GENWiki

Premier IT Outsourcing and Support Services within the UK

User Tools

Site Tools

Problem, Formatting or Query -  Send Feedback

Was this page helpful?-10+1


rfc:rfc7777

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) S. Hegde Request for Comments: 7777 Juniper Networks, Inc. Category: Standards Track R. Shakir ISSN: 2070-1721 Jive Communications, Inc.

                                                            A. Smirnov
                                                   Cisco Systems, Inc.
                                                                 Z. Li
                                                   Huawei Technologies
                                                           B. Decraene
                                                                Orange
                                                            March 2016
            Advertising Node Administrative Tags in OSPF

Abstract

 This document describes an extension to the OSPF protocol 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 an extension to the
 OSPF protocol to advertise node administrative tags.  The node tags
 can be used to express and apply locally defined network policies,
 which are a very useful operational capability.  Node tags may be
 used by either OSPF itself or other applications consuming
 information propagated via OSPF.
 This document describes the protocol extensions to disseminate node
 administrative tags to the OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 protocol.  It provides
 example use cases of administrative node tags.

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 5741.
 Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
 and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
 http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7777.

Hegde, et al. Standards Track [Page 1] RFC 7777 OSPF Node Admin Tags March 2016

Copyright Notice

 Copyright (c) 2016 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.

Table of Contents

 1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
 2.  OSPF Node Admin Tag TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.1.  TLV Format  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   2.2.  Elements of Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.2.1.  Interpretation of Node Administrative Tags  . . . . .   4
     2.2.2.  Use of Node Administrative Tags . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     2.2.3.  Processing Node Administrative Tag Changes  . . . . .   6
 3.  Applications  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   3.1.  Service Auto-Discovery  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   3.2.  Fast-Rerouting Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   3.3.  Controlling Remote LFA Tunnel Termination . . . . . . . .   8
   3.4.  Mobile Backhaul Network Service Deployment  . . . . . . .   8
   3.5.  Explicit Routing Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
 4.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
 5.  Operational Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
 6.  Manageability Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
 7.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
 8.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   8.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   8.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
 Contributors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
 Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
 Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15

Hegde, et al. Standards Track [Page 2] RFC 7777 OSPF Node Admin Tags March 2016

1. Introduction

 It is useful to assign a node administrative tag to a router in the
 OSPF domain and use it as an attribute associated with the node.  The
 node administrative tag can be used in a variety of applications, for
 example:
 (a)  Traffic Engineering (TE) applications to provide different path-
      selection criteria.
 (b)  Prefer or prune certain paths in Loop-Free Alternate (LFA)
      backup selection via local policies as defined in [LFA-MANAGE].
 This document provides mechanisms to advertise node administrative
 tags in OSPF for route and path selection.  Route and path selection
 functionality applies to both TE and non-TE applications; hence, a
 new TLV for carrying node administrative tags is included in Router
 Information (RI) Link State Advertisement (LSA) [RFC7770].
 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].

2. OSPF Node Admin Tag TLV

 An administrative tag is a 32-bit integer value that can be used to
 identify a group of nodes in the OSPF domain.
 The newly defined TLV is carried within an RI LSA for OSPFV2 and
 OSPFV3.  RI LSA [RFC7770] can have flooding scope at the link, area,
 or Autonomous System (AS) level.  The choice of what scope at which
 to flood the group tags is a matter of local policy.  It is expected
 that node administrative tag values will not be portable across
 administrative domains.
 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 a certain tag value,
 and all P nodes are configured with a different tag value in the
 domain).  Multiple TLVs MAY be added in same RI LSA or in a different
 instance of the RI LSA as defined in [RFC7770].

Hegde, et al. Standards Track [Page 3] RFC 7777 OSPF Node Admin Tags March 2016

2.1. TLV Format

 [RFC7770] defines the RI LSA, which may be used to advertise
 properties of the originating router.  The payload of the RI LSA
 consists of one or more nested Type/Length/Value (TLV) triplets.
 Node administrative tags are advertised in the Node Admin Tag TLV.
 The format of the Node Admin Tag 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                        |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |                   Administrative Tag #1                       |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |                   Administrative Tag #2                       |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 //                                                             //
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |                  Administrative Tag #N                        |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                   Figure 1: OSPF Node Admin Tag TLV
 Type: 10
 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 set of administrative tags.  Each tag is a 32-bit integer
       value.  At least one tag MUST be carried if this TLV is
       included in the RI LSA.

