RFC5073
Network Working Group J.P. Vasseur, Ed. Request for Comments: 5073 Cisco Systems, Inc. Category: Standards Track J.L. Le Roux, Ed.
France Telecom
December 2007
IGP Routing Protocol Extensions for
Discovery of Traffic Engineering Node Capabilities
Status of This Memo
This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
Abstract
It is highly desired, in several cases, to take into account Traffic Engineering (TE) node capabilities during Multi Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Traffic Engineered Label Switched Path (TE-LSP) selection, such as, for instance, the capability to act as a branch Label Switching Router (LSR) of a Point-To-MultiPoint (P2MP) LSP. This requires advertising these capabilities within the Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP). For that purpose, this document specifies Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) and Intermediate System-Intermediate System (IS-IS) traffic engineering extensions for the advertisement of control plane and data plane traffic engineering node capabilities.
Contents
Introduction
Multi Protocol Label Switching-Traffic Engineering (MPLS-TE) routing (RFC3784, RFC3630, [OSPFv3-TE]) relies on extensions to link state Interior Gateway Protocols (IGP) ([IS-IS], RFC1195, RFC2328, RFC2740) in order to advertise Traffic Engineering (TE) link information used for constraint-based routing. Further Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) related routing extensions are defined in RFC4205 and RFC4203.
It is desired to complement these routing extensions in order to advertise TE node capabilities, in addition to TE link information. These TE node capabilities will be taken into account as constraints during path selection.
Indeed, it is useful to advertise data plane TE node capabilities, such as the capability for a Label Switching Router (LSR) to be a branch LSR or a bud-LSR of a Point-To-MultiPoint (P2MP) Label Switched Path (LSP). These capabilities can then be taken into account as constraints when computing the route of TE LSPs.
It is also useful to advertise control plane TE node capabilities such as the capability to support GMPLS signaling for a packet LSR, or the capability to support P2MP (Point to Multipoint) TE LSP
signaling. This allows selecting a path that avoids nodes that do not support a given control plane feature, or triggering a mechanism to support such nodes on a path. Hence, this facilitates backward compatibility.
For that purpose, this document specifies IGP (OSPF and IS-IS) extensions in order to advertise data plane and control plane capabilities of a node.
A new TLV is defined for OSPF, the TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV, to be carried within the Router Information LSA (RFC4970). A new sub-TLV is defined for IS-IS, the TE Node Capability Descriptor sub-TLV, to be carried within the IS-IS Capability TLV (RFC4971).
Terminology
This document uses terminologies defined in RFC3031, RFC3209, and RFC4461.
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.
TE Node Capability Descriptor
Description
LSRs in a network may have distinct control plane and data plane Traffic Engineering capabilities. The TE Node Capability Descriptor information defined in this document describes data and control plane capabilities of an LSR. Such information can be used during path computation so as to avoid nodes that do not support a given TE feature either in the control or data plane, or to trigger procedures to handle these nodes along the path (e.g., trigger LSP hierarchy to support a legacy transit LSR on a P2MP LSP (see RFC4875)).
Required Information
The TE Node Capability Descriptor contains a variable-length set of bit flags, where each bit corresponds to a given TE node capability.
Five TE Node Capabilities are defined in this document:
- B bit: when set, this flag indicates that the LSR can act
as a branch node on a P2MP LSP (see RFC4461);
- E bit: when set, this flag indicates that the LSR can act
as a bud LSR on a P2MP LSP, i.e., an LSR that is both
transit and egress (see RFC4461);
- M bit: when set, this flag indicates that the LSR supports
MPLS-TE signaling (RFC3209);
- G bit: when set this flag indicates that the LSR supports
GMPLS signaling (RFC3473);
- P bit: when set, this flag indicates that the LSR supports
P2MP MPLS-TE signaling (RFC4875).
Note that new capability bits may be added in the future if required.
TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV Formats
OSPF TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV Format
The OSPF TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV is a variable length TLV that contains a series of bit flags, where each bit correspond to a TE node capability. The bit-field MAY be extended with additional 32-bit words if more bit flags need to be assigned. Any unknown bit flags SHALL be treated as Reserved bits.
The OSPF TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV is carried within an OSPF Router Information LSA, which is defined in RFC4970.
