[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 03 draft-ietf-ospf-transport-instance

Network Working Group                                          A. Lindem
Internet-Draft                                          Redback Networks
Intended status: Standards Track                                  A. Roy
Expires: March 28, 2009                                    Cisco Systems
                                                            S. Mirtorabi
                                                           Nuova Systems
                                                      September 24, 2008


                   OSPF Transport Instance Extensions
               draft-acee-ospf-transport-instance-01.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.

   This Internet-Draft will expire on March 28, 2009.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).











Lindem, et al.           Expires March 28, 2009                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft     OSPF Transport Instance Extensions     September 2008


Abstract

   OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 include a reliable flooding mechanism to
   disseminate routing topology and Traffic Engineering (TE) information
   within a routing domain.  Given the effectiveness of these
   mechanisms, it is convenient to envision using the same mechanism for
   dissemination of other types of information within the domain.
   However, burdening OSPF with this additional information will impact
   intra-domain routing convergence and possibly jeopardize the
   stability of the OSPF routing domain.  This document presents
   mechanism to relegate this ancillary information to a separate OSPF
   instance and minimize the impact.


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
     1.1.  Requirements notation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  OSPF Transport Instance  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     2.1.  OSPFv2 Transport Instance Packets Differentiation  . . . .  4
     2.2.  OSPFv3 Transport Instance Packets Differentiation  . . . .  4
     2.3.  Instance Relationship to Normal OSPF Instances . . . . . .  4
       2.3.1.  Ships in the Night Relationship to Normal OSPF
               Instances  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
       2.3.2.  Tigher Coupling with Normal OSPF Instances . . . . . .  5
     2.4.  Network Prioritization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   3.  OSPF Transport Instance Information Encoding . . . . . . . . .  6
     3.1.  OSPFv2 Transport Instance Information Encoding . . . . . .  6
     3.2.  OSPFv3 Transport Instance Information Encoding . . . . . .  6
   4.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   5.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   6.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   Appendix A.  Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 12
















Lindem, et al.           Expires March 28, 2009                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft     OSPF Transport Instance Extensions     September 2008


1.  Introduction

   OSPFv2 [OSPFV2] and OSPFv3 [OSPFV3] include a reliable flooding
   mechanism to disseminate routing topology and Traffic Engineering
   (TE) information within a routing domain.  Given the effectiveness of
   these mechanisms, it is convenient to envision using the same
   mechanism for dissemination of other types of information within the
   domain.  However, burdening OSPF with this additional information
   will impact intra-domain routing convergence and possibly jeopardize
   the stability of the OSPF routing domain.  This document presents
   mechanism to relegate this ancillary information to a separate OSPF
   instance and minimize the impact.

1.1.  Requirements notation

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC-KEYWORDS].

































Lindem, et al.           Expires March 28, 2009                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft     OSPF Transport Instance Extensions     September 2008


2.  OSPF Transport Instance

   In order to isolate the overhead of flooding non-routing information,
   its flooding will be relegated to a separate protocol instance.  This
   instance should be given lower priority when contending for router
   resources including processing, backplane bandwidth, and line card
   bandwidth.  How that is realized is an implementation issue and is
   beyond the scope of this document.

2.1.  OSPFv2 Transport Instance Packets Differentiation

   OSPFv2 currently doesn't offer a mechanism to differentiate Transport
   instance packets from normal instance packets sent and received on
   the same interface.  However, the [MULTI-INST] provides the necessary
   packet encoding to support multiple OSPF protocol instances.

2.2.  OSPFv3 Transport Instance Packets Differentiation

   Fortunately, OSPFv3 already supports separate instances within the
   packet encodings.  The existing OSPFv3 packet header instance ID
   field will be used to differentiate packets received on the same link
   (refer to section 2.4 in [OSPFV3]).

2.3.  Instance Relationship to Normal OSPF Instances

   There are basically two alternatives for the relationship between a
   normal OSPF instance and a Transport Instance.  In both cases, we
   must guarantee that any information we've received is treated as
   valid if and only if the router sending it is reachable.  We'll refer
   to this as the "condition of reachability" in this document.

   1.  Ships in the Night - The Transport Instance has no relationship
       or dependency on any other OSPF instance.

   2.  Child Instance - The Transport Instance has a child-parent
       relationship with a normal OSPF instance and is dependent on this
       for topology information and assuring the "condition of
       reachability".

2.3.1.  Ships in the Night Relationship to Normal OSPF Instances

   In this mode, the Transport Instance is not dependent on any other
   OSPF instance.  It does, however, have much of the overhead as
   topology information must be advertised to satisfy the condition of
   reachability.

   Prefix information does this need to be advertised.  This implies
   that for OSPFv2, only router-LSAs, network-LSAs, and type 4 summary-



Lindem, et al.           Expires March 28, 2009                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft     OSPF Transport Instance Extensions     September 2008


   LSAs need to be advertised.  In the router-LSAs, the stub (type 3)
   links may be suppressed.  For OSPFv3, this implies that router-LSAs,
   Network-LSAs, and inter-area-router-LSAs must be advertised.