2.2. Elements of Procedure

2.2.1. Interpretation of Node Administrative Tags

 The meaning of the node administrative tags is generally opaque to
 OSPF.  Routers advertising the node administrative tag (or tags) may
 be configured to do so without knowing (or even without supporting
 processing of) the functionality implied by the tag.  This section
 describes general rules, regulations, and guidelines for using and
 interpreting an administrative tag that will facilitate interoperable
 implementations by vendors.

Hegde, et al. Standards Track [Page 4] RFC 7777 OSPF Node Admin Tags March 2016

 Interpretation of tag values is specific to the administrative domain
 of a particular network operator; hence, tag values SHOULD NOT be
 propagated outside the administrative domain to which they apply.
 The meaning of a node administrative tag is defined by the network
 local policy and is controlled via the configuration.  If a receiving
 node does not understand the tag value or does not have a local
 policy corresponding to the tag, it ignores the specific tag and
 floods the RI LSA without any change as defined in [RFC7770].
 The semantics of the tag order has no meaning.  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 must be treated as an independent identifier that may be
 used in the policy to perform a policy action.  Each tag carried by
 the Node Admin Tag TLV should be used to indicate a characteristic of
 a node that is independent of the characteristics indicated by other
 administrative tags.  The administrative-tag list within the TLV MUST
 be considered an unordered list.  While policies may be implemented
 based on the presence of multiple tags (e.g., if tag A AND tag B are
 present), they MUST NOT be reliant upon the order of the tags (i.e.,
 all policies should be considered commutative operations, such that
 tag A preceding or following tag B does not change their outcome).

2.2.2. Use of Node Administrative Tags

 The node administrative tags are not meant to be extended by future
 OSPF standards.  New OSPF extensions are not expected to require use
 of node administrative tags or define well-known tag values.  Node
 administrative tags are for generic use and do not require IANA
 registration.  Future OSPF extensions requiring well-known values MAY
 define their own data signaling tailored to the needs of the feature
 or MAY use the capability TLV as defined in [RFC7770].
 Being part of the RI LSA, the Node Admin Tag TLV must be reasonably
 small and stable.  In particular, implementations supporting node
 administrative tags MUST NOT be used to convey attributes of the
 routing topology or associate tags with changes in the network
 topology (both within and outside the OSPF domain) or reachability of
 routes.

Hegde, et al. Standards Track [Page 5] RFC 7777 OSPF Node Admin Tags March 2016

2.2.3. Processing Node Administrative Tag Changes

 Multiple Node Admin Tag TLVs MAY appear in an RI LSA or multiple Node
 Admin Tag TLVs MAY be contained in different instances of the RI LSA.
 The administrative tags associated with a node that originates tags
 for the purpose of any computation or processing at a receiving node
 SHOULD be a superset of node administrative tags from all the TLVs in
 all the received RI LSA instances in the Link-State Database (LSDB)
 advertised by the corresponding OSPF router.  When an RI LSA is
 received that changes the set of tags applicable to any originating
 node, which has features depending on node administrative tags, a
 receiving node MUST repeat any computation or processing that is
 based on those administrative tags.
 When there is a change or removal of an administrative affiliation of
 a node, the node MUST re-originate the RI LSA with the latest set of
 node administrative tags.  On the receiver, when there is a change in
 the Node Admin Tag TLV or removal/addition of a TLV in any instance
 of the RI LSA, implementations MUST take appropriate measures to
 update their state according to the changed set of tags.  The exact
 actions needed depend on features working with administrative tags
 and are outside of scope of this specification.

3. Applications

 This section lists several examples of how implementations might use
 the node administrative tags.  These examples are given only to
 demonstrate the generic usefulness of the router tagging mechanism.
 Implementations supporting this specification are not required to
 implement any of these use cases.  It is also worth noting that in
 some described use cases, routers configured to advertise tags help
 other routers in their calculations but do not themselves implement
 the same functionality.

