Host Router Support for OSPFv2
RFC 8770
Revision differences
Document history
| Date | Rev. | By | Action |
|---|---|---|---|
|
2020-04-09
|
12 | (System) | Received changes through RFC Editor sync (created alias RFC 8770, changed abstract to 'The Open Shortest Path First Version 2 (OSPFv2) protocol does not … Received changes through RFC Editor sync (created alias RFC 8770, changed abstract to 'The Open Shortest Path First Version 2 (OSPFv2) protocol does not have a mechanism for a node to repel transit traffic if it is on the shortest path. This document defines a bit called the Host-bit (H-bit). This bit enables a router to advertise that it is a non-transit router. This document also describes the changes needed to support the H-bit in the domain. In addition, this document updates RFC 6987 to advertise Type 2 External and Not-So-Stubby Area (NSSA) Link State Advertisements (LSAs) (RFC 3101) with a high cost in order to repel traffic effectively.', changed pages to 8, changed standardization level to Proposed Standard, changed state to RFC, added RFC published event at 2020-04-09, changed IESG state to RFC Published, created updates relation between draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv2-hbit and RFC 6987) |
|
2020-04-09
|
12 | (System) | RFC published |
|
2020-04-06
|
12 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to <a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc8770">AUTH48-DONE</a> from AUTH48 |
|
2020-03-23
|
12 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to <a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc8770">AUTH48</a> from RFC-EDITOR |
|
2020-02-14
|
12 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT |
|
2019-12-26
|
12 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from In Progress |
|
2019-12-26
|
12 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on RFC Editor |
|
2019-12-26
|
12 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress |
|
2019-12-26
|
12 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors |
|
2019-12-24
|
12 | Tero Kivinen | Closed request for Last Call review by SECDIR with state 'Overtaken by Events' |
|
2019-12-24
|
12 | Tero Kivinen | Assignment of request for Last Call review by SECDIR to Sean Turner was marked no-response |
|
2019-12-23
|
12 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
|
2019-12-20
|
12 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
|
2019-12-20
|
12 | (System) | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
|
2019-12-20
|
12 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
|
2019-12-20
|
12 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
|
2019-12-20
|
12 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent |
|
2019-12-20
|
12 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
|
2019-12-20
|
12 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
|
2019-12-19
|
12 | Alvaro Retana | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::AD Followup |
|
2019-12-19
|
12 | Alvaro Retana | Ballot approval text was generated |
|
2019-12-18
|
12 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
|
2019-12-18
|
12 | Padma Pillay-Esnault | New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv2-hbit-12.txt |
|
2019-12-18
|
12 | (System) | New version approved |
|
2019-12-18
|
12 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Serpil Bayraktar <serpil@cisco.com>, Padma Pillay-Esnault <padma.ietf@gmail.com>, Manish Bhardwaj <manbhard@cisco.com>, Keyur Patel … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Serpil Bayraktar <serpil@cisco.com>, Padma Pillay-Esnault <padma.ietf@gmail.com>, Manish Bhardwaj <manbhard@cisco.com>, Keyur Patel <keyur@arrcus.com> |
|
2019-12-18
|
12 | Padma Pillay-Esnault | Uploaded new revision |
|
2019-12-05
|
11 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation |
|
2019-12-04
|
11 | Amanda Baber | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed |
|
2019-12-04
|
11 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot comment] I'm going to complain about some wording in Section 5 that Ben already called out, but I'll try to put in some specific … [Ballot comment] I'm going to complain about some wording in Section 5 that Ben already called out, but I'll try to put in some specific suggestions for corrections here: In normal operation, there is no guarantee that the RI LSA will reach all routers in an area in a timely manner, which may result in forwarding loops in partial deployments. This wording makes it sound exactly the opposite of what you mean, that if the RI LSA *does* reach all routers in a timely manner it can cause forwarding loops. I suggest this: NEW In normal operation, it is possible that the RI LSA will fail to reach all routers in an area in a timely manner. That can result in forwarding loops in partial deployments. END For example, if a new router joins an area, which previously had only H-bit capable routers with H-bit set then it may take some time for the RI to propagate to all routers. First, change "area, which" to "area that" (no comma). That fixes a usage problem. But second, Ben and I are both unsure whether you mean that the new router does or doesn't support the H bit, or whether it matters. Maybe the right approach here is to say a little more about what happens. Something like this (adjust as needed to make it correct): NEW For example, if a new router joins an area that previously had only H-bit capable routers with H-bit set then it may take some time for the RI to propagate to all routers. While it is propagating, the area as a whole is unsure of the status of the new router, and that can cause <what problem?> END o All routers, with the H-bit set, MUST advertise all of the router's non-stub links with a metric equal to MaxLinkMetric Both commas need to be removed here. o All routers supporting H-Bit MUST check all the RI LSAs of nodes in the area before actively running the modified SPF to account for the H-bit in order to verify that all routers are in routing capability. This is very awkwardly worded and is really hard to decipher. I *think* you mean to say this: NEW o All routers supporting the H-Bit MUST check the RI LSAs of all nodes in the area to verify that all nodes support the H-Bit before actively using the H-Bit feature. END Did I get that right? |
|
2019-12-04
|
11 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba |
|
2019-12-04
|
11 | Deborah Brungard | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard |
|
2019-12-04
|
11 | Suresh Krishnan | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Suresh Krishnan |
|
2019-12-04
|
11 | Adam Roach | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Adam Roach |
|
2019-12-03
|
11 | Roman Danyliw | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Roman Danyliw |
|
2019-12-03
|
