Internet DRAFT - draft-li-lsr-droid
draft-li-lsr-droid
LSR Working Group T. Li
Internet-Draft Juniper Networks
Intended status: Standards Track 4 April 2022
Expires: 6 October 2022
Distributed Routing Object Information Database (DROID)
draft-li-lsr-droid-00
Abstract
Over time, the routing protocols have been burdended with the
responsiblity of carrying a variety of information that is not
directly relevant to their mission. This includes VPN parameters,
configuration information, and capability data. All of the
additional data impacts the performance and stability of the routing
protocols negatively.
This has been convenient since the backbone of a routing protocol is
a small distributed database of routing information. Any service
needing a distributed database has considered injecting its data into
a routing protocol so that it can leverage the protocols database
service. Architecturally, this is a mistake that puts the protocol
at risk from undue complexity and overhead.
To avoid this, DROID is a subsystem that is tangential to, but
independent of the routing protocols, and provides distributed
database services for other routing services. It is based on the
publish-subscribe (pub/sub) architecture and is intentionally crafted
to be an open mechanism for the transport of ancillary data.
Status of This Memo
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 https://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 6 October 2022.
Li Expires 6 October 2022 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft DROID April 2022
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2022 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 Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Use Case: Node Liveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2. Use Case: Capabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. DROID Capability Advertisement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. DROID Advertisement in IS-IS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. DROID Advertisement in OSPF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. DROID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1. Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.2. Keys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.3. Object Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.4. Client Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.4.1. Client Liveness Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.4.2. Client Capability Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.5. ABR Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.5.1. ABR Liveness Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.5.2. Autonomous Notification Mode . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.5.3. Proxy ABRs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.6. Publish Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.7. Subscribe Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.8. Notification Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.9. Message Sub-TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.9.1. Prefix sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.9.2. Key Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.9.3. Object Value Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.9.4. Liveness Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.1. IS-IS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5.2. OSPF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5.3. DROID Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5.4. DROID Sub-TLV Types Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5.5. DROID Capability Values Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Li Expires 6 October 2022 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft DROID April 2022
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
1. Introduction
Over time, the routing protocols have been burdended with the
responsiblity of carrying a variety of information that is not
directly relevant to their mission. This includes VPN parameters,
configuration information, and capability data. All of the
additional data impacts the performance and stability of the routing
protocols negatively.
This has been convenient since the backbone of a routing protocol is
a small distributed database of routing information. Any service
needing a distributed database has considered injecting its data into
a routing protocol so that it can leverage the protocols database
service. Architecturally, this is a mistake that puts the protocol
at risk from undue complexity and overhead.
To avoid this, DROID is a subsystem that is tangential to, but
independent of the routing protocols, and provides distributed
database services for other routing services. It is based on the
publish-subscribe (pub/sub) architecture and is intentionally crafted
to be an open mechanism for the transport of ancillary data.
The service itself runs on OSPF [RFC2328] [RFC5340] Area Border
Routers (ABRs) or IS-IS [ISO10589] L1-L2 routers. For brevity, we
will use the term 'ABRs' for both cases.
This service uses a simple, hierarchical publish-subscribe
architecture. Clients are nodes within non-backbone OSPF areas or L1
IS-IS area. They subscribe with their local ABRs. The ABRs are
fully meshed, with the exception that ABRs of the same area need not
interact. Notifications initiated by an ABR flow to other ABRs and
from there to client nodes.
The availability of this service is advertised as part of the IGP, so
that discovery of the service is automatic. Clients can
automatically detect their local ABRs and ABRs can detect each other
and automatically form the necessary hierarchy.
The protocol runs on top of TCP [RFC0793] and/or QUIC [RFC9000] for
reliability. Security is provided by conventional transport protocol
mechanisms, such as TLS [RFC5246].
Li Expires 6 October 2022 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft DROID April 2022
1.1. Use Case: Node Liveness
Overlay services are increasingly common and are implemented by
creating tunnels over a physical infrastructure. The failure of one
of the tunnel endpoints implies that the traffic towards that
endpoint will be lost until the other endpoint recognizes the
situation and takes remedial action. Prompt notification of the
failure of the other endpoint is useful in minimizing the duration of
the outage.
Some network designs have come to rely on examining the IGP's Link
State Database (LSDB) to determine node liveness and, through the IGP
SPF computation, the node's reachability. However, if the network is
to scale, some form of summarization must be employed, resulting in
this information no longer being directly available. DROID can
address this need by combining its distributed database capabilities
with the ability to infer knowledge learned from the IGP.