3.1. Service Auto-Discovery

 Router tagging may be used to automatically discover a group of
 routers sharing a particular service.
 For example, a service provider might desire to establish a full mesh
 of MPLS TE tunnels between all PE routers in the area of the MPLS VPN
 network.  Marking all PE routers with a tag and configuring devices
 with a policy to create MPLS TE tunnels to all other devices
 advertising this tag will automate maintenance of the full mesh.
 When a new PE router is added to the area, all other PE devices will
 open TE tunnels to it without needing to reconfigure them.

Hegde, et al. Standards Track [Page 6] RFC 7777 OSPF Node Admin Tags March 2016

3.2. Fast-Rerouting Policy

 Increased deployment of Loop-Free Alternates (LFA) as defined in
 [RFC5286] poses operation and management challenges.  [LFA-MANAGE]
 proposes policies which, when implemented, will ease LFA operation
 concerns.
 One of the proposed refinements is to be able to group the nodes in
 an IGP domain with administrative tags and engineer the LFA based on
 configured policies.
 (a)  Administrative limitation of LFA scope
     Service provider access infrastructure is frequently designed in
     a layered approach with each layer of devices serving different
     purposes and thus having different hardware capabilities and
     configured software features.  When LFA repair paths are being
     computed, it may be desirable to exclude devices from being
     considered as LFA candidates based on their layer.
     For example, if the access infrastructure is divided into the
     Access, Distribution, and Core layers, it may be desirable for a
     Distribution device to compute LFA only via Distribution or Core
     devices but not via Access devices.  This may be due to features
     enabled on Access routers, due to capacity limitations, or due to
     the security requirements.  Managing such a policy via
     configuration of the router computing LFA is cumbersome and error
     prone.
     With the node administrative tags, it is possible to assign a tag
     to each layer and implement LFA policy of computing LFA repair
     paths only via neighbors that advertise the Core or Distribution
     tag.  This requires minimal per-node configuration and the
     network automatically adapts when new links or routers are added.
 (b)  LFA calculation optimization
     Calculation of LFA paths may require significant resources of the
     router.  One execution of Dijkstra's algorithm is required for
     each neighbor eligible to become the next hop of repair paths.
     Thus, a router with a few hundred neighbors may need to execute
     the algorithm hundreds of times before the best (or even valid)
     repair path is found.  Manually excluding from the calculation
     neighbors that are known to provide no valid LFA (such as single-
     connected routers) may significantly reduce the number of
     Dijkstra algorithm runs.

Hegde, et al. Standards Track [Page 7] RFC 7777 OSPF Node Admin Tags March 2016

     LFA calculation policy may be configured so that routers
     advertising certain tag values are excluded from LFA calculation,
     even if they are otherwise suitable.

3.3. Controlling Remote LFA Tunnel Termination

 [RFC7490] defined a method of tunneling traffic to extend the basic
 LFA coverage after connection failure of a link and defined an
 algorithm to find tunnel tail-end routers meeting the LFA
 requirement.  In most cases, the proposed algorithm finds more than
 one candidate tail-end router.  In a real-life network, it may be
 desirable to exclude some nodes from the list of candidates based on
 the local policy.  This may be either due to known limitations of the
 node (the router does not accept the targeted LDP sessions required
 to implement remote LFA tunneling) or due to administrative
 requirements (for example, it may be desirable to choose the tail-end
 router among colocated devices).
 The node administrative tag delivers a simple and scalable solution.
 Remote LFA can be configured with a policy to accept only routers
 advertising a certain tag as candidates during the tail-end router
 calculation.  Tagging routers allows both exclusion of nodes not
 capable of serving as remote LFA tunnel tail ends and definition of a
 region from which a tail-end router must be selected.

3.4. Mobile Backhaul Network Service Deployment

 Mobile backhaul networks usually adopt a ring topology to save fibre
 resources; it is usually divided into the aggregate network and the
 access network.  Cell Site Gateways (CSGs) connects the LTE Evolved
 NodeBs (eNodeBs) and RNC (Radio Network Controller) Site Gateways
 (RSGs) connects the RNCs.  The mobile traffic is transported from
 CSGs to RSGs.  The network takes a typical aggregate traffic model
 that more than one access ring will attach to one pair of aggregate
 site gateways (ASGs) and more than one aggregate ring will attach to
 one pair of RSGs.