11 | Benjamin Kaduk | [Ballot comment] Abstract The Open Shortest Path First Version 2 (OSPFv2) does not have a mechanism for a node to repel transit traffic … [Ballot comment] Abstract The Open Shortest Path First Version 2 (OSPFv2) does not have a mechanism for a node to repel transit traffic if it is on the shortest path. This document defines a bit (Host-bit) that enables a nit: I suggest to add "protocol" after "(OSPFv2)" to match the definite article "The". Section 1 The OSPFv2 specifies a Shortest Path First (SPF) algorithm that (same nit about adding "protocol") This functionality is particularly useful for a number of use cases: nit: "this functionality" seems to refer to "the SPF algorithm that identifies transit verticies based on their adjacencies", so I suggest rewording to "such functionality would be useful" or "A mechanism to move traffic away from the shortest path" or similar. Section 4 I suggest noting that the (lettered) sub-procedures of step (2) remain unchanged. Section 5 In normal operation, there is no guarantee that the RI LSA will reach all routers in an area in a timely manner, which may result in forwarding loops in partial deployments. For example, if a new router joins an area, which previously had only H-bit capable routers with H-bit set then it may take some time for the RI to propagate to all routers. It's currently only implicit that this new router does not support the H-bit; shall we make it explicit? o All routers supporting H-Bit MUST check all the RI LSAs of nodes in the area before actively running the modified SPF to account for the H-bit in order to verify that all routers are in routing capability. If any router does not advertise the Host Router nit: the grammar here is a little wonky, particularly for "all routers are in routing capability" but perhaps also for "to account for the H-bit". Section 6 When calculating the path to an OSPF AS-External-LSA or NSSA-LSA [RFC3101] with a Type-2 metric, [...] nit: is this saying "calculating the path to [an LSA]"? That's not a usage I'm familiar with; can the AS-External-LSA or NSSA-LSA really serve as a destination in this sense? Section 7 Thank you for phrasing this as "this document requests the IANA to assign", since until these specific values are officially assigned we are technically "squatting" on them. (The respective registration policies of Standards Action and IETF Review give us pretty good control that nothing else is going to swoop in on them, though.) |
|
2019-12-03
|
11 | Benjamin Kaduk | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benjamin Kaduk |
|
2019-12-03
|
11 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper |
|
2019-12-03
|
11 | Éric Vyncke | [Ballot comment] Thank you for the work put into this document. The short document is easy to read even if I wonder whether it is … [Ballot comment] Thank you for the work put into this document. The short document is easy to read even if I wonder whether it is useful to spend time on IPv4-only protocol ;-) The deployment issue (section 5) had raised a DISCUSS of mine and I appreciated your reply, so, I have cleared this DISCUSS. Feel free to ignore my COMMENTs and NIT. == COMMENTS == -- Generic -- Mentioning that the H-bit of OSPFv2 is the reverse of the R-bit of OSPFv3 would be useful. -- Section 1 -- A description of "Closet Switches" would be welcome. -- Section 3 -- Isn't the wording "host router" an oxymoron ? == NITS == -- Section 8 -- I recommend reading and following the suggestions of RFC 8126 (how to write the IANA considerations) |
|
2019-12-03
|
11 | Éric Vyncke | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Éric Vyncke has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
|
2019-12-02
|
11 | Martin Vigoureux | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Vigoureux |
|
2019-12-02
|
11 | Magnus Westerlund | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Magnus Westerlund |
|
2019-12-02
|
11 | Mirja Kühlewind | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Mirja Kühlewind has been changed to No Objection from No Record |
|
2019-12-02
|
11 | Mirja Kühlewind | [Ballot comment] Three comments/questions: 1) This sentence in section 3: "An OSPFv2 router advertising a router-LSA with the H-bit set indicates that it MUST … [Ballot comment] Three comments/questions: 1) This sentence in section 3: "An OSPFv2 router advertising a router-LSA with the H-bit set indicates that it MUST NOT be used as a transit router (see Section 4) by other OSPFv2 routers in the area supporting the functionality." Isn't the MUST here too restrictive? What if the router is the part of the only path to a certain host? Or is the assumption that this host is some kind of endhost/deadend, but then it should never be on the shortest path anyway, or? Later on you say "When the H-bit is set, the OSPFv2 router is a Host (non-transit) router and is incapable of forwarding transit traffic." However, there might also be routers that don't understand the H bit and therefore will route traffic over this host anyway, no? 2) Shouldn't this document update RFC2328, given section 4 and this sentence in section 2: "If the H-bit is set then the calculation of the shortest- path tree for an area, as described in section 16.1 of [RFC2328], is modified by including a check to verify that transit vertices DO NOT have the H-bit set (see Section 4)." (And why is DO NOT in upper letters?) 3) Is there an attack that by spoofing the H-bit an attacker could influence the routing such that traffic is router over a malicious node instead? I guess there are multiple ways to impact the routing that way and this might not be specific to the H bit but maybe still worth thinking about it once more...? Nit: Section 5: "The RI LSA MUST be area-scoped. Bit:" -> I guess the "Bit:" should be removed. |
|
2019-12-02
|
11 | Mirja Kühlewind | Ballot comment text updated for Mirja Kühlewind |
|
2019-11-30
|
11 | Éric Vyncke | [Ballot discuss] Thank you for the work put into this document. The short document is easy to read even if I wonder whether it is … [Ballot discuss] Thank you for the work put into this document. The short document is easy to read even if I wonder whether it is useful to spend time on IPv4-only protocol ;-) The deployment issue (section 5) has raised a DISCUSS of mine and I would appreciate a reply on this DISCUSS. Regards, -éric == DISCUSS == -- Section 5 -- The risk of having inconsistent view of the topology with H-bit aware and unaware routers seems possible to me (albeit perhaps only transient). Has this feature been tested / simulated in large scale networks? |
|
2019-11-30
|
11 | Éric Vyncke | [Ballot comment] Feel free to ignore my COMMENTs and NIT. == COMMENTS == -- Generic -- Mentioning that the H-bit of OSPFv2 is the reverse … [Ballot comment] Feel free to ignore my COMMENTs and NIT. == COMMENTS == -- Generic -- Mentioning that the H-bit of OSPFv2 is the reverse of the R-bit of OSPFv3 would be useful. -- Section 1 -- A description of "Closet Switches" would be welcome. -- Section 3 -- Isn't the wording "host router" an oxymoron ? == NITS == -- Section 8 -- I recommend reading and following the suggestions of RFC 8126 (how to write the IANA considerations) |
|
2019-11-30
|
11 | Éric Vyncke | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Éric Vyncke |
|
2019-11-29
|
11 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alexey Melnikov |
|
2019-11-16
|
11 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
|
2019-11-16
|
