplane e.g., IPv6. Although MSD
advertisements are associated with Segment Routing, the
advertisements MAY be present even if Segment Routing itself is not
enabled.
1.1. Conventions used in this document
1.1.1. Terminology
This memo makes use of the terms defined in [RFC7770]
BGP-LS: Distribution of Link-State and TE Information using Border
Gateway Protocol
BMI: Base MPLS Imposition is the number of MPLS labels that can be
imposed inclusive of all service/transport/special labels
OSPF: Open Shortest Path First
MSD: Maximum SID Depth - the number of SIDs a node or one of its
links can support
PCC: Path Computation Client
PCE: Path Computation Element
PCEP: Path Computation Element Protocol
SR: Segment Routing
SID: Segment Identifier
LSA: Link state advertisement
RI: OSPF Router Information LSA
Tantsura, et al. Expires January 25, 2019 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft July 2018
1.2. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
2. Node MSD Advertisement
The node MSD TLV within the body of the OSPF RI Opaque LSA is defined
to carry the provisioned SID depth of the router originating the RI
LSA. Node MSD is the smallest MSD supported by the node on the set
of interfaces configured for use by the advertising IGP instance.
MSD values may be learned via a hardware API or may be provisioned..
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MSD Type and Value ...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ...
Figure 1: Node MSD TLV
The Type: TBD1
Length: variable (minimum of 2, multiple of 2 octets) and represents
the total length of value field.
Value: consists of one or more pairs of a 1 octet MSD-type and 1
octet MSD-Value.
MSD-Type: one of the values defined in the IGP MSD Types registry
defined in [I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd].
MSD-Value: a number in the range of 0-255. For all MSD-Types, 0
represents lack of the ability to impose MSD stack of any depth; any
other value represents that of the node. This value MUST represent
the lowest value supported by any link configured for use by the
advertising OSPF instance.
This TLV is applicable to OSPFv2 and to OSPFv3 [RFC5838] and is
optional. The scope of the advertisement is specific to the
deployment.
Tantsura, et al. Expires January 25, 2019 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft July 2018
When multiple Node MSD TLVs are received from a given router, the
receiver MUST use the first occurrence of the TLV in the Router
Information LSA. If the Node MSD TLV appears in multiple Router
Information LSAs that have different flooding scopes, the Node MSD
TLV in the Router Information LSA with the area-scoped flooding scope
MUST be used. If the Node MSD TLV appears in multiple Router
Information LSAs that have the same flooding scope, the Node MSD TLV
in the Router Information (RI) LSA with the numerically smallest
Instance ID MUST be used and subsequent instances of the Node MSD TLV
MUST be ignored. The RI LSA can be advertised at any of the defined
opaque flooding scopes (link, area, or Autonomous System (AS)). For
the purpose of Node MSD TLV advertisement, area-scoped flooding is
REQUIRED.
3. Link MSD sub-TLV
The link sub-TLV is defined to carry the MSD of the interface
associated with the link. MSD values may be learned via a hardware
API or may be provisioned.
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MSD Type and Value ...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ...
Figure 2: Link MSD Sub-TLV
Type:
For OSPFv2, the Link level MSD value is advertised as an optional
Sub-TLV of the OSPFv2 Extended Link TLV as defined in [RFC7684], and
has value of TBD2.
For OSPFv3, the Link level MSD value is advertised as an optional
Sub-TLV of the E-Router-LSA TLV as defined in [RFC8362], and has
value of TBD3.
Length: variable and similar to that, defined in Section 2.
Value: consists of one or more pairs of a 1 octet MSD-type and 1
octet MSD-Value.
Tantsura, et al. Expires January 25, 2019 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft July 2018
MSD-Type: one of the values defined in the MSD Types registry defined
in [I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd].
MSD-Value field contains Link MSD of the router originating the
corresponding LSA as specified for OSPFv2 and OSPFv3. Link MSD is a
number in the range of 0-255. For all MSD-Types, 0 represents lack
of the ability to impose MSD stack of any depth; any other value
represents that of the particular link when used as an outgoing
interface.
Other MSD Types are reserved for future extensions.
If this TLV is advertised multiple times in the same OSPFv2 Extended
Link Opaque LSA, only the first instance of the TLV is used by
receiving OSPFv2 routers. This situation SHOULD be logged as an
error.
If this TLV is advertised multiple times for the same link in
different OSPFv2 Extended Link Opaque LSAs originated by the same
OSPFv2 router, the OSPFv2 Extended Link TLV in the OSPFv2 Extended
Link Opaque LSA with the smallest Opaque ID is used by receiving
OSPFv2 routers. This situation may be logged as a warning.
4. Using Node and Link MSD Advertisements
When Link MSD is present for a given MSD type, the value of the Link
MSD MUST take preference over the Node MSD. When a Link MSD type is
not signalled but the Node MSD type is, then the value of that Link
MSD type MUST be considered as the corresponding Node MSD type value.
In order to increase flooding efficiency, it is RECOMMENDED, that
routers with homogenous link MSD values advertise just the Node MSD
value.