Hegde, et al. Standards Track [Page 8] RFC 7777 OSPF Node Admin Tags March 2016

  1. —————

/ \

                 /                  \
                /                    \
   +------+   +----+    Access     +----+
   |eNodeB|---|CSG1|    Ring 1     |ASG1|------------
   +------+   +----+               +----+            \
                \                    /                \
                 \                  /                  +----+    +---+
                  \             +----+                 |RSG1|----|RNC|
                   -------------|    |    Aggregate    +----+    +---+
                                |ASG2|      Ring         |
                   -------------|    |                 +----+    +---+
                  /             +----+                 |RSG2|----|RNC|
                 /                  \                  +----+    +---+
                /                    \                /
   +------+   +----+     Access     +----+           /
   |eNodeB|---|CSG2|     Ring 2     |ASG3|-----------
   +------+   +----+                +----+
               \                     /
                \                   /
                 \                 /
                  -----------------
                   Figure 2: Mobile Backhaul Network
 A typical mobile backhaul network with access rings and aggregate
 links is shown in the figure above.  The mobile backhaul networks
 deploy traffic engineering due to strict Service Level Agreements
 (SLAs).  The TE paths may have additional constraints to avoid
 passing via different access rings or to get completely disjoint
 backup TE paths.  The mobile backhaul networks towards the access
 side change frequently due to the growing mobile traffic and addition
 of new eNodeBs.  It's complex to satisfy the requirements using cost,
 link color, or explicit path configurations.  The node administrative
 tag defined in this document can be effectively used to solve the
 problem for mobile backhaul networks.  The nodes in different rings
 can be assigned with specific tags.  TE path computation can be
 enhanced to consider additional constraints based on node
 administrative tags.

3.5. Explicit Routing Policy

 A partially meshed network provides multiple paths between any two
 nodes in the network.  In a data centre environment, the topology is
 usually highly symmetric with many/all paths having equal cost.  In a
 long distance network, this is usually not the case, for a variety of
 reasons (e.g., historic, fibre availability constraints, different

Hegde, et al. Standards Track [Page 9] RFC 7777 OSPF Node Admin Tags March 2016

 distances between transit nodes, and different roles).  Hence,
 between a given source and destination, a path is typically preferred
 over the others, while between the same source and another
 destination, a different path may be preferred.
      +----------------------+   +----------------+
      |                       \ /                 |
      |   +-----------------+  x   +---------+    |
      |   |                  \/  \/          |    |
      |   |                +-T-10-T          |    |
      |   |               /  |   /|          |    |
      |   |              /  100 / |          |    |
      |   |             /    | | 100         |    |
      |   |            /   +-+-+  |          |    |
      |   |           /   /  |    |          |    |
      |   |          /   /   R-18-R          |    |
      |   |        10   10  /\   /\          |    |
      |   |        /   /   /  \ /  \         |    |
      |   |       /   /   /    x    \        |    |
      |   |      /   /   10  10 \    \       |    |
      |   |     /   /   /    /   10   10     |    |
      |   |    /   /   /    /     \    \     |    |
      |   |   A-25-A  A-25-A       A-25-A    |    |
      |   |   |    |   \    \     /    /     |    |
      |   |   |    |   201  201  201 201     |    |
      |   |   |    |     \    \ /    /       |    |
      |   |  201  201     \    x    /        |    |
      |   |   |    |       \  / \  /         |    |
      |   |   |    |        \/   \/          |    |
      |   |   I-24-I        I-24-I          100  100
      |   |  /    /         |    |           |    |
      |   +-+    /          |    +-----------+    |
      +---------+           +---------------------+
                  Figure 3: Explicit Routing topology
 In the above topology, an operator may want to enforce the following
 high-level explicit routing policies:
 o  Traffic from A nodes to A nodes should preferably go through R or
    T nodes (rather than through I nodes);
 o  Traffic from A nodes to I nodes must not go through R and T nodes.
 With node admin tags, tag A (resp. I, R, T) can be configured on all
 A (resp.  I, R, T) nodes to advertise their role.  The first policy
 is about preferring one path over another.  Given the chosen metrics,
 it is achieved with regular SPF routing.  The second policy is about

Hegde, et al. Standards Track [Page 10] RFC 7777 OSPF Node Admin Tags March 2016

 prohibiting (pruning) some paths.  It requires an explicit routing
 policy.  With the use of node tags, this may be achieved with a
 generic Constrained Shortest Path First (CSPF) policy configured on A
 nodes: for destination nodes, having the tag "A" runs a CSPF with the
 exclusion of nodes having the tag "I".