11 | Padma Pillay-Esnault | New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv2-hbit-11.txt |
|
2019-11-16
|
11 | (System) | New version approved |
|
2019-11-16
|
11 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Serpil Bayraktar <serpil@cisco.com>, Padma Pillay-Esnault <padma.ietf@gmail.com>, Manish Bhardwaj <manbhard@cisco.com>, Keyur Patel … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Serpil Bayraktar <serpil@cisco.com>, Padma Pillay-Esnault <padma.ietf@gmail.com>, Manish Bhardwaj <manbhard@cisco.com>, Keyur Patel <keyur@arrcus.com> |
|
2019-11-16
|
11 | Padma Pillay-Esnault | Uploaded new revision |
|
2019-11-07
|
10 | Tim Chown | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Tim Chown. Sent review to list. |
|
2019-11-07
|
10 | Amy Vezza | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2019-12-05 |
|
2019-11-07
|
10 | Alvaro Retana | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup |
|
2019-11-07
|
10 | Alvaro Retana | Ballot has been issued |
|
2019-11-07
|
10 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana |
|
2019-11-07
|
10 | Alvaro Retana | Created "Approve" ballot |
|
2019-11-07
|
10 | Alvaro Retana | Ballot writeup was changed |
|
2019-11-07
|
10 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call |
|
2019-11-06
|
10 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed |
|
2019-11-06
|
10 | Sabrina Tanamal | (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv2-hbit-10. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let … (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv2-hbit-10. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know. The IANA Functions Operator understands that, upon approval of this document, there are two actions which we must complete. First, in the OSPFv2 Router Properties Registry on the Open Shortest Path First v2 (OSPFv2) Parameters registry page located at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/ospfv2-parameters/ a single, new value is to be registered as follows: Value: 0x80 Description: Host (H-bit) Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] Second, in the OSPF Router Informational Capability Bits registry on the Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) Parameters registry page located at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/ospf-parameters/ a single, new registration will be made as follows: Bit Number: 7 Capability Name: OSPF Host Router Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] The IANA Functions Operator understands that these are the only actions required to be completed upon approval of this document. Note: The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is meant only to confirm the list of actions that will be performed. Thank you, Sabrina Tanamal Senior IANA Services Specialist |
|
2019-10-31
|
10 | Kyle Rose | Request for Last Call review by TSVART Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Kyle Rose. Sent review to list. |
|
2019-10-31
|
10 | Mohit Sethi | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Mohit Sethi. Sent review to list. |
|
2019-10-28
|
10 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Tim Chown |
|
2019-10-28
|
10 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Tim Chown |
|
2019-10-27
|
10 | Wesley Eddy | Request for Last Call review by TSVART is assigned to Kyle Rose |
|
2019-10-27
|
10 | Wesley Eddy | Request for Last Call review by TSVART is assigned to Kyle Rose |
|
2019-10-25
|
10 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Sean Turner |
|
2019-10-25
|
10 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Sean Turner |
|
2019-10-24
|
10 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Mohit Sethi |
|
2019-10-24
|
10 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Mohit Sethi |
|
2019-10-24
|
10 | Amy Vezza | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
|
2019-10-24
|
10 | Amy Vezza | The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2019-11-07):<br><br>From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org> CC: Yingzhen Qu <yingzhen.ietf@gmail.com … The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2019-11-07):<br><br>From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org> CC: Yingzhen Qu <yingzhen.ietf@gmail.com>, draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv2-hbit@ietf.org, aretana.ietf@gmail.com, lsr-chairs@ietf.org, yingzhen.ietf@gmail.com, lsr@ietf.org Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org Sender: <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> Subject: Last Call: <draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv2-hbit-10.txt> (Host Router Support for OSPFv2) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the Link State Routing WG (lsr) to consider the following document: - 'Host Router Support for OSPFv2' <draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv2-hbit-10.txt> as Proposed Standard The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2019-11-07. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract The Open Shortest Path First Version 2 (OSPFv2) does not have a mechanism for a node to repel transit traffic if it is on the shortest path. This document defines a bit (Host-bit) that enables a router to advertise that it is a non-transit router." It also describes the changes needed to support the H-bit in the domain. In addition, this document updates RFC 6987 to advertise type-2 External and NSSA LSAs with a high cost in order to repel traffic effectively. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv2-hbit/ IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv2-hbit/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
|
2019-10-24
|
10 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
|
2019-10-24
|
10 | Alvaro Retana | Last call was requested |
|
2019-10-24
|
10 | Alvaro Retana | Ballot approval text was generated |
|
2019-10-24
|
10 | Alvaro Retana | Ballot writeup was generated |
|
2019-10-24
|
10 | Alvaro Retana | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup |
|
2019-10-24
|
10 | Alvaro Retana | Last call announcement was generated |
|
2019-10-24
|
10 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
|
2019-10-24
|
10 | Padma Pillay-Esnault | New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv2-hbit-10.txt |
|
2019-10-24
|
10 | (System) | New version approved |
|
2019-10-24
|
10 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Serpil Bayraktar <serpil@cisco.com>, Padma Pillay-Esnault <padma.ietf@gmail.com>, Manish Bhardwaj <manbhard@cisco.com>, Keyur Patel … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Serpil Bayraktar <serpil@cisco.com>, Padma Pillay-Esnault <padma.ietf@gmail.com>, Manish Bhardwaj <manbhard@cisco.com>, Keyur Patel <keyur@arrcus.com> |
|
2019-10-24
|
10 | Padma Pillay-Esnault | Uploaded new revision |
|
2019-10-07
|
09 | Min Ye | Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: He Jia. |
|
2019-09-20
|
09 | Alvaro Retana | === Review of -09 === https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/zs4cfS9z7vXbK_sNHku4-66nEQg |
|
2019-09-20
|
09 | Alvaro Retana | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from AD Evaluation::AD Followup |
|
