OSPF Application-Specific Link Attributes
RFC 8920
Document | Type | RFC - Proposed Standard (October 2020; No errata) | |
---|---|---|---|
Authors | Peter Psenak , Les Ginsberg , Wim Henderickx , Jeff Tantsura , John Drake | ||
Last updated | 2020-10-22 | ||
Replaces | draft-ppsenak-ospf-te-link-attr-reuse | ||
Stream | IETF | ||
Formats | plain text html xml pdf htmlized bibtex | ||
Reviews | |||
Stream | WG state | Submitted to IESG for Publication | |
Document shepherd | Yingzhen Qu | ||
Shepherd write-up | Show (last changed 2020-06-04) | ||
IESG | IESG state | RFC 8920 (Proposed Standard) | |
Action Holders |
(None)
|
||
Consensus Boilerplate | Yes | ||
Telechat date | |||
Responsible AD | Alvaro Retana | ||
Send notices to | Acee Lindem <acee@cisco.com>, Yingzhen Qu <yingzhen.qu@futurewei.com>, aretana.ietf@gmail.com | ||
IANA | IANA review state | Version Changed - Review Needed | |
IANA action state | RFC-Ed-Ack |
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) P. Psenak, Ed. Request for Comments: 8920 L. Ginsberg Category: Standards Track Cisco Systems ISSN: 2070-1721 W. Henderickx Nokia J. Tantsura Apstra J. Drake Juniper Networks October 2020 OSPF Application-Specific Link Attributes Abstract Existing traffic-engineering-related link attribute advertisements have been defined and are used in RSVP-TE deployments. Since the original RSVP-TE use case was defined, additional applications (e.g., Segment Routing Policy and Loop-Free Alternates) that also make use of the link attribute advertisements have been defined. In cases where multiple applications wish to make use of these link attributes, the current advertisements do not support application- specific values for a given attribute, nor do they support indication of which applications are using the advertised value for a given link. This document introduces new link attribute advertisements in OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 that address both of these shortcomings. Status of This Memo This is an Internet Standards Track document. This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has received public review and has been approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841. Information about the current status of this document, any errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8920. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2020 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 (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 1.1. Requirements Language 2. Requirements Discussion 3. Existing Advertisement of Link Attributes 4. Advertisement of Link Attributes 4.1. OSPFv2 Extended Link Opaque LSA and OSPFv3 E-Router-LSA 5. Advertisement of Application-Specific Values 6. Reused TE Link Attributes 6.1. Shared Risk Link Group (SRLG) 6.2. Extended Metrics 6.3. Administrative Group 6.4. Traffic Engineering Metric 7. Maximum Link Bandwidth 8. Considerations for Extended TE Metrics 9. Local Interface IPv6 Address Sub-TLV 10. Remote Interface IPv6 Address Sub-TLV 11. Attribute Advertisements and Enablement 12. Deployment Considerations 12.1. Use of Legacy RSVP-TE LSA Advertisements 12.2. Interoperability, Backwards Compatibility, and Migration Concerns 12.2.1. Multiple Applications: Common Attributes with RSVP-TE 12.2.2. Multiple Applications: Some Attributes Not Shared with RSVP-TE 12.2.3. Interoperability with Legacy Routers 12.2.4. Use of Application-Specific Advertisements for RSVP-TE 13. Security Considerations 14. IANA Considerations 14.1. OSPFv2 14.2. OSPFv3 15. References 15.1. Normative References 15.2. Informative References Acknowledgments Contributors Authors' Addresses 1. Introduction Advertisement of link attributes by the OSPFv2 [RFC2328] and OSPFv3 [RFC5340] protocols in support of traffic engineering (TE) was introduced by [RFC3630] and [RFC5329], respectively. It has been extended by [RFC4203], [RFC7308], and [RFC7471]. Use of these extensions has been associated with deployments supporting Traffic Engineering over Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) in the presence of the Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP), more succinctly referred to as RSVP-TE [RFC3209]. For the purposes of this document, an application is a technology that makes use of link attribute advertisements, examples of which are listed in Section 5. In recent years, new applications have been introduced that have useShow full document text