Node liveness should not be confused with service liveness. If a
node is alive, then a service may or may not be up. This protocol
only tries to convey node liveness.
1.2. Use Case: Capabilities
Different nodes in the network have different capabilities. Other
nodes need to know what these capabilities are for a variety of
purposes. The management plane could learn and distribute this
information, but asking all nodes to retain all of this information
is not efficient. Rather, this information should be made available
to the nodes that need the information, when they need it.
Capability information has been carried in the IGP frequently, but
when the capabilities are not directly related to the IGP, it is an
overuse of the IGP itself. This would be a good application of
DROID. Each node should be able to advertise its capabilities into
DROID. Interested nodes should be able to request capability
information from DROID about any node in the network.
2. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
Li Expires 6 October 2022 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft DROID April 2022
3. DROID Capability Advertisement
DROID itself is run by ABRs and is advertised in the IGP for
connections by clients and other ABRs. Advertisements are done both
into the backbone (L2) and into non-backbone (L1) areas. The
advertisements into the backbone allow ABRs to automatically mesh.
The advertisements into the non-backbone areas allow clients to
automatically determine where the service is available.
3.1. DROID Advertisement in IS-IS
An ABR advertises the IS-IS DROID sub-TLV as part of the IS-IS Router
Capability TLV [RFC7981]. This is injected into the ABRs L1 and L2
LSP. The format of the IS-IS Node Liveness sub-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 |O|N| Reserved | TPI |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Port Number | IPv4 Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv4 Address | IPv6 Address... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type: TBD1
Length: n * (4 octets + 4 octets if O is set + 16 octets if N is
set)
O: 1 if an IPv4 Address is included
N: 1 if an IPv6 Address is included
Reserved: must be zero and ignored on receipt, 6 bits
TPI: Transport Protocol Identifier, 1 octet
0: TCP
1: QUIC
Port Number: Transport protocol port number, 2 octets
IPv4 Address: Service contact address, 4 octets if the O bit is
set, 0 otherwise.
Li Expires 6 October 2022 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft DROID April 2022
IPv6 Address: Service contact address, 16 octets if the N bit is
set, 0 otherwise.
The advertisement of this capability indicates that the node is
providing the DROID service on the designated port using the
designated protocol. The TPI indicates the transport protocol to be
used and the Port Number indicates the associated port to be used.
The TPI and Port Number pair may be included multiple times to
indicate that multiple protocols and port numbers are available. The
length of the sub-TLV can be used to determine the number of TPI and
Port Number pairs.
An IP address for the ABR MUST be included so that correspondents
will know how to access the service. An ABR MUST provide an IPv4
address, an IPv6 address, or both.
3.2. DROID Advertisement in OSPF
The availabilty of the DROID service is provided by the OSPF Node
Liveness Sub-TLV. The OSPF Node Liveness Sub-TLV is used by both
OSPFv2 and OSPFv3. The semantics are the same as the IS-IS Node
Liveness Sub-TLV. The format of the OSPF DROID Sub-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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|O|N| Reserved | TPI | Port Number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv4 Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv6 Address... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type: TBD2
Length: n * 3 octets
O: 1 if an IPv4 Address is included
N: 1 if an IPv6 Address is included
Reserved: must be zero and ignored on receipt, 6 bits
TPI: Transport Protocol Identifier, 1 octet
0: TCP
Li Expires 6 October 2022 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft DROID April 2022
1: QUIC
Port Number: Transport protocol port number, 2 octets
IPv4 Address: Service contact address, 4 octets if the O bit is
set, 0 otherwise.
IPv6 Address: Service contact address, 16 octets if the N bit is
set, 0 otherwise.
The TPI and Port Number fields are used in the same way as for IS-IS.
4. DROID
4.1. Messages
DROID sends messages in a stream inside of the selected transport
protocol. The protocol uses three message types:
Publish: A node generates a Publish message to change a data value
in the database. If another node has subscribed to this data
item, it will be informed by a Notification message.
Subscribe: A Subscribe message creates a subscription for a set of
data items. Subsequent updates for the data will generate a
corresponding Notification message containing the data items.
Notification: A Notification message is generated when a database
item is modified. Any nodes that have subscribed to the data item
are sent a Notification message with the value of the data item.