2019-09-18
|
09 | Min Ye | Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to He Jia |
|
2019-09-18
|
09 | Min Ye | Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to He Jia |
|
2019-09-15
|
09 | Acee Lindem | Requested Last Call review by RTGDIR |
|
2019-09-13
|
09 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
|
2019-09-13
|
09 | Padma Pillay-Esnault | New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv2-hbit-09.txt |
|
2019-09-13
|
09 | (System) | New version approved |
|
2019-09-13
|
09 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Serpil Bayraktar <serpil@cisco.com>, Padma Pillay-Esnault <padma.ietf@gmail.com>, Manish Bhardwaj <manbhard@cisco.com>, Keyur Patel … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Serpil Bayraktar <serpil@cisco.com>, Padma Pillay-Esnault <padma.ietf@gmail.com>, Manish Bhardwaj <manbhard@cisco.com>, Keyur Patel <keyur@arrcus.com> |
|
2019-09-13
|
09 | Padma Pillay-Esnault | Uploaded new revision |
|
2019-08-14
|
08 | Alvaro Retana | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from AD Evaluation::Point Raised - writeup needed |
|
2019-07-30
|
08 | Alvaro Retana | Waiting for the authors to reply to the AD Review. |
|
2019-07-30
|
08 | Alvaro Retana | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Point Raised - writeup needed from AD Evaluation::AD Followup |
|
2019-07-08
|
08 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
|
2019-07-08
|
08 | Padma Pillay-Esnault | New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv2-hbit-08.txt |
|
2019-07-08
|
08 | (System) | New version approved |
|
2019-07-08
|
08 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Serpil Bayraktar <serpil@cisco.com>, lsr-chairs@ietf.org, Manish Bhardwaj <manbhard@cisco.com>, Padma Pillay-Esnault <padma@huawei.com>, … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Serpil Bayraktar <serpil@cisco.com>, lsr-chairs@ietf.org, Manish Bhardwaj <manbhard@cisco.com>, Padma Pillay-Esnault <padma@huawei.com>, Keyur Patel <keyur@arrcus.com> |
|
2019-07-08
|
08 | Padma Pillay-Esnault | Uploaded new revision |
|
2019-05-19
|
07 | Alvaro Retana | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from AD Evaluation::AD Followup |
|
2019-05-19
|
07 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
|
2019-05-19
|
07 | Padma Pillay-Esnault | New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv2-hbit-07.txt |
|
2019-05-19
|
07 | (System) | New version approved |
|
2019-05-19
|
07 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Serpil Bayraktar <serpil@cisco.com>, Manish Bhardwaj <manbhard@cisco.com>, Padma Pillay-Esnault <padma@huawei.com>, Keyur Patel … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Serpil Bayraktar <serpil@cisco.com>, Manish Bhardwaj <manbhard@cisco.com>, Padma Pillay-Esnault <padma@huawei.com>, Keyur Patel <keyur@arrcus.com> |
|
2019-05-19
|
07 | Padma Pillay-Esnault | Uploaded new revision |
|
2018-12-05
|
06 | Yingzhen Qu | (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the … (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? A Standards Track RFC is being requested and is indicated in the title page header. (2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary: This document defines a new router-LSA bit known as the Host Bit or the H-bit. An OSPFv2 router advertising a router-LSA with the H-bit set indicates to other OSPFv2 routers in the area supporting the functionality that it MUST NOT be used as a transit router. Working Group Summary: The Working Group has reached consensus that this document is useful and should be published. Document Quality: This is a straight forward draft, and similar function exists in ISIS and OSPFv3. Some nits to be fixed. There are review comments from AD to be addressed. Personnel: Yingzhen Qu is the Document Shepherd. Alvaro Retana is the Responsible Area Director. (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG. The document shepherd has reviewed each revision of the document and followed the discussion on the OSPF/LSR mailing lists. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No. (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place. No. (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. None. (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why? Yes, they all confirmed. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. No. (9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? There is consensus from the WG that this document can progress. (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.) No. (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Nits are all resolved. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. Not applicable. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? Yes. (14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion? No. (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. RFC 6987 should be a Downward Normative References. (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary. When implementing this document, the SPF calculation defined in RFC 2328 needs to be changed. This needs to be clearly stated in the document. (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226). This document requires an allocation of Host(H-bit) in OSPF router-LSA bit registry. It also requires to define a new Router Functional Capability (RFC7770), the Host Support Functional Capability, from the Router Functional Capability Bits TLV. (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. None. (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc. Not applicable. |
|
2018-11-30
|
06 | Yingzhen Qu | (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the … (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? A Standards Track RFC is being requested and is indicated in the title page header. (2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary: This document defines a new router-LSA bit known as the Host Bit or the H-bit. An OSPFv2 router advertising a router-LSA with the H-bit set indicates to other OSPFv2 routers in the area supporting the functionality that it MUST NOT be used as a transit router. Working Group Summary: The Working Group has reached consensus that this document is useful and should be published. Document Quality: The document has been implemented by xxxx. Personnel: Yingzhen Qu is the Document Shepherd. Alvaro Retana is the Responsible Area Director. (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG. The document shepherd has reviewed each revision of the document and followed the discussion on the OSPF/LSR mailing lists. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No. (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place. No. (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. None. (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why? Yes, they all confirmed. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. No. (9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? There is consensus from the WG that this document can progress. (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.) No. (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Nits are all resolved. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. Not applicable. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? Yes. (14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion? No. (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. No. (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary. The publication of this document will update RFC 2328. This information has been listed on the title page header, the Abstract, and Introduction. (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226). This document requires an allocation of Host(H-bit) in OSPF router-LSA bit registry. It also requires to define a new Router Functional Capability (RFC7770), the Host Support Functional Capability, from the Router Functional Capability Bits TLV. (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. None. (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc. Not applicable. |