2.3.2.  Tigher Coupling with Normal OSPF Instances

   Further optimization and coupling between the transport instance and
   a normal OSPF instance are beyond the scope of this document.  This
   is an area for future study.

2.4.  Network Prioritization

   While OSPFv2 (section 4.3 in [OSPFV2]) are normally sent with IP
   precedence Internetwork Control, any packets sent by a transport
   instance will be sent with IP precedence Flash (B'011').  This is
   only appropriate given that this is a pretty flashy mechanism.

   OSPFv3 packet prioritization is under discussion although it is not
   in the current specification ([OSPFV3]).  It is expected that this
   will be in the next revision of the OSPFv3 specification.































Lindem, et al.           Expires March 28, 2009                 [Page 5]


Internet-Draft     OSPF Transport Instance Extensions     September 2008


3.  OSPF Transport Instance Information Encoding

   The format of the TLVs within the body of an LSA containing non-
   routing information is the same as the format used by the Traffic
   Engineering Extensions to OSPF [TE].  The LSA payload consists of one
   or more nested Type/Length/Value (TLV) triplets.  The format of each
   TLV is:


      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            |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                            Value...                           |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


                                TLV Format

   However, each unique application using the mechanisms defined in this
   document will have it's own unique ID.  Whether to encode this ID as
   the top-level TLV or make it part of the OSPF LSA ID is open for
   debate.

   The specific TLVs and sub-TLVs relating to a given application and
   the corresponding IANA considerations MUST for standard applications
   MUST be specified in the document corresponding to that application.

3.1.  OSPFv2 Transport Instance Information Encoding

   Application specific information will be flooded in opaque LSAs as
   specified in [OPAQUE].

3.2.  OSPFv3 Transport Instance Information Encoding

   Application specific information will be flooded in separate LSAs
   with separate function codes.  Refer to section A.4.2.1 of [OSPFV3]
   for information on the LS Type encoding in OSPFv3.












Lindem, et al.           Expires March 28, 2009                 [Page 6]


Internet-Draft     OSPF Transport Instance Extensions     September 2008


4.  Security Considerations

   The security considerations for the Transport Instance will not be
   different for those for OSPFv2 [OSPFV2] and OSPFv3 [OSPFV3].















































Lindem, et al.           Expires March 28, 2009                 [Page 7]


Internet-Draft     OSPF Transport Instance Extensions     September 2008


5.  IANA Considerations

   No new IANA assignments are required for this draft.
















































Lindem, et al.           Expires March 28, 2009                 [Page 8]


Internet-Draft     OSPF Transport Instance Extensions     September 2008


6.  Normative References

   [MULTI-INST]
              Lindem, A., Mirtorabi, S., and A. Roy, "OSPF Multi-
              Instance Extensions",
              draft-acee-ospf-multi-instance-02.txt (work in progress).

   [OPAQUE]   Berger, L., Bryskin, I., Zinin, A., and R. Coltun, "The
              OSPF Opaque LSA Option", RFC 5250, July 2008.

   [OSPFV2]   Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", RFC 2328, April 1998.

   [OSPFV3]   Coltun, R., Ferguson, D., Moy, J., and A. Lindem, "OSPF
              for IPv6", RFC 5340, July 2008.

   [RFC-KEYWORDS]
              Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFC's to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [TE]       Katz, D., Yeung, D., and K. Kompella, "Traffic Engineering
              Extensions to OSPF", RFC 3630, September 2003.






























Lindem, et al.           Expires March 28, 2009                 [Page 9]


Internet-Draft     OSPF Transport Instance Extensions     September 2008


Appendix A.  Acknowledgments

   The RFC text was produced using Marshall Rose's xml2rfc tool.
















































Lindem, et al.           Expires March 28, 2009                [Page 10]


Internet-Draft     OSPF Transport Instance Extensions     September 2008


Authors' Addresses

   Acee Lindem
   Redback Networks
   102 Carric Bend Court
   Cary, NC  27519
   USA

   Email: acee@redback.com


   Abhay Roy
   Cisco Systems
   225 West Tasman Drive
   San Jose, CA  95134
   USA

   Email: akr@cisco.com


   Sina Mirtorabi
   Nuova Systems
   3 West Plumeria Drive
   San Jose, CA  95134
   USA

   Email: sina@nuovasystems.com
























Lindem, et al.           Expires March 28, 2009                [Page 11]


Internet-Draft     OSPF Transport Instance Extensions     September 2008


Full Copyright Statement

   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.


Intellectual Property

   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
   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.


Acknowledgment

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
   Administrative Support Activity (IASA).





Lindem, et al.           Expires March 28, 2009                [Page 12]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.123, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/