Each message has sub-TLVs to carry more specific information.
4.2. Keys
Each item in the database must have a key. The key space is
hierarchical and variable length. Traditionally, keys have been an
ASCII string, with levels in the hierarchy separated by the '/'
character, but this is extremely ineffcient. A hierarchical binary
key would be more efficient but is harder to manage.
Definition of the key space is out of scope for this document.
4.3. Object Values
An object in the database is an opaque, variable length string of
octets. The interpretation of an object value is outside of the
scope of this document.
Li Expires 6 October 2022 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft DROID April 2022
4.4. Client Actions
The client may determine the set of ABRs that it wishes to
communicate with by examination of its LSDB. The client SHOULD open
connections to at least two ABRs for redundancy. If the client
cannot open two connections, then the management system should be
informed.
Clients send Subscribe messages to subscribe to particular data that
it would like to receive Notifications about. A client MAY set the G
bit in the Subscribe message if it would like to get the current
value of the data as of when it subscribes.
Clients never send Notification messages and never receive Subscribe
messages. The actions of the client on receiving a Notification
message are out of scope for this document.
4.4.1. Client Liveness Actions
The client MAY send Subscribe messages (with a Liveness Subscribe
sub-TLV) on each of its ABR connections. A client MAY subscribe for
any number of prefixes, but it is expected that a client will send a
subscription for each of the tunnel endpoints that it will correspond
with. A client may subscribe for a host (a /32 or /128 prefix) or a
shorter prefix.
4.4.2. Client Capability Actions
A client MAY send Publish messages to advertise its own capabilities.
A client MAY send Subscribe messages to subscribe for capabilities of
other nodes.
There are no special mechanisms to support client capabilities. This
is simply a straightforward example of DROID mechanisms.
4.5. ABR Actions
Each ABR MUST advertise the availability of the Node Liveness service
into the backbone (L2) area and into any non-backbone (L1) areas.
Each ABR MUST have a single connection to each other ABR that is part
of a different non-backbone (L1) area. To prevent duplicate
connections, only one ABR should initiate the connection. For IS-IS,
the node with the lowest system ID should initiate the connection.
For OSPFv4, the node with the lowest IPv4 router ID should initiate
the connection. For OSPFv3, the node with the lowest IPv6 router ID
should initiate the connection.
Li Expires 6 October 2022 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft DROID April 2022
Each ABR may receive Subscribe messages, each containing a prefix.
These are retained in a Subscription Database (SDB) along with its
associated connection information. If a transport connection closes,
then all subscriptions associated with the connection should be
removed from the SDB. If an ABR receives a Subscription message
requesting a prefix be unsubscribed, then the prefix should be
removed from the SDB for that connection.
If an ABR receives a Subscribe message for a prefix that is being
injected by a non-attached area, then it SHOULD determine the set of
ABRs that are advertising that prefix or less specifics and subscribe
with only those ABRs. The ABR MAY subscribe for the prefix or any of
the less specifics. It is RECOMMENDED that the ABR subscribe for the
most specific prefix that is less specific than the original prefix.
If the ABR cannot find a matching prefix or less specific prefix,
then the ABR MAY subscribe for all of prefixes that are more
specific. Extreme caution should be used before subscribing for 0/0.
If the ABR has subscribed for a prefix and that prefix is no longer
advertised by another ABR then an ABR MAY unsubscribe, re-evaluate
its subscription and subscribe for a different prefix. In this way,
if a summary prefix changes, the ABR can shift to the new summary
prefix.
An ABR or client SHOULD NOT send duplicate subscriptions. If an ABR
or client is already subscribed for a prefix, a duplicate
subscription MUST NOT create a duplicate entry in the SDB.
A client may be co-located with an ABR. In other words, an ABR may
create subscriptions for its own purposes.
4.5.1. ABR Liveness Actions
Each ABR should monitor its IGP LSDB for changes in node liveness.
If an ABR sees an addition to the LSDB, then it is considered an Up
Event for that node. If an ABR sees a LSP/LSA time out or become
unreachable, then it is considered a Down Event for that node. Up
Events and Down Events for non-host prefixes are out of scope for
this document.
If an ABR receives a Notification message with an Up Event for a
prefix, then it is considered an Up Event for the prefix. If an ABR
receives a Notification message with a Down Event for a prefix, then
it is considered a Down Event for the prefix.