|
2018-11-28
|
06 | Alvaro Retana | === AD Review of draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv2-hbit-06 === https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/LkYCwSPRhxGQIPzPmjz2uka6pMk Dear authors: I just finished reading this document. Even though it is relatively short, I have significant concerns … === AD Review of draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv2-hbit-06 === https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/LkYCwSPRhxGQIPzPmjz2uka6pMk Dear authors: I just finished reading this document. Even though it is relatively short, I have significant concerns and I think it needs more work. Please take a look at the detailed comments in-line below -- I'm highlighting some of the issues here. (1) What is the Update to rfc2328? Please be specific in both the Abstract and the Introduction to indicate how rfc2328 is Updated. Also, see my question about rfc6987 in §6. (2) Operational/Deployment Considerations. There are several places (specially in §3) where the specification offers a choice (e.g. by using MAY). Some of those choices would be better informed if there was a discussion of the considerations behind them. Please take a look at rfc5706 (specially §2). Either a discussion close to where the behavior is specified or a separate section is ok. Please also keep migration in mind (see comments in §5). (3) Both the IANA and Security Considerations sections need more details. I will wait for them to be addressed before starting the IETF Last Call. Thanks! Alvaro. [The line numbers come from idnits.] ... 11 H-bit Support for OSPFv2 12 draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv2-hbit-06 [nit] Please make the title more descriptive. "non-transit router", "host mode", etc. come to mind. 14 Abstract 16 OSPFv3 defines an option bit for router-LSAs known as the R-bit in 17 RFC5340. If the R-bit is clear, an OSPFv3 router can participate in 18 OSPF topology flooding, however it will not be used as a transit 19 router. In such cases, other routers in the OSPFv3 routing domain 20 only install routes to allow local traffic delivery. This document 21 defines the H-bit functionality to prevent other OSPFv2 routers from 22 using the router for transit traffic in OSPFv2 routing domains as 23 described in RFC 2328. This document updates RFC 2328. [minor] Describing the functionality in terms of OSPFv2 would have been nice. IOW, there's no need (in the Abstract) to force the reader to go figure out what OSPFv3 already did to decide if it's worth reading this document or not. [major] What is the Update to rfc2328? Please be specific, both here and in the Introduction: don't just mention the section updated, but (more important) what is the update about. "This document updates rfc2328 by assigning a bit...changing the SPF process...creating a registry..." All/none/something else? Note that the answer to "what is the update?" doesn't have to be all. I think that the registry creation is a must. But Updating because of the SPF changes means that you expect an rfc2328 implementation to consider the H-bit when running SPF. I think you really mean that implementations of this document (i.e. not all rfc2328 implementations) have to use the modified SPF. That is my guess...please consider the answer carefully. ... 42 Copyright Notice 44 Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 45 document authors. All rights reserved. 47 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 48 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 49 (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 50 publication of this document. Please review these documents 51 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 52 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 53 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 54 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 55 described in the Simplified BSD License. 57 This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF 58 Contributions published or made publicly available before November 59 10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this 60 material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow 61 modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process. 62 Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling 63 the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified 64 outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may 65 not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format 66 it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other 67 than English. [major] As far as I can tell, the first version of draft-keyupate-ospf-ospfv2-hbit (the predecessor of this document) was published in 2015. So the copyright text above doesn't apply. Are we missing other predecessors? If not, then this issue should be easy to fix. In at least the XML editor that I use, there's an option to indicate pre-RFC5378 work, or not. In this case it seems like it should be No. ... 85 1. Introduction [minor] Same comment as for the Abstract: describing the functionality in terms of OSPFv2 would have been nicer. You can still make the reference to the R-bit at the end, if you really want to. 87 OSPFv3 [RFC5340] defines an option bit for router-LSAs known as the 88 R-bit. If the R-bit is clear, an OSPFv3 router can participate in 89 OSPFv3 topology flooding without acting as a transit router. In such 90 cases, other routers in the OSPFv3 routing domain only install routes 91 used for local traffic. 93 This functionality is particularly useful for BGP Route Reflectors, 94 known as virtual Route Reflectors (vRRs), that are not in the 95 forwarding path but are in central locations such as data centers. 96 Such Route Reflectors typically are used for route distribution and 97 are not capable of forwarding transit traffic. However, they need to 98 learn the OSPF topology for: 100 1. SPF computation for Optimal Route Reflection functionality as 101 defined in [I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-optimal-route-reflection] 103 2. Reachability resolution for its Route Reflector Clients. [nit] Clearly route reflection is not the only motivation for this work. The justification only related to RRs seems gratuitous. Just a nit... 105 This document defines the R-bit functionality equivalent for OSPFv2 106 defined in [RFC2328] by introducing a new router-LSA bit known as the 107 "H-bit". This document updates appendix A.4.2 of RFC 2328. [nit] s/OSPFv2 defined in [RFC2328]/OSPFv2 [RFC2328] It sounds as if "the R-bit functionality equivalent for OSPFv2" is already in rfc2328. [major] Please be specific about what the Update is. ... 