The format of the OSPF TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV is the same as the TLV format used by the Traffic Engineering Extensions to OSPF RFC3630. That is, the TLV is composed of 2 octets for the type, 2 octets specifying the length of the value field, and a value field.
The OSPF TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV has the following format:
TYPE: 5 (see Section 8.1)
LENGTH: Variable (multiple of 4).
VALUE: Array of units of 32 flags numbered from the most
significant bit as bit zero, where each bit represents
a TE node capability.
The following bits are defined:
Bit Capabilities
0 B bit: P2MP Branch Node capability: When set, this indicates
that the LSR can act as a branch node on a P2MP LSP
RFC4461.
1 E bit: P2MP Bud-LSR capability: When set, this indicates
that the LSR can act as a bud LSR on a P2MP LSP, i.e., an
LSR that is both transit and egress RFC4461.
2 M bit: If set, this indicates that the LSR supports MPLS-TE
signaling (RFC3209).
3 G bit: If set, this indicates that the LSR supports GMPLS
signaling (RFC3473).
4 P bit: If set, this indicates that the LSR supports P2MP
MPLS-TE signaling (RFC4875).
5-31 Reserved for future assignments by IANA.
Reserved bits MUST be set to zero on transmission, and MUST be ignored on reception. If the length field is greater than 4, implying that there are more than 32 bits in the value field, then any additional bits (i.e., not yet assigned) are reserved.
IS-IS TE Node Capability Descriptor sub-TLV format
The IS-IS TE Node Capability Descriptor sub-TLV is a variable length sub-TLV that contains a series of bit flags, where each bit corresponds to a TE node capability. The bit-field MAY be extended with additional bytes if more bit flags need to be assigned. Any unknown bit flags SHALL be treated as Reserved bits.
The IS-IS TE Node Capability Descriptor sub-TLV is carried within an IS-IS CAPABILITY TLV, which is defined in RFC4971.
The format of the IS-IS TE Node Capability sub-TLV is the same as the sub-TLV format used by the Traffic Engineering Extensions to IS-IS RFC3784. That is, the sub-TLV is composed of 1 octet for the type, 1 octet specifying the length of the value field.
The IS-IS TE Node Capability Descriptor sub-TLV has the following format:
TYPE: 1 (see Section 8.2)
LENGTH: Variable
VALUE: Array of units of 8 flags numbered from the most
significant bit as bit zero, where each bit represents
a TE node capability.
The following bits are defined:
Bit Capabilities
0 B bit: P2MP Branch Node capability: When set, this indicates
that the LSR can act as a branch node on a P2MP LSP
RFC4461.
1 E bit: P2MP Bud-LSR capability: When set, this indicates
that the LSR can act as a bud LSR on a P2MP LSP, i.e., an
LSR that is both transit and egress RFC4461.
2 M bit: If set, this indicates that the LSR supports MPLS-TE
signaling (RFC3209).
3 G bit: If set, this indicates that the LSR supports GMPLS
signaling (RFC3473).
4 P bit: If set, this indicates that the LSR supports P2MP
MPLS-TE signaling (RFC4875).
5-7 Reserved for future assignments by IANA.
Reserved bits MUST be set to zero on transmission, and MUST be ignored on reception. If the length field is great than 1, implying that there are more than 8 bits in the value field, then any additional bits (i.e., not yet assigned) are reserved.
Elements of Procedure
OSPF
The TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV is advertised, within an OSPFv2 Router Information LSA (Opaque type of 4 and Opaque ID of 0) or an OSPFv3 Router Information LSA (function code of 12), which are defined in RFC4970. As such, elements of procedure are inherited from those defined in RFC2328, RFC2740, and RFC4970.
The TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV advertises capabilities that may be taken into account as constraints during path selection. Hence, its flooding scope is area-local, and it MUST be carried within an OSPFv2 type 10 Router Information LSA (as defined in RFC2370) or an OSPFv3 Router Information LSA with the S1 bit set and the S2 bit cleared (as defined in RFC2740).
A router MUST originate a new OSPF Router Information LSA whenever the content of the TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV changes or whenever required by the regular OSPF procedure (LSA refresh (every LSRefreshTime)).
The TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV is OPTIONAL and MUST NOT appear more than once in an OSPF Router Information LSA. If a TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV appears more than once in an OSPF Router Information LSA, only the first occurrence MUST be processed and others MUST be ignored.
