Network Working Group R. Aggarwal
Internet Draft Juniper Networks
Category: Standards Track
Expiration Date: May 2009 K. Kompella
Juniper Networks
November 18, 2008
Advertising a Router's Local Addresses in OSPF TE Extensions
draft-ietf-ospf-te-node-addr-05.txt
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
Abstract
OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE) extensions are used to advertise TE
Link State Advertisements (LSAs) containing information about TE-
enabled links. The only addresses belonging to a router that are
advertised in TE LSAs are the local addresses corresponding to TE-
enabled links, and the local address corresponding to the Router ID.
In order to allow other routers in a network to compute Multiprotocol
Label Switching (MPLS) traffic engineered Label Switched Paths (TE
LSPs) to a given router's local addresses, those addresses must also
Raggarwa & Kompella [Page 1]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-ospf-te-node-addr-05.txt November 2008
be advertised by OSPF TE.
This document describes procedures that enhance OSPF TE to advertise
a router's local addresses.
Table of Contents
1 Specification of requirements ......................... 2
2 Motivation ............................................ 3
3 Rejected Potential Solution ........................... 3
4 Solution .............................................. 4
4.1 Node Attribute TLV .................................... 4
4.2 Operation ............................................. 5
5 Security Considerations ............................... 6
6 IANA Considerations ................................... 6
7 Acknowledgments ....................................... 6
8 References ............................................ 6
8.1 Normative References .................................. 6
8.2 Informative References ................................ 7
9 Author's Address ...................................... 7
10 Intellectual Property Statement ....................... 7
11 Copyright Notice ...................................... 8
1. Specification of requirements
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 [RFC2119].
Raggarwa & Kompella [Page 2]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-ospf-te-node-addr-05.txt November 2008
2. Motivation
In some cases it is desirable to set up constrained shortest path
first (CSPF) computed Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Traffic
Engineered Label Switched Paths (TE LSPs) to local addresses of a
router, that are not currently advertised in the TE LSAs i.e.
loopback and non-TE interface addresses.
For instance, in a network carrying VPN and non-VPN traffic, it is
often desirable to use different MPLS TE LSPs for the VPN traffic and
the non-VPN traffic. In this case one loopback address may be used as
the BGP next-hop for VPN traffic while another may be used as the BGP
next-hop for non-VPN traffic. It is also possible that different BGP
sessions are used for VPN and non-VPN services. Hence two separate
MPLS TE LSPs are desirable, one to each loopback address.
However currently routers in an OSPF network can only use CSPF to
compute MPLS TE LSPs to the router ID or the local addresses of TE
enabled links of a remote router. This restriction arises because
OSPF TE extensions [OSPF-TE, OSPFv3-TE] only advertise the router ID
and the local addresses of TE enabled links of a given router. Other
routers in the network can populate their traffic engineering
database (TED) with these local addresses belonging to the
advertising router. However they cannot populate the TED with other
local addresses of the advertising router i.e. loopback and non-TE
interface addresses. OSPFv2 stub links in the router LSA [OSPF],
provide stub reachability information to the router but are not
sufficient to learn all the local addresses of a router. In
particular for a subnetted point-to-point (P2P) interface the stub
link ID is the subnet address, while for a non-subnetted interface
the stub link ID is the neighbor address. Intra-prefix LSAs in OSPFv3
[OSPFv3] are also not sufficient to learn the local addresses.
For the above reasons this document proposes an enhancement to OSPF
TE extensions to advertise the local addresses of a node.
3. Rejected Potential Solution
A potential solution would be to advertise a TE link TLV for each
local address, possibly with a new link type. However, this is
inefficient since the only meaningful information is the address.
Furthermore, this would require implementations to process these TE
link TLVs differently from others; for example, the TE metric is
normally considered a mandatory sub-TLV, but would have no meaning
for a local address.
Raggarwa & Kompella [Page 3]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-ospf-te-node-addr-05.txt November 2008
4. Solution
The solution is to advertise the local addresses of a router in a new
OSPF TE LSA node attribute TLV. It is anticipated that the node
attribute TLV will also prove more generally useful.
4.1. Node Attribute TLV
The node attribute TLV carries the attributes associated with a
router. The TLV type is TBD and the length is variable. It contains
one or more sub-TLVs. This document defines the following sub-TLVs:
1. Node IPv4 Local Address sub-TLV
2. Node IPv6 Local Address sub-TLV
The node IPv4 local address sub-TLV has a type of 1 and contains one
or more local IPv4 addresses. It 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 1 | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Prefix Len 1 | IPv4 Prefix 1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Prefix 1 cont. | :
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ~
: . :
~ . +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
: . | Prefix Len n |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv4 Prefix n |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Each local IPv4 address is encoded as a <Prefix Length, Prefix>
tuple. Prefix Length is encoded in 1 byte. It is the number of bits
in the Address and can be at most 32. Prefix is an IPv4 address
prefix and is encoded in 4 bytes with zero bits as necessary.