117 3. H-bit Support 119 This document defines a new router-LSA bit known as the Host Bit or 120 the H-bit. An OSPFv2 router advertising a router-LSA with the H-bit 121 set indicates to other OSPFv2 routers in the area supporting the 122 functionality that it MUST NOT be used as a transit router. The bit 123 value usage of the H-bit is reversed from the R-bit defined in OSPFv3 124 [RFC5340] to support backward compatibility. The modified OSPFv2 125 router-LSA format is: [minor] "...MUST NOT be used as a transit router" Put a forward reference to §4. [nit] The text keeps making reference to the R-bit. Even though there is a relationship, the H-bit is an independent feature. IOW, I don't think there's a need to explain the relationship to OSPFv3. [minor] On the same topic: The comparison to OSPFv3 is made and the "reverse" bit setting is justified "to support backward compatibility", but that is not explained anywhere. I was hoping that §5 (Auto Discovery and Backward Compatibility) would say something, but it doesn't. 127 0 1 2 3 128 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 1 129 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 130 | LS age | Options | 1 | 131 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 132 | Link State ID | 133 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 134 | Advertising Router | 135 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 136 | LS sequence number | 137 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 138 | LS checksum | length | 139 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 140 |H|0|0|N|W|V|E|B| 0 | # links | 141 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 142 | Link ID | 143 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 144 | Link Data | 145 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 146 | Type | # TOS | metric | 147 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 148 | ... | 149 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 150 | TOS | 0 | TOS metric | 151 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 152 | Link ID | 153 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 154 | Link Data | 155 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 156 | ... | 158 bit H 159 When set, an OSPFv2 router is a non-transit router and is 160 incapable of forwarding transit traffic. [nit] Please label the figure: Figure 1... [minor] Even though it seems obvious from the figure, please be explicit in saying that the H-bit is the first bit (or however that bit is identified)... 162 When the H-bit is set, an OSPFv2 router is a non-transit router and 163 should not be used to forward transit traffic. In this mode, the 164 other OSPFv2 routers in the area SHOULD NOT use the originating 165 OSPFv2 router for transit traffic, but MAY use the OSPFv2 router for 166 local traffic destined to that OSPFv2 router. [minor] The first/second sentences seem redundant: "should not be used to forward transit traffic...SHOULD NOT use the originating OSPFv2 router for transit traffic". [major] When would the non-transit router be used for transit? IOW, why use "SHOULD NOT" and not "MUST NOT"? [major] "MAY use the OSPFv2 router for local traffic destined to that OSPFv2 router" I'm not sure what behavior is being specified here. The text sounds as if it was optional to even consider the router as a traffic destination. Is that the intent? Why? What would make a network operator decide one way or the other? 168 An OSPFv2 router originating a router-LSA with the H-bit set SHOULD 169 advertise all its non-local router links with a link cost of 170 MaxLinkMetric as defined in Section 3 of [RFC6987]. This is to 171 increase the applicability of the H-bit to partial deployments where 172 it is the responsibility of the operator to ensure that OSPFv2 173 routers not supporting the H-bit do not install routes causing 174 routing loops. [major] When would a router not advertise MaxLinkMetric? IOW, why use SHOULD and not MUST? [major] What are "non-local router links"? I always thought of links to be local to the router...what am I missing? [nit] s/advertise all its non-local router links with a link cost of MaxLinkMetric as defined in Section 3 of [RFC6987]/advertise all its non-local router links with a link cost of MaxLinkMetric [RFC6987] 176 When the H-bit is set, IPv4 prefixes associated with local interfaces 177 in other areas MAY be advertised in summary LSAs. Non-local IPv4 178 prefixes, e.g., those advertised by other routers and installed 179 during the SPF computation, MAY be advertised in summary-LSAs if 180 configured by policy. Likewise, when the H-bit is set, only IPv4 181 prefixes associated with local interfaces MAY be advertised in AS- 182 external LSAs. Non-local IPv4 prefixes, e.g., those exported from 183 other routing protocols, MUST NOT be advertised in AS-external-LSAs. 184 Finally, when the H-bit is set, an Area Border Router (ABR) MUST 185 advertise a consistent H-bit setting in its self-originated router- 186 LSAs for all attached areas. [minor] Some of the behavior specified in this paragraph may be non intuitive -- for example: "When the H-bit is set, IPv4 prefixes associated with local interfaces in other areas MAY be advertised in summary LSAs." During normal operation (aka rfc2328), these prefixes are always advertised (assuming normal areas, etc.)...and given that these are local to the router, it can be argued that one is not using the router as transit...on the other hand, going to a different area can be interpreted as transit. In either case, it would be nice if more was said about the optional nature of including these prefixes in the summary LSA. What are the operational considerations? [minor] The same comment for "prefixes associated with local interfaces MAY be advertised in AS-external LSAs". [major] "Non-local IPv4 prefixes...MAY be advertised in summary-LSAs if configured by policy." Doesn't advertising result in the router being transit? Doesn't it defeats the purpose of setting the H-bit? But there may be operational reasons to do so -- e.g. if the router is the only ABR... [major] "Non-local IPv4 prefixes...MUST NOT be advertised in AS-external-LSAs." This behavior seems consistent with the purpose of the H-bit, but not with the rest of the paragraph. Again, why is this different (operationally) than transiting for non-external inter-area prefixes. [major] "...an Area Border Router (ABR) MUST advertise a consistent H-bit setting in its self-originated router-LSAs for all attached areas." What do you mean by "consistent"? Do you mean "the same", i.e. be non-transit for all areas? Do you mean "compatible", i.e. so that the setting avoids potential loops or black holes? Please be specific. And please explain why -- again, what are the operational considerations? ... 