When an OSPF Router Information LSA does not contain any TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV, this means that the TE node capabilities of that LSR are unknown.
Note that a change in any of these capabilities MAY trigger Constrained Shortest Path First (CSPF) computation, but MUST NOT trigger normal SPF computation.
Note also that TE node capabilities are expected to be fairly static. They may change as the result of configuration change or software upgrade. This is expected not to appear more than once a day.
IS-IS
The TE Node Capability sub-TLV is carried within an IS-IS CAPABILITY TLV defined in RFC4971. As such, elements of procedure are inherited from those defined in RFC4971.
The TE Node Capability Descriptor sub-TLV advertises capabilities that may be taken into account as constraints during path selection. Hence, its flooding is area-local, and it MUST be carried within an IS-IS CAPABILITY TLV having the S flag cleared.
An IS-IS router MUST originate a new IS-IS LSP whenever the content of any of the TE Node Capability sub-TLV changes or whenever required by the regular IS-IS procedure (LSP refresh).
The TE Node Capability Descriptor sub-TLV is OPTIONAL and MUST NOT appear more than once in an ISIS Router Capability TLV.
When an IS-IS LSP does not contain any TE Node Capability Descriptor sub-TLV, this means that the TE node capabilities of that LSR are unknown.
Note that a change in any of these capabilities MAY trigger CSPF computation, but MUST NOT trigger normal SPF computation.
Note also that TE node capabilities are expected to be fairly static. They may change as the result of configuration change, or software upgrade. This is expected not to appear more than once a day.
Backward Compatibility
The TE Node Capability Descriptor TLVs defined in this document do not introduce any interoperability issues. For OSPF, a router not supporting the TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV will just silently ignore the TLV, as specified in RFC4970. For IS-IS, a router not supporting the TE Node Capability Descriptor sub-TLV will just silently ignore the sub-TLV, as specified in RFC4971.
When the TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV is absent, this means that the TE Capabilities of that LSR are unknown.
The absence of a word of capability flags in OSPF or an octet of capability flags in IS-IS means that these capabilities are unknown.
Security Considerations
This document specifies the content of the TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV in IS-IS and OSPF to be used for (G)MPLS-TE path computation. As this TLV is not used for SPF computation or normal routing, the extensions specified here have no direct effect on IP routing. Tampering with this TLV may have an effect on Traffic Engineering computation. Mechanisms defined to secure IS-IS Link State PDUs RFC3567, OSPF LSAs RFC2154, and their TLVs can be used to secure this TLV as well.
IANA Considerations
OSPF TLV
RFC4970 defines a new codepoint registry for TLVs carried in the Router Information LSA defined in RFC4970.
IANA has made a new codepoint assignment from that registry for the TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV defined in this document and carried within the Router Information LSA. The value is 5. See Section 4.1 of this document.
ISIS sub-TLV
IANA has defined a registry for sub-TLVs of the IS-IS CAPABILITY TLV defined in RFC4971.
IANA has made a new codepoint assignment from that registry for the TE Node Capability Descriptor sub-TLV defined in this document, and carried within the ISIS CAPABILITY TLV. The value is 1. See Section 4.2 of this document.
Capability Registry
IANA has created a new registry to manage the space of capability bit flags carried within the OSPF and ISIS TE Node Capability Descriptor.
A single registry must be defined for both protocols. A new base registry has been created to cover IGP-TE registries that apply to both OSPF and IS-IS, and the new registry requested by this document is a sub-registry of this new base registry.
Bits in the new registry should be numbered in the usual IETF notation, starting with the most significant bit as bit zero.
New bit numbers may be allocated only by an IETF Consensus action.
Each bit should be tracked with the following qualities:
- Bit number
- Defining RFC
- Name of bit
IANA has made assignments for the five TE node capabilities defined in this document (see Sections 8.1 and 8.2) using the following values:
Bit No. Name Reference
+---------------------------------------+---------------
0 B bit: P2MP Branch LSR capability RFC5073 1 E bit: P2MP Bud LSR capability RFC5073 2 M bit: MPLS-TE support RFC5073 3 G bit: GMPLS support RFC5073 4 P bit: P2MP RSVP-TE support RFC5073 5-7 Unassigned RFC5073
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Benoit Fondeviole, Adrian Farrel, Dimitri Papadimitriou, Acee Lindem, and David Ward for their useful comments and suggestions.