If an ABR observes an Up Event for a host, it examines its SDB for
subscriptions for that node or for any less specific prefixes. If
there are any, then the ABR sends a Notification message (with a
Li Expires 6 October 2022 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft DROID April 2022
Liveness Notification sub-TLV) with an Up Event for that host to each
node that subscribed. If there are no subscriptions, then the event
MUST be ignored.
Similarly, if an ABR observes a Down Event for a host, it examines
its SDB for subscriptions for that node or for any less specific
prefixes. If there are any, then the ABR sends a Notification
message (with a Liveness Notification sub-TLV) with a Down Event for
that host to each node that subscribed. If there are no
subscriptions, then the event MUST be ignored.
4.5.2. Autonomous Notification Mode
This section describes OPTIONAL ABR behavior.
An ABR MAY learn a set of prefixes from its management plane and
enter those prefixes into its SDB. Upon an Up or Down Event for such
a prefix, the ABR MAY send corresponding notification messages to all
other ABRs.
This may cause ABRs to receive unexpected Notification messages.
Since these do not match client subscription messages in its own SDB,
such messages SHALL be ignored.
4.5.3. Proxy ABRs
Another node may perform ABR functions instead of the ABR itself.
The alternate node is a 'proxy ABR' and performs all of the functions
of the ABR with respect to this protocol, except for injecting
capability advertisements into the LSDB. The proxy ABR should listen
to the IGP within the area so that it can correctly generate
notifications. The proxy ABR must also listen to the backbone or L2
area so that it can locate other ABRs. One or more ABRs SHOULD
advertise the availability of the proxy ABR in its capability
advertisements. How the real ABRs learn about the proxy ABR is out
of scope for this document.
4.6. Publish Messages
A Publish message has the following format:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length | Sub-TLVs ...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type: 1 (Publish message), 1 octet
Li Expires 6 October 2022 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft DROID April 2022
Length: length of the sub-TLVs, 2 octets
Sub-TLVs: One or more sub-TLVs, specifying the subscription/
unsubscription. Variable length.
4.7. Subscribe Messages
A Subscribe message has the following format:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length |S|G| Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Sub-TLVs ...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type: 2 (Subscribe message), 1 octet
Length: 1 + length of the sub-TLVs, 2 octets
S: 1 bit
0: Subscribe
1: Unsubscribe
G: if set, then the receiver should generate an immediate
Notification with the data value(s), 1 bit
Reserved: must be zero and ignored on receipt, 6 bits
Sub-TLVs: One or more sub-TLVs, specifying the subscription/
unsubscription. Variable length.
Use of the G bit for large queries can generate large amounts of
data.
4.8. Notification Messages
A Notification message has the following format:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length | Sub-TLVs ...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Li Expires 6 October 2022 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft DROID April 2022
Type: 3 (Notification message), 1 octet
Length: length of the sub-TLVs, 2 octets
Sub-TLVs: One or more sub-TLVs, specifying the subscription and
data value(s). Variable length.
4.9. Message Sub-TLVs
The following sub-TLVs may be used with any of the messages above.
Multiple sub-TLVs are expected to be used in combination to qualify
the containing message. Type codes for DROID Sub-TLVs are allocated
from the "DROID Sub-TLV Types" registry, defined below.
4.9.1. Prefix sub-TLV
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 | Prefix len |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| AFI | Prefix ...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type: 1, 1 octet
Length: 3 + the number of octets for the prefix, 2 octets
AFI: Address Family Identifier [afireg], 2 octets
Prefix len: number of significant bits in the prefix, 1 octet
Prefix: n octets
4.9.2. Key Sub-TLV
The Key sub-TLV has the format:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length | Key ....
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type: 2, 1 octet
Length: length of the Key field, in octets, 2 octets
Li Expires 6 October 2022 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft DROID April 2022
Key: variable length
The Key is an opaque variable length list of octets.
4.9.3. Object Value Sub-TLV
The Object Value sub-TLV has the format:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length | Object Value ...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type: 3, 1 octet
Length: length of the Object Value field, in octets, 2 octets
Object Value: variable length
The Object Value is an opaque variable length list of octets.
The Object Value sub-TLV should never appear in a Subscribe message.