214 5. Auto Discovery and Backward Compatibility 216 To avoid the possibility of any routing loops due to partial 217 deployment, this document defines a OSPF Router-Information LSA 218 functional capability bit known as the Host Support capability. [minor] A reference to rfc7770 would be nice. [mayor] I'm guessing that the RI LSA MUST be area-scoped, right? Please be specific. 220 Auto Discovery via announcement of the Host Support Functional 221 Capability ensures that the H-bit functionality and its associated 222 SPF changes SHOULD only take effect if all the routers in a given 223 OSPF area support this functionality. [major] When can the functionality take effect even if not all routers in the area support it? Or maybe it is that it won't take effect even if all routers support it... IOW, why SHOULD and not MUST? [major] There's no guarantee that the RI LSA will reach a router before the route-carrying LSAs -- which I think implies that SPF could be run before verifying full H-bit support. The result may be a loop...or a loop may exist until the lack of area-wide support is verified... IOW, it seems to me that this auto discovery mechanism may not work as expected. Migration is an important Deployment Consideration. [major] What is the process to verify area-wide support? Should the router build a tree...run SPF...inspect the LSAs...?? I'm assuming/hoping that this is a common enough operation that it is specified already somewhere else... 225 Implementations are encouraged to provide a configuration parameter 226 to manually override enforcement of the H-bit functionality in 227 partial deployments where the topology guarantees that OSPFv2 routers 228 not supporting the H-bit do not compute routes resulting in routing 229 loops. More precisely, the advertisement of MaxLinkMetric for the 230 router's non-local links will prevent OSPFv2 routers not supporting 231 the H-bit from attempting to use it for transit traffic. [minor] The text seems to indicate what the second sentence is a clarification of the first one: "Implementations are encouraged to... More precisely..." But in reality you are talking about two different things: the ability to consider the H-bit even in partial deployments, *and*, advertising MaxLinkMetric. Please consider rewording to clarify. 233 6. OSPF AS-External-LSAs/NSSA LSAs with Type 2 Metrics 235 When calculating the path to an OSPF AS-External-LSA or NSSA-LSA with 236 a Type-2 metric, the advertised Type-2 metric is taken as more 237 significant than the OSPF intra-area or inter-area path. Hence, 238 advertising the links with MaxLinkMetric as specified in [RFC6987] 239 does not discourage transit traffic when calculating AS external or 240 NSSA routes. Consequently, OSPF routers implementing [RFC6987] or 241 this specification should advertise a Type-2 metric of LSInfinity for 242 any self-originated AS-External-LSAs or NSSA-LSAs in situations when 243 the OSPF router is acting as a stub router [RFC6987] or implementing 244 this specification. [major] Should there be Normative language in this paragraph? [major] This paragraph talks about what a stub router (rfc6987) should do. In order to do that, this document should be tagged to Update rfc6987. Is that the intent? 246 7. IANA Considerations 248 IANA is requested to create the OSPF Router-LSA bit registry with the 249 following assignments: 251 Value Description Reference 252 0x01 Area Border Router (B-bit) [RFC2328] 253 0x02 AS Boundary Router (E-bit) [RFC2328] 254 0x04 Virtual Link Endpoint (V-bit) [RFC2328] 255 0x08 Historic (W-bit) [RFC1584] [major] Even though rfc1584 is classified as Historic, that doesn't mean that the bit is as well, or that it has been deprecated (at least I didn't see that in rfc5110). Please put a name to it -- "wild-card multicast"? 256 0x10 Unconditional NSSA Translator (Nt-bit) [RFC3101] 257 0x20 Unassigned 258 0x40 Unassigned 259 0x80 Host (H-bit) This Document [major] What should be the assignment policy (rfc8126)? [minor] Besides the 8 bits above, the Router-LSA (rfc2328) has another 8 bits (to the right) that seem unassigned...should they be included in this registry as well? [major nit] I couldn't find where rfc2328 talks about the value of these bits being 0 and what to do if they are not. By creating this new registry, you have the opportunity to (at least) clarify that. 261 This document also defines a new Router Functional Capability 262 [RFC7770] known as the Host Support Functional Capability. This 263 document requests IANA to allocate the value of this capability from 264 the Router Functional Capability Bits TLV. [minor] s/TLV/Registry 266 8. Security Considerations 268 This document introduces no new security considerations beyond those 269 already specified in [RFC6987], [RFC2328], and [RFC5340]. [major] <SecDir hat on> [*] This section says nothing! rfc6987 has no Security Considerations to speak of (sorry!)...rfc2328's Security Considerations only talk about authentication, and there's no mention of rfc5709 or rfc7474...and rfc5340 doesn't apply because this document is not about OSPFv3 -- also, rfc5340 doesn't have specific Security Considerations related to the R-bit. <hat off> [*] I don't really have a SecDir hat...just pretending I do. Suggestion: tell the reader why there are no new security considerations. "This document introduces functionality to do a, b, and c... Non of that affects security..." Of course, more words would be nice. There is one specific item that I think should be mentioned as a risk. §5 talks about using Auto Discovery "to avoid the possibility of any routing loops due to partial deployment". Even with proper authentication, there is the possibility that a (rogue) router can advertise the Host Support capability without really supporting it (there's no way to verify!!). The result can be a loop... I don't think this issue can be mitigated, but mentioning it would go a long way in demonstrating that you at least thought about the issues. ... 279 10.1. Normative References ... 290 [RFC3101] Murphy, P., "The OSPF Not-So-Stubby Area (NSSA) Option", 291 RFC 3101, DOI 10.17487/RFC3101, January 2003, 292 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3101>;. 294 [RFC5340] Coltun, R., Ferguson, D., Moy, J., and A. Lindem, "OSPF 295 for IPv6", RFC 5340, DOI 10.17487/RFC5340, July 2008, 296 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5340>;. [minor] These 2 references can be Informative. ... 307 10.2. Informative References ... 319 [RFC6987] Retana, A., Nguyen, L., Zinin, A., White, R., and D. 320 McPherson, "OSPF Stub Router Advertisement", RFC 6987, 321 DOI 10.17487/RFC6987, September 2013, 322 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6987>;. [major] Because of the specification of the use of MaxLinkMetric, this reference has to be Normative. rfc6987 is already in the DownRef registry. |
|
2018-11-28
|
06 | Alvaro Retana | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from AD Evaluation |
|
2018-11-28
|
06 | Alvaro Retana | Notification list changed to Yingzhen Qu <yingzhen.ietf@gmail.com>, aretana.ietf@gmail.com from Yingzhen Qu <yingzhen.ietf@gmail.com> |
|