4. Security Considerations

 Node administrative tags may be used by operators to indicate
 geographical location or other sensitive information.  As indicated
 in [RFC2328] and [RFC5340], OSPF authentication mechanisms do not
 provide confidentiality and the information carried in node
 administrative tags could be leaked to an IGP snooper.
 Confidentiality for the OSPF control packets can be achieved by
 either running OSPF on top of IP Security (IPsec) tunnels or by
 applying IPsec-based security mechanisms as described in [RFC4552].
 Advertisement of tag values for one administrative domain into
 another risks misinterpretation of the tag values (if the two domains
 have assigned different meanings to the same values), which may have
 undesirable and unanticipated side effects.
 [RFC4593] and [RFC6863] discuss the generic threats to routing
 protocols and OSPF, respectively.  These security threats are also
 applicable to the mechanisms described in this document.  OSPF
 authentication described in [RFC2328] and [RFC5340] or extended
 authentication mechanisms described in [RFC7474] or [RFC7166] SHOULD
 be used in deployments where attackers have access to the physical
 networks and nodes included in the OSPF domain are vulnerable.

5. Operational Considerations

 Operators can assign meaning to the node administrative tags, which
 are local to the operator's administrative domain.  The operational
 use of node administrative tags is analogical to the IS-IS prefix
 tags [RFC5130] and BGP communities [RFC1997].  Operational discipline
 and procedures followed in configuring and using BGP communities and
 IS-IS prefix tags is also applicable to the usage of node
 administrative tags.
 Defining language for local policies is outside the scope of this
 document.  As is the case of other policy applications, the pruning
 policies can cause the path to be completely removed from forwarding
 plane, and hence have the potential for more severe operational
 impact (e.g., node unreachability due to path removal) by comparison
 to preference policies that only affect path selection.

Hegde, et al. Standards Track [Page 11] RFC 7777 OSPF Node Admin Tags March 2016

6. Manageability Considerations

 Node administrative tags are configured and managed using routing
 policy enhancements.  The YANG data definition language is the latest
 model to describe and define configuration for network devices.  The
 OSPF YANG data model is described in [OSPF-YANG] and the routing
 policy configuration model is described in [RTG-POLICY].  These two
 documents will be enhanced to include the configurations related to
 the node administrative tag.

7. IANA Considerations

 This specification updates the "OSPF Router Information (RI) TLVs"
 registry.  IANA has registered the following value:
    Node Admin Tag TLV - 10

8. References

8.1. Normative References

 [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
            Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
            DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
            <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
 [RFC2328]  Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328,
            DOI 10.17487/RFC2328, April 1998,
            <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2328>.
 [RFC5340]  Coltun, R., Ferguson, D., Moy, J., and A. Lindem, "OSPF
            for IPv6", RFC 5340, DOI 10.17487/RFC5340, July 2008,
            <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5340>.
 [RFC7490]  Bryant, S., Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Shand, M., and N.
            So, "Remote Loop-Free Alternate (LFA) Fast Reroute (FRR)",
            RFC 7490, DOI 10.17487/RFC7490, April 2015,
            <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7490>.
 [RFC7770]  Lindem, A., Ed., Shen, N., Vasseur, JP., Aggarwal, R., and
            S. Shaffer, "Extensions to OSPF for Advertising Optional
            Router Capabilities", RFC 7770, DOI 10.17487/RFC7770,
            February 2016, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7770>.