The meaning of the absence of both Node and Link MSD advertisements
for a given MSD type is specific to the MSD type. Generally it can
only be inferred that the advertising node does not support
advertisement of that MSD type. However, in some cases the lack of
advertisement might imply that the functionality associated with the
MSD type is not supported. The correct interpretation MUST be
specified when an MSD type is defined.
5. Base MPLS Imposition MSD
The Base MPLS Imposition MSD (BMI-MSD) signals the total number of
MPLS labels a node is capable of imposing, including all
service/transport/special labels.
Tantsura, et al. Expires January 25, 2019 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft July 2018
Absence of BMI-MSD advertisements indicates solely that the
advertising node does not support advertisement of this capability.
Assignment of MSD-Type for BMI-MSD is defined in
[I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd].
6. IANA Considerations
This document requests IANA to allocate TLV type (TBD1) from the OSPF
Router Information (RI) TLVs Registry as defined by [RFC7770]. IANA
has allocated the value 12 through the early assignment process.
Also, this document requests IANA to allocate a sub-TLV type (TBD2)
from the OSPFv2 Extended Link TLV Sub-TLVs registry. IANA has
allocated the the value 6 through the early assignment process.
Finally, this document requests IANA to allocate a sub-TLV type
(TBD3) from the OSPFv3 Extended-LSA Sub-TLV registry.
7. Security Considerations
Security concerns for OSPF are addressed in [RFC7474]. Further
security analysis for OSPF protocol is done in [RFC6863] including
analysis of both the above documents. Security considerations, as
specified by [RFC7770], [RFC7684] and [RFC8362] are applicable to
this document.
Advertisement of an incorrect MSD value may result: in a path
computation failing and the service unavailable or instantiation of a
path that can't be supported by the head-end (the node performing the
imposition).
8. Contributors
The following people contributed to this document:
Les Ginsberg
Email: ginsberg@cisco.com
9. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Acee Lindem, Ketan Talaulikar, Tal
Mizrahi, Stephane Litkowski and Bruno Decraene for their reviews and
valuable comments.
10. References
Tantsura, et al. Expires January 25, 2019 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft July 2018
10.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd]
Tantsura, J., Chunduri, U., Aldrin, S., and L. Ginsberg,
"Signaling MSD (Maximum SID Depth) using IS-IS", draft-
ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd-12 (work in progress), May
2018.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC7474] Bhatia, M., Hartman, S., Zhang, D., and A. Lindem, Ed.,
"Security Extension for OSPFv2 When Using Manual Key
Management", RFC 7474, DOI 10.17487/RFC7474, April 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7474>.
[RFC7684] Psenak, P., Gredler, H., Shakir, R., Henderickx, W.,
Tantsura, J., and A. Lindem, "OSPFv2 Prefix/Link Attribute
Advertisement", RFC 7684, DOI 10.17487/RFC7684, November
2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7684>.
[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, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7770>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC8362] Lindem, A., Roy, A., Goethals, D., Reddy Vallem, V., and
F. Baker, "OSPFv3 Link State Advertisement (LSA)
Extensibility", RFC 8362, DOI 10.17487/RFC8362, April
2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8362>.
10.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd]
Tantsura, J., Chunduri, U., Mirsky, G., and S. Sivabalan,
"Signaling Maximum SID Depth using Border Gateway Protocol
Link-State", draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd-01
(work in progress), October 2017.
Tantsura, et al. Expires January 25, 2019 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft July 2018
[I-D.ietf-ospf-mpls-elc]
Xu, X., Kini, S., Sivabalan, S., Filsfils, C., and S.
Litkowski, "Signaling Entropy Label Capability and
Readable Label-stack Depth Using OSPF", draft-ietf-ospf-
mpls-elc-05 (work in progress), January 2018.
[I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing]
Sivabalan, S., Filsfils, C., Tantsura, J., Henderickx, W.,
and J. Hardwick, "PCEP Extensions for Segment Routing",
draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-12 (work in progress), June
2018.
[RFC5838] Lindem, A., Ed., Mirtorabi, S., Roy, A., Barnes, M., and
R. Aggarwal, "Support of Address Families in OSPFv3",
RFC 5838, DOI 10.17487/RFC5838, April 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5838>.
[RFC6863] Hartman, S. and D. Zhang, "Analysis of OSPF Security
According to the Keying and Authentication for Routing
Protocols (KARP) Design Guide", RFC 6863,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6863, March 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6863>.
[RFC7752] Gredler, H., Ed., Medved, J., Previdi, S., Farrel, A., and
S. Ray, "North-Bound Distribution of Link-State and
Traffic Engineering (TE) Information Using BGP", RFC 7752,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7752, March 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7752>.
[RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
Authors' Addresses
Jeff Tantsura
Nuage Networks
Email: jefftant.ietf@gmail.com
Uma Chunduri
Huawei Technologies
Email: uma.chunduri@huawei.com
Tantsura, et al. Expires January 25, 2019 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft July 2018
Sam Aldrin
Google, Inc
Email: aldrin.ietf@gmail.com
Peter Psenak
Cisco Systems
Email: ppsenak@cisco.com
Tantsura, et al. Expires January 25, 2019 [Page 10]