2018-11-21
|
06 | Alvaro Retana | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
|
2018-10-03
|
06 | Acee Lindem | (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the … (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? A Standards Track RFC is being requested and is indicated in the title page header. (2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary: This document defines a new router-LSA bit known as the Host Bit or the H-bit. An OSPFv2 router advertising a router-LSA with the H-bit set indicates to other OSPFv2 routers in the area supporting the functionality that it MUST NOT be used as a transit router. Working Group Summary: The Working Group has reached consensus that this document is useful and should be published. Document Quality: The document has been implemented by xxxx. Personnel: Yingzhen Qu is the Document Shepherd. Alvaro Retana is the Responsible Area Director. (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG. The document shepherd has reviewed each revision of the document and followed the discussion on the OSPF/LSR mailing lists. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No. (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place. No. (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. None. (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why? NA. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. No. (9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? There is consensus from the WG that this document can progress. (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.) No. (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Nits are all resolved. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. Not applicable. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? Yes. (14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion? No. (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. No. (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary. The publication of this document will update RFC 2328. This information has been listed on the title page header, the Abstract, and Introduction. (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226). This document requires an allocation of Host(H-bit) in OSPF router-LSA bit registry. It also requires to define a new Router Functional Capability (RFC7770), the Host Support Functional Capability, from the Router Functional Capability Bits TLV. (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. None. (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc. Not applicable. |
|
2018-10-03
|
06 | Acee Lindem | Responsible AD changed to Alvaro Retana |
|
2018-10-03
|
06 | Acee Lindem | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Document |
|
2018-10-03
|
06 | Acee Lindem | IESG state changed to Publication Requested |
|
2018-10-03
|
06 | Acee Lindem | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
|
2018-10-03
|
06 | Acee Lindem | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
|
2018-10-03
|
06 | Acee Lindem | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None |
|
2018-09-04
|
06 | Yingzhen Qu | Changed document writeup |
|
2018-08-27
|
06 | Padma Pillay-Esnault | New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv2-hbit-06.txt |
|
2018-08-27
|
06 | (System) | New version approved |
|
2018-08-27
|
06 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Serpil Bayraktar <serpil@cisco.com>, Manish Bhardwaj <manbhard@cisco.com>, Padma Pillay-Esnault <padma@huawei.com>, Keyur Patel … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Serpil Bayraktar <serpil@cisco.com>, Manish Bhardwaj <manbhard@cisco.com>, Padma Pillay-Esnault <padma@huawei.com>, Keyur Patel <keyur@arrcus.com> |
|
2018-08-27
|
06 | Padma Pillay-Esnault | Uploaded new revision |
|
2018-08-08
|
05 | Yingzhen Qu | Notification list changed to Yingzhen Qu <yingzhen.ietf@gmail.com> |
|
2018-08-08
|
05 | Yingzhen Qu | Document shepherd changed to Yingzhen Qu |
|
2018-08-01
|
05 | Padma Pillay-Esnault | New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv2-hbit-05.txt |
|
2018-08-01
|
05 | (System) | New version approved |
|
2018-08-01
|
05 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Serpil Bayraktar <serpil@cisco.com>, Manish Bhardwaj <manbhard@cisco.com>, Padma Pillay-Esnault <padma@huawei.com>, Keyur Patel … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Serpil Bayraktar <serpil@cisco.com>, Manish Bhardwaj <manbhard@cisco.com>, Padma Pillay-Esnault <padma@huawei.com>, Keyur Patel <keyur@arrcus.com> |
|
2018-08-01
|
05 | Padma Pillay-Esnault | Uploaded new revision |
|
2018-08-01
|
04 | (System) | Document has expired |
|
2018-02-28
|
04 | Cindy Morgan | Notification list changed to none |
|
2018-02-28
|
04 | Cindy Morgan | Changed group to Link State Routing (LSR) from Open Shortest Path First IGP (OSPF) |
|
2018-01-28
|
04 | Keyur Patel | New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv2-hbit-04.txt |
|
2018-01-28
|
04 | (System) | New version approved |
|
2018-01-28
|
04 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Serpil Bayraktar <serpil@cisco.com>, Manish Bhardwaj <manbhard@cisco.com>, Padma Pillay-Esnault <padma@huawei.com>, Keyur Patel … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Serpil Bayraktar <serpil@cisco.com>, Manish Bhardwaj <manbhard@cisco.com>, Padma Pillay-Esnault <padma@huawei.com>, Keyur Patel <keyur@arrcus.com> |
|
2018-01-28
|
04 | Keyur Patel | Uploaded new revision |
|
2017-12-16
|
03 | (System) | Document has expired |
|
2017-06-14
|
03 | Keyur Patel | New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv2-hbit-03.txt |
|
2017-06-14
|
03 | (System) | New version approved |
|
2017-06-14
|
03 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Serpil Bayraktar <serpil@cisco.com>, Manish Bhardwaj <manbhard@cisco.com>, Padma Pillay-Esnault <padma@huawei.com>, Keyur Patel … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Serpil Bayraktar <serpil@cisco.com>, Manish Bhardwaj <manbhard@cisco.com>, Padma Pillay-Esnault <padma@huawei.com>, Keyur Patel <keyur@arrcus.com> |
|
2017-06-14
|
03 | Keyur Patel | Uploaded new revision |
|
2017-04-10
|
02 | Padma Pillay-Esnault | New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv2-hbit-02.txt |
|
2017-04-10
|
02 | (System) | New version approved |
|
2017-04-10
|
02 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Serpil Bayraktar <serpil@cisco.com>, Manish Bhardwaj <manbhard@cisco.com>, Padma Pillay-Esnault <padma@huawei.com>, Keyur Patel … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Serpil Bayraktar <serpil@cisco.com>, Manish Bhardwaj <manbhard@cisco.com>, Padma Pillay-Esnault <padma@huawei.com>, Keyur Patel <keyupate@cisco.com>, ospf-chairs@ietf.org |
|
2017-04-10
|
02 | Padma Pillay-Esnault | Uploaded new revision |
|
2017-01-06
|
01 | (System) | Document has expired |
|
2016-07-05
|
01 | Padma Pillay-Esnault | New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv2-hbit-01.txt |
|
2015-11-09
|
00 | Acee Lindem | This document now replaces draft-keyupate-ospf-ospfv2-hbit instead of None |
|
2015-10-18
|
00 | Padma Pillay-Esnault | New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv2-hbit-00.txt |