The Node IPv4 Local Address sub-TLV length is in octets. It is the
sum of all n IPv4 Address encodings in the sub-TLV where n is the
number of local addresses included in the sub-TLV.
The node IPv6 local address sub-TLV has a type of 2 and contains one
or more local IPv6 addresses. It has the following format:
0 1 2 3
Raggarwa & Kompella [Page 4]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-ospf-te-node-addr-05.txt November 2008
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 2 | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Prefix Len 1 | Prefix 1 Opt. | IPv6 Prefix 1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv6 Prefix 1 cont. :
: . ~
~ .
: .
: +-+-+-+-+-++-+-+-+-+-++-+-+-+-+-+
: | Prefix Len n | Prefix n Opt. |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv6 Prefix n :
| :
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+--
Each local IPv6 address is encoded using the procedures in [OSPv3].
Each IPv6 address MUST be represented by a combination of three
fields: PrefixLength, PrefixOptions, and Address Prefix. PrefixLength
is the length in bits of the prefix and is an 8 bit field.
PrefixOptions is an 8-bit field describing various capabilities
associated with the prefix [OSPFv3]. Address Prefix is an encoding of
the prefix itself as an even multiple of 32-bit words, padding with
zero bits as necessary. This encoding consumes (PrefixLength + 31) /
32) 32-bit words.
The Node IPv6 Local Address sub-TLV length is in octets. It is the
sum of all n IPv6 Address encodings in the sub-TLV where n is the
number of local addresses included in the sub-TLV.
4.2. Operation
A router announces one or more local addresses in the node attribute
TLV. The local addresses that can be learned from TE LSAs i.e.
router address and TE interface addresses SHOULD NOT be advertised in
the node local address sub-TLV. The local addresses advertised will
depend on the local configuration of the advertising router. The
default behavior MAY be to advertise all the loopback interface
addresses.
The node attribute TLV must appear in exactly one TE LSA originated
by a router. Further only one node attribute TLV must be advertised
in such a LSA. A node attribute TLV must carry at most one Node IPv4
Local Address sub-TLV and at most one Node IPv6 Local Address sub-
TLV.
Raggarwa & Kompella [Page 5]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-ospf-te-node-addr-05.txt November 2008
5. Security Considerations
This document does not introduce any further security issues other
than those discussed in [OSPF-TE, OSPFv3-TE].
6. IANA Considerations
The Node Attribute TLV type has to be IANA assigned from the range 3
- 32767 as specified in [OSPF-TE], from the top level types in TE
LSAs registry maintained by IANA at [IANA-OSPF-TE].
IANA is requested to maintain the registry for the sub-TLVs of the
node attribute TLV and reserve value 1 for Node IPv4 Local Address
sub-TLV and value 2 for Node IPv6 Local Address sub-TLV.
7. Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Nischal Sheth for his contribution to this
work. We woud also like to thank Jean Philippe Vasseur, Acee Lindem,
Venkata Naidu, Dimitri Papadimitriou and Adrian Farrel for their
comments.
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[OSPF] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", RFC 2328, April 1998.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[OSPF-TE] D. Katz, K. Kompella, D. Yeung, "Traffic Engineering
Extensions to OSPF version 2", RFC 3630,
September 2003.
[OSPFv3] R. Coltun, D. Ferguson, J. Moy, "OSPF for IPv6",
RFC 2740.
Raggarwa & Kompella [Page 6]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-ospf-te-node-addr-05.txt November 2008
8.2. Informative References
[OSPFv3-TE] K. Ishiguro, T. Takada, "Traffic Engineering
Extensions to OSPF version 3",
draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-traffic-09.txt.
[IANA-OSPF-TE] http://www.iana.org/assignments/ospf-traffic-eng-tlvs
9. Author's Address
Rahul Aggarwal
Juniper Networks
1194 North Mathilda Ave.
Sunnyvale, CA 94089
Phone: +1-408-936-2720
Email: rahul@juniper.net
Kireeti Kompella
Juniper Networks
1194 North Mathilda Ave.
Sunnyvale, CA 94089
Email: kireeti@juniper.net
10. Intellectual Property Statement
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
Raggarwa & Kompella [Page 7]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-ospf-te-node-addr-05.txt November 2008
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-
ipr@ietf.org.
11. Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Raggarwa & Kompella [Page 8]