We would also like to thank authors of RFC4420 and RFC4970 by which some text of this document has been inspired.
Adrian Farrel prepared the final version of this document for submission to the IESG.
10. References
10.1. Normative References
RFC1195 Callon, R., "Use of OSI IS-IS for routing in TCP/IP and
dual environments", RFC 1195, December 1990.
RFC2119 Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
RFC2328 Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328, April 1998.
RFC2370 Coltun, R., "The OSPF Opaque LSA Option", RFC 2370, July
1998.
RFC2740 Coltun, R., Ferguson, D., and J. Moy, "OSPF for IPv6",
RFC 2740, December 1999.
RFC3031 Rosen, E., Viswanathan, A., and R. Callon,
"Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture", RFC 3031, January 2001.
RFC3209 Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan,
V., and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001.
RFC3473 Berger, L., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation
Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC
3473, January 2003.
RFC3630 Katz, D., Kompella, K., and D. Yeung, "Traffic
Engineering (TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC
3630, September 2003.
RFC3784 Smit, H. and T. Li, "Intermediate System to Intermediate
System (IS-IS) Extensions for Traffic Engineering (TE)",
RFC 3784, June 2004.
[IS-IS] "Intermediate System to Intermediate System Intra-Domain
Routeing Exchange Protocol for use in Conjunction with
the Protocol for Providing the Connectionless-mode
Network Service (ISO 8473)", ISO 10589.
RFC4971 Vasseur, JP., Ed., Shen, N., Ed., and R. Aggarwal, Ed.,
"Intermediate System to Intermediate System (IS-IS)
Extensions for Advertising Router Information", RFC
4971, July 2007.
RFC4970 Lindem, A., Ed., Shen, N., Vasseur, JP., Aggarwal, R.,
and S. Shaffer, "Extensions to OSPF for Advertising
Optional Router Capabilities", RFC 4970, July 2007.
RFC4875 Aggarwal, R., Ed., Papadimitriou, D., Ed., and S.
Yasukawa, Ed., "Extensions to Resource Reservation
Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) for Point-to-
Multipoint TE Label Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 4875,
May 2007.
10.2. Informative References
RFC2154 Murphy, S., Badger, M., and B. Wellington, "OSPF with
Digital Signatures", RFC 2154, June 1997.
RFC3567 Li, T. and R. Atkinson, "Intermediate System to
Intermediate System (IS-IS) Cryptographic
Authentication", RFC 3567, July 2003.
RFC4203 Kompella, K., Ed., and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "OSPF Extensions
in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS)", RFC 4203, October 2005.
RFC4205 Kompella, K., Ed., and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "Intermediate
System to Intermediate System (IS-IS) Extensions in
Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS)", RFC 4205, October 2005.
RFC4420 Farrel, A., Ed., Papadimitriou, D., Vasseur, J.-P., and
A. Ayyangar, "Encoding of Attributes for Multiprotocol
Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Path (LSP)
Establishment Using Resource ReserVation Protocol-
Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)", RFC 4420, February 2006.
RFC4461 Yasukawa, S., Ed., "Signaling Requirements for Point-
to-Multipoint Traffic-Engineered MPLS Label Switched
Paths (LSPs)", RFC 4461, April 2006.
[OSPFv3-TE] Ishiguro K., Manral V., Davey A., and Lindem A.,
"Traffic Engineering Extensions to OSPF version 3", Work
in Progress.
Contributors' Addresses
Seisho Yasukawa NTT 3-9-11 Midori-cho, Musashino-shi, Tokyo 180-8585, Japan EMail: [email protected]
Stefano Previdi Cisco Systems, Inc Via Del Serafico 200 Roma, 00142 Italy EMail: [email protected]
Peter Psenak Cisco Systems, Inc Pegasus Park DE Kleetlaan 6A Diegmen, 1831 BELGIUM EMail: [email protected]
Paul Mabbey Comcast USA
Editors' Addresses
Jean-Philippe Vasseur Cisco Systems, Inc. 1414 Massachusetts Avenue Boxborough, MA, 01719 USA EMail: [email protected]
Jean-Louis Le Roux France Telecom 2, avenue Pierre-Marzin 22307 Lannion Cedex FRANCE EMail: [email protected]
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
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 [email protected].
