Open Shortest Path First IGP | S. Hegde |
Internet-Draft | H. Raghuveer |
Intended status: Standards Track | H. Gredler |
Expires: April 24, 2014 | Juniper Networks, Inc. |
R. Shakir | |
British Telecom | |
October 21, 2013 |
Advertising per-node administrative tags in OSPF
draft-hegde-ospf-node-admin-tag-00
This document describes an extension to OSPF protocol [RFC2328] to add an optional operational capability, that allows tagging and grouping of the nodes in an OSPF domain. This allows simplification,ease of management and control over route and path selection based on configured policies.
This document describes the protocol extensions to disseminate per-node admin-tags to the OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 protocols.
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 2119 [RFC2119].
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on April 24, 2014.
Copyright (c) 2013 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 (http://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.
This document provides mechanisms to advertise per-node administrative tags in the OSPF router information LSA [RFC4970]. In certain path-selection applications like for example in traffic-engineering or LFA backup selection there is a need to tag the nodes based on their roles in the network and have policies to prefer or prune a certain group of nodes.
For the purpose of advertising per-node administrative tags within OSPF a new TLV is proposed. Because path selection is a functional set which applies both to TE and non-TE applications, this new TLV is carried in the Router Information LSA [RFC4970]
An administrative Tag is a 32-bit integer value that can be used to identify a group of nodes in the OSPF domain.
The new TLV defined will be carried within an RI LSA for OSPFV2 and OSPFV3. Router information LSA [RFC4970] can have link,area or AS level flooding scope. Choosing the flooding scope to flood the group tags are defined by the policies and is a local matter.
The TLV specifies one or more administrative tag values. An OSPF node advertises the set of groups it is part of in the OSPF domain. (for example, all PE-nodes are configured with certain tag value, all P-nodes are configured with a different tag value in a domain).
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 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Administrative Tag #1 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Administrative Tag #2 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ // // +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Administrative Tag #N | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: OSPF per-node Administrative Tag TLV
The format of the TLVs within the body of an RI LSA is the same as the format used by the Traffic Engineering Extensions to OSPF [RFC3630].
The LSA payload consists of one or more nested Type/Length/Value (TLV) triplets. The format of each TLV is:
Type : TBA
Length: A 16-bit field that indicates the length of the value portion in octets and will be a multiple of 4 octets dependent on the number of tags advertised.
Value: A sequence of multiple 4 octets defining the administrative tags.
The semantics of the tag order are implementation-dependent. That is, there is no implied meaning to the ordering of the tags that indicates a certain operation or set of operations that need to be performed based on the ordering.
Each tag SHOULD be treated as an independent identifier that MAY be used in policy to perform a policy action. Whether or not tag A precedes or succeeds tag B SHOULD not change the meaning of the tag set.
Increased deployment of Loop Free Alternates (LFA) as defined in [RFC5286] has exposed some limitations.New draft Operation management of Loop Free Alternates [I-D.litkowski-rtgwg-lfa-manageability] proposes refinements to address those limitations.
One of the proposed refinements is to be able to group the nodes in IGP domain with administrative tags and engineer the LFA based on configured policies.
The mechanisms outlined in this document helps provide the capability to advertise group tags within OSPF protocol in order to achieve policy based LFA selection.
The policies configured on each node can then make use of these tags to prefer or prune certain group of nodes for selecting LFAs.
This document does not introduce any further security issues other than those discussed in [RFC2328] and [RFC5340].
IANA maintains the registry for the TLVs. OSPF Administrative Tags will require one new type code for the TLV defined in this document.
Thanks to Bharath R and Pushpasis Sarakar for useful inputs.
[RFC2328] | Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328, April 1998. |
[RFC5340] | Coltun, R., Ferguson, D., Moy, J. and A. Lindem, "OSPF for IPv6", RFC 5340, July 2008. |
[RFC3630] | Katz, D., Kompella, K. and D. Yeung, "Traffic Engineering (TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC 3630, September 2003. |
[RFC4970] | Lindem, A., Shen, N., Vasseur, JP., Aggarwal, R. and S. Shaffer, "Extensions to OSPF for Advertising Optional Router Capabilities", RFC 4970, July 2007. |
[RFC2119] | Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. |
[RFC5250] | Berger, L., Bryskin, I., Zinin, A. and R. Coltun, "The OSPF Opaque LSA Option", RFC 5250, July 2008. |
[RFC5286] | Atlas, A. and A. Zinin, "Basic Specification for IP Fast Reroute: Loop-Free Alternates", RFC 5286, September 2008. |
[RFC5310] | Bhatia, M., Manral, V., Li, T., Atkinson, R., White, R. and M. Fanto, "IS-IS Generic Cryptographic Authentication", RFC 5310, February 2009. |
[RFC5329] | Ishiguro, K., Manral, V., Davey, A. and A. Lindem, "Traffic Engineering Extensions to OSPF Version 3", RFC 5329, September 2008. |
[I-D.litkowski-rtgwg-lfa-manageability] | Litkowski, S., Decraene, B., Filsfils, C. and K. Raza, "Operational management of Loop Free Alternates", Internet-Draft draft-litkowski-rtgwg-lfa-manageability-01, February 2013. |