Hegde, et al. Standards Track [Page 12] RFC 7777 OSPF Node Admin Tags March 2016

8.2. Informative References

 [LFA-MANAGE]
            Litkowski, S., Decraene, B., Filsfils, C., Raza, K.,
            Horneffer, M., and P. Sarkar, "Operational management of
            Loop Free Alternates", Work in Progress, draft-ietf-rtgwg-
            lfa-manageability-11, June 2015.
 [OSPF-YANG]
            Yeung, D., Qu, Y., Zhang, J., Bogdanovic, D., and K.
            Koushik, "Yang Data Model for OSPF Protocol", Work in
            Progress, draft-ietf-ospf-yang-03, October 2015.
 [RFC1997]  Chandra, R., Traina, P., and T. Li, "BGP Communities
            Attribute", RFC 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC1997, August 1996,
            <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1997>.
 [RFC4552]  Gupta, M. and N. Melam, "Authentication/Confidentiality
            for OSPFv3", RFC 4552, DOI 10.17487/RFC4552, June 2006,
            <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4552>.
 [RFC4593]  Barbir, A., Murphy, S., and Y. Yang, "Generic Threats to
            Routing Protocols", RFC 4593, DOI 10.17487/RFC4593,
            October 2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4593>.
 [RFC5130]  Previdi, S., Shand, M., Ed., and C. Martin, "A Policy
            Control Mechanism in IS-IS Using Administrative Tags",
            RFC 5130, DOI 10.17487/RFC5130, February 2008,
            <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5130>.
 [RFC5286]  Atlas, A., Ed. and A. Zinin, Ed., "Basic Specification for
            IP Fast Reroute: Loop-Free Alternates", RFC 5286,
            DOI 10.17487/RFC5286, September 2008,
            <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5286>.
 [RFC6863]  Hartman, S. and D. Zhang, "Analysis of OSPF Security
            According to the Keying and Authentication for Routing
            Protocols (KARP) Design Guide", RFC 6863,
            DOI 10.17487/RFC6863, March 2013,
            <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6863>.
 [RFC7166]  Bhatia, M., Manral, V., and A. Lindem, "Supporting
            Authentication Trailer for OSPFv3", RFC 7166,
            DOI 10.17487/RFC7166, March 2014,
            <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7166>.

Hegde, et al. Standards Track [Page 13] RFC 7777 OSPF Node Admin Tags March 2016

 [RFC7474]  Bhatia, M., Hartman, S., Zhang, D., and A. Lindem, Ed.,
            "Security Extension for OSPFv2 When Using Manual Key
            Management", RFC 7474, DOI 10.17487/RFC7474, April 2015,
            <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7474>.
 [RTG-POLICY]
            Shaikh, A., Shakir, R., D'Souza, K., and C. Chase,
            "Routing Policy Configuration Model for Service Provider
            Networks", Work in Progress, draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-
            model-00, September 2015.

Contributors

 Thanks to Hannes Gredler for his substantial review, guidance, and
 editing of this document.  Thanks to Harish Raguveer for his
 contributions to initial draft versions of this document.

Acknowledgements

 Thanks to Bharath R, Pushpasis Sarakar, and Dhruv Dhody for useful
 input.  Thanks to Chris Bowers for providing useful input to remove
 ambiguity related to tag ordering.  Thanks to Les Ginsberg and Acee
 Lindem for the input.  Thanks to David Black for careful review and
 valuable suggestions for the document, especially for the operations
 section.

Hegde, et al. Standards Track [Page 14] RFC 7777 OSPF Node Admin Tags March 2016

Authors' Addresses

 Shraddha Hegde
 Juniper Networks, Inc.
 Embassy Business Park
 Bangalore, KA  560093
 India
 Email: shraddha@juniper.net
 Rob Shakir
 Jive Communications, Inc.
 1275 W 1600 N, Suite 100
 Orem, UT  84057
 United States
 Email: rjs@rob.sh
 Anton Smirnov
 Cisco Systems, Inc.
 De Kleetlaan 6a
 Diegem  1831
 Belgium
 Email: as@cisco.com
 Li zhenbin
 Huawei Technologies
 Huawei Bld. No.156 Beiqing Rd
 Beijing  100095
 China
 Email: lizhenbin@huawei.com
 Bruno Decraene
 Orange
 Email: bruno.decraene@orange.com

Hegde, et al. Standards Track [Page 15]

/data/webs/external/dokuwiki/data/pages/rfc/rfc7777.txt · Last modified: 2016/03/11 23:48 (external edit)