4.9.4. Liveness Sub-TLV
The Liveness sub-TLV has the format:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length |U|D| Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type: 128, 1 octet
Length: 1, 2 octets
U: Up event, 1 bit
D: Down event, 1 bit
Reserved: must be zero and ignored on receipt, 6 bits
Up events and Down events MAY be subscribed independently or jointly.
5. IANA Considerations
Li Expires 6 October 2022 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft DROID April 2022
5.1. IS-IS
This document requests the following code points from the "IS-IS Sub-
TLVs for IS-IS Router CAPABILITY TLV" registry.
Type: TBD 1
Description: IS-IS Node Liveness sub-TLV
Reference: This document
5.2. OSPF
This document requests the following code points from the "OSPF
Router Information (RI) TLVs" registry:
Type: TBD 2
Description: OSPF Node Liveness Sub-TLV
Reference: This document
5.3. DROID Parameters
This document requests that IANA create a new Protocol Registry for
"DROID Parameters". The initial contents are the "DROID Sub-TLV
Types Registry" and the "DROID Capability Values Registry" defined
below.
5.4. DROID Sub-TLV Types Registry
This document requests that IANA create a new registry called the
"DROID Sub-TLV Types" registry under the "DROID Parameters" protocol
registry. For this registry, the registration procedure is
"Standards Action". The range of available numeric values is 0-255.
Generic sub-TLVs should be allocated from the range of 0-127. Data
specific sub-TLVs should be allocated from the range 128-255. The
fields in this registry are a "Value" and a "Name". The initial
contents of this registry should be:
Li Expires 6 October 2022 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft DROID April 2022
+-------+----------------------+
| Value | Name |
+-------+----------------------+
| 1 | Prefix sub-TLV |
+-------+----------------------+
| 2 | Key sub-TLV |
+-------+----------------------+
| 3 | Object Value sub-TLV |
+-------+----------------------+
| 128 | Liveness sub-TLV |
+-------+----------------------+
Table 1
5.5. DROID Capability Values Registry
This document requests that IANA create a new registry called the
"DROID Capability Values" registry under the "DROID Parameters"
protocol registry. For this registry, the registration procedure is
"Standards Action". The range of available numeric values is 0-255.
There are no initial contents. The fields in this registry are a
"Value" and a "Name".
Values in this registry should be allocated in increasing order,
starting with zero.
Each value in this registry corresponds to a bit position within the
Capabilities field of the Capabilities sub-TLV. Value 0 indicates
the most significant bit of the first octet, with subsequent values
indicating bits of decreasing signficance and then subsequent octets,
starting with the most significant bit. Thus, value 8 would
correspond to the most signficant bit of the second octet.
6. Security Considerations
Security of transport protocol connections are addressed by the use
of conventional transport protocol security techniques, such as TLS.
IGP advertisements are not expected to have privacy, so the
advertisement of the service is not a security issue.
Authentication is an outstanding issue, to be handled in a future
version of this document.
7. Normative References
[afireg] IANA, "Address Family Numbers", November 1988,
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/address-family-numbers/
address-family-numbers.xhtml#address-family-numbers-2>.
Li Expires 6 October 2022 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft DROID April 2022
[ISO10589] ISO, "Intermediate system to Intermediate system routing
information exchange protocol for use in conjunction with
the Protocol for providing the Connectionless-mode Network
Service (ISO 8473)", August 1987, <ISO/IEC 10589:2002>.
[RFC0793] Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7,
RFC 793, DOI 10.17487/RFC0793, September 1981,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc793>.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC2328] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2328, April 1998,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2328>.
[RFC5246] Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security
(TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5246, August 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5246>.
[RFC5340] Coltun, R., Ferguson, D., Moy, J., and A. Lindem, "OSPF
for IPv6", RFC 5340, DOI 10.17487/RFC5340, July 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5340>.
[RFC7981] Ginsberg, L., Previdi, S., and M. Chen, "IS-IS Extensions
for Advertising Router Information", RFC 7981,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7981, October 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7981>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC9000] Iyengar, J., Ed. and M. Thomson, Ed., "QUIC: A UDP-Based
Multiplexed and Secure Transport", RFC 9000,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9000, May 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9000>.
Author's Address
Tony Li
Juniper Networks
1133 Innovation Way
Sunnyvale, California 94089
United States of America
Li Expires 6 October 2022 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft DROID April 2022
Email: tony.li@tony.li
Li Expires 6 October 2022